Author of Be Ready for Anything and Bloom Where You’re Planted online course
In the most outrageous act committed by a corporation in a long time, MGM Resorts International is brazenly suing the survivors of the deadly mass shooting that took place in Las Vegas on October 1, 2017.
MGM owns the Mandalay Bay Hotel, the site from where Stephen Paddock opened fire on a crowd of country music concertgoers last year. No motive has ever been assigned to Paddock, so we still don’ know WHY he opted to kill 58 people and injure 515 more. There are far more questions than answers, and oddly, several survivors who were speaking out about the incident died shortly thereafter. The act appeared to have been premeditated, as video footage released by the hotel showed him wheeling numerous bags, which we know now contained weapons and ammunition, up to his room.
But now, insult is being added to injury and trauma.
The unprecedented move from MGM Resorts International to sue hundreds of victims of last year’s mass shooting in Las Vegas using an obscure U.S. law never tested in court has been framed by the casino-operator as an effort to avoid years of costly litigation…
The company is not seeking money in the lawsuits filed in at least seven states over the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history. Instead, it wants federal courts to declare that it has no liability to survivors or families of slain victims under a federal law enacted after the Sept. 11 terror attacks.
MGM argues that the Oct. 1 shooting met two conditions of the law: it qualifies as an act of terrorism and federally certified security services were used at the venue where 22,000 concertgoers were gathered as gunfire rained down from the company’s Mandalay Bay casino-resort…
…MGM’s lawsuits target victims who have sued the company and voluntarily dismissed their claims or have threatened to sue after a gunman shattered the windows of his hotel suite and fired on a crowd of country music fans. Stephen Paddock killed 58 people and injured hundreds more before killing himself.
MGM is invoking the Support Anti-terrorism by Fostering Effective Technologies Act of 2002, enacted to urge development and use of anti-terrorism technologies by providing companies a way to limit liability if their federally certified products or services fail to prevent a terrorist attack. After 9/11, manufacturers and others were concerned they could be sued out of business after an attack. (source)
Those named in the suit are quite reasonably outraged.
“To hear that MGM was suing my family, it forces me to relive all the pain and suffering all over again,” said Wayne Meyer, whose son Austin was one of the 58 killed in October. “I somehow feel like I’m back to square one, but it makes me mad. I’m disgusted … I’ve already lost my son and now they want to sue me. They want to take what little I have left and that makes me mad. It’s really hard. I think about my son every day.”
Joyce Shipp, whose daughter Laura was also one of those killed, said she was “so pissed” about the lawsuit. “The fact that they’re trying to sue us now, or they are suing us, it’s outrageous,” she said. “I mean, who does that? Who does that? It’s like being kicked again to the ground.”
Jason McMillan, a Riverside County sheriff’s deputy, was shot and paralyzed during the shooting. During Monday’s press conference he expressed how he used to protect people from danger in his law enforcement duties during his four years as a deputy.
“I can’t do that anymore. I can’t go to work. I can’t do what I was doing before,” he said, adding that the thought that he’s now being sued is “insulting” and “absurd.”
“It enrages me that this company can just try to skip out on their responsibilities and liability for what happened,” McMillan said. “I just can’t believe the audacity of them. … I just want them to know that I’m not just a victim from the concert. I’m a survivor.” (source)
The victims held a press conference about the outrage.
MGM argues that they are only suing people who sued them first.
MGM faced immediate backlash over the lawsuits this week, and it insisted in tweets and statements that it is trying to expedite resolutions for the victims. It stressed that it is “not asking for money or attorney’s fees” and directed the complaints “only at people who have already sued us or have threatened to sue us.”
“We are seeking justice through the federal court system in order to reach a timely resolution. We want to resolve these cases quickly, fairly and efficiently,” spokeswoman Debra DeShong said on MGM’s Twitter account. (source)
In an ironic statement to CNN, MGM Resorts reiterated the claim that they are just trying to help the victims by suing them.
MGM Resorts called the shooting “the despicable act of one evil individual” and said its lawsuits, filed Friday in US District Courts for Nevada and Central California, are intended to benefit the victims and help them heal. (source)
What do you think?
While personally, I don’t believe MGM is necessarily at fault for the shooting, my mind is absolutely blown at the audacity of them suing those who were present, as well as the family members of those who lost a loved one. Our nation is ridiculously litigious and this move shows a complete lack of compassion. Everything can’t be about money. Sometimes, it has to be about human decency. In my opinion, it’s positively outrageous and I believe this legal move will backfire.
I’m curious what you think. Do you feel that MGM is at fault for the Vegas shooting? How do you feel about MGM suing the victims? Share your thoughts in the comments section below.
This was an act of terror. I am sad for the victims but I think the resort is doing now what it needs to do. Should all cities and private facilities now be held financially liable to every victim for every terrorist act committed within them? I think not.
I agree with you in principle, but if they failed, in any way whatsoever, to provide the security they should have to prevent a guy from getting a bunch of guns up into his room, then they are liable. And if because of absurd government secrecy, which suggests arms dealing (my theory) or some kind of really bizarre twist that the public is apparently incapable of coming to terms with at this time, there is at present no ability to find out conclusively if they failed in their responsibilities or if Paddock was simply too far ahead of them and too premeditated to stop, then this lawsuit stinks of trying to get secure themselves before victims have the information they need, that the government is withholding, to decide how they wish to proceed in court.
In the end, this is about what you would expect from the purveyors of gambling and degeneracy in Las Vegas.
I know this is “conspiratorial”, but I don’t believe Paddock shot anybody. I don’t think he used “bump stocks” since he was most likely already dead by the time the shooting started.
Too many people who suggested that there was more than one shooter have died mysteriously after they told their story.
If you were a government who wanted your citizens disarmed, or at least so poorly armed that they would be helpless against a well armed force (I didn’t say military, ask yourself why the IRS and Social Security Administration have been given select fire weapons and billions of rounds of hollow point ammunition) the “bump stock” would be a viable target to move the odds to the government’s favor.
I hope I’m wrong and that OUR government is unlike all the rest of the governments in the world and actually has OUR best interest at heart.
MGM has a serious issue with image and screwed-up lawyers as advisors. Time for some dismissals and replacements.
.
How do you sue (an alleged) crisis actor?
I do not think the hotel has any culpability whatsoever in the shooting. The hotel is a victim too. WHY CAN’T people understand that in these horrible situations NO ONE is at fault but the SHOOTER. Not the weapons manufacturer and not the venue. The hotel does have a right to curtail losses by counter sueing.
I don’t like it, I don’t agree with it, but I understand why the casino is doing this.
I guess if someone came into my business or home and killed people I wouldn’t want to be held liable either. MGM is a publicly traded company which means they have a fiduciary responsibility to their stockholders. (This means they are obligated to act in the best interest of their stockholders, and put their stockholders first.) They are not seeking money. It’s just a necessary legal maneuver for them. It’s not personal, it’s business.
I feel for the victims but I understand.
If the shooting was indeed conducted by one person who smashed a window and shot people, then I would say that the hotel had no liability. Security measures that would have stopped the shooter would have had to been excessive, and I don’t really see how a determined person would have been stopped. I’m not willing to let hotels conduct luggage searches, for example.
There seems to be a conflict here between stories. On one hand, MGM states they are not suing for money or legal fees, and on the other hand people are stating that the lawsuits might harm them. If MGM really is just trying to prevent people from holding them as partially responsible for the shooting, how would that really harm anyone unless they had been counting on a paycheck?
Shame on those who take advantage of a situation like this to profit from a corporation. If MGM is only trying to prevent those who have sued or are threatening to sue from harming them, then I support their actions.
There is still a lot of unknown information here and my answers depend on the above premises being true.
Boycott MGM and Las Vegas… The pocket book is all they understand…