TexasCHLforum.com

kenobi wrote:

RetNavy wrote:Target could be liable IF they any one brings up the recent ruling about the Giants fan who suffered head injuries when he was beaten up even though it was in a parking lot.... Stadium has to pay the most while the other two has to pay some.... victim lawyers argued that the stadium didnt provide adequate security...

just mine opinion

That recent judgement is interesting in light of this discussion. They said the team didn't provide adequate security. In the case of a violent crime at Target, the lawyers can say Target didn't provide adequate security AND told people not to provide their own security.

Some companies say they post signs for liability reasons. Maybe we can make posting those signs a bigger liability!

That's the gist of the question. If a business is going to restrict your ability to protect yourself (within the law) then should they be required to compensate for that and be liable for the results? Seems like a good attorney could make a strong case for that. I wonder what kind of wording would be needed for a sign prohibiting only open carry on the premises and thus preserving the concealed option. I would think that would be a win-win for all.......

mojo84 wrote:

Box wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

bilgerat57 wrote:I didn't catch the entire article, just the headline while the wife was scrolling through, but apparently, the day after Target made their statement, a Target customer was robbed at gunpoint (I believe it was in the parking lot, not sure). Did anyone else catch that? I haven't had time to look for it. Might be interesting to see the liability level on that one since Target made a public statement about not allowing guns on premises.......

I don't think there is any additional liability.

http://gunsnfreedom.com/0709-go-to-targ ... un-policy/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Nothing in that article leads me to believe Target is subject to any additional legal liability because they've requested people to not bring their guns in. Are you suggesting otherwise?

I'm thinking the victims lawyer might make the argument that by publicizing their new firearms policy they have created an atmosphere where an armed criminal would feel he had an advantage over a citizen where it might not otherwise exist. We've seen lawyers in the past get away with more farfetched arguments....(ie: hot coffee at mickey d's?) I'm just doing a bit of "devils advocate" thinking here.

I didn't catch the entire article, just the headline while the wife was scrolling through, but apparently, the day after Target made their statement, a Target customer was robbed at gunpoint (I believe it was in the parking lot, not sure). Did anyone else catch that? I haven't had time to look for it. Might be interesting to see the liability level on that one since Target made a public statement about not allowing guns on premises.......