Families of Colo. theater shooting victims call movie invitation 'disgusting'
DENVER (AP) - Relatives of the majority of people killed in a Colorado movie theater rejected an invitation on Wednesday to attend its reopening this month, calling it a "disgusting offer" that came at a terrible time - right after the first Christmas without their loved ones.
The parents, grandparents, cousins and widow of nine of the 12 people killed said they were asked to attend an "evening of remembrance" followed by a movie when the Aurora theater reopens on Jan. 17. They released a letter sent to the theater's owner, Cinemark, in which they criticized the Plano, Texas-based company for not previously reaching out to them to offer condolences and refusing to meet with them without lawyers.
"Our family members will never be on this earth with us again and a movie ticket and some token words from people who didn't care enough to reach out to us, nor respond when we reached out to them to talk, is appalling," the letter said.
Cinemark had no immediate comment.
The company announced last month that it would reopen the theater on Jan. 17 and invite people affected by the attack and other guests, a move that Aurora officials said has strong support in the community. Gov. John Hickenlooper plans to attend.
The Aurora Sentinel reported that plans filed with the city call for turning the theater into one of the company's "extreme digital cinema" sites that feature massive screens. It's not clear from the plans whether there will be a memorial to the victims.
The invitation was emailed to families by the Colorado Organization for Victim Assistance, which said the offer was being sent on behalf of Cinemark.
It arrived two days after Christmas as Sandy and Lonnie Phillips, the mother and stepfather of Jessica Ghawi, one of the 12 people killed, were housesitting in Denver.
They had left their home in San Antonio, Texas, on the advice of their grief counselor to avoid being where they typically would have celebrated Christmas with Jessica. Sandy Phillips said they picked Denver on purpose because her daughter, a 24-year-old aspiring sportscaster, had been happy there.
The Phillipses said the invitation could be a public relations ploy to help show the public that some victims or their families are willing to attend the theater reopening.
"It was a killing field. It was a place of carnage and they've not once told us what their plans are for the theater other than that they're reopening it," said Sandy Phillips. She would like the theater where her daughter was killed to be demolished, though she acknowledged that it was unrealistic to expect Cinemark to give up the rest of the building.
The families of some victims have sued Cinemark. The father of the youngest person killed in the shooting, 6-year-old Veronica Moser-Sullivan, is among them. He didn't sign the letter but the girl's grandparents did. The Phillipses have not decided whether they will sue.
Also Wednesday, prosecutors and defense lawyers said they are ready for a crucial hearing next week in which prosecutors will outline their case against James Holmes, who is charged with killing 12 people and wounding 70 during the midnight showing of the Batman movie "The Dark Night Rises" on July 20.
It starts Monday and is scheduled to run all week. At its conclusion, state District Judge William B. Sylvester will decide if the evidence is sufficient to put Holmes on trial.
The defense could waive the hearing but legal analysts said defense lawyers sometimes go ahead with the hearing to get an idea of how strong the prosecution's case is.
Laurie Levenson, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles and a former federal prosecutor, said preliminary hearings sometimes set the stage for a plea agreement as each side gets to assess the strength of the other.
Holmes is charged with multiple counts of first-degree murder and attempted murder and hasn't been asked to enter a plea yet. His lawyers have said he suffers from mental illness.
Next week's hearing will give the public its first officially sanctioned look at much of the evidence against Holmes.
A judge imposed a gag order shortly after Holmes' arrest barring attorneys and investigators from speaking publicly about the case, and many documents have been sealed.
The University of Colorado, where Holmes was enrolled in a Ph. D. neuroscience program, has also been tight-lipped about the case. Investigators said he began stockpiling firearms and ammunition while taking classes in the spring.
In June, he made threats to a professor and on June 10 filed withdrawal papers after failing a year-end exam, prosecutors said. The next day he saw his school psychiatrist who tried to report him to a campus security committee, according to Holmes' lawyers.
The parents, grandparents, cousins and widow of nine of the 12 people killed said they were asked to attend an "evening of remembrance" followed by a movie when the Aurora theater reopens on Jan. 17. They released a letter sent to the theater's owner, Cinemark, in which they criticized the Plano, Texas-based company for not previously reaching out to them to offer condolences and refusing to meet with them without lawyers.
"Our family members will never be on this earth with us again and a movie ticket and some token words from people who didn't care enough to reach out to us, nor respond when we reached out to them to talk, is appalling," the letter said.
Cinemark had no immediate comment.
The company announced last month that it would reopen the theater on Jan. 17 and invite people affected by the attack and other guests, a move that Aurora officials said has strong support in the community. Gov. John Hickenlooper plans to attend.
The Aurora Sentinel reported that plans filed with the city call for turning the theater into one of the company's "extreme digital cinema" sites that feature massive screens. It's not clear from the plans whether there will be a memorial to the victims.
The invitation was emailed to families by the Colorado Organization for Victim Assistance, which said the offer was being sent on behalf of Cinemark.
It arrived two days after Christmas as Sandy and Lonnie Phillips, the mother and stepfather of Jessica Ghawi, one of the 12 people killed, were housesitting in Denver.
They had left their home in San Antonio, Texas, on the advice of their grief counselor to avoid being where they typically would have celebrated Christmas with Jessica. Sandy Phillips said they picked Denver on purpose because her daughter, a 24-year-old aspiring sportscaster, had been happy there.
The Phillipses said the invitation could be a public relations ploy to help show the public that some victims or their families are willing to attend the theater reopening.
"It was a killing field. It was a place of carnage and they've not once told us what their plans are for the theater other than that they're reopening it," said Sandy Phillips. She would like the theater where her daughter was killed to be demolished, though she acknowledged that it was unrealistic to expect Cinemark to give up the rest of the building.
The families of some victims have sued Cinemark. The father of the youngest person killed in the shooting, 6-year-old Veronica Moser-Sullivan, is among them. He didn't sign the letter but the girl's grandparents did. The Phillipses have not decided whether they will sue.
Also Wednesday, prosecutors and defense lawyers said they are ready for a crucial hearing next week in which prosecutors will outline their case against James Holmes, who is charged with killing 12 people and wounding 70 during the midnight showing of the Batman movie "The Dark Night Rises" on July 20.
It starts Monday and is scheduled to run all week. At its conclusion, state District Judge William B. Sylvester will decide if the evidence is sufficient to put Holmes on trial.
The defense could waive the hearing but legal analysts said defense lawyers sometimes go ahead with the hearing to get an idea of how strong the prosecution's case is.
Laurie Levenson, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles and a former federal prosecutor, said preliminary hearings sometimes set the stage for a plea agreement as each side gets to assess the strength of the other.
Holmes is charged with multiple counts of first-degree murder and attempted murder and hasn't been asked to enter a plea yet. His lawyers have said he suffers from mental illness.
Next week's hearing will give the public its first officially sanctioned look at much of the evidence against Holmes.
A judge imposed a gag order shortly after Holmes' arrest barring attorneys and investigators from speaking publicly about the case, and many documents have been sealed.
The University of Colorado, where Holmes was enrolled in a Ph. D. neuroscience program, has also been tight-lipped about the case. Investigators said he began stockpiling firearms and ammunition while taking classes in the spring.
In June, he made threats to a professor and on June 10 filed withdrawal papers after failing a year-end exam, prosecutors said. The next day he saw his school psychiatrist who tried to report him to a campus security committee, according to Holmes' lawyers.
Look at how many people complain that the TSA at the airport are too invasive. They are there for your protection. Are those that are wantng to sue the theatre trying to say that the theatre should have had metal detectors and pat downs at every door to ensure a safe environment? I bet these same people are going to the grocery store, gas station, gym, you name it and these locations are not providing the level of security they say should have been in place. Tragedy strikes when you least expect it and it sucks. Â
I can understand people getting emotional and taking things personally, after all they lost their loved ones. Â No matter how I feel as a bystander I am not going to judge them or their actions. Â I can only hope they heal over time.
Â
WHAT I DO NOT UNDERSTAND IS... people going to this kind of garbage film (*my opinion*).. Â It's a crime and disgusting when it really happens, but people find it 'entertainment' when it's a Hollywood flick? Â Call me a simpleton, but I've never found murder to be entertaining in any form. Â I will never pay money to see something that would be considered capital crime.
 @K. Coleman So you've never seen any of the Batman Movies? Do you have cable TV?
I can understand the rage people get to sue. I understand that they feel upset that the movie theater did not have better security (as having all doors secure and lock) when this happen. So many people think money can cure anything. Whenever someone is hurt, depress, or anything; the only thing that makes a person happy is money. Its like we tell our kids money fixes everything. I can honestly say that I don't care who sues what or who, but only do it if it makes you feel better and you cant continue on with life with out doing so.Â
1. The families should not be allowed to sue in this case. The theater is not at fault here. I feel bad for them and I know they are hurting, but this is not the way to handle it. 2. The theater company should have offered condolenences or reached out to the families, not with money, but by other means (cards, flowers, letters, phone calls, etc). 3. Even though I'm sure that the event is meant in good faith, they should have thought it through. This is the location where the victims were gunned down -- what family member in their right mind would want to go there for a "grand reopening"? The memorial should be held at a neutral location.
Hard to have sympathy for these people when they act like children. If I read that story correctly, they were invited to an event at the theater to remember the victims, and they are upset at that? Quit acting like crybabies, this wasn't meant to be an insult.
Â
And to the other families trying to sue the theater over this, you are pathetic low lives trying to cash in. You should be ashamed of yourselves and the black mark you are putting on your deceased loved ones by doing this.
 @Dredd57 They are upset because they feel there may be money gained from it.Â
I hate to say it but we've really become a sue-happy society given the fact that some of the families are thinking about suing the theater when their anger really should be towards the guy that did it. You can have all the security in the world but that doesn't mean someone can't get around it!
Â
As far as the guy having a mental illness...given his age he very well could have one. I know schizophrenia usually starts showing around the age he is, and can sometimes come on suddenly with little warning, although typically not that violently. Not defending the guy, just pointing that out. Personally, the guy either needs to be locked up in a psych-ward for life (if he does have a mental illness), or put down like a rabid dog (if he is actually "sane").
loose loose situation
 @Komo Dragon ...or lose, lose.
 @Stock Woodie yep, English not my first language, Sir... thanks!
Why is that offensive? I don't understand, really. Â The theatre wanted to do something thoughtful, and the families are outraged? Perhaps it would interfere with lawsuits they've filed against the company, as to why the theatre hasn't reached out previously. Â It was not the theatre's fault, though I'd read that they were being sued. Â Â
Â
when I first saw the headline, I thought that it was something else entirely... Anger and rage against a company that had nothing to do with your loved ones deaths and injuries, isn't healthy. Should be directly toward the guy that killed them.Â
@DT I'm sure it was meant in good faith, but the theater should have thought it through. If anything, the memorial should have been held at a neutral location and not tied to publicize the "grand reopening".
 @The WA Mama  @DT Maybe they did, by announcing the intent a month ago and getting the support of the city and the governor.  For all we know they got positive feedback with what they did put out there.
Sue them for what? Making the theater a gun-free zone? What else could the theater have done besides allow in patrons who may be carrying? They can't lock emergency exits.
 @NuckFan16 There is some argument that by making the theater a "gun free zone" the company running the theater is entering a de-facto agreement with the patron that they will ensure the patron's safety, and therefore would be liable in situations like this where nobody in the theater could defend themselves. While I loathe the idea of a "gun-free zone", as we have seen in recent history that every massacre that has taken place has happened in one of these places, I have an issue with private property owners not being able to make whatever rules they want about their own businesses. Really, people should vote with their wallet and go somewhere else that doesn't ban the lawful ability to defend oneself in their establishment. It's what I do.
 @dg54321  @NuckFan16 I also truly doubt making the place a 'gun free zone' would make any difference to a nut-job or the criminal type.  They might just see it as easy pickings, all the law-abiding types being unable to protect themselves.  However if 50+ people were in the audience with concealed weapons permits and were packing, the body count would probably have been lower.  Just my humble opinion.
 @dg54321 "...as we have seen in recent history that every massacre that has taken place has happened in one of these places"
Â
As much as I support the principle that a free people should be able to defend themselves, it is more accurate to state that the vast majority of such atrocities have occurred in so-called gun-free zones. The Gabby Giffords atrocity, for example, did not occur in a gun-free zone. None of which changes the fact that most of these shootings occur in unenforced gun-free zones.
So, the theatre offers a night of rememberance and these people are outraged and suing or thinking of suing? it isn't the theatres fault that the shooter did what he did. Holding the theatre responsible isn't going to bring back  loved ones and suing them is really immature IMHO.