MGM Resorts International does not want to be held liable by the victims of 2017 shooting in Las Vegas that killed 58 people and injured over 850 more so, to that end, they've filed a lawsuit against the victims and their families.
A lawsuit against the victims of a shooting would be sleazy enough on its own, but MGM is trying to claim immunity under an obscure anti-terrorism law passed by Congress 16 years ago in 2002.
MGM Resorts International filed a complaint in federal court Monday in a case brought by victims of the Las Vegas massacre, asking a judge to declare the company has “no liability” for the attack. MGM owns the Mandalay Bay hotel-casino and the venue of the Route 91 Harvest music festival where Stephen Paddock opened fire, killing 58 and injuring more than 850. MGM argues that a post-9/11 law limits its liability and that the lawsuit brought by hundreds of victims “must be dismissed” because MGM’s security company was certified by the government. Robert Eglet, a lawyer representing several of the victims, told the Las Vegas Journal-Review that MGM’s filing “outrageous.”
More specifically, MGM is claiming that federal law should grant them immunity because the security company they hired to manage the event where the shooting took place has been certified by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to respond to acts of terrorism. MGM is arguing that they should be granted immunity alongside the security company because they hired the company.
This all may seem outrageous and ridiculous at face value, but it gets better.
MGM says this is in the best interest of the victims.
"The Federal Court is an appropriate venue for these cases and provides those affected with the opportunity for a timely resolution," Debra DeShong, a spokeswoman for MGM, said in a statement to the Review-Journal. "Years of drawn out litigation and hearings are not in the best interest of victims, the community and those still healing."
I have to assume that MGM has calculated that public backlash for suing the victims will cost them less than settling with the victims, but they could end up paying for both.
You know, stricter gun laws would be a lot cheaper than any of this. Victims are suing MGM because they can't sue the gunmakers. The financial losses from America's gun violence have been socialized.