Not a surprise, it's British.

So if MGM wins they are not responsible for their security lapses if they use an outside certified security consultant.

I mean I love hating on big business but lol at blaming MGM for some tard going contra on country music patrons

Or blaming the concert promoter.

Wouldn't be surprised if the headline is the doing of the victims' lawyer and the news outlets. Lawyer wants to smear the MGM. News outlets love clickbait headlines. That's the world we live in.

Seeking declaratory relief is nothing out of the ordinary. Happens all the time, but most ordinary people are going to associate "getting sued" with only one thing.

It's kinda crazy how much hate MGM is drawing on tv, even from Fox. They need to fire up their pr team, fast.

Ok, so I took the time to read up on this and even though IANAL MGM's argument does seem fairly specious to me, not that I would ever expect them not to try this. What I gleaned:

They are suing the alleged victims, served them and everything. They're claiming they're immune from liability due to the Safety Act, which was enacted after 9/11 to shield companies that have put in place certain anti-terrorism safeguards from liability in the event there is a terrorist attack. The subcontractor that was handling the concert (MGM owns the grounds) has a Safety Act designation, so MGM is claiming that it shields them as well as the subcontractor. Aside from that questionable claim, the shooting also has to be considered a terrorist act, which is a stretch.

Was it ever explained why he let the security guard live?

I read just the other day that the government has not declared this to be an act of terrorism as it was not done for various reasons. If I can find the link again I'll post.

Since nobody can legitimately give a reason, whether MGM's point is valid or not can be argued in court.

Here is some relevant stuff from the PBS NewsHour:

Sounds like MGM is using any tactic they can to delay and add to the expense of the victim's lawyers, whether legit or not.

I think the legal fallout from this is ridiculous. I expect MGM properties to have a plan in place to deal with fire/earthquake etc. I don't expect them to have a response plan in place for something like this...well not a plan that actually works anyway.

If some random person wants to shoot people up there is not much we can expect local business to do and prevent it. I think pursuing legal action is silly either way. But hey this is America.

This could have happened out in the middle of the street somewhere...and then who are you going to blame/sue?

Until you run out of stupid, greedy people to be on juries, and there is no shortage of them in USA#1, this kind of stuff will continue. Several years ago there was some talk of tort reform, but nobody really expects a bunch of lawyers to pass legislation that results in lawyers making less money.

MGM let one of their guests bring eleventy billion weapons up to his room without them noticing, and didn't notice anything suspicious or do a welfare check when he had the DND sign on his door for days, and then he was able to deadbolt their stairwell door and rig up a camera in a food service cart...so yeah, there's stuff they can and will blame on MGM. It's up to the courts to decide if it mattered or not.

how about everyone boycotts MGM properties? Hurt their bottom line, that's the only thing they understand.

No conventions, no restaurants, gaming, room stays, drinks, hookers, blow, etc.

I hope the court throws out the eventual claim from the victims' families.

A massive lawsuit hurts the bottom line pretty well.

good. we can add a boycott to it then. suing victims is the nut low for MGM.

I will start working on giant posters with various needles directed at MGM. I will pay the homeless to march them up and down the sidewalks in front of their properties.

You'll have to pry this reason from the NRA's cold dead hands to use it in any court.

Why does someone need to explain their totally legitimate, totally Constitutional, God given right to bring eleventy billion guns into their rooms? The mere fact that you dare think about considering questioning this practice is like burning an original copy of the Constitution, you pinko lefty Communist rawrrrrrr DEFCON 1!!!!!

if someone wants to bring eleventy weapons to the room there's no reasonable way to stop them short of installing metal detectors and patting down every patron as they come in

who needs eleventy weapons to do what he did anyway? next time they'll just bring M134 in 3 separate suitcases and assemble it in the room

He didn't even need that. He only needed 2 or 3 M16's at most. He was hardly the "evil genius mastermind planner" that the Sheriff/FBI claims.

didn't he actually use only two of the guns?