Is Mel Gibson liable for manslaughter

[Must_B_Free]

from his new film now that it has taken a life?

A woman died from a heart attack suffer at the films most terrifying moments.

It's all fun and games until someone loses a life.

[Drifter]

1. Link ?

Cheers
Drifter

[Must_B_Free]

3. on drudge

**Exclusive** KAKE TV in Wichita, Kansas set report to a woman, in her 50s, suffered a heart attack during a morning screening of Mel Gibson's controversial film PASSION OF THE CHRIST. "She later died at the hospital," a station source tells the DRUDGE REPORT. The report is scheduled to be the top sotyr on the station's 5 PM news. "She went into seizure during one of the film's most dramatic moments," a station source explains. The woman attened a 9:30am screening at Warren East Theaters in Wichita... Developing...

[Spoon]

4. Drudge brought out the siren for this...

[stopthegop]

2. I seriously doubt it...

nor should he be..

[RobertSeattle]

5. Lethal Weapon 5?

Link is www.drudgereport.com

[eyesroll]

6. Really?

If true, short answer, no.
The woman presumably went to the film of her own accord. The film was not defective, and it was appropriately labeled "R" with violence warnings.

[Skittles]

7. yup

perhaps it was just her time to go

[progressivebydesign]

13. Not appropriately labeled. Wrong.

Severe stress can trigger fatal heart attacks in otherwise healthy people. This movie goes above and beyond any R rated violence. I'm so glad that Gibson and his associates are making millions off of Jesus' death... that's so damn Christian. I hope Jesus DOES come back.. people who exploit his life and death will be the first to be dealt with.

[Muddleoftheroad]

17. It got an R rating

So it does NOT go beyond R rated violence.

[Walt Starr]

61. NC-17 is called for with extreme examples of violence

but due to the biases present in this country, Gibson slips by with an R rating.

[Rich Hunt]

65. yes

Roger Ebert pointed out that it should be NC-17.

[Walt Starr]

70. And Ebert gave it one of the best reviews it received

So NC-17 is what it should have been rated. without any doubt whatsoever.

Personally, I read the book and consider the story to be the biggest sham foisted on people in hostory. That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.

[Forkboy]

8. Not at all

He's guilty of making a movie.How people react is out of his control.This would be like blaming videogames or music....and I've seen enough of that :)

[Must_B_Free]

16. But the intent of the film is, arguably, to terrorize

for the purpose of religious manipulation. From what I understand it's just a shade shy of Texas Chainsaw Massacre.

In what way could anyone consider this material is "touching"?

To me it represents a terrorization preceding brainwashing. Induction usually involves some sort of traumatization - the bad cop, then an easy solution - the "good cop".

That is what I find offensive about this topic as someone who does not fall prey to mind parasites who would have you believe the holocaust was exaggerated.

[Muddleoftheroad]

19. The intent of the film "arguably"

Is about anything you wish to argue about. However, to make a ridiculous claim that it is intending to terrorize loses what little credibility you had to criticize it.

[Must_B_Free]

24. The close detailed infliction of two hours of torture on a human being

is not terror?

And why is it celebrated by some yet we're not even allowed to see the coffins coming home of the most recent people who gave their lives for us?

[Muddleoftheroad]

28. The close detailed story of the death of the messiah

is not terror.

As for the rest, you are mixing your issues.

[Must_B_Free]

38. The Crucifixion is terror, the Hell story is terror

Even Hereclitus says this well before Christianity and its version of Hell and the afterworld was codified. These are things to get you to behave and follow your orders.

Our culture if full of it: "he sees you when you're sleeping, he knows when you're awake. He knows if you've been bad or good" If you misbehave - you get a lump of coal and a switch for beatings.

Human sacrifices are terror. Hawaii was conquerd by the Tahitian ruler who used human sacrifice. Egypt? Human sacrifice. Aztec? Human sacrifice.

This image of terror is used to create obedience.

[Muddleoftheroad]

41. Maybe in your religion

Here, the loss of Christ is a reminder to us how he sacrificed and what he gave for us.

If it terrorizes you, don't watch it.

[outinforce]

42. Gee.....Then, according to you,

all those good Roman Catholic people who wear crucifixes or who display crucifixes in their own homes are little more than terrorists, right?

[Must_B_Free]

44. it is an image of terror - period.

don't blame me if you can't handle it.

A man being murdered by being tortured and nailed to a cross is an image of terror.

Can you somehow explain how it is not such?

[Muddleoftheroad]

47. It's not, simple as that

It recalls the sacrifice Christ made for us. If you are terrorized, you better close your eyes near Catholic churches.

[Must_B_Free]

53. Just saw the report on TV evening news.

people coming from the theater crying - traumatized, terrorized.

Am I not to believe my own eyes and ears?

[Muddleoftheroad]

54. Traumatized

Wow, shocking. To see an image of their savior die and that starts them crying. I guess you have never seen people cry in church. Never seen them cry at a passion play. Never seen them cry at weddings or funerals.

People cry when they see something that sparks emotions. It doesn't mean they are terrorized.

[Must_B_Free]

60. You have a hard sell to make

to try and say that people coming from watching 2 hours of torture- (whipping ripping skin from back, nails through limbs) are NOT terrorized?

You attempt to dismiss it as "sparked emotion"?

[Muddleoftheroad]

66. No sell to make at all

There is no terrorizing going on here. People are seeing a film depicting the death of their savior. That is upsetting to see and strikes a major emotional chord. Sorry you are bothered by it. But not THAT sorry.

[Must_B_Free]

77. So are they tears of joy?

Caon you be more specific about the "emotional chord"?

[Muddleoftheroad]

91. They are tears

Who knows if they are tears of sadness or joy or just emotion because it was an emotional experience. However, they aren't terror. If a movie terrorizes you and you stay in your seat, you are an idiot.

[outinforce]

59. I Sometimes See People Crying

at weddings.

Are you suggesting that they are traumatized and terrorized?

If so, then perhaps you might want to post something on one of the threads concerning gay marriage.

Gay folks have the right to know that marriage will terrorize and traumatize them!

[bobbyboucher]

62. Another one.

Strawman.

[outinforce]

76. Is It Really Too Much To Ask

Really, bobbyboucher, this is a Discussion Board.

You DO know the meaning of the word "discussion", don't you?

It means that both parties add something.

So far this afternoon, you have posted several responses to things I have posted.

And yet, I have not seen a single argument from you concerning any topic of the threads where you have posted things in reponse to me.

All I have seen are one-word or a couple of sentence response from you.

This leaves me with the impression that you have no thoughtful contributions to make -- only the impish, child-like desire to attempt to goad me into a flame war with you.

I really have better things to do with my time.

If you do want to post a thoughtful response that lays out your own views and supports your views, then fine.

TTFN.

[bobbyboucher]

84. My point is simple,

you build strawmen. Regularly.

PATBMN

[Must_B_Free]

63. please - this was no wedding.

you're grasping at straws here...

[Muddleoftheroad]

75. Nothing straw about it

If people are terrorized by a film, then they should get up and walk out.

[outinforce]

51. This Will Come as BIG News

You statement that Roman Catholic people who wear crucifixes and who display crucifixes in their homes are terrorists will, I think come as a big shock to many devout Roman Catholics. I doubt that many of them realize that they are in the same league with the people who hi-jacked four passenger jets on 9/11/01 and flew them into office buildings and who killed thousands of people.

But, hey, I can handle it if you can.

I'll be on the lookout for all those terrorists with ashes on their foreheads as I return home from work this afternoon.

Should I, in your view, alert the DHS?

[Must_B_Free]

55. Having fun playing with yourself...

First you make a characterization which you attribute to me - Post 42

Then you go on and flog your own creation. Whatever....

[bobbyboucher]

68. Another reach.

Strawman. Why don't you bring up the New England Patriots.

[bobbyboucher]

58. Uh, there you go again.

Strawman.

[outinforce]

69. Are You Having Fun?

Are you having fun posting one-word or one-sentence posts -- posts that make absolutely no argument.

By the way, did you happen to know that it is against DU's rules to "stalk" another person?

[Must_B_Free]

74. so concocting strawmen is ok

but pointing them out isn't?

[outinforce]

80. Help Me Out Here

I'm kinda dense.

Could you let me in on why you think I have constructed a strawman argument?

[bobbyboucher]

83. You said it, not me, here you go

When someone says they consider a movie that is horrifying and bloody and violent and at the same time about a subject that is near and dear, it could be considered terrorizing, especially since the whole thrust of this movie seems to be about bloody torture and death.

Then for you to somehow imply that that person thinks that crucifixes around someones neck, or a crucifix inside a catholic church to be terrorizing, then that is a strawman. It is a long way from a crucifix to the "Passion". A long and gory road. They never made that argument. You created that argument, hence, a STRAWMAN.

[outinforce]

87. Straw? I Think Not.

First, thanks for finally writing some of your thoughts and for making an argument.

Now, let's review the bidding here.

One post said, "The Crucifixion is terror,...Human sacrifices are terror. Hawaii was conquerd by the Tahitian ruler who used human sacrifice. Egypt? Human sacrifice. Aztec? Human sacrifice....This image of terror is used to create obedience."

Since "the image of terror" -- which I took to mean "human sacrifice" was raised, I suggested that the sight of a person nailed to a cross was an "image of terror". Hardly a strawman argument, given what the person who suggest that the "crucifixion is terror" said. It was he, after all, who said that.

In response to my post, he could have said that he was talking about the film, and not about crucifixes. Instead, he chose to respond by saying, ". it is an image of terror - period. don't blame me if you can't handle it. A man being murdered by being tortured and nailed to a cross is an image of terror."

I still don't get the strawman part of the argument. I was pointing out what I thought was the absurdity of the "terror" argument.

[Must_B_Free]

86. here's my version

"Gee.....Then, according to you, all those good Roman Catholic people who wear crucifixes or who display crucifixes in their own homes are little more than terrorists, right?"

Here, you postulate an absurdity which you to attribute to me. - This is known as a straw man.

"You statement that Roman Catholic people who wear crucifixes and who display crucifixes in their homes are terrorists..."

Then in a follow up post you try to shore up the straw man you made, in my image, to flog.

What's absurd is that you pretend not have knowledge of doing so, to the extent of demanding full exposure.

[outinforce]

89. Weren't You the One

who said that crucifixion was akin to terror?

And weren't you also the one who suggested that images of crucifixion were akin to terror?

How then is it when I point out that crucifixes (images of crucifixion) might, under your own definition, be considered "terror", that I construct a strawman?

All I do is point out what I consider to be the absurdity of your statement.

[Must_B_Free]

90. You said that Roman Catholics are terrorists

and attributed that statement to me.

[plumbnsquare]

93. Thank you, outinforce

for your cogent remarks. They are appreciated, at least, by me.

[bobbyboucher]

81. It is quite fun to identify

absurdity. Which your posts certainly are. I am not stalking you, your posts are just ridiculous and every time I read one I feel compelled to point out that you are using a strawman argument.

Your latest whopper is connecting a crucifix around someone's neck to this violent, graphic, bloody movie. Nice segue. Or not.

Your slant is so obvious and your posts so ludicrous that they cry out for exposure. I am merely giving attention to your opinions. Is that not why you are here? Attention?

Are you having fun?

[outinforce]

31. Hey, If We Can Mix Other Issues In Here, Then....

"And why is it celebrated by some yet we're not even allowed to see the coffins coming home of the most recent people who gave their lives for us?"

Here's my contribution to the mixing of other issues in with this film:

And why is it celebrated by some yet we're not even allowed to see the results of abortions?

[JasonBerry]

50. ouch! --- n/t

[Valerie5555]

105. 3 Questions concerning The Passion and something like footage of the

collapse of the World Trade Towers. Wouldn't showing the Twin Towers collapsing repeatedly every September 11 also not be "terrorizing" to some?


Why is the movie celebrated or hyped by some, and yet we weren't allowed to see the footage of the actual WTC jumpers as well as even the aftermath of their decision to jump, not to mention the actual bodies that were recovered from the World Trade Centre / "Ground 0"? (Since they were ALWAYS covered up by American flags.).


Also, what if someone actually made a movie about September 11 that even was unflinching in all those harrowing above mentioned details (ie the jumpers, etc)

On edit I brought that stuff up about the Ground 0 bodies for I thought maybe in a way people should have seen things like that for it may have made the human implications of September 11 all the more real to us all.

On double edit as an animal lover I also wonder why the movie is even celebrated by some and we weren't allowed to see footage of kitties and puppies as they were being "put down" at animal shelters.

[outinforce]

20. And that would be as opposed to the intent

of guys like Quentin Tarrantino who just showed blood and violence for what intent, in your view?

[Forkboy]

22. Mel is not making anyone see it

people choose that themselves.

I personally dont think anything about the movie looks touching.But movies present ideas.They can be good or bad or neutral.But that exchange of ideas should not be controlled or shut down.Once we say it's ok to shut this movie down we open the door to just about any movie being shut down.That path,to me,is far more dangerous than any movie.

[Must_B_Free]

30. From what I've read it doesn't sound like it presents ideas

it sounds more like the Crufixiction meets Braveheart.

I am personally offended by the predatory nature of Christian cults as one they have tried to victimize many times... from Josh McDowell, to Moonies, to Mormons. These "good natured" people are, in reality, foot soldiers in twisted afterworld MLM structured schemes.

I am offended by this assault of fundamentalists.

[outinforce]

34. YOU MEAN?!?!?!

From what you've read!?

You mean you have not even seen this film?

Good Goddess Almighty!

First, it is just a film -- just a film.

Second, you might want to take the time to see a film before you critique it.

Third, if you don't think you'll like this film, then don't go see it.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

27. Yes! Gibson is a Terrorist! Just like those teachers!

Movies ... suicide bombers ... morally equivalent!!!

Must_B_Free, have you seen the movie?

[Must_B_Free]

33. No - I will not allow Gibson to inflict his trauma on me

And I certainly won't give that madman with the "crazy eyes" one dollar.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

35. You've never seen the film...

...so I will give your opinion on it the consideration it deserves.

[madmax]

9. Or some of these young kids become stressed

or worse because their parents are religious nuts.

[outinforce]

26. In Much The Same Way As

any children with parents so irresponsible as to take young children to see an "R" rated film.

[madmax]

103. CNN interviewed a young kid about age 9

His Mom let him stay home today and took him to see the movie. The kid seemed upset. The mother went on to say that we're accustomed to seeing violence but, not as intense. She said, 'this was the whole enchilada.' :shrug:

[proud patriot]

10. Is there a link ?

nevermind I found the source
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=384640#top

Just terrible :-(

[progressivebydesign]

11. OMG.. that's terrible.

I saw someone else say that a man passed out cold during a screening this morning. Gibson has started a dangerous precedent in film. By allowing such brutal, graphic violence to be rated R, and to be hyped and accepted so easily, opens the floodgates to more and more graphic entertainment. And.. yes.. this IS entertainment. I don't buy into the crap that this movie is above all that. Gibson is getting money for tie-in merchandise, and people are making money hand over fist from this movie. I also reject the argument that the violence is acceptable because "this is a true story!", as I've been reading for the past week. It's as much a true story to some people, just as Harvey was, for people who believe in giant, disappearing rabbits. Because some people belive this to be true.. the bible to be a work of non-fiction, does not give anyone the right to bypass rules in order to have this bloodbath shown as an R film.

The religious fanatacism in the country is frightening. Even more frightening is that no one seems to notice that exploiting Jesus' life and supposed death for profit goes against everything he was supposedly about.

[outinforce]

14. Hello? Blood in "R" Rated Movies

You're upset because there is blood in movies rated "R"?

You're upset that movies with brutal, graphic violence get "R" ratings?

Does the name Quentin Tarrentino ring any bells with you?

[wuushew]

32. Actually it should be rated NC-17

but due to heavy lobbying only recieved an R rating. If anything the MPAA should be sued regarding their hypocritical sex worse than violence stance.

[outinforce]

36. Why?

Have you seen the film?

Why do you think it should be rated NC-17? How is it different from any other film that has graphic violence and blood?

[wuushew]

43. LA Times Article regarding the hypocrasy of NC-17

I will form my full opinion after downloading it free of charge off the internet.




-snip-

The R designation also may cast renewed attention on the Motion Picture Association of America ratings system and raise questions about whether any kind of violence would be sufficient to warrant an NC-17. The rating has largely been applied to movies with explicit sexual content.


-snip-

The most recent film to trigger discussions about the application of NC-17 for violence was Quentin Tarantino's "Kill Bill: Vol. 1." In October, the rating board's decision not to give the film an NC-17 outraged some advocacy groups and industry critics who maintained the movie was too bloody to merit an R. Bernardo Bertolucci's film "The Dreamers," due in theaters this weekend, will be the next film to carry an NC-17, in this case for nudity and sexual content.

In America, it seems to Dan Harkins, owner of Harkins Theatres in Arizona, moviegoers are much more comfortable with violent images than sex. He has ordered extra prints of "The Passion" because of the interest it is generating and remains unconcerned about the violence.

"This is going to be a lot of families' first-time exposure to an R-rated movie," he said. "Sexual content has always been more objectionable than violence. There is a polarity between those two with the audiences. Why do the mores of this country follow such a different path than Europe? There is more of a puritanical tendency here."

http://redding.com/date/stories/20040205date043.shtml

[bobbyboucher]

72. Interesting combination

are you.

[Tinoire]

85. No. It's only a problem when the film is about Christ & not poking fun

or turning him into some happy go lucky New Age guru.

Texas Chain Saw Massacre & the like? Not a peep from the Left.

Snuff films? Never even saw this brought up at DU.

Countless inaccurate depictions of Jesus based on Hollywood fiction? Not a peep.

Films mocking someone that millions consider God Himself? Not a peep.

The religion of the Producer? Never a problem before.

--

But then all of a sudden, the subject is a film based on the Gospels, the Holy Books of millions in this world, made by a Christian who tried to stay true to the Gospel story and the Left is in a frenzy...

[Red State Rebel]

94. Ding, Ding, we have a winner!

As a Christian, I am tired of having my faith bashed on this board. People who claim to be tolerant and loving think nothing of being rude and hateful to Christians.

[dave29]

15. Jesus Sells

n/t

[ghengisjim]

96. What are you talking about?

The Bible is to some extent a HISTORICAL document. Jesus Christ did exist in real life. Any scholar and anyone who looks at the facts knows this. Whether or not he performed miracles, this is another story, and where the debating should be done.

He was crucified, however, and there are countless accounts of this act that support this FACT.

[outinforce]

12. I Hope Not

First, let me say that I feel terrible about the death -- especially the unexpected death -- of anyone. That poor woman's family will be in my thoughts.

But I think it would be a big mistake to hold the Director of a film responsible somehow for someone's heart attack during on of the film's most terrifying moments.

Do we really want filmmakers self-censoring themselves when it comes to special effects and other things?

That would, in my view, take us back to the days when the most excitement that came out in films were the revolving stages of Busby Berkely.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

18. Doubt there's any criminal case but there could be a civil case if others

were to develop physical illnesses associated with emotional duress while viewing the movie and appropriate disclaimers weren't listed prior to viewing the film.

It would be kind of funny if that were "God's" way of stopping Mel from profiting off the death of his only son. ;-)

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

21. Yes, yes he is

The director is responsible for anyone that has a heart attack during a movie.

[ghengisjim]

98. How.. What... Huh... please fill in the gaps ...

How could Gibson be responsible for someone having a heart attack? Legally responsible? That is perposterous. As someone already mentioned, prove that he was responsible (which you can't do); don't just bash the majority religion and hope Christians all die.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

100. my statement is cold, hard sarcasm

sorry to disappoint you! If I can get tickets, I'm seeing Passion tonight! Any film that has caused this much controversy is worth seeing.

[YNGW]

23. No

It would be impossible to prove the heart attack happened as a result of the movie.

As far as lawsuits (civil) because of distress, illness, etc..., the movie is rated "R", so customers can hardly say they aren't aware of what type of scenes are likely to be observed on a movie with that rating.

[Macadian]

25. Ludicrous statement!!!

I have no problem with someone taking issue with Gibson's movie.

But lets try to maintain a little sanity here. It is ridiculous and disingenuous to make such an accusation.

[Walt Starr]

29. This miovie should be rated NC-17 AT BEST

IMO, it deserves an X rating for excessive violence.

[outinforce]

39. You've Seen the Film?

I may go see it myself, so I'm wondering if you can give me any tips as to the points in the film during which I should hide my eyes so as not to see anything too awful.

I am truly intriqued by your comment that it deserves an "X" rating for excessive violence.

I've seen some pretty violent films lately. Could you tell me some of the films that you might consider violent -- but not as violent -- as this movie, whci you must have seen in order to have the opinion you do.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

40. Any other movies deserve an X for violence?

Or are you making a special case for this film? By the way, Walt Starr, have you seen the movie?

[Walt Starr]

45. I don;'t need to see the movies

Any film that shows 45 minutes of a man being scourged with a cat of nine tails deserves an NC-17 rating AT BEST.

Many movies were threatened with NC-17 having lower levels of violence than that which is portrayed in The Passion and were edited to have less violence.

The only reason this movie is not rated NC-17 is the subject matter and a definite pro-Christian bias.

[Muddleoftheroad]

48. Ah, the clarity of those who have not seen the movie

Tell me, what will win the Academy Awards next year. I know the movies haven't come out yet, but why should that stop you?

[JasonBerry]

52. Pro-Christian bias??????????????????????????????

"and a definite pro-Christian bias."

You're kidding right? You're going to have a hard time pushing the line that there is a pro-Christian bias in Hollywood. That's laughable! Look what happens when a Christian makes a movie about the single most important event in Christianity! Hell breaks loose. Forget the CRAP that passes for movies from Hollywood. A "pro-Christian" bias in Hollywood. That is truly comical.

[Walt Starr]

57. This entire nation is all about biases in favor of christianity

any claims to tohe contrary are either naive or outright false.

[Muddleoftheroad]

64. Laughable

In Stephen King's book The Stand, he chose Las Vegas to stand as the metaphoric capital of evil and immorality. He might as well have chosen Hollywood for all that it is connected to Christianity.

The number of Christian themes and Christian films that come out of Hollywood in a given year is so obviously overwhelmed by the opposite as to be hilarious.

[wuushew]

73. What about the anti-atheist bias in Hollywood?

the number of Christian films vastly outnumbers the one film based on Carl Sagan's book "Contact".

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

78. Hollywood seems pretty pro-athiest to me

Athiest in the sense of "no god" - most Hollywood movies don't mention god, and few even have religious characters, even though the majority of Americans are religious.

"he number of Christian films vastly outnumbers the one film based on Carl Sagan's book "Contact"."

Compare the number of Christians vs athiests in the US, and I bet they make more athiest movies per atheist than Christian movies per Christian.

[lazarus]

106. Name some atheist movies

Heck, name some atheist tv shows. Or some atheist characters on tv shows.

[Muddleoftheroad]

79. There isn't a large market

The bias in Hollywood is largely for cash. Cash goes to movies that show teen themes, not atheist ones and, generally, not Christian ones. But there are a lot more Christians than atheists, so there SHOULD be more Christian movies. That's marketing.

[Forkboy]

88. Bingo!

The bias in Hollywood is largely for cash

[Walt Starr]

82. I have to say one good thing about The Passion

Discussion about The Passion on DU have opened my eyes to how I utilize the outstanding user controls we've been given by DU administration!

;)

[JasonBerry]

71. You said

It got a better rating because of the Christian bias. Again, Hollywood is hardly pro-Christian. I can give you thousands of examples of how they are anything but. What evidence do you have that the Passion received a favorable rating due to "pro-Christian" bias?

[outinforce]

56. Hooray for Hollywood!

Hooray for Hollywood!

You know, that part of LA that is so heavily pro-Christian as to exhibit an actual bias toward Christianity.

Please excuse me while I suppress my desire to chortle.

OK. I'm better now.

Hollywood had such a pro-Christian bias that the owners and producers in Hollywood told Mel that they would not even think of doing his film.

I think that is why he had to use his own money to finance the project.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

67. yeah, Hollywood and their pro-Christian bias!

The major TV Christian TV character is Ned Flanders.

"Any film that shows 45 minutes of a man being scourged with a cat of nine tails deserves an NC-17 rating AT BEST."

So, which other movies deserve an NC-17 for violence, or is this the only one?

[Sparkle]

37. Did someone have a heart attack after watching "The Exorcist" back

in the '80's?

[Zynx]

46. That's an absurd suggestion.

[JasonBerry]

49. Puhlease

In that case, Alfred Hitchcock should be tried in absentia for scaring the crap out of everyone with that damn shower scene. I find it ridiculous that "The Passion" creates so much, well, passion. It's just a movie.

[DemBones DemBones]

92. Please. . . People have heart attacks in restaurants, while

shopping, while working out (back in the early days of the fitness craze, famous running guro Jim Fixx died of a hear attack while out running), while having sex, while reading a book, etc., etc.

Not to even mention that this is a story from the not-always-reliable Drudge.

:eyes:

[plumbnsquare]

95. AGAIN!!!!

Thank you, outinforce, for your well-reasoned comments. They seem to be lacking in this thread......well, well, well, Jesus continues to be controversial--imagine that!

[northernsoul]

97. legally, no

To even get a civil wrongful death judgment, her family would have present strong evidence to the effect that Mel should have foreseen the high likelihood of deaths occuring in this manner and then chosen not to have taken reasonable steps to prevent those deaths. No prosecutor and no plaintiff's attorney who would ever want to be taken seriously again would touch this with a ten foot pole.

[Walt Starr]

104. Agreed, no legal liability here for the film maker

I still contend that the film deserves an NC-17 based solely upon reviews.

Saving Private Ryan had to tone down the violence in order to avoid an NC-17. If a movie follows the Gospels to the letter about the passion story, it is guaranteed violent enough for an NC-17.

[Imajika]

99. Well, my mother was...

...frightened when the family got together and watched the movie "Underworld". Had she happened to have a heart attack during the flick, do you believe the film maker is guilty of manslaughter for creating a scary movie?

What about other frightening, terrifying movies? Should we monitor the viewing of all heart attack victims? Sue the maker of any movies they might have been watching at the time?

The very idea is quite simply absurd.

Allow lawsuits against scary movies and the relgious right would sue every film company in Hollywood for making and marketing violent, shocking, bloody films. Once they could get away with that, they'd start suing musicians for hearing loss, suicides and anything else they can think of. Infact, religious nuts have already tried this, thankfully I think they have failed so far.

Imajika

[Silverhair]

101. People have heart attacks everywhere.

In fact, all casinos keep a paramedic on duty for the HAs that happen in them. I once saw a fatal HA in a casino.

No legal responibility for Mel on this one.

[Walt Starr]

102. The number of heart attacks in casinos is HUGE!

It's slot machine bladder syndrome.

People stay at the same slot machines for hours on end, won't get up to go to a bathroom because somebody else will get the machine, hit, and get all of the money they've been pooring into the thing.

Then they hit a jackpot, the flashing lights and bells go off, and it's too much for their overstressed system. The ticker gives out.