<p>“Especially considering if she decides to only sue the theater, it is likely to prompt questions from the judge and theater attorney as to why the shooter’s not also being sued considering he’s directly responsible for her husband’s death, weaken her civil case, and enable the theater’s attorney to paint her in a much less sympathetic light of “doing it solely for the money” rather than holding the shooter and/or theater civilly accountable to get “justice”.”</p>
<p>I can see that.</p>
<p>Don’t know if the shooter’s homeowners policy has any liability insurance. If so, that’s a place to look as well.</p>
<p>The widow’s atty is going to insist on an “asset check” to determine what they have. But, by spending everything on the shooter’s defense, there may not be any assets left. </p>
<p>Seriously, would anyone here want a family member, a strong, ambulatory member out on bail, in their care, after doing something like this? How can ANYONE make the assurance that the person would not go bonkers again and hurt or kill someone when something like the movie situation set off that reaction? </p>
<p>Bringing a civil suit is “solely for the money.” There is no place for any other motivation. Criminal court is for justice. It would be pointing out the obvious for an attorney to say she is suing for money. Some victims include a judgment-proof defendant in the case in order to get person under oath to testify, since he can’t be compelled in criminal court. </p>
<p>Unfortunately, that’s not how many judges, lawyers, and especially many jurors think. </p>
<p>Your concerns for the shooter’s wife is very noble, but folks in the legal profession IME would feel Chad’s widow’s has no legal responsibility and many more folks who may be selected for jurors are likely to feel that she has no moral responsibility to consider the shooter and his family…including his wife. That aspect’s very cut and dried to them. </p>
<p>After all, Chad’s widow is the victim in this case and the entire case wouldn’t be going to trial had the shooter not opted to shoot Chad and her. </p>
<p>Interestingly enough, I have a college friend who has a more extreme version of your perspective and he often gets dismissed by my lawyer friends as “too bleeding hearted to separate out the issues enough to assess them objectively” when discussing criminal/civil cases in the news. </p>
<p>Incidentally, his extreme perspective on how crime victims should consider the needs of defendants and impact of criminal/civil judgments on the defendants’ families is one major reason why he’s always been excused almost right off the bat by prosecutors/plaintiff attorneys when selected for jury duty in NYC. He’s even experienced a judge laughing at him for his “being too naive and idealistic”. </p>
<p>Whether right or wrong, the judge’s exhibited attitude is a very common one among many attorneys who deal with such criminal/civil cases on a regular basis. </p>
<p>The young widow has no basis to sue the shooter’s wife. She did not harm anybody. The widow can sue the shooter and collect from his assets but not from his wife’s separate assets. </p>
<p>I think the reference to the shooter’s wife is regarding their joint marital assets and how a civil suit would affect the wife’s finances as part of being married to him. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There have been civil cases filed for the purpose of compelling the defendants to act/not act on something or to compel admission of wrongdoing/apology without necessarily suing for monetary damages/awards. Granted, this may be a different category of civil cases than what’s being discussed. </p>
<p>“The young widow has no basis to sue the shooter’s wife. She did not harm anybody. The widow can sue the shooter and collect from his assets but not from his wife’s separate assets.”</p>
<p>What separate assets does she have? I bet all of her assets are jointly held and therefore fair game. and, that’s why she should insist that her H do a cheap plea deal.</p>
<p>I am not sure how much power or leverage the shooters wife actually has. If all assets are jointly held, as is often the case, some of them may be shielded from judgment against shooter for her support. I don’t know the law where they live but believe that is the case in some jurisdictions. </p>
<p>Sounds like the D of shooter is in deep denial about the likely future for her dad. Hopefully the shooter’s wife will be able to prevent assets from being exhausted on defense of the shooter. </p>
<p>"“If I had it to do over again, it would never have happened,” Reeves, 71, told police of the fatal Jan. 13 shooting at the Cobb Grove 16 in Wesley Chapel, Fla., which was sparked by a dispute over texting during previews.</p>
<p>“We would have moved,” Reeves added. “But you don’t get do-overs.”"</p>
<p>uh…we would have moved? He’s only saying that now because his wife said that. He couldn’t come to that conclusion on his own. And, I suspect that if his wife had suggested that they move earlier, he would have told her to ■■■■. </p>
<p>"He said his wife, Vivian, was upset with him after it happened.</p>
<p>“She said, ‘We should have just moved,’” Reeves recalled. “[To her], there’s no justification for what happened in there.”"</p>
<p>does anyone know where the cell phone ended up? If it didn’t end up on the ground by Reeves, how can they claim that the victim threw it at him (which I doubt anyway).</p>
<p>“He kept on hollering,” Reeves told the detective.</p>
<p>lol…this guy can’t accept responsibility. He thinks that the “victim kept hollering.” I guess it’s ok for him to yammer on, but not others. </p>
<p>[sarcasm/<em>]
Of course it’s not his responsibility. As retired cop extrodinaire, he is THE authoritah and thus, has unfettered right to holler! For Oulsen to holler back, however, is unmitigated insolence so he was deservedly punished!! [</em>/sarcasm] </p>
<p>Watched the surveillance video on CNN. Can only see Reeves. The victim is out of camera range. However, it looed like, from what I could see, that the contents of the popcorn container were thrown at Reeves. Still doesnt justify the response, but it did appear to be the entire container of popcorn.</p>
<p>I’m not sure I’m seeing correctly on the video. Am I seeing the victim reach and grab Reeves’ own bag of popcorn and then throwing it at him? I know it’s dark, but it looks (to me) that the victim grabbed Reeves’ bag of popcorn. Does it look like that to anyone else?</p>
<p>Just caught this quote which I found to be very interesting. Unnecessarily…really?</p>
<p>Not only he’s forgetting his demanding and own explosive demeanor, but also neglecting the fact that being “explosive” in tone is a natural response to an overbearing jerk like him trying to boss someone else around in public where he had no status or legal standing to do so. </p>
<p>I can just imagine how things would have gone down if he had tried telling someone to stop texting or “turn down that media player” in a NYC subway car…especially in the early '90s and before…</p>