<p>
</p>
<p>It looks like Reeve’s own popcorn. I don’t know how you say otherwise.</p>
<p>Oulson had thrown the popcorn and begun to retreat when Reeve’s shot Oulson. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ok. The video in that link is much clearer and better lit. Looks like it WAS his popcorn. </p>
<p>In the video I saw on another site, it looked like there was another tub of popcorn being tossed from off screen on the right. Apologies to mom2ck. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The larger point was that in NYC, the common mentality before the late '90s is MYOB while in public. Because of that, overbearing jerks trying to boss someone else around in public in a tone disproportionate to the offense and/or over what is a minor matter tend not to be regarded very highly or supported by most other passengers/NYkers of that era. </p>
<p>"“I see that he’s very explosive, unnecessarily,” Reeves told police. “It scared the crap out of me.”</p>
<p>Wow…project much? lol</p>
<p>Well, if it was the shooter’s own popcorn, then he can’t claim that he had no idea what he was hit with. </p>
<p>What seems to be unclear to me is when he pulls the gun out. Pulling a gun out of one’s pocket isn’t easy, yet he did it with ease. Was it already out of his pocket?</p>
<p>You do not know that the shooter or the victim spoke to each other in a tone disproportionate to the offense.</p>
<p>Sometimes, such as in the Kitty Genovese case in Kew Gardens (before your time), the “myob” attitude was not necessarily a good thing.</p>
<p>If you watch carefully at about second 16, it looks like he moves his snack (popcorn, ostensibly) from his right to his left hand, and possibly puts his gun in his lap at that time. His wife seems to be on his right. When the popcorn flies he fires almost immediately, almost reflexively. He did not reach into his pocket at that time.</p>
<p>typos, as usual</p>
<p>I’m not understanding the video in the link. On my computer it jumps/jerks from second :30 to second 35 for no apparent reason. Surely no one has edited this already at a spot just before the occurrence. Maybe there is another link with a smooth transition between the seconds. </p>
<p>“He did not reach into his pocket at that time.”</p>
<p>That’s what it appears to me as well. So, he had his gun ready to go??? Before the popcorn?? </p>
<p>This looks almost premeditated…lying in wait almost.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You know many judges and jurors?</p>
<p>Sorry, but you haven’t said anything that convinces me that the widow loses credibility for her lawsuit if she doesn’t go after the shooter’s wife.</p>
<p>I do find it believable that a personal injury lawyer would recommend going after everyone and seeing how much sticks. It’s his responsibility to get as much $$ as possible for his client as possible.</p>
<p>And these suits ARE about the money. The are, in this case, about the money by necessity. They can be additionally about punishing the offender for pain and suffering and creating some of the same for him.</p>
<p>My understanding is that all parties to a piece of property must sign onto any loan or other obligation if it’s going to be used as collateral. That would mean that shooter and his D can’t obligate the home or other assets that the mom holds title to, even as a co-owner to any degree. If they have joint savings, the wife should do what she can to protect them from all being exhausted for defense and/or potential bail. </p>
<p>As an attorney, I think you’d be subject to a malpractice suit if you don’t sue all the parties reasonably responsible for the tragedy, especially the shooter and the theater. Don’t know under what theory you’d bring an action against shooter’s wife, unless it turns out he had engaged in similar violent behavior before and she had some ability to control him (which doesn’t appear to me at this point). Not sure the suit would prevail vs the theater either, but think the widow’s attorney would likely try. </p>
<p>“Sorry, but you haven’t said anything that convinces me that the widow loses credibility for her lawsuit if she doesn’t go after the shooter’s wife.”</p>
<p>I wonder if there’s a clever way to do this timing-wise? File suit against both, but have the Theater lawsuit go first. Then if successful, drop the one that hurts the wife.</p>
<p>“As an attorney, I think you’d be subject to a malpractice suit if you don’t sue all the parties reasonably responsible for the tragedy, especially the shooter and the theater. Don’t know under what theory you’d bring an action against shooter’s wife, unless it turns out he had engaged in similar violent behavior before and she had some ability to control him (which doesn’t appear to me at this point). Not sure the suit would prevail vs the theater either, but think the widow’s attorney would likely try.”</p>
<p>Himom…you’re an atty, right? </p>
<p>I don’t know if that’s true in every state. </p>
<p>Either way, if there’s a lawsuit, I don’t know how the wife “protects” her jointly-held assets. I doubt she has any assets that are solely her own unless inherited and kept separate.</p>
<p>Even if they divide joint assets and he goes thru “his”, then “hers” is now “theirs”. </p>
<p>She’d have to divorce him to protect her half of joint assets.</p>
<p>Held without bond. ABC news has some additional compelling information about what the shooter said after he fired.</p>
<p>Wish I could type</p>
<p>No, you need to have all parties in the same suit. Even if separate suits were brought, any party could seek to bring in any other party they feel has liability and also seek to join lawsuits that were brought separately. The wife needs to find good counsel to help her keep whatever assets she can that she may need for her maintenance, so it won’t be gobbled by defense fees and any potential judgments against her shooter H. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The main instigator of the entire incident was the shooter who started the incident. His actions were the foundation for this entire incident occurring and the criminal and civil cases being brought. </p>
<p>Since the shooter himself is the central instigator while the theater can plausibly claim they were effectively incidental bystanders who couldn’t have foreseen this happening, the attorney’s ability to make a case against the theater would be greatly strengthened on a logical basis if he/she sues both parties rather than going after the theater alone. The plaintiff’s attorney would also have more avenues to seek information in discovery from suing both parties than by merely suing one or the other party. </p>
<p>If the theater alone is sued, most attorneys for the theater and jurors will be wondering logically why this attorney isn’t also going after the central instigator of this whole mess, the shooter. Such a question hanging over their minds during arguments and deliberations is likely to greatly undermine the plaintiff’s arguments/case and strengthen those of the theater’s defense from the perspective of jurors and judges. </p>
<p>" The wife needs to find good counsel to help her keep whatever assets she can that she may need for her maintenance, so it won’t be gobbled by defense fees and any potential judgments against her shooter H."</p>
<p>I hope she’s getting that, but I doubt it unless she has some wise friends/relatives who are thinking about her. What can be done outside of divorce? I realize that sometimes primary homes are protected, but are other assets besides retirements?</p>
<p>Homes and SS benefits are often protected. In any case, any civil suit will likely take many, many years before any judgment or settlement is reached. Even if the shooter was insured, I would strongly doubt his actions would be covered, tho it might get him an attorney until the insurer is able to get the court to declare that the policy doesn’t apply. In general, intentional actions are NOT covered under policies–if somehow this is accidental, there may be coverage. </p>
<p>A trust and estates or family property attorney would be best to advise the shooter’s W. Those are not areas I specialized in and are heavily governed by statute. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You are stating as fact something which is merely opinion or speculation on your part. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>From what I can tell by reading news reports, not all of the Colorado shooting victims are suing both the theater and James Holmes.</p>
<p>I just saw the video on the news and heard the shooter’s comments immediately afterwards. IMHO, this guy needs to make a plea deal quickly. He did himself no favors by speaking before invoking his Miranda rights.</p>
<p>^^^
I thought the same thing. And as a retired cop, you’d think he’d know better. But, seriously, he thinks he’s done nothing wrong, so why not speak out? </p>
<p>I hope he does do a plea deal. </p>
<p>Question…if he agrees to a plea deal, what do y’all think is reasonable? (not necessarily fair, but reasonable?)</p>
<p>The theater can add parties it feels have any potential liability, as can any any other party to a lawsuit. Most judges are fairly liberal at allowing parties to be added if there is some potential liability. I expect these lawsuits will end up with all such parties added soon after the suits are filed and served. When a party who could have liability is not in a suit, most defendants will point to the empty chair and foist all (or most of the blame there), just like IRL. </p>