<p>
</p>
<p>One major difference at this stage is that there is a reasonably plausible chance that Holmes may succeed in his insanity defense in his criminal case. If that succeeds, they may not be able to sue him civilly as being declared innocent due to insanity means he’s not legally responsible for his crimes. In that case, suing him may be a futile exercise. </p>
<p>Unless things change drastically, it doesn’t seem like the shooter is going to plead insanity as a defense. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s good to know. I don’t see how justice is served by throwing an elderly woman onto the street, unless it turns out that somehow she encouraged this type of behavior by her husband. She may have been an abused woman, and thus a victim herself. I’m sure these kinds of facts will come out in time.</p>
<p>“Alan Hamilton, a corporal with the Sumter County sheriff’s office who was taking in a movie with his wife, said he heard Oulson saying, at one point, “I am trying to text my f**king daughter, if you don’t mind” – using graphic language that Reeves’ lawyer said suggested Oulson was angry and threatening.”</p>
<p>Hey Reeves’ lawyer…if that’s your logic, then when your client told his wife to ST*U, then she should have shot him. </p>
<p>:rolleyes:</p>
<p>As sympathetic as I am to innocent shooting victims, I have a hard time figuring out theater liability for theses cases, unless a lot more is revealed about what the theater did or should have done to prevent or reduce the tragedies. In my mind, both were horrific and unpredictable and wholly unexpected. Yes, I know people want the victims to recover for losses, but there has to be something the theater (or others) did or should have done. </p>
<p>I don’t get that either. How is the theater liable? I can’t see how they could have predicted a hothead would kill somebody over texting during the previews. </p>
<p>^^^I’m thinking the lawyers are going to argue that when the shooter went to complain, theater personnel should have noticed his agitation and anticipated some kind of confrontation. Whether or not that is borne out by the facts, I have no idea.</p>
<p>I’m still trying to figure out how the gun seemed to be in his lap rather than his pocket. The video timing is such that there’s no reaching to a pocket to get a gun. It’s all very rapid succession of events. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Considering the amounts publicized so far and criminal and civil suits are likely to gobble up funds, especially if the cases are prolonged , there is a chance the civil case may end up in mediation where a meeting in the middle settlement…possibly including consideration for the shooter’s wife’s situation may result in a settlement that they can all live with and save them further trial time and costs. </p>
<p>Noticing someone is agitated and stopping a shooting are two wholly different things. The shooter may have ended up shooting theater staff if they opposed him, who knows? I’d say that MUCH more info would need to be proven for either theater to be liable for the tragedies. </p>
<p>The sad fact for the shooter’s wife is that she may well lose the family home in order to pay for defense expenses, as mentioned by others. Further proof of how life can go to the dogs in an instant.</p>
<p>I agree. the theater shouldn’t be liable. They couldn’t have foreseen this. But, they may decide to settle just to have it “go away” and not look insensitive to the community. </p>
<p>And who knows how “agitated” he really “looked”. Many people can be agitated and not really have all that much body language showing.</p>
<p>Actually, this poor shooter’s W may have had a very tough life for some time (living with an armed and easily agitated spouse can’t be pleasant), and it’s just getting more challenging in some ways (perhaps somewhat easier in others–H is no longer in the home). The D and her child will also lose their residence if the home gets sold for defense fees. </p>
<p>FWIW, if the W is on title, the home can’t be sold or borrowed against without her consent. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Personally, I agree. But really good attorneys have a knack for getting good settlements using this kind of logic all the time. I worked for a PI attorney for a year when I was in a career change/transition. PI attorneys LOVE the phrase “Defendant knew or should have known”… and it seems to be effective in situations which you would think would logically go in the defendant’s favor. So often, it’s just easier to settle than to fight.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Agreed.</p>
<p>I worked as an IT support member in a Biglaw firm where they used their size/ability to drown smaller firms/solo practitioners in paper/digital records during the discovery process to intimidate and to force them into a settlement favorable to their usually large corporate or well-heeled clients. </p>
<p>Yes, I’m sure the theaters would like the cases to be resolved as quickly and quietly as possible, but have a really hard time thinking what the theaters should have done differently, even in hindsight. </p>
<p>In these cases, I’m sure the theaters and their insurers will have large, excellent law firms, as will the families of victims. Yes, lawsuits do tend to drown everyone in paper and aren’t nearly as efficient (or even fair) as as one would wish. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Same here. However, they may settle not only to get it resolved quickly, but also to avoid attracting possible negative PR from mounting a vigorous defense against Chad’s widow. Negative PR which may have an impact on their business in the longer term if the plaintiff’s attorney/sympathizers decide to make this an issue. </p>
<p>Agree with above post, for shooter to say ■■■■ to his wife leads me to believe he has spoken to her in that manner before. I’m sorry for the shooters family, they are victims too, and one may wonder how long they have been victims. </p>
<p>"Actually, this poor shooter’s W may have had a very tough life for some time (living with an armed and easily agitated spouse can’t be pleasant), and it’s just getting more challenging in some ways (perhaps somewhat easier in others–H is no longer in the home). The D and her child will also lose their residence if the home gets sold for defense fees.</p>
<p>FWIW, if the W is on title, the home can’t be sold or borrowed against without her consent."</p>
<p>In some states, the way you can hold title as a couple, I believe that there are some ways that a second mortgage or even a home-equity loan can be taken out w/o the other spouse’s knowledge. When I lived in Calif, a spouse could sell the home w/o the other spouse’s knowledge. I can’t remember if it was Joint Tenants or Tenants in Common. That was awhile ago, so maybe that’s changed. </p>
<p>I agree that the W may have had a very tough life for sometime. Living with an “armed and easily agitated spouse” isn’t pleasant. He seems to be 'on edge"…chip on his shoulder. My FIL was like that. Thank goodness he wasn’t armed…H and his brothers may not have made it to adulthood. </p>
<p>I think as days go on, she may find it is easier to live w/o her H in the home. My MIL found it much easier after FIL died. Less stressful, being able to say what she wanted, etc. She was able to (finally) live where she wanted to live and do a few things that she wanted to do. </p>
<p>I’ve known several folks with quick and uneven tempers and prefer to give them wide berth. Living with or near them (or even spending time with them) is definitely challenging. I hope this W has some assets of her own or some protection so she can remain in a home; she’s older and getting a job at this point in her life would likely be difficult. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It seems the actual case was heavily sensationalized in the mass media of that period to emphasize no one stepped in despite hearing her cries for help. Actually several earlier calls were placed to the local cops though they weren’t given the priority they should have been given. Also, one early witness shouted at her attacker, but in the chaos of her attempting to find a safe hiding place, those early witnesses lost sight of her. It took more phone calls after subsequent attacks before cops finally responded.</p>
<p>From that, the Genovese case seems much more indicative of the lack of responsiveness of local cops to phoned in reports, chaotic circumstances, and cold winter weather which meant most had their windows shut. </p>
<p>Understandable considering the NYPD had a long period starting from this era when they became increasingly overwhelmed with the rising crime wave due to various factors while the city had to cut their numbers/budget due to budget constraints arising from the city’s* and nation’s mounting economic problems. </p>
<ul>
<li>While Mayor Lindsay is often blamed for presiding over the city’s economic decline, the root causes seemed to have started in prior administrations like Robert Wagner’s. And I say this as someone with some serious issues with Lindsay and his policies during his tenure as mayor.<br></li>
</ul>