What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Rampage in Colorado Movie theater.

Re: Rampage in Colorado Movie theater.

Old Pio said:
I'm prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt, if only because the visit must have meant a lot to the folks he talked to. Not so much because of the shooting, but because they got to shoot the sh*t with a really big star. And you're certainly right, one way to look at his appearance is a cynical effort to ameliorate (the entirely undeserved) damage the shooting did to the film and the reputations of the principals. As I say, I'm enough of a Pollyana to give the guy the benefit of the doubt.
Click to expand...

I wasn't even that way... I was thinking more on the "hey guys I'm here" style bigfooting.
 
Re: Rampage in Colorado Movie theater.

He apparently doesnt have a problem going to watch it himself though. "Movies are too violent....but I am still going to watch them"
 
Re: Rampage in Colorado Movie theater.

Bale needs to get Holmes in a room and just yell like this. NSFW.


<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/qrvMTv_r8sA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 
Re: Rampage in Colorado Movie theater.

Priceless said:
He was, but he was wrong. No one "has to be responsible" for it. It isn't a crime.
Click to expand...

I agree he was wrong. It's shown because, like Proud said, people like this guy pay to watch it.

I hope any lawsuit in this tragedy is thrown out without hesitation.
 
Re: Rampage in Colorado Movie theater.

Upgraded charges:
The US Attorney's office now says Courtois bought one of his guns, a .223 caliber rifle, illegally at Cabela's on July 20th.

They say Courtois was using both marijuana and "K2," a synthetic form of the drug, but he told Cabela's he was not using controlled substances. Officials also say they found K2 in Courtois' car.

He has been charged with one count of making a false statement in connection with the acquisition of a firearm and two counts of possession of firearms by an unlawful user of controlled substances. He faces a maximum of 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine.
Click to expand...
It turns out the guy has bipolar disorder for which he has medication. When he took his medicine, he was fine. He stopped taking it a few weeks ago and his family tried to force him, but found they had no legal recourse.

Let's be honest...it was only a matter of time before he did his own version of the Colorado shooting spree. Excellent job by the police...who knows how many lives they saved.
 
Last edited:
Re: Rampage in Colorado Movie theater.

It turns out the guy has bipolar disorder for which he has medication. When he took his medicine, he was fine. He stopped taking it a few weeks ago...
Click to expand...

I could be wrong but this seems to be a common component in mass shootings over the years.
 
Re: Rampage in Colorado Movie theater.

Old Pio said:
As I say, good for Bale. Although I'd imagine his reasoning for going was equal parts humanitarian and business. The only apology we're due from Christian Bale is for "Newsies," but I digress.
Click to expand...

Hey....I love Newsies
 
Re: Rampage in Colorado Movie theater.

Priceless said:
He was, but he was wrong. No one "has to be responsible" for it. It isn't a crime.
Click to expand...
You don't sue over the commission of a crime. You sue over a civil offense. So the fact that it's not a crime is totally irrelevant. However, the only person who seems likely to be considered civilly liable is James Holmes, and suing him would be pretty pointless, since I'm pretty sure he is the proverbial turnip from which you can't squeeze blood.

Here is an article from the Denver Post that includes commentary from DU Law Professor Tom Russell (who if I am not mistaken is also a practicing Plaintiff's Attorney).
 
Re: Rampage in Colorado Movie theater.

duper said:
You don't sue over the commission of a crime. You sue over a civil offense. So the fact that it's not a crime is totally irrelevant. However, the only person who seems likely to be considered civilly liable is James Holmes, and suing him would be pretty pointless, since I'm pretty sure he is the proverbial turnip from which you can't squeeze blood.

Here is an article from the Denver Post that includes commentary from DU Law Professor Tom Russell (who if I am not mistaken is also a practicing Plaintiff's Attorney).
Click to expand...

Among the many scummy things that go on in American courtrooms (think John Edwards) among the scummiest are product liability suits. Certainly if a defective product injures an innocent person, that person should be entitled to compensation, at least for medical expenses. "Pain and suffering" is another and a huge racket.

My favorite "product liability" lawsuit evolved from a tragic case of some illegals who were locked into a refrigerated rail car and suffocated--horribly. Among those sued: the builder of the rail car. Ironically, it performed exactly as it was designed to do, by providing an air tight seal to permit refrigeration of cargo. I don't recall how the suit came out but this was another example of bottom feeding lawyers angling for a big payday FOR THEMSELVES by getting this matter in front of a jury of ciphers only too willing to show "compassion" for the poor victims. Just like the idiots who awarded a silly old lady who put hot coffee between her legs and got burned, millions of dollars.
 
Re: Rampage in Colorado Movie theater.

Old Pio said:
Among the many scummy things that go on in American courtrooms (think John Edwards) among the scummiest are product liability suits. Certainly if a defective product injures an innocent person, that person should be entitled to compensation, at least for medical expenses. "Pain and suffering" is another and a huge racket.

My favorite "product liability" lawsuit evolved from a tragic case of some illegals who were locked into a refrigerated rail car and suffocated--horribly. Among those sued: the builder of the rail car. Ironically, it performed exactly as it was designed to do, by providing an air tight seal to permit refrigeration of cargo. I don't recall how the suit came out but this was another example of bottom feeding lawyers angling for a big payday FOR THEMSELVES by getting this matter in front of a jury of ciphers only too willing to show "compassion" for the poor victims. Just like the idiots who awarded a silly old lady who put hot coffee between her legs and got burned, millions of dollars.
Click to expand...
I disagree with the basic sentiment here. Oh sure, anecdotal evidence is easy to collect, and it's easy to sway people to believe that non-economic damages have no place. I just disagree.

I also just thought people might find it interesting to read about a law professor/plaintiff's lawyer who believes that there is no merit for a lawsuit in the shooting here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top