Go ahead, say what’s on your mind. (If you’ll forgive the overstatement)
[/quote]
I’m guessing:
I want to slap you only for #5.
It’s been said already. By me and others multiple times in this thread. You clearly can read so I have to assume the problem is more comprehension-based.
Ah, but they did. Up until the point he started shooting he wasn’t a mass murderer. Though I’m certain he’ll now have a picture up at the ticket kiosk with a “don’t sell to this man” written underneath. Possibly a lifetime ban too.
The warning to the cashier will probably be along the lines of “Don’t sell tickets to a guy that looks like Beaker from the Muppets”
Morgenstern is having his own little debate and discussion in which he triumphantly announces that he will win bets and smugly congratulates himself on the accuracy of his predictions, without appearing to realise that he’s at cross purposes with everyone else. You can’t win a bet if no one will take your bet because they agree with your prediction of the outcome. There is nothing to be smug about in accurately predicting what is obvious to all.
Czarcasm your line of questioning is admirable but pointless. If you are of the plaintiff tort lawyer mindset, your question just doesn’t make sense. Such questions simply cannot be asked prospectively. They can only be asked retrospectively, and the answer is always: “the steps the defendant should have taken are the steps that the defendant did not take which, if they had been taken, might have prevented the harm that occurred in the incident that has already happened”.
Let me rephrase the question, then. If you were the owner of a sixteen screen theatre, what specific steps would you be taking to avoid the same horrible tragedy happening at your establishment?
Nah, doesn’t compute. Plaintiff tort lawyers don’t own things. They tell other people after the fact what they should have done with their things.
Which is usually give 70 percent of their things to some stranger and 30 percent to them.
Wrong way round.
#1. Absolutely. It’s called representing his client. The goal is to make the jury 100% empathetic to the clients cause of action while painting the defendant a negligent, uncaring bastard - in as nice of a way as possible. Some lawyers even go so far as to employ psychologist to aid in creating criteria for the plaintiff to use in jury selection that is favorable to their client’s claim.
#2. Because there is a criminal case, the autopsies will already have been done. And that information will be available to the plaintiff via discovery.
#3. Oh, they will get them. They are necessary to establish elements necessary to the case. Not only that, I’ve seen plaintiff’s attorneys pay artist to redraw x-rays adding little things like red where the breaks in the bones are, and otherwise enhance the pictures. (yes, they x-ray deceased victims too) They clearly identify them as drawings, but they create undeniable jaw dropping moments for a jury, who can understand an enhanced drawings better than a typical x-ray. Then, after it is introduced, that picture is set in such a way that it remains in full view of a jury for the rest of the day.
#4. As they (the pictures) relate to pain and suffering, and answer other questions that only the forensic evidence can, yes. Most likely the coroner, or other expert witness, will be called to review the autopsy reports and the pictures and offer an opinion related to the death (instantaneous or prolonged). Thus giving yet another opportunity to introduce the pictures and reports as evidence of what the MD used to arrive at his findings.
#5 -’ there, I took it back.
Actually, I’d disagree with you on the use of autopsy photographs. In a civil case where the issue is negligence, the use of autopsy photographs would be deemed more prejudicial than probative and barred from use in the courtroom.
Anyway, you seem to be missing the point. Again.
Yes, we all get that the attorney is going after the movie theatre because it has deep(ish) pockets. Yes, we all get that they will put on the stand crying witnesses of what happened that night. Yes, we all get that any jury in the world will be bawling its eyes out listening to that testimony. Yes, we all get that this case will probably settle out of court specifically because the defendant won’t want to try to compete against a jury listening to crying witnesses from a massacre like this. Yes, we all get that at the end of this all, the plaintiff will probably make out pretty darn well on this lawsuit.
We get it. We understand all that. We’re not arguing that. We get it. I’m repeating myself because I hope that maybe one of these sentences will sink in. WE. GET. IT.
The argument, from the very begining, has never been about all that. It’s been that we think this guy is a douche for suing the movie theatre and we think you’re a douche for saying that him making money off the movie theatre is in any way a just or fair outcome. It isn’t. You know it isn’t because you’ve already admitted you have no clue what they could have done to prevent this, nor do you have any clue what will prevent a shooting like this in the future. And you’ve admitted that he’s going after them not because they’re at fault but because, unlike the shooter, the defendants have money. Not blame. Just money.
So just admit that this guy’s a douche and we can wrap this whole thread up in a neat little bow.
“What’s”? Seems fine to me, a contraction of “what” and “is”?
I have a feeling that the male members present were crying for a different reason.
Note to self: pick a different costume to wear to the premiere of the next Muppet movie.
What about an implied promise?
Thank you. You whole post pretty much sums it up IMO.
But in the douche’s “defense” being a douche isn’t illegal. And unfortunately it is quite profitable. If only Obama could harness the douchebagger of America to restart our economy and take it the sky. The potential is certainly there 
You can use more words to express less thought than any person I’ve ever met.
I thought Enderw24 summed it up quite well, actually.
No kidding. Pretty much every sentence in there either hits one of Morgensterns talking points ,and/or debunks them, or addresses a point worth making. I’m not seeing much extra verbage in there myself despite Morgensterns complaint. Of course the dipshit had to quote a couple of paragraphs to make a one sentence comment so he should know about word wastage.
There is little point in discussing anything with an idiot like Enderw, he’ll merely Google something else he doesn’t understand and present it as if he did. He’s done that several times in this thread already. He’s failed to point out a single cite for his wild ass guesses.
Perhaps.
But he did a bang up job on summarizing your points and explaining why your points (right or wrong) weren’t what people cared about.
Example one of his absolute ignorance.
He has no clue what he’s saying, let alone what Certiorari is. Not that that statement isn’t funny for other reasons, but it’s representative of someone with more mouth than brains.
Again, his ignorance of the legal system is hidden by his ability to Google concepts he does not understand and present them as if he did. In fact, what he is denying is done every day
Consequently, his posts deserve little more than a wave off.