3 ms·

> I'm curious if she rejected the settlement—and (presumably) stayed on the case—because she thought they would win? Or because she thought shooting victims owi

> I'm curious if she rejected the settlement—and (presumably) stayed on the case—because she thought they would win? Or because she thought shooting victims owing the theater $700k would be a bigger black mark against Cinemark, than it settling for $150k? I don't think there was any logic involved in her decision at all. I'm guessing that the unimaginable horrors that had been inflicted upon her and her family clouded her judgement. I feel really sorry for her, but I agree with the decision, and the law that led the judge to make it.

mcphage 10y ago
> I don't think there was any logic involved in her decision at all. Yeah, probably. I guess I'd prefer to think that she knew what she was doing, but who knows. I can't imagine Cinemark is very happy with the results, since rather than the case going away quietly they got a $700k judgement they can't do anything with. But then insurance gets involved, and I'm not going to pretend I know that will work out.