<p>Suggestions are alway welcome, jym. Just know that these are speculations based off of provided articles and information that was percieved as to be true. No one has declared the shooter had a mental illness or the like.</p>
<p>In response to his mental soundess are lack thereof during the incident, maybe he blacked out. His rage got the best of him?</p>
<p>Whenever people try to figure out why something crazy happens things go crazy on here. Sometimes there is just no good explanation.</p>
<p>He could have been lots of things. My point is that all the wild speculating does nothing but create a hystrionic frenzy (again I am exaggerating). I am sure there will be factors we learn about his medical and mental status, his personality style (there are some common personality characteristics that may be seen in police officers) but all I am saying at this point is that this thread seems to be rife with speculation and opinions about him that are completely speculative, and maybe its worth considering that we wait for more information before ripping him a new one (as it were). I suggested this upthread and someone followed with an amusing comment that they wouldnt want some of the posters here on his jury. Thats all I am saying. Wait-- don’t form predetermined opinions or accusations. JMO.</p>
<p>
Well perhaps you should reread the initial posts in this thread, Niquii, as that is not correct. Lots of posters, I believe yourself included, speculated/ made accusations about his mental health.</p>
<p>It’s clear you feel some type of way, jym.</p>
<p>The good thing about posts is that they are.</p>
<p>You jumped right on the bandwagon with assumptions about his "man vs man "stuff and what have you, Niquii. But I will give you credit for saying that maybe he just had a bad temper or poor reasoning skills. Giving the guy a break. That said, you already decided he needs to be convicted and sentenced (post 40).Trial by bb forum.</p>
<p>Well, sorry folks I have a dinner meeting. Play amongst yourselves. I feel badly for the family members of all parties involved.</p>
<p>Thats all I am saying. Wait-- don’t form predetermined opinions or accusations. JMO.</p>
<p>Is there a “Do Not” sign on the wall somewhere?</p>
<p>Jym, don’t shoot. It’s only thoughts being thrown out.</p>
<p>;)</p>
<p>Don’t understand your first line, M2ck. All I am saying is maybe we shouldn’t tar and feather him just yet. Maybe he deserves it. maybe he deserves bamboo shoots under his fingernails.We simply don’t have the data yet.</p>
<p>Niquii,
Seems you deleted your post where you claimed not to have said something, or that opinions change, or something like that (because now my response to it doesnt make sense). Not understanding what your substitute line is supposed to mean or imply. What I feel is— wild speculation and accusations or assumptions or theories are unnecessary, and you are right, I dont believe in trial by media. That is “how I feel”.</p>
<p>In other news…</p>
<p>This case has prompted me to look at the cell phone rules of the theaters in my area. Cell phones are not prohibited nor is there a zero-tolerance policy against texting. They seem more lenient. The theater suggests to be courtious to those around you rather than saying phones are not allowed to be on in the theaters.</p>
<p>EDIT: Yes, jym. I edited my post because it is useless to engage with you further about this. You’ve said your qualms, I have said mine. I’m over it. You should be, too.</p>
<p>
??? Don’t understand that either. This is getting increasingly nonsensical.</p>
<p>Oh, and there is certainly no need to engage ,as you say, but … “suggestions are always welcome”. :rolleyes: Perfectly fine for you to edit an inaccurate post, especially when its pointed out that they become permanent.</p>
<p>Off to dinner. Talk amongst yourselves.</p>
<p>I like to keep my eyes wide open with criminal cases in Florida. I’ve seen too many crazy things go on with judges, prosecutors, politicians interfering in cases, background goings on, etc. Floridians deserve their civil rights and I wouldn’t want to see anyone get railroaded which in my opinion does happen sometimes in Florida. If Reeves is guilty, convict him of the crime…just be fair and apply the law to the letter. If Reeves isn’t treated fairly…it could be me next time getting screwed.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In post 100, I linked to a section of the Federal CCW law as it applies to retired cops where it clearly states retired cops aren’t exempted from state laws allowing state/local public agencies and private businesses to enact weapon ban policies on their premises. </p>
<p>If anything, some reports combined with those linked laws seems to be that in such cases, the agencies/private business’ private property rights override the rights of permit holders in such circumstances…including retired cops. </p>
<p>Also, unless I am mistaken, retired cops aren’t considered on 24/7 duty even when officially off-duty unlike their working counterparts.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The main concerns and worries being voiced by many commenters in Florida and nation/internationally below the articles on this case is that the shooter’s status as a retired cop combined with recent news of similar cases and gun laws in Florida are that the local/state courts are going to treat him with kid gloves and give him a slap on the wrist or even allow him to walk.</p>
<p>This despite the fact the local sheriff and judge involved in the case so far both voiced strong disapproval at the “ridiculousness” and feelings “there is substantial evidence of guilt” and he was refused any bond.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Nope. Just a murderer.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why? George Zimmerman wasn’t.</p>
<p>The police have no reason to test people for intoxication, drugs, etc. Why would they help the defense? The police are just the arresting people, not the determiners of guilt. They generally test if they arrest you for something related to intoxication, not to help you get off with a diminished capacity defense. </p>
<p>As to mental illness, the appearance so far makes this really unlikely. Despite the popular culture ideas about “insanity”, in nearly every state it’s really hard to get off. Florida uses one of the toughest rules: the M’Naghten Rule, which says to be insane you either are so deranged you don’t know the nature of your actions or so deranged you don’t know what you’re doing is wrong. M’Naghten tried to kill Robert Peel - British PM in the 19thC - because he thought Peel was trying to kill him. He actually killed Peel’s secretary. He was judged psychotic - duh - but there was outrage because he was obviously trying to kill, no matter how nuts he was. So they made rules in response. I copied this next bit to show the two most famous examples of the rules: </p>
<ol>
<li>The defendant cuts a woman’s throat under the delusion that he is cutting a loaf of bread. Doesn’t know what he’s doing.</li>
<li>The defendant chops off a sleeping man’s head because he has the deluded idea that it would be great fun to see the man looking for it when he wakes up. Doesn’t understand what he’s doing. </li>
</ol>
<p>The shooter in this case knew what he was doing. That’s not in dispute: he pulled out a gun and shot (and then the gun jammed). He was arrested sitting down with the gun in his hand, which indicates he didn’t, for example, think he could shoot the victim and the victim would then jump around laughing. I see no way he could be “insane” under M’Naghten Rules. </p>
<p>I believe FL has to show sanity - not every state requires that - but it’s essentially presumed from actions so the burden is really light.</p>
<p>The only way I can think of a use for “diminished capacity” due to a condition would be if it affected his ability to reason and thus his rationality. That is a tough one. Imagine that you get angry really easy - and you inherited that anger and, to make it compelling, say your dad beat you and that day someone stole your dog. So some guy is texting at the table behind you and you lose it and strangle him or stick a fork in his neck or stab him through the heart with your steak knife. Let him off? This was the trend once upon a time when model legal codes talked “the product of a mental condition” and defense lawyers started to argue that growing up poor and unloved eliminated responsibility for crimes. Or in other words, imagine the defendant is a poor minority with a drug addict mother, an absent father, a brother in a gang, etc. and then think how many of these guys are in prisons now. </p>
<p>Or imagine you’re attacked by some guy with a sword. He kills your spouse. Cuts off your spouse’s head while shouting Allah. It’s a deranged act. You think he should go free? (I doubt it.) This is why insanity rules matter: did he know he was attacking you? (Yes.) Did he know he was killing? (Yes.) So he’s not insane. </p>
<p>But let’s say the guy has some elements of dementia. Take away the attributes that make him sympathetic - turn him into a minority, for example - and think about whether he should be let off or if you should consider his condition as maybe a factor in sentencing. And then remember everything cuts both ways. We often sentence people to long terms because we decide they’re depraved instead of abused by their tragic circumstances. So isn’t a former cop, a former captain, a former ranking officer exactly the kind of person trained to keep cool whose behavior deserves more, not less punishment? Isn’t he exactly the kind of person who most knows what is wrong? Compare him to a kid from an awful family who grew up surrounded by crime: isn’t he less likely to understand what his actions mean? Prisons are full of these people. These are the kind of arguments you have in Criminal Law class.</p>
<p>*.</p>
<p>Quote:</p>
<h1>Either way, he could have been intoxicated. Some people are intoxicated at 1 pm. Surely he was tested for drugs/alcohol after arrested.</h1>
<p>Why? George Zimmerman wasn’t.*</p>
<p>I don’t remember the details there. Was he arrested right after the shooting? If not, then testing for drugs/alcohol wouldn’t have revealed if he were “under the influence” at the time of the incident.</p>
<p>If he was arrested right after the incident, then it seems odd that he wouldn’t have been tested.</p>
<p>Was he immediately arrested?</p>
<p>He was not arrested until much, much later. After public pressure. Self-defense was his claim and the police were not planning an arrest due to lack of any evidence of a crime under FL law.</p>
<p>They arrived right after the shooting. Whether or not they actually “arrested” him, I cannot say. I do know that they tested his victim.</p>
<p>They definitely arrived immediately. Heck, he was on the phone with them half the time. But, there was no arrest. That’s what caused all the public outrage. Even at trial the police were very reluctant prosecution witnesses. Basically, they believed him and so stated at trial.</p>