<p>Yes those comments do make him sound intimidating. Then others describe him as a reasonable, gentle, religious guy. They call him a “godly man”. Will be interesting to see what shakes out. I tend to believe he was probably a bit of a jerk. Am just waiting for corroboration. Reminds me of the expression “opinions are like rear ends. Everybody has one”.</p>
<p>*Reeves briefly worked as one of the department’s first hostage negotiators and trained at the U.S. Army’s sniper school, finishing No. 2 out of 20.</p>
<p>*</p>
<p>this strikes me as strange. Someone who’s been trained to be a “hostage negotiator” gets into an escalating fight over texting.</p>
<p>I don’t equate the man who finished second in the US Army’s sniper school to be the man in the theater. He’s been retired for ten years, of I understand correctly. He’s had numerous years in different environments. I wonder if the authorative positions he has held over the years skewed his training. Maybe they caused him to rely on his sense of power rather than the training he was provided.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>A few commenters earlier have already mentioned how his demonstrated ability to leave the area to try reporting the texter to the manager along with the fact he and his wife could have moved to another seat beforehand due to plenty of empty seats severely undermines any self-defense claims the defense atty may put up in court. Considering all that, SYG may not apply. Especially considering the witnesses in reports doesn’t seem to support his assertion that he could reasonably be in fear of his own life. Of course, the shooter and his atty will do their best to claim otherwise. </p>
<p>Not to mention the sheriff and judge involved so far both seem to be highly skeptical of having popcorn being tossed at someone constitutes an “attack” on him.</p>
<p>^^
Do you think he’ll take the stand?</p>
<p>I, and I’m sure many, many others who are watching this play out, wish he would. </p>
<p>I haven’t heard him tell his story. I haven’t really heard him say anything.</p>
<p>Is there a video out of him speaking on behalf of the case or during his detainment?</p>
<p>Its highly unlikely this will go to trial. If the examples i the above linked article are an example, then most of these types of cases are negotiated out of court.</p>
<p>One thing that stood out to me more than about anything else so far in this episode is that Reeves said anything to police. For a retired captain in the Tampa PD to not take full advantage of his 5th amendment right to keep his mouth shut and ask for lawyer surprised me…he had nothing to gain saying anything. The little that he apparently already has said will likely work against him…self-incriminating. If I’d been in his spot I would have said nothing…I’d ask to talk to my lawyer.</p>
<p>Some people who believe they are totally in the right don’t hesitate a moment to tell others exactly why they did what they did. It does not occur to them that others won’t see and agree with their viewpoint, at least others that are as “knowledgable” as they are.</p>
<p>I’m getting quick flashes of Jack Nicholson in “A Few Good Men”</p>
<p>To explain a comment about a photo of a gun, I assume the defense and prosecution stipulated to the existence of weapons - most of them - and some other illegal stuff because the defense didn’t want the jury to be shown a pile of intimidating stuff that looks really evil. So they had photos. One charge was erasing serial numbers. The defense barely contested that charge, if they did at all. But the photo shown was a close-up of an area on the bottom of the base of the barrel, in a really hard place to see. So the jury refused to convict because there was no evidence at all that the defendant knew the gun had been defaced and that particular charge required knowledge.</p>
<p>In my experience, police don’t generally test for much of anything without a reason. So I’d conclude the guy didn’t smell of alcohol. And the police and witnesses can testify about his demeanor and ability to walk and talk. </p>
<p>The police have an odd role in stand your ground assertions because, it seems - and I’m not really up on this - a burden has been placed on the police (and then the prosecution) rather than on the defense. That is, the police make a determination about SYG when they arrest and the prosecution does the same. It’s otherwise a self-defense claim but usually and in the past you arrest and charge and the defense then offers self-defense as an “affirmative” or “exculpatory” defense. So as far as I can tell, there is now somewhat of a burden on police to make a more explicit call up front about self-defense, though of course they have through history pragmatically done that. </p>
<p>How you defend or charge is pretty well regulated. For example, to claim insanity in many places you have to file a notice that you’re doing so. This allows the prosecution time and grants access to your experts, etc. You can see there the intent is to prevent a sort of reverse surprise; usual surprise was when the prosecution didn’t disclose witnesses or evidence, giving the defense no time to counter - and sending maybe innocents to jail. Surprise by the prosecution is generally illegal - see My Cousin Vinnie! - because it isn’t fair and they regulate what I think of as reverse surprise as well. </p>
<p>Remember, an important element in self-defense is the reasonable fear of your life or great bodily harm, etc. That is the Trayvon Martin issue: because they were fighting and we can’t know what was going on in that fight a jury can decide Zimmerman had reasonable fear. While the defense has said thing about a “dark object” being thrown in this case, that the confrontation happened in a public movie theater, not a dark walkway in the middle of the night, and that it happened in front of witnesses and that the shooter demonstrated the ability to walk away … all these undercut any notion of reasonable fear. To be blunt, the odds of a dangerous assault by a guy holding a phone and popcorn in a theater with other people is not the same as a fight in the dark with no one around.</p>
<p>*Some people who believe they are totally in the right don’t hesitate a moment to tell others exactly why they did what they did. It does not occur to them that others won’t see and agree with their viewpoint, at least others that are as “knowledgable” as they are.</p>
<p>I’m getting quick flashes of Jack Nicholson in “A Few Good Men”
*</p>
<p>This can be very true. </p>
<p>If this guy was much younger, I would expect him to do a plea deal. My gut tells me this guy won’t do one unless the option is very light (house arrest or 24 months in prison). Anything else is nearly a death sentence.</p>
<p>At 71, he may only have a few “good active years” left. Spending those few remaining good years in prison may not be something he’ll readily agree to. He may take his chances with a jury.</p>
<p>
No, it’s silly not to consider race when considering the likely punishment facing the accused. The race of the victim is the single most predictive factor in whether a person is charged with the death penalty in jurisdictions which still execute criminals. Gender follows. Killers of white women are most likely to get the death penalty. Killers of black men, the least likely. <a href=“http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1040&context=lsrp_papers[/url]”>http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1040&context=lsrp_papers</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sorry kluge, but the single most predictive factor of whether a defendant gets the death penalty is whether he unlawfully killed someone else with the intent to kill. I don’t need some study to support my statement because it is part of the burden of proof in every capital trial.</p>
<p>razorsharp, you don’t need no stinkin’ study? Is this a college web site? Sometimes I despair.</p>
<p>I’m conviced this retired cop will accept a house arrest, like Goodman (another FL resident and convicted killer), but will never agree to a day in prison. will have to wait and see.</p>
<p>^I hope he doesn’t get his choice. I hope he spends the rest of his life in prison. Really, this case should be completely cut and dried. Of course, it’s Florida. This time the victim had popcorn instead of Skittles. So it’s hard to feel confident about a just outcome.</p>
<p>I don’t think the fact it’s Florida matters.</p>
<p>I don’t think this country is known to be that strict with elderly folks who commit first time crimes (even murder). </p>
<p>That said, the victim is a young dad and that will pull on the heartstrings of many jurors (if this goes to trial). If allowed, the prosecution will keep a nice pic of the young dad, maybe pictured with little D and W to keep the victim “in the room”.</p>
<p>He’s a young WHITE dad, with young WHITE kids. It will matter in FL…and many other places.</p>
<p>He’s a young WHITE dad, with young WHITE kids. It will matter in FL…and many other places.</p>
<p>Ok…you’re talking about the victim. Yes, when a young white dad (with no record) gets blown away for no-good-reason, the courts in this country (in probably every state) will not typically be lenient to the shooter. But, since the shooter is elderly, has no priors, (and we’ll see if he has some organic issues later), there are many states that won’t be as harsh on him as they would if the shooter was younger and had a record (even if the record was minor).</p>
<p>[Widow</a> of Wesley Chapel theater shooting victim plans news conference | Tampa Bay Times](<a href=“http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/widow-of-wesley-chapel-theater-shooting-victim-to-hold-press-conference/2162013]Widow”>Widow of Wesley Chapel theater shooting victim plans news conference)</p>