<p>
</p>
<p>Emphasizing the sympathetic victims of the crime would be reinforced further if the account of a woman’s prior account of the shooter’s overbearing attitude and stalking behavior to the bathroom is confirmed. </p>
<p>This would establish a possible pattern of his need to throw his weight around to “respect his authoritah” with others and be an overbearing busybody when others don’t behave according to his preferences or within his demanded timeframe.</p>
<p>Where did anyone claim he stalked them to the bathroom?</p>
<p>jym - I think Cobrat is referring to the alleged report from another person a week or so earlier at the same theater, where the shooter followed her to the bathroom after complaining to her about something.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>A couple came forward where the woman claimed on Dec. 28, the shooter asked the usher to tell her to stop texting and despite complying, the shooter continued to glare at her throughout the film and afterwards, followed her to the bathroom. </p>
<p>[Ex-police</a> captain held on murder charge in Florida movie theatre killing | World news | theguardian.com](<a href=“http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/14/florida-police-captain-held-without-bail-murder-charge]Ex-police”>Ex-police captain held on murder charge in Florida movie theatre killing | Gun crime | The Guardian)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The only reference to the bathroom I found was the following, and the way I read it is that the wife (Jamira) waited for the kids to come out of the bathroom, and that the guy glared at Jamira and her husband as if wanting to pick a fight. Not that he followed her and stalked her.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This guy is no saint, for sure. He sounds creepy. But it also sounds like the story is getting embellished.
<a href=“http://tbo.com/pasco-county/pasco-couple-said-they-also-had-texting-run-in-with-curtis-reeves-20140115/[/url]”>http://tbo.com/pasco-county/pasco-couple-said-they-also-had-texting-run-in-with-curtis-reeves-20140115/</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Pretty good chance he was. These people must feel very lucky that his itchy trigger finger didn’t get the best of him that day. They literally dodged a bullet.</p>
<p>Agree. He may well have been cruisin for a bruisin. The 2 news articles differ. The newer one doesnt say he followed her- just that he was glaring at them. Wonder why he waited around-- to pick a fight or was his wife in the loo too?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s very possible newer articles may not cover everything involved in the story due to space limitations or editorial decisions. </p>
<p>Two articles from different news publications could be covering the same story from different angles whether by design or other factors.</p>
<p>Here is an article with a statement by the district attorney who interviewed her in which the woman states he followed her to the bathroom.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/14/florida-police-captain-held-without-bail-murder-charge[/url]”>http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/14/florida-police-captain-held-without-bail-murder-charge</a></p>
<p>Sax, that article seems to be about luggage problems with airline travel. Now THERE’s cause for aggression!! :)</p>
<p>
And its very possible what she told the other reporter (if she spoke directly to both reporters) differed. Or was corrected in an updated account.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There’s also a major difference between what was reported to the prosecutor and what may have been given to the reporter. </p>
<p>I’d give the former greater weight as if it was found she was lying or even exaggerating to the prosecutor, she could face serious legal penalties whereas she wouldn’t if she did the same or withheld information from a reporter.</p>
<p>My point in playing devil’s advocate is simply that we don’t know. A turn of a phrase can mean something very different. She may have felt like he was stalking her. And maybe he was. But maybe he wasnt. Maybe he was waiting for his wife in the bathroom too. Otherwise maybe she would have left the theater rather than hang around. Just a thought.</p>
<p>Can someone link the DA story instead of the luggage one? Thanks.</p>
<p>** oh wait-- the NYT article has been replaced by the guardian article. Lemme look. Thanks, sax</p>
<p>She felt he followed her and made her feel uncomfortable. Was he alone at the theater??</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I linked and quoted the relevant part in post #284.</p>
<p>Manuel Garcia is the assistant state attorney involved in the case who gave that account based on what the woman told detectives.</p>
<p>Choice of words, whether the woman’s or the ass’t DA’s recounting of what she told the detectives who interviewed her may make a difference. Was the asst DA quoting or paraphrasing? </p>
<p>Regardless, this guy should have stuck to netflix and redbox, and stayed out of theaters!</p>
<p>A few pages back there was a lament over “speculation.” I ask “if not here, then where?” I have found CC posters to be thoughtful persons, and in most cases excellent analysts. Very troubling is the flawed conclusion that follows from known facts: (1) ex-police officer with no record of abuse, (2) behaving in a manner that was not deemed threatening by his wife or the off-duty copy a couple rows away, and (3) a confrontation initiated by a theater patron violating theater rules. Facts. The conclusion from these facts is that the shooting victim behaved in manner that a trained professional with a lifetime of experience believed to be threatening. Case dismissed … justifiable homicide.</p>
<p>Or … there are some facts yet to be released, facts which would explain why a “trained professional with decades of experience” would act the way he did. Since the appropriate authorities have declined to provide data beyond that which has been released, speculation is what we’re left with.</p>
<p>*Very troubling is the flawed conclusion that follows from known facts:</p>
<p>(1) ex-police officer with no record of abuse,</p>
<p>(2) behaving in a manner that was not deemed threatening by his wife or the off-duty copy a couple rows away, and </p>
<p>(3) a confrontation initiated by a theater patron violating theater rules. </p>
<p>Facts. The conclusion from these facts is that the shooting victim behaved in manner that a trained professional with a lifetime of experience believed to be threatening. </p>
<p>Case dismissed … justifiable homicide.*</p>
<h1>2 may not be what it seems. The wife may have been VERY nervous, but maybe knew that her H would punish her in some way (there or later) if she spoke up. The off-duty cop may not have been present for most of what happened. He may have been getting popcorn, he may have been in the bathroom. We don’t know if he was sitting there watching the whole thing.</h1>
<p>We may never know what really went on in the wife’s head because she doesn’t have to testify. If she decides to testify, I don’t know if she’ll be permitted to only answer questions that she find convenient…or if by testifying to some parts, she must answer all questions…even ones that would damage her H.</p>
<p>If she would have to answer all questions if she were to tell “her side,” then she may be told by the defense to say nothing.</p>
<p>I imagine that the “conflict” began while the involved people were seated. The cop may have tapped him on the shoulder or just told him to stop texting. We don’t know at what point it became so crazy that people several feet away would become alarmed. I’m guessing that when the cop returned after his attempt to talk to mgmt, that the men (and widow) were standing facing each other. Don’t know if there was enough time for bystanders to really intervene…or if they just thought, “crazy, but this will calm down soon.”</p>
<p>Confrontation initiated by the shooter, who left the theatre to speak to a manager after he first confronted the victim and who then returned and confronted the victim again. I hate when people say things like “known facts” and then make little effort to get them right. That device is a way of making an argument by playing on how we read words like “known facts”.</p>
<p>
^EXACTLY Lergnom!! Thanks you for saying so succinctly what I’ve been trying to say all along.</p>
<p>Or making strong negative implications about the shooter on the one hand, while taking reasonable consideration about others on the other hand.</p>
<p>Plenty of people with “decades of experience” doing something screw up. Pilots crash planes. Doctors kill patients. Loyal spouses have affairs. That is NOT a reasonable defense in this case. The victim was completely minding his own business. The shooter had a history of getting unduly irritated by others’ behavior.</p>