<p>You’ve been slapping wrists left and right, jym. There is nothing wrong with posters sharing their thoughts. Vocabulary such as “might have…”, “suggests so…”, “may have…” are common phrases used when people share their hypotheses. In turn, it is normal for posters to add on or contest the previous posters with what they think. It’s normal. It happens. </p>
<p>The shooter could be a trigger-happy retired police captain who is so used to people bowing down to his orders that the moment he was challenged by a man who didn’t recognize his “authority” he needed to show “who was boss”. The shooter could be a man with mental problems and a quick temper. The shooter could’ve been intoxicated and delusional causing him to act out of character. Or he could really be acting in character, but many people are not familiar with this side of the shooter.</p>
<p>I’m going to go W-A-Y out on a limb to suggest that a person who kills someone s/he doesn’t even know is not thinking clearly … especially when the shooter is a professional and killing is contrary to his/her training. We have a few over-enthusiastic policemen in CT … one just got sentenced today. But I can’t recall a single case where an off-duty or retired policeman shot an unarmed citizen. So please excuse me if I question what was going on in Captain Reeve’s head.</p>
<p>Sorry for any misunderstanding cat-- was just trying to say (apparently poorly) that we not call him, or anyone, a “head case”. I find that to be a derogatory term. Speaking in generalities (not about the shooter here) the stigma of mental illness is bad enough. People with mood disorders or thought disorders or what have you have a hard enough time. Throwing around terms like “head case” is to me insensitive. But I’ve already said umpteen times that this is my perspective.</p>
<p>If you look up spousal immunity in FL, you find it doesn’t cover this case - or at least it covers very little. A spouse can’t be compelled to testify about things said in confidence because that invokes “marital privilege”. This requires a reasonable expectation of privacy, so if there were conversations outside the theater, like in their car or home that would be privileged but words exchanged in public would not. Deeds are not covered, so she can be compelled to testify about what he did as well. In other words, she can be compelled to testify about everything that happened at the theatre.</p>
<p>The FL Supreme Court has covered this in detail.</p>
<p>*Quote:
This is a crime. Someone needs to pay the price and I believe that person is the shooter.
*</p>
<p>The judge at this hearing essentially said that after hearing the facts so far. She believed that a crime had occurred (she may have used the word, “murder”, I don’t remember). She obviously thinks the crime was committed by the shooter. </p>
<p>From what I remember, these hearings are like mini-trials where the known-facts at the time are presented. </p>
<p>The actual trial will like consist of presenting mitigating circumstances. The defense isn’t going to claim that someone else did this. The defense is going to likely claim that the action was self-defense or that the shooter had some kind of diminished capacity which mitigates guilt.</p>
<p>*If you look up spousal immunity in FL, you find it doesn’t cover this case - or at least it covers very little. A spouse can’t be compelled to testify about things said in confidence because that invokes “marital privilege”. This requires a reasonable expectation of privacy, so if there were conversations outside the theater, like in their car or home that would be privileged but words exchanged in public would not. Deeds are not covered, so she can be compelled to testify about what he did as well. In other words, she can be compelled to testify about everything that happened at the theatre.</p>
<p>The FL Supreme Court has covered this in detail.*</p>
<p>Interesting.</p>
<p>I can see why things that occur in public places might not be part of the spousal privilege.</p>
<p>I thought that the spousal privilege dealt with “pillow talk” so to speak. And, I thought it might have partly been originated to keep wives from “disappearing” or being killed out of fear that they might be forced to reveal info that only they would know. </p>
<p>I didn’t know that the wife would/could be compelled to testify about what she witnessed in the theater. Not sure if that would be helpful because she may be biased to protect him and their assets.</p>
<p>The more pertinent info that could be gotten from her (but is likely privileged) is info about his behavior at home and with her. It wouldn’t be proof of guilt in this case, but could provide insight into the “real person.”</p>
<p>Mrs. Reeves could be Reeves’ best witness. If she was seated right by where all the action occurred, she probably had the best view and angle of anyone of what actually happened in the theater.</p>
<p>Chad’s widow is scheduled to have a press conference this morning with her lawyers…it will be interesting. She’ll probably thank everyone for their prayers and support, and then her lawyers will talk and say whom they’re going after.</p>
<p>In this last youtube [Curtis</a> Reeves Press Conference. Kinda Sorta - YouTube](<a href=“- YouTube”>- YouTube) at about minute 3 (first 3 minutes are the reporters trying to interview people coming out of the courtroom, to no avail), the attorney is saying all I was trying to suggest-- not to rush to judgement, and to be careful with the various accounts that have been reported. In watching this I agree with the judge, and think that the information presented by Reeves’ defense attorney was pretty weak, and the evidence against him is pretty strong. All I was suggesting is that we not engage in severe character assassination or tar and feather him just yet. He may very likely deserve it-- he may be an intimidating, control freak jerk whose worst mitigating factors are his arthritis and apnea. His behavior seems to demonstrate a significant lapse in judgement and, and if it is not explainable in any way that a judge or jury will believe, he will likely do time in the big house. Was just looking for data to back up the accusations. So far there is no suggestion of cognitive impairment or any claim of mental illness.</p>
<p>The defense atty is saying what all defense attys say, “don’t rush to judgement”…because they want their clients to be found “not guilty”…even when guilt is obvious (not saying that’s this case). I don’t give a rat’s patootie what some defense atty is saying to the public in these cases. They’ll say that their client is innocent, no matter what.</p>
<p>Mrs. Reeves could be Reeves’ best witness. If she was seated right by where all the action occurred, she probably had the best view and angle of anyone of what actually happened in the theater.</p>
<p>I think it would be interesting to know what her immediate reaction was to the shooting. Was she horrified? (which she would be if it wasn’t justified) Or, did she have a reaction of “well, my H was just defending himself”. I realize that in either case she would be initially surprised, but if the shooting was unjustified, she likely would have had a reaction that would have indicated anger at her H for shooting.</p>
<p>Think about it… If we were her, and we thought that the shooting was justified, we’d be comforting our spouse, etc, after the shooting. Our body language would be one of support. If we thought that it wasn’t justified our words (or at least body language) would be indicating that we didn’t support the decision to shoot.</p>
<p>There was a report that the gun jammed. Has any detailed information on that been released? How was it determined the gun jammed? (Standard self-defense mode calls for one round in the cylinder at all times. Was that the case here?)</p>
<p>I thought the gun jamming after one shot was interesting too. Who determined it jammed? Reeves was very experienced with guns…so how’d that happen. I don’t know much about guns…was gun dirty, defective…did Reeves pull trigger funny…was gun really jammed?</p>
<p>I thought the gun jamming after one shot was interesting too.</p>
<p>Me too. I don’t know anything about “guns jamming”. I thought that you’d only know if a gun jammed if you tried to fire and then the gun jammed. does that mean that AFTER he fired, he tried to fire AGAIN? </p>
<p>I don’t know how much money Reeves has, but I found it interesting that he’s going to pay for his own attorneys. I realize that he may have too much in assets to have a court-appointed attorney. If I was his wife, and I thought my H was wrong for shooting the young dad (and I would), I wouldn’t be too happy to have all our assets going to defend my H…especially if I was around 70 years old. I wonder if divorcing him now would split the assets and protect at least “her half”? Anyone know?</p>
<p>In the youtube videos of the preliminary hearing, he said he was able to afford his own attorney. Guess their retirement plans will change a bit…</p>
<p>And they show him (at about minute 1 of the news video) walking to the patrol car unescorted. Um, not a good idea. He is holding a water bottle and its hard to tell if he was handcuffed, but assume he likely was since he was under arrest.</p>
<p>** If they ended up declaring bankruptcy, I believe in FL the bankruptcy courts cant take their home.</p>
It really does make this all worse. You’re going to shoot a guy over popcorn being thrown not once but twice. Those had better have been grenade popcorn kernels.</p>
<p>I’m happy to do that just because he was carrying a gun. I don’t apologize for believing that people who carry guns when they don’t have to have character defects.</p>