<p>I looked up Florida criminal procedure. They have a probable cause hearing - that referred to above. It isn’t a mini trial. The main elements are simple: is there probable cause to believe 1) a crime was committed, 2) within the jurisdiction of this court, 3) by this person. You don’t present much evidence. You generally call only the police as witness - and sometimes only a desk sergeant who reads the police report. Many times, they just read the charges and allow a statement by the prosecutor, but then most defendants don’t have expensive lawyers who try to get evidence excluded as early as possible. </p>
<p>So you are bound over for trial and then you have a bail hearing, sometimes as part of the same hearing, sometimes after a bail report is prepared that evaluates flight risk, public safety concerns, etc. </p>
<p>And then it goes into discovery, investigation and - typically - pre-trial conferences in which deals are discussed. I would not be surprised if this case isn’t pleaded out, with a guilty plea and a sentence that amounts to life - given the shooter’s age. Why? Two big reasons: money and reputation. This family could easily spend every dime it has in defense and the more publicity the more people will remember and the more they will associate the rest of his family with what happened. Some defendants realize this and prefer to get it over with rather than bring more ruin on their families. </p>
<p>One of the first conversations a lawyer should have is: this is going to cost a huge amount of money. You need to be hard with the client: here are the odds you’re going to be found guilty. So maybe you make a deal that involves a lesser form of custody, that takes into account age and a lifetime of “service”. </p>
<p>And remember, the victim’s family has a right to sue the shooter.</p>
<p>The NYT has an article in today’s paper (1/22) which adds a few details. Turns out the victim was a Navy veteran. I mention that - to say this delicately - because this isn’t a case where a person could try to say or at least insinuate some racial fear, like a black teen in a hoodie or some black guys in a car (and you think they’re pointing a gun at you though they aren’t). This is white, Navy veteran out with his wife and texting the babysitter about a sick toddler before the movie actually began. So there’s none of the “sympathetic” facts that divide people into this camp or that, as in white versus black, etc.</p>
<p>The article also quotes Zimmerman’s lawyer saying, in essence, he doesn’t see how this would be a self-defense case, calling it a Hail Mary. With the defense lawyer claiming the victim committed a felony - when some popcorn apparently hit the shooter’s face - he says: “A felony in and of itself does not justify deadly force,” said Mark O’Mara, who successfully defended Mr. Zimmerman at his trial this summer. “I would call that a Hail Mary pass.” </p>
<p>Note that the article explicitly doesn’t say the victim threw popcorn, rather that he became agitated as the shooter kicked his chair and stood up and that standing up may have caused popcorn to fly out. That looks really bad for the shooter: it sounds like he actually initiated the confrontation, something that was a main dispute in the Zimmerman/Martin case with much hinging on who attacked, and then reacted with deadly force when the person he assaulted (by kicking his chair) responded by standing up. </p>
<p>Like I said in the post above, if I were his lawyer, I’d be thinking of ways to plead. And I’d be hoping the prosecution doesn’t want to force this to trial because of the massive publicity.</p>
<p>I wouldn’t go that far. It may be mere semantics, but I feel in this case, the shooter’s blameworthiness is in the manner in which he carried his gun(not obeying theater rules against weapons) and the fact he used it when it wasn’t called for. </p>
<p>In fact, I’d feel my framing casts him in a worst light as it shows premeditated intention.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Unless he can somehow get a sweet plea deal which imparts no effective guilt upon him, he’s going to get sued and his likelihood of not losing isn’t going to be high.</p>
<p>I’m a person who generally wants to hear all sides without rushing to judgment, but I’ve got to say, I have trouble imagining any set of facts which don’t include the shooter having a character defect. The only possible defense I can see would be if it is a defect that is new because of mental or physical disease.</p>
That statement has the unique characteristic of being both a tautology, and wrong. (I would have assumed that was impossible previously.) It’s a tautology because in order to be eligible for the death penalty you have to kill someone with the intent to do so. That’s like saying that in order to be white you have to be white. </p>
<p>But that’s also a pretty poor predictor. The vast majority of people who unlawfully kill someone with the intent to kill aren’t charged with a capital crime. Many who are so charged don’t receive that sentence. But of the ones who do, chances are they killed a white person. That’s what gives the race of the victim predictive power. I understand that there’s an ideology currently which asserts tat the nation is “post-racial” and that any reference to race is “playing the race card.” (That’s called “playing the ‘playing the race card’ card”) But race, in fact, does matter. Killing a young white father is going to be a problem for the defendant in this case.</p>
<p>Maybe you shouldn’t be so quick to dismiss studies. Sometimes stuff that seems really smart when you think it up doesn’t turn out that way when you write it down.</p>
<p>I don’t apologize for believing that people who carry guns when they don’t have to have character defects.</p>
<p>I can somewhat understand that point. However, the “they don’t have to” can be subjective. Retired cops do (rationally) think that they “have to” because they could encounter someone who remembers that the cop arrested them.</p>
<p>For those who are totally “lay folks” and who carry, they could have all sots of “have to” reasons. They may have to frequently travel in so-called “bad areas”. They may have to make large cash deposits. They may often have to be out very late at night.</p>
<p>Those of us who don’t carry can’t just “jump to conclusions” and say that others’ reasons aren’t legit. </p>
<p>I agree that it would be strange for some “lay person” to just carry for the heck of it.</p>
<p>Which is a moot point regarding this incident as the federal CCW law for retired cops clearly doesn’t give retired cops exemption from public agencies and private businesses banning firearms from their premises. </p>
<p>I linked to that specific part of the law earlier in this thread.</p>
<p>Geez m2ck, you’re sure not Tammy Wynette suggesting Mrs. Reeves split already and all…</p>
<p>lol…</p>
<p>I’m just thinking practically, and wondering how SHE is now being advised by those around her.</p>
<p>If others are realizing that H is guilty and brought all of this upon himself, and she’s some 70 year old lady who can’t go back and re-earn money for her future, then (I would guess) that others might be recommending that she divorce him quickly to divide assets so “her half” isn’t lost to a bunch of attorneys and a lawsuit. </p>
<p>I remember that (I think) FBI guy who was found guilty of treason. I know that his wife divorced him and that even though he technically should have lost his retirement benefits because of the type of crime, she was able to keep “her share” to support the rest of her life.</p>
<p>thinks about it…if this couple has $1m in assets, then his defense will likely eat all of that. Anything left would to go to a lawsuit. A quick divorce may mean that she gets her .5M in assets, and then once his share runs out then he gets his attys paid for…and his wife isn’t destitute.</p>
<p>“I thought that you’d only know if a gun jammed if you tried to fire and then the gun jammed.”</p>
<p>There are a number of ways a gun might jam. As a prior poster pointed out, poor maintenance is most likely. Next would be an ammunition jam, where the new bullet fails to feed into the chamber. I suppose it could have been a defect in the firearm itself. All of the above suggest the weapon was infrequently fired and/or poorly maintained. Beyond that (which is highly unusual for the typical gun owner) remains the question of whether an attempt was made to fire a second round.</p>
<p>I would be surprised if a person as apparently self-righteous and arrogant as this one would give two hoots about his wife’s future. I would expect that he would think it perfectly reasonably to expend the family resources on his own defense. Unless, of course, he would be concerned about it impinging on HIS post-trial life. But most likely he has a generous pension and would not be destitute. That may or may not be true of his wife, depending on how the pension payments are set up. And of course his victim’s family could sue and make an excellent case regarding loss of future income.</p>
<p>Cartera, I’m with you on the guns. I think of idiots like Nancy Lanza, stockpiling weapons because she thought the masses were going to rise up and assault her leafy exurb. Too bad she wasn’t the only person who paid for her stupidity with their life.</p>
<p>There are a number of ways a gun might jam. As a prior poster pointed out, poor maintenance is most likely. Next would be an ammunition jam, where the new bullet fails to feed into the chamber. I suppose it could have been a defect in the firearm itself. All of the above suggest the weapon was infrequently fired and/or poorly maintained. Beyond that (which is highly unusual for the typical gun owner) remains the question of whether an attempt was made to fire a second round.</p>
<p>I realize all of that…but…</p>
<p>Would it be possible for a gun to “jam” or for there to even be a notation that his gun jammed if he had NEVER tried to take a second shot? Doesn’t there have to be another attempt for a gun to jam?</p>
<p>Maybe I’m misunderstanding, but he had one successful shot. The fact that the gun jammed after suggests to me that another attempt had to have happened. Is that wrong?</p>
<p>*I would be surprised if a person as apparently self-righteous and arrogant as this one would give two hoots about his wife’s future. I would expect that he would think it perfectly reasonably to expend the family resources on his own defense. *</p>
<p>That could be possible if he has that kind of personality. If he is self-absorbed and thinks that most/all of their assets were earned by him (maybe wife was mostly a SAHM)…and if he thinks he’s innocent…then he may think it’s ok to spend everything on himself. </p>
<p>If he is that type of person, then the wife may need to take steps to divorce and protect her half…if possible.</p>
<p>*Which is a moot point regarding this incident as the federal CCW law for retired cops clearly doesn’t give retired cops exemption from public agencies and private businesses banning firearms from their premises. *</p>
<p>I wasn’t responding to this particular situation. I was responding to catera’s post that seemed to be talking in general situations. She wasn’t specifying cases where carrying is forbidden.</p>
<p>I want to be part of that outlier club too!</p>
<p>Does anyone know the positions of the two men? I have been assuming the shooter was in the row behind the victim, but it could be that they were in the same row sitting next to each other. I’m not sure it matters, but it would be interesting to know.</p>
<p>Also, I get the impression the shooting was at a Cinebistro. If you have ever been to one you would know they are very very nice theaters compared to the ones your favorite teenagers go to. They serve dinner and have better seating and the bill is much larger than a regular theater’s bill.</p>
<p>“Doesn’t there have to be another attempt for a gun to jam?”</p>
<p>Not necessarily. If it was an ammunition jam, the next bullet wouldn’t be available for firing. It would be lodged in the opening to the firing chamber, like this: <a href="http://i737./albums/xx15/merovinchian/Jam005.jpg%5B/url%5D">http://i737./albums/xx15/merovinchian/Jam005.jpg</a></p>
<p>[OK, CC won’t allow the link. Search images for ‘ammunition jam’]</p>
<p>^^^
But how would you KNOW that it was jammed unless an attempt was made to fire again? The early reports mentioned that the gun jammed just before the nearby officer got the gun from him. So, what would “clue them in” immediately that the gun jammed if another attempt to fire hadn’t occurred.</p>
<p>I looked at images, and I’m not sure what I’m looking at (ha ha).</p>
<p>Captain Reeves used a semi-automatic pistol. Sometimes bullets get jammed in the loading mechanism … either the old shell can’t be extracted, or the shell gets stuck in the mechanism, or the next bullet gets wedged in the mechanism. In all of these case there’s an obstruction, and the slide won’t close. Here are images for a wide range of jams. Look for brass bullets/casings “stuck” in the mechanism. They’re easily seen, and I suspect that is how the first police responders could tell that the gun was “jammed.”</p>