<p>Kicked the guy’s chair…And then he gets mad when someone throws popcorn in his face and shoots them? Even if he didn’t know it was popcorn, so what. He knew it didn’t hurt.</p>
<p>ha ha… I need to fix my sentence a bit…</p>
<p>Kicked the guy’s chair…And then he gets mad when someone throws popcorn in his face so then he shoots him? Even if Reeves didn’t know it was popcorn, so what. He knew it didn’t hurt.</p>
<p>Widow and her attorney interviewed by Robin Roberts on GMA this morning. Very sympathetic woman. Reeves goose is likely cooked.</p>
<p>What has always bothered me about people carrying guns is my concern that the very fact of having a gun may change a person’s perceptions of a situation and their own abilities. Just as teenagers may act foolishly because they think they’re invincible, I wonder if otherwise sane adults act differently because having a gun gives them more power in a situation. </p>
<p>Did Zimmerman act more aggressively because he knew he could defend himself? Did this retired policeman/security worker act so aggressively for the same reason? </p>
<p>I see people at a zoo taunting the gorillas from behind iron bars and thick safety glass, who would turn tail in a nanosecond if those barriers weren’t there. Instead of guns being defensive weapons, how often do guns actually ratchet up the aggression level of one or both parties who think they are invincible because they can protect themselves.</p>
<p>^^^
That is a good point.</p>
<p>I think there may be people who know that they have that “secret weapon” in their pocket (and could be a knife, as well), so they act more boldly…kind of gang-like behavior. </p>
<p>Although I am pro-gun, I do think there should be a way for close family members to report that someone’s mental health or whatever has now made is more dangerous for this person to have a gun. And, then the reported-person must go thru some process. There would have to be something put in place to prevent just malicious reports. </p>
<p>There is something like this in some states in regards to drivers licenses. a family member can report that someone in their family is no longer a safe driver and needs their license taken away.</p>
<p>Widow and her attorney interviewed by Robin Roberts on GMA this morning. Very sympathetic woman. Reeves goose is likely cooked.</p>
<p>Simply having her and a nice pic of her and her H in the courtroom will totally cook his goose. </p>
<p>I can’t imagine what the “jury advisors” are going to be telling the defense as to which prospective jury members to exclude. Who won’t sympathize with this?</p>
<p>Both wives’ lives have been turned upside down. Reeves’ wife probably has also been thinking about this young widow and her child.</p>
<p>The “stand your ground” law in Florida is what will make this such an interesting case once it goes to court…</p>
<p>Seems to me the victim was the one standing his ground.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Those with strong authoritarian type personalities who automatically confer extra status and entitlement to folks in certain positions like current/retired cops and get angry at folks who don’t obey them quickly enough/at all because that’s “disrespectful” and “violates their authoritah”. </p>
<p>Whether it’s the pre-1945 Imperial Japanese mandated veneration for folks in the military…especially military officers/NCOs* or what I’d consider peculiarly similar types of unquestioning due deference some Americans* I’ve seen/read about…especially after 9/11 have for current/retired police officers. </p>
<p>In short, folks who feel those with higher status/authority are always right and can never do any wrong. </p>
<ul>
<li>This mentality was to some extent derived from hierarchically mandated due deference from the prior Japanese feudal social order which only ended in 1868. Ended up being mostly eradicated in Japan only due to their defeat in WWII. Even so, there’s a strong fringe with some troublingly disproportionally high political influence who try glorifying this colonialist militarist past.</li>
</ul>
<p>** These are the folks who don’t believe in police brutality or feel even confirmed cases of it from places like the Innocence Project are “frameups”.</p>
<p>I don’t imagine they’ll have much in the way of “jury experts” because those are expensive. The gist is they do a survey of the potential juror pool and identify characteristics to avoid - if possible because objections are limited. You don’t know the exact pool, which is the bunch of people who are there that day. It costs $$ to get a study done that will tell you more than you can guess from experience. </p>
<p>One of my friends always excluded redheads. Said he didn’t trust them. My take was they’re too smart to fall for his line of b.s. … that is, speaking as one.</p>
<p>One of my friends always excluded redheads. Said he didn’t trust them.</p>
<p>lol</p>
<p>I wonder where he got that idea from? </p>
<p>Heck, if other attys think that way, then the way to get out of jury duty would be to show up in a redheaded wig. ;)</p>
<p>
This won’t work. Period. In California there is such a process - we tried to get my 85 year old FIL’s license lifted - and failed. He seemed lucid when talking to his doctor, who OK’d him to DMV even after we spoke with him. My FIL was in four minor fender benders the last year before he drove off into the mountains in a delusional state and we finally had him relocated into a care facility. He still thinks he has a car and can drive. You want to try that with people’s beloved guns? Good luck with that.</p>
<p>The problem is this: no one is 100% competent 100% of the time. It’s a simple fact. Age, alcohol, depression - any number of things. (I once was having a nightmare while staying in a cabin with my young kids. In the middle of my dream my 4 year old daughter fell out of the bunkbed and landed right on me. I almost strangled her before I woke up enough to realize she wasn’t a monster. Fortunately, I didn’t have a gun.) </p>
<p>And no one is willing to admit their own fallibility. In fact, the less suitable for gun ownership they are the less likely they are to realize that. I’m sure this guy, like Nancy Lanza, thought he was entirely competent to carry a weapon and was taking all due precautions. And he was probably right - most of the time, like everyone else. I doubt that his wife would have stepped up and told him otherwise. </p>
<p>I’m also certain that their are gun owners on this site who underestimate their own likelihood of having the same error of self-assessment as this guy demonstrated. As long as “pro-gun” people convince themselves (and each other) that they’re safer due to owning and carrying guns, tens of thousands of people will be shot to death every year, in suicides, homicides, and “accidental” shootings. Having a gun increases your probability of dying by gunfire, and the probability that members of your family will have their lives cut short that way as well. [Access</a> to Guns Increases Risk of Suicide, Homicide | ucsf.edu](<a href=“http://www.ucsf.edu/news/2014/01/111286/access-guns-increases-risk-suicide-homicide]Access”>Access to Guns Increases Risk of Suicide, Homicide | UC San Francisco)</p>
<p>But “pro-gun” folks are able to convince themselves that that only applies to “other people.” Not “responsible, law-abiding” gun owners. Not me. Other people. Like a retired cop.</p>
<p>I doubt this will go to trial. But if it does, I suspect some pro-gun organization or wealthy individual will step up to give the accused the best possible defense, including lots of jury analysis.</p>
<p>I don’t think it will go to trial, unless there is an insanity defense that the prosecution doesn’t accept. Aside from insanity, I just don’t see how this guy stays out of prison.</p>
<p>But “pro-gun” folks are able to convince themselves that that only applies to “other people.” Not “responsible, law-abiding” gun owners. Not me. Other people. Like a retired cop.</p>
<p>the pro-gun stance is protected by the Constitution. </p>
<p>While it’s atrocious that sometimes innocent life is taken, we can’t just abolish gun ownership. </p>
<p>All of us are appalled when a “guilty person” is not found guilty, gets off, and then kills again. What do the lawyers say? “It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.” As much as we can HATE that kind of thinking, kind of the same thinking applies here. (as much as it saddens me to even write this)</p>
<p>If we want to keep this thread from being closed, we should focus on the specifics of this case.</p>
<p>
Oy…I need to decide what side of that saying I’m on.</p>
<p>^^</p>
<p>I know!!! It’s painful!!!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t know. The facts are murky and keep getting murkier. News reports say the deceased is 6 feet 4 inches tall. They also say that he was seated in front of the perp. He stood up and turned to face the cop, who seems to have been seated at this point. Somehow, popcorn was thrown or at least fell out of the bag the victim was holding. I don’t think it’s that far fetched to say that the ex-cop will claim that he thought the victim was about to physically attack him.</p>
<p>Do I believe that? Nope. But can I see someone saying that it’s not beyond reasonable doubt that the cop thought it was self-defense.</p>
<p>Has it been revealed what the deceased man said? I suppose if he said something overtly threatening, that might help bolster the defense.</p>
<p>*he cop, who seems to have been seated at this point. *</p>
<p>If that’s true, then by the time he got his gun out (not easy to do when sitting), he would know that he hadn’t been hit by anything life-threatening.</p>
<p>If he stood up, got his gun out, and then shot, then he’d even have more time to determine the popcorn.</p>