<p>The shooter’s daughter says her father’s health is failing. A shame it didn’t fail prior to January 13. </p>
<p>A crack- meaning you would find a way to nitpick and find fault with what was said. Hence the need to clarify USAA’s policies since the response was so utterly predictable. NOW ENOUGH. You have no firsthand knowledge of the military or USAA, much like many other issues you address, so if you feel the need to get some last word in, have at it. This is a complete waste, and once again the thread is being pulled off topic. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yeah, he graduated NROTC not too long before Operation Just Cause. As for his getting out, he mentioned being part of the RIF process initiated not too long after the collapse of the Soviet Union and that it caught up with him several years afterwards. He was honorably discharged. </p>
<p>Oddly enough, his aviation training meant he technically had a minimum service obligation of around 10 years, but due to the mandated RIF, they didn’t hold him to that as he got out in less than 8. </p>
<p>So he was in ROTC. Pretty standard for officer training unless he went to the academy. I repeat-- if he was cut loose in the late 90’s , its extremely possible, if not highly likely, he was passed over for a promotion. He would be honorably discharged. Thats the procedure (unless someone is medically discharged, but lets not go there) . He would have to screw up to get a general discharge, or seriously screw up to get a dishonorable discharge. The military did a RIF in the EARLY 90’s after Desert Storm, but not much in the LATE 90’s. They were starting again to round up warm bodies in the late 90’s. So its possible either you have your dates confused or he was passed over. </p>
<p>Now again-- back to topic- yes cartera- they were seriously stretching to try to bring his arthritis or high blood pressure as mitigating factors. He does not in any way, shape or form look like a frail senior citizen. Seriously doubt he had any significant health challenges, and even his arthritis did not prevent him from shoooting a handgun.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>He also had no issues walking out of the theater to ask for the manager, walking back, and escalate a shouting match with Chad before shooting. And he was carrying a gun while doing all that. </p>
<p>Also recalled a report either on this thread or elsewhere that the shooter kicked Chad’s chair when he came back. </p>
<p>I wonder if they’re going to try to suggest that the shooting was unintentional? I wonder if the “arthritis” and woodworking mention is to suggest that he doesn’t have good finger dexterity anymore and that he didn’t mean to pull the trigger? </p>
<p>With the wife’s words, they probably know that the self defense claim is going to fail. So, what’s left? Accident because of arthritis and loss of finger control???</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not sure that defense is going to be effective considering he was heard to say “I’ll teach you to throw popcorn at me” by witnesses which shows possible motive/intention to shoot rather than it going off accidentally. </p>
<p>That and the mere act of pointing a gun at someone is bad enough as it’s considered assault under the law in many places. </p>
<p>I know that defenses like to keep things “close to the vest” about strategy. </p>
<p>I agree that the “teach you” remark is bad, but maybe it suggests no intent to shoot to kill? I think they’re desperate. </p>
<p>Didn’t the deputy say that he said something like, “what have I done” afterwards? If so, wouldn’t they try to use that as “proof” that the firing of the weapon wasn’t intentional? </p>
<p>But, I think his reaction to his wife’s words speak otherwise. If it were an accident, then why curse at her? Why not say, “oh my, I didn’t mean to shoot.”</p>
<p>There will be more testimony today when the bail hearing concludes. The theater surveillance will be shown, though it is described as dark, grainy and without sound.</p>
<p>Mr Reeves was seated when he shot Oulsen, so I am guessing he held his gun with 2 hands (or held one hand with the other) when he shot. This man is a career marksman. Doubtful any excuse about arthritis would be relevant. Sadly, his aim was pretty good. He might possibly, possibly try to claim that as a career officer he is trained to automatically defend himself with deadly force if he feels threatened with bodily harm, and that it was almost a reflexive response. I dont buy it, but it would not be a surprising defense for a lifelong police/security officer.</p>
<p>This article makes it sould like Oulsen started out politely, but that it escalated and Reeves was agitated, though they seem to be trying to say that Oulsen was bigger, and Reeves was seated, so he might have felt threatened and in need of self defense. The photos I’ve seen make Reeves look more imposing than Oulsen. Regardless, there seeme little evidence to justify responding with deadly force. <a href=“http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/05/justice/florida-movie-theater-shooting/”>Witnesses of Florida theater killing recall flying popcorn, gunshot - CNN;
<p>At the hearing today, even if the evidence is strong against Reeves for second-degree murder, the judge has to make decision if Reeves is a danger to community…it’s the judges call to allow or not allow Reeves to bond out of jail until trial… the media and general public don’t make the decision. The judge has to follow criminal proceedings…I think the judge will let Reeves out on bond, but will require him to stay home with curfew, wear ankle bracelet, etc.</p>
<p>“There will be more testimony today when the bail hearing concludes. The theater surveillance will be shown, though it is described as dark, grainy and without sound.”</p>
<p>Aren’t there agencies that can take such films and improve them?</p>
<p>So, he was sitting when he fired the gun??</p>
<p>I’m picturing that in my head…a chubby-man sitting in a theater seat, with a gun in his pants pocket. It would not be super-easy for most men (and he’s not thin) to reach into a pants pocket (while sitting) and pulling out a gun and firing. It would take more than just a “knee-jerk” response. It would certainly be long enough for the brain to compute that it was popcorn that was thrown, not something truly dangerous.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Plus the range was so short it would actually be surprising if someone with his level of training and experience missed. </p>
<p>If they were close enough to have him possibly kicking Oulsen’s chair, get into a rapidly escalating argument, and for tossed popcorn to hit him…they were pretty close to each other prior to and when he shot him. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Considering the circumstances and the charge of second-degree murder and the fact the shooter is a retired cop, the judge may be facing pressures from both an outraged public and some law enforcement supporters and sympathizers who feel his long prior service as a cop should be the overriding factor. </p>
<p>Also, another factor the judge may consider is whether the defendant’s life is in danger from himself(from his wearing a suicide vest in earlier court appearance) or from those who are outraged enough to threaten his life before trial. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Depending on how the criminal law/local rules are in that part of Florida, the judge may have more discretion in whether to allow bond or not. </p>
<p>“the judge has to make decision if Reeves is a danger to community…”</p>
<p>Uh, he shot a stranger in a public place, over texting and popcorn…and he had no regard for the fact that the bullet could have gone thru his victim (or ricochet) and hit someone else as well.</p>
<p>He’s a danger just sitting in a seat.</p>
<p>Not that this has anything to do with the case, but USAA opened to enlisted in 1996. Our neighbors joined at that time and they were enlisted.</p>
<p><a href=“Enable Cookies | USAA | USAA”>Enable Cookies | USAA | USAA;
<p>And yes, we are long time USAA members.</p>
<p>The constitutional presumption is for bail. 8th Amendment. </p>
<p>I don’t think it’s safe to have this man out on bail with monitoring device or not. What he did, and the circumstances are such that make him very dangerous. For his own safety, his family’s safety and everyone else’s safety, he needs to be kept in some sort of lock up. </p>
<p>The only defense I would be able to make for him is that he is going through some form of dementia and mood disorder that makes him so dangerous to be around others, that he has to be locked up somewhere anyways. My MIL is sadly now in stages of dementia where she does strike at others, and no one would say she should be allowed to handle a loaded gun. But she has truly crossed that line where her judgement is gone about these things. There are those who are undergoing this mental decay process and move in and out of it, which is why allowing people to carry loaded guns is such a dangerous thing. You just don’t know what mental changes a person can undergo. But whether this is true or not, makes no difference in what the first rule in society should be which is to protect people. This man has shown that he so dangerous that it can take very little for him to shoot someone. </p>
<p>His family should be seeking some sort of shelter for and from him. Jail may not be the best option, but letting him come home, is worse for everyone’s safety and sake.</p>
<p>" For his own safety, his family’s safety and everyone else’s safety, he needs to be kept in some sort of lock up."</p>
<p>If I were his wife, I would be afraid to have him home. He’s likely very angry that his wife’s words will likely sink him. Sometimes when people are very wrong, they’ll reach for anything else to blame for their (self-caused) “misfortune.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I disagree, qualifying that I’m not a lawyer and could be 100% wrong. So it’s just my opinion that I think any judge with half a brain is going to realize that a young widow with very young children to raise is going to by necessity go to the party with the deepest pockets, and I don’t think he would be wasting his time “questioning” why she’s not suing an elderly spouse with few resources. I also don’t think it “weakens her civil case” because whether or not she sues the elderly wife has nothing to do with the strength or weakness of her case against the theater, if there is an allegation of some kind of negligence with respect to security or timely response to a problem.</p>
<p>This widow might certainly sue the shooter’s insurance company if there is a way to get funds from it, but assuming the shooter’s wife doesn’t lose the house to defense lawyers, I just don’t see the victim going after another innocent party’s miniscule resources. But you never know what her attorney might be able to influence her to do in the interest of her children.</p>
<p>Finally, if I were on the civil jury in this case, I would EXPECT it to be a whole lot about the money as she has kids to raise and has lost a long term primary source of income with the loss of her husband, in addition to the pain and suffering which comes with this situation.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Barring a court ruling that he must be locked away at an mental institution on the basis of a psych diagnosis and testimony by professionals, jail may be the only other option to keep him from endangering the larger public considering his demonstrated actions. </p>
<p>Mom2collegekids, I agree. As much as I love my family members, including DH, my own mother, my children, there is no way I would want them home if they showed that they were so dangerous that they could do something like this person did. He’s a former cop. likely to know how to get another gun, or really anything that can seriously hurt someone, and snap again. My MIL is nearly 90 years old, wheelchair bound, physically weak and yet if she progresses more in terms of violence towards other, we would not be able to keep her here. Once the risks of hurting others seriously goes over a certain line, that should take precendence in how and where a person should be kept. Imminent danger is a big concern here. A person who has actually done something that deadly, cannot be deemed safe without tremendous safeguards in place. This man is physically able, strong, can harm most people terribly, and leave most premises in very short order. It’s not safe to release him to home.</p>
<p>The family would be better off requesting that he be placed in a psychiatric unit in lock up. Maybe he is not truly criminal in mindset but very sick, damaged, demented, you name it, but there is no doubt whatever the issue is, he is dangerous to others. </p>
<p>As for civil damages, the way it usually works is that every and any body and thing is named in the suits that possibly can be named, and then dropped as the case moves forward. A good attorney does not want to miss on any possibility so until it’s clear that it’s a dead end, suits will often have a lot of extra named.</p>
<p>As for the arthritis, I have seen some people suffering in such crazy, intense unbearable pain from it that it makes them crazy and about as safe as wounded bear. That goes for any kind of intense pain. Not an excuse at all, IMO, and the fact remains that once someone shows s/he’s THAT dangerous to harm, even kill someone, it doesn’t matter what the condition is. That person needs to be kept well away from others,</p>