<p>
</p>
<p>No, but there’s a song by Weird Al which references one of the important themes of this and similar recent cases cited here in this thread: </p>
<p><a href=“http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rN6avab0fIY”>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rN6avab0fIY</a></p>
<p>At this point, that has not been brought up-- diminished capacity, dementia, no. However, my MIL would have gone livid if such a thing ever were brought up and when it began to dawn on her that this might be happening, it was a heartbreaking, terrible thing, as she fought it and was in total denial. My DH was not better about the situation with his mother. I think some people, maybe most people, particularly, (IMO) macho egotists, are not even want to entertain the thought and would rather go to jail then be put away for diminished capacity in a nursing home or psych unit for those who have shown themselves to be dangerous. It’s’ not a panacea of an alternative and not an excuse or way out, but a possibility of what may have happened here. </p>
<p>“I don’t know about you, but most people out in public do not react kindly to being ordered around in public by those who don’t have the legal/situational status to do so. And ordering someone around or correcting others is often regarded as a provocation.”</p>
<p>This is very true. </p>
<p>While I wouldn’t have cursed or anything like that (but I’m a girl), I would have been annoyed if someone had butted-into what I consider to be a family-matter. Again, I think adults need to be very careful about “correcting” other adults unless they’re doing something dangerous. </p>
<p>We’ve had threads where MOMs have been annoyed when other moms have “corrected” their parenting or similar. I know that I try to limit that to dangerous situations (like when I saw a 2 year old walking on sandy beach with a SHARP knife!)…or the time I reprimanded a man for leaving his dog in a hot car with windows nearly completely up. When adults are just doing something that is just “annoying”, we need to keep it to ourselves because we’re likely annoying someone else with whatever we’re doing. </p>
<p>“I wouldn’t be surprised if the defense tries to offer up some kind of “dementia” as mitigating circumstance”</p>
<p>I am fully expecting the defense to claim some kind of organic deficiency to mitigate this.</p>
<p>“Out of curiosity, how would they go about doing that if they’re going with a not guilty pleading without adding the insanity/diminished mental capacity part?”</p>
<p>They can easily do this once they find an expert to examine Reeves and come to the conclusion that he has some kind of deficiency. Defense attys don’t have to show all their cards now.</p>
<p>Echoing what a few posters responded on about commanding others in public areas. </p>
<p>“Okay Cobrat, they can try to spin killing time on the phone with a toddler before the movie starts into dealing with an urgent family matter. Good luck.”</p>
<p>They don’t need to prove that the claim was TRUE. The point is that the shooter was told that the texting was important, and yet still didn’t respect that.</p>
<p>If I tell you that I need to make a phone call because my mom just died, you’re supposed to act as if that were true since you wouldn’t have a reason not to believe me. The shooter had NO REASON not to believe that the text wasn’t urgent. The shooter arrogantly dismissed the “given reason” …which is crazy since he didn’t know Oulson.</p>
<p>Did any of that happen? Did the subject matter ever even come up? My understanding was that he was annoyed by texting. I never read that he was dismissive of the purpose of an urgent call to a 3-year old.</p>
<p>I agree it doesn’t matter but for some reason people keep bringing it up. </p>
<p>Some reports have said that when Reeves first commented that Oulson either responded with a remark that he’s texting the babysitter about a sick child or responded with that after ignoring him at first.</p>
<p>Exactly, flossy. Lots of conjecture and speculation. </p>
<p>If a phonecall is important but one is not supposed to be on the phone, then one should leave and make the call where it is permitted. Courtesy goes both ways, IMO. Doctors are on call and subject to emergencies. They typically keep their phone on silent and it vibrates. If they have to take the call, they step outside. Ya know, if their daughter was all that sick, they should have stayed home with her, not left her with a sitter, had mom call in sick to work, and go off to catch a flick.</p>
<p>*t</p>
<p>“If a phone call is important but one is not supposed to be on the phone, then one should leave and make the call where it is permitted.”</p>
<p>Yes this is proper etiquette. What I’m missing is why the penalty for violation of that etiquette is death … especially death at the hands of a civilian, with a handgun that was prohibited in the theater, in close proximity to family members. </p>
<p>No one is saying that violation of etiquette should be death. Thats ridiculous. No one is saying that Oulson should have been shot. But if he had stepped outside, he would still be here.</p>
<p>If Reeves didn’t have a gun, Oulsen would still be here. </p>
<p>EDIT: Just further proves that both of these guys didn’t do much to diffuse the situation.</p>
<p>WHo knows, maybe Reeves would have mowed him over with his car after the movie was over.</p>
<p>That said, I hate guns, so wish he didnt have one.at.all (and he no longer will).</p>
<p>ANd if the Oulsons had stayed home with their sick child, this wouldnt have happened either. Maybe to someone else, but not to them.</p>
<p>I can’t imagine calling in sick to work for a sick child and then, rather than going home to care for her, going to a movie with the hubs. I wonder if that was really the case or if the victim just said that to get Reeves off his back. If he was truly that concerned about his child, I just can’t imagine him being okay with taking in a movie instead of getting her to a doctor or at least going home to be with her.</p>
<p>I’m thinking a lot of these details are probably not exactly what happened. I don’t really know that they are relevant anyway. Whether or not Oulson was texting a baby sitter because he was worried about his daughter or he was making some other kind of text was not Reeves’ business anyway.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, there were reports of him making that remark laced with profanity. It was even cited somewhere earlier in this thread. </p>
<p>I find it interesting that some are also downplaying or even ignoring the shooter’s exhibited behavior in the Dixon incident just a few weeks before. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>One issue is that this was taking place during the previews, not the main feature. Thus, Chad texting would not necessarily have been considered wrong universally. It certainly wouldn’t have been considered as such if he did it in the theaters I’ve patronized in the urban NE as the rule against cell phone use only started applying at the end of the previews right before the start of the main feature. There, the shooter wouldn’t have had the “breaking rules” grounds for correcting others on cell phone use. </p>
<p>Second, while Chad was wrong to use the cell phone in that particular theater, his wrongdoing was a misdemeanor and more importantly, wasn’t worth a potential confrontation by getting oneself involved…as was proven when the shooter did so. </p>
<p>It’s also very ill-advised from a personal safety standpoint according to public safety presentation by local cops…and that seems to have borne out in this very incident. </p>
<p>More importantly, there’s absolutely no justification for this hypocrite shooter to lecture others and then to kill Chad Oulson and injure his wife when he himself broke two laws of a far greater magnitude…bringing a firearm into a business which served alcohol and doing so with a business with a clear no weapons sign posted. </p>
<p>And no, retired cops aren’t exempted from those rules…</p>
<p>The stories do seem to change a bit with each iteration. I first heard that the wife had called in sick (herself) and then took a play day. I then heard that USAA allows a day off during the week (so now she ostensibly was taking PTO rather than a bogus sick day). Then read somewhere that the dau (3 yrs old, I think?) had a 103 degree fever. They should have rented a movie and stayed home. Even if their dau slept the entire time.</p>
<p>I didn’t read the report or even watch the video, because I felt the details were irrelevant. I’m sure the lawyers will make enough of them that we’ll be reading and hearing about them ad nauseum. </p>
<p>As to whether or not Reese will ever get his hands on a gun again, I don’t think that is 100% controllable, which is why I think he needs to be locked up to bring the chances down as low as possible. He gets loose, gets recognized, someone might do more than throw a cell phone and pop corn at him. Heck, he probably would have grounds for needing to carry a firearm for protection then. Any one really believe that if Reeves is loose, that as an ex cop, ex military, he wouldn’t be able to find a gun? As pointed out, he likely was not supposed to be carrying one in a theater anyways, and someone who used it with such provocation ash he did is just not stable enough or trust worthy. He’s really a danger to his family after what he did, not only because of his lack of control which he proved, but also in the potential of attracting some other nut cases. Really, the best thing for him to do, the honorable thing, is to put himself away. That’s what I’d tell anyone I might know and care about if something so unthinkable should have happened and that person did this. </p>
<p>I agree that Reeves is clearly a menace to society, no matter what the reason is (whether some kind of diminished capacity or just mean). </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>He wasn’t supposed to be carrying in that theater. </p>
<p>I linked to some laws from the Cornell Law school website earlier in this thread which definitively stated that retired cops weren’t exempted from regulations prohibiting carrying of firearms in government agency buildings and private businesses unlike their actively serving counterparts. </p>
<p>And I later found there were actually two policies violated when he carried the gun into the theater</p>
<ol>
<li><p>He’s not exempt from private businesses banning bringing firearms on premises. </p></li>
<li><p>He’s not exempt from a state law barring carrying firearms into businesses which served alcohol. And this theater does serve alcohol. </p></li>
</ol>
<p>If he pleads and ever sees the light of day, wont he be a convicted felon who by law cant own a weapon?</p>
<p>As for the rules in the theater, without getting into “degrees of wrong”, both violated theater policy, which stated " “On the theaters’ website is a list of prohibited items and actions. Among them: No cell phone use, including texting, in the theater auditorium. And no weapons allowed.” It didnt say no cellphone use during the main attraction-- it said no cellphone use in the auditorium.</p>
<p>Now while I agree that most people wouldnt mind if someone was texting during the previews, obviously some people feel more strongly about it. If I was texting during a preview and someone asked me to stop, or even groused at me, I’d stop. Or I’d step outside. He has as much right to darkness in the theater as I have to make my text to my kid.</p>
<p>*t</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I would think so as that is a felony if he’s convicted. </p>
<p>However, that assumes there are adequate checks and enforcement…which may not always be a given in practice. </p>