<p>Niquii-- THAT WAS A JOKE about your computer being jammed. </p>
<p>“I’ll teach you not to throw popcorn in my face.”</p>
<p>Does anyone know for sure whether this was, or wasn’t uttered by Reeves before he shot Oulsen?</p>
<p>SOmeone did claim they heard him say “I’ll teach you to throw popcorn at me” <a href=“Theater shooting witnesses say popcorn flew and gun went off”>http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/criminal/judge-surveillance-video-showing-wesley-chapel-movie-theater-shooting/2164252</a></p>
<p>^^^^^^Didn’t he shoot almost instantaneously after the popcorn was flung? Did he really have time to say that?</p>
<p>If not diminished capacity, how does one explain why a trained professional with thirty years experience utters such a ridiculous prelude to homicide? </p>
<p>I mean they have one explanation, “Reeves knew what he was doing and at the time he felt threatened and enraged and felt that shooting Oulsen would show him what he had comin’ for him.” But…they would never say that!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Even trained professionals could have serious lapses in judgement. </p>
<p>Like an NYPD Detective Wojciech Braszczok, who was found to have lied about working undercover in a biker group and not participating in threatening an SUV driver and his family when he was actually caught in the act of attacking the vehicle on video. And that was after he already had a severe lapse in judgement by not reporting his presence in that group to his superiors for days after the incident against departmental policies. </p>
<p>^^^^Who is “they”?</p>
<p>Cobrat - I understand your point. But if one accepts your premise … “even [professionals can] have serious lapses in judgement” … it means no one is safe if there’s a weapon in the room. Frankly that doesn’t square with my experience. </p>
<p>They = Defense</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>My point is there’s no amount of screening, professionalization, or training which could provide a 100% guarantee that there won’t trained professionals who may have momentary lapses in judgement. </p>
<p>What they can do is greatly reduce the frequency of those lapses and percentages of professionals with such lapses to the lowest point possible. Thus, we’re not necessarily that far apart in our perspectives as it may appear. </p>
<p>"jym, I just think the lawyers may try to use some kind of organic brain problem or diminished capacity or early dementia as a mitigating factor. I mean, what else do they have to work with? I think if they can find a way to make it stick, they’ll certainly float that out there if it looks like the self defense thing won’t fly. "</p>
<p>Absolutely.</p>
<p>And just because we haven’t heard that as a possible defense, that doesn’t mean it won’t happen. The 3 lawyers we have as relatives often say that you don’t want to reveal what direction you’re going because you don’t want to give a “heads up” to the other side. (think Casey Anthony…everyone was stunned when the defense opened with: “the dad found Caylee drowned in the pool, he hid the body, and cooked up the kidnapping story.”) The prosecution was completely unprepared for that defense…and they wrongly thought that the jury wouldn’t buy it…yet they did.)</p>
<p>I do think that they’re going to have him meet with some mental health professionals with hopes of finding something that suggests diminished capacity, mitigating circumstances…confusion, early dementia, whatever. </p>
<p>It’s really not “out there” to think that if they have some MH professionals tell the jury that the shooter with a fine record as a young man now has organic issues as an elderly man and was confused. </p>
<p>And if the guy is on any kind of meds that are known to have some side-effects, especially if taken incorrectly, that also may be a road to hoe. Even some of these testosterone replacement therapies can seem to cause aggressiveness. </p>
<p>Repeating the response from upthread :</p>
<p>As I mentioned, I know several of the forensic neuropsychologists in the area. If this guy is going to undergo an eval, its likely one of them would be the one to see him. We wont know how he performs on the tests until he takes them (and if the results are ever disclosed).</p>
<p>My guess-- they’ll have a neurologist see him , do some preliminary labwork and a mini mental status exam (MMSE) as a starting point, and order an MRI which will likely reveal evidence of some mild atrophy (could be normal for age) and small vessel disease with some microintensities showing up on the scan (he has hypertension. This is common). The issue is, as you know, these findings may have zero correlation with their functional abilities. If something dramatic shows up on the initial workup (evidence of tumor, stroke, etc) they can go from there.</p>
<p>If his actions represent a change in his behavior, judgment or personality, then yes, he may be disinhibited and have early frontal dementia. As cptofthehouse reported, her MIL had behavioral aberrations as one of the early signs of what may be a frontotemporal dementia (just a guess)</p>
<p>Someone also mentioned they were not sure how much money he has for his defense. Agree that they will be looking for any and all possible mitigating factors. This evaluation is, however, probably a good use of their money.</p>
<p>There is no way that he could have commented about the popcorn strike since he fired his gun less than a second later. He might have said it later, but I doubt it. This is likely one of those “eyewitness” problems. </p>
<p>Agreed, dadx, unless he said it while or after he shot. He claims he said something else-- I forget. Will see if I can find it.</p>
<p>I don’t find texting annoying, say at at theater or in most situations other than when the person is supposed to be focusing attention on ME (yes, my kids,are who I am addressing), so I am puzzled that Reeves found this such a big deal. Talking on the phone when there is a movie, talking at all is distracting and an issue. We had to stop taking MIL to movies because she cannot keep quiet. Has to discuss any show right while sitting there. But texts? </p>
<p>^^^^Maybe it was more about the “rule breaking” aspect rather than any functional distraction.</p>
<p>re: more about rule breaking</p>
<p>But Reeves faced down thousands of rule-breakers in his thirty years on the job. He didn’t shoot any of them. So why now?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, that’s the twenty thousand dollar question. I’m sure he’d been annoyed in many other ways before in his life, so why shoot now? Maybe this was just the last straw in a lifetime of dealing with people he perceived as anti authority, maybe there’s something wrong with him mentally, maybe this maybe that…</p>
<p>Here’s where he claimed he said “oh shoot” after he fired: <a href=“Retired Cop in Florida Cinema Shooting Staying in Jail”>http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/retired-cop-florida-cinema-shooting-staying-jail-n24646</a> and here a witness claims Reeves said something a bit stronger , saying The off-duty corporal said that at one point, Reeves pushed back his glasses and said out loud, “Holy f**k, what have I done?” <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>Reeves belongs in jail, to think about the consequences of his behavior. He tried to claim self defense, He comes across like an angry old codger . He said somewhere that he anticipated , had he been younger, that he’d have “wrastled” the guy (oulson) but tat he was nowolder and Oulson was bigger. He claimed
<a href=“http://www.11alive.com/news/article/321194/40/Judge-No-bond-for-Curtis-Reeves-in-Florida-movie-theater-shooting”>http://www.11alive.com/news/article/321194/40/Judge-No-bond-for-Curtis-Reeves-in-Florida-movie-theater-shooting</a>. Thats pretty weak, IMO, and he acknowledges what he did was wrong.
<a href=“Curtis Reeves, accused in fatal FL movie theater shooting, denied bail”>http://fox4kc.com/2014/02/07/curtis-reeves-accused-in-fatal-florida-movie-theater-shooting-denied-bail/</a></p>
<p>Somewhere he claimed that his glasses got knocked off and he had something in his eye (maybe popcorn, salt from popcorn, whatever). If his glasses were knocked off, he still was able to see well enough to fire a fatal shot. </p>
<p>Don’t think this will go to trial. His defense is pretty weak.</p>