<p>“Do you guys think this will happen again?”</p>
<p>I was wondering the same thing.</p>
<p>I’m thinking that IF there is a harsh punishment, and it gets national attention, then that may deter. However, if he gets a slap on the wrist or is acquitted, then oh my…better wear a bullet-proof vest out in public.</p>
<p>I was just rereading some of Reeves quotes to the investigators and in the court room.</p>
<p>His words indicate that he had been used to relying on his younger stronger body to handle situations. If that was the case (as he indicated), then the gun became his “muscle”. </p>
<p>he’s like the pretty young thing that had always relied on her looks to get what she wanted, but then her looks fade and she’s lost that power. So now the former-pretty-young-thing resorts to other machinations to get what she wants. </p>
<p>when will there be another court date?</p>
<p>This (movie theater shootings) is a low probability occurrence (though try to tell that to Colorado). So now we will need metal detectors? </p>
<p>I go to a fair number of movie previews. We get wanded and often have to leave our cellphones in the car (or they collect them at the entrance and return them at the end-- no way am I doing that). Most of us can live without access to our phones for an hour or 2. ( no pun intended)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There’s a school of thought that one is not automatically entitled to the attention or time of other random folks out on a public street or in a public venue. It’s also a school of thought which believes individuals…especially those whose attention/time was demanded in publci reserves the right to continue or discontinue such public interactions at his/her discretion. </p>
<p>While this mentality was common when I grew up in NYC, it seems many other groups have adopted this school of thought. It’s especially common in some women’s rights groups from what I heard from friends who are involved in them. </p>
<p>Its usually good to ignore protesters in front of certain healthcare clinics is someone with an agenda tries to provoke/engage/bait them. Same for the Westboro church crowd. But thats not what we are talking about. </p>
<p>** Ditto for people handing out brochures to girlie shows in Vegas and people on their soapboxes spewing fire and brimstone damnations stuff. Again- different issue. Feel free to ignore them. </p>
<p>In NYC I do tend at times to take the fliers being handed out by the people who almost accost the pedestrians on streetcorners in the theater district. Dont see them as menacing or threatening- just doing their job. But I do avoid the girlie show ones in Vegas (though they tend not to give them to the ladies anyway). Ojhh and I forgot about the ones at the airport trying to get me to sign up for an airline credit card. I eiter smile and say no thanks or sometimes ignore them. But they are trying to grab anyone they can. Not talking about the marketing people. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I sincerely hope not. However, there are plenty of trigger happy people who will go off at the slightest perceived offense or insult…or sometimes none at all.</p>
<p>And it’s unfortunately not really a new phenomenon. There was even a song released in the early '90s by Weird Al referencing this: “Trigger Happy”. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I take or not take depending on my mood and demeanor of the ones passing out the fliers. By the same token, I respond or ignore random strangers who initiate requests with me depending their tone, demeanor, and my level of interest/mood.</p>
<p>I tend to decline/ignore if I’m in a hurry, the random stranger approaching me exhibits a rude/belligerent attitude, the one approaching is advocating/passing out fliers for causes I have issues with, and/or if I’m exceedingly bone tired. </p>
<p>“This (movie theater shootings) is a low probability occurrence (though try to tell that to Colorado). So now we will need metal detectors?”</p>
<p>Good points. But I didn’t just mean theater shootings. I meant that if Reeves gets off or gets a smallish punishment, then others may think that they can kill someone (in any circumstance) because they felt threatened. </p>
<p>25 years ago I was with H at an ATM and H was having some trouble with it (this was when ATMs were rather new). So, it was taking him longer to use it. The person in line behind us kept making rude remarks for my H to “hurry up”. My H wasn’t too happy about that, and gave some snotty comment back (bad!). anyway, it got both men heated up, and VERY PREGNANT ME played peacemaker (and from time to time, I knock H upside the head about that.)</p>
<p>So, there are all kinds of public situations where people can be rude, impatient and ridiculous…and we don’t want that to lead to violence - especially if Reeves seems to get off easy. </p>
<p>Over 1 million people in Florida have permits to carry concealed guns legally…no doubt way more people carry guns illegally without pistol-toter permits or have handguns handy in their cars glovebox. Is it really surprising more people are shot accidentally or in the heat of an argument than in self-defense situations? </p>
<p>In they very, very unlikely event that Reeves gets a light sentence or that the plea deal is light, its even more highly doubtful that some clown is going to think “Oh look! In FL I can go to a theater and shoot someone and get away with it so let me go peruse the theater listings and see what flick I’d like to catch and then go pop off someone”. Its really s non-issue.</p>
<p>If Reeves gets sent away for a long time, maybe some wives of hot-headed old guys will hide their guns.</p>
<p>I don’t think a harsh punishment for Reeves is going to affect the next Reeves. The shooter didn’t stop to think of the consequences for his actions. His reaction to the popcorn throwing was immediate. The type of person who does this kind of thing by impulse is not going to stop and think of Reeves, decide that he doesn’t want to go to jail, and as a consequence, control his temper. The only way this case necessarily stops the next one is if it results in some kind of widespread policy of controlling gun access into theaters, i.e. metal detectors. JMHO. </p>
<p>“The shooter didn’t stop to think of the consequences for his actions.”</p>
<p>I agree. The Meramec River shooter admitted as much. When asked if simple call to 911 would have served his purpose (of moving along some canoers that had stopped at the edge of his property) he said “Yeah, but I was going to defend my property.” Like Reeves, this guy had no prior history of gun violence. </p>
<p>The only thing worse than a complete fool is a complete fool with a gun.</p>
<p>Yes, it’s happened in the past, and will happen again. It happens all of the time, but most people at this time, n this country don’t happen to be carrying loaded guns, so the usual results are heated exchanges and maybe some physical tussling, or maybe a down to the ground fight. Most people don’t carry things like guns, mace, knives, or other such things. If certain movements gain ground, that may change.</p>
<p>As I said in an earlier post, hot headed reactions that end up in someone shooting a person has not been a new thing. Happened a lot in the old days too. But one would think we’d got a little more civilized. </p>
<p>But I don’t think that even if Reese gets the death penalty, (which absolutely won’t happen) it’s going to put an end to these sort of things, because people do lose control, and that’s what I think happened here. And people are in denial that it could happen to them. </p>
<p>That’s a major issue with the NRA’s stance of more people carrying guns. It means the likelihood of more innocent people getting shot. That Reeves was an ex police officer and worked at some high level security job, was ex military, should have put him in a category, where he is one the sorts that would be entrusted with a gun. Wlle, we can see what happened here. </p>
<p>I’m glad that this is rare enough of an occurrence that it is so news and discussion worthy. But rare, though it might be, a lot of innocent people, family members of those directly involved are suffering and will suffer terribly from what happened here. </p>
<p>^^
exactly.</p>
<p>“In they very, very unlikely event that Reeves gets a light sentence or that the plea deal is light, its even more highly doubtful that some clown is going to think “Oh look! In FL I can go to a theater and shoot someone and get away with it so let me go peruse the theater listings and see what flick I’d like to catch and then go pop off someone”. Its really s non-issue.”</p>
<p>True, but I was thinking more the other way around. If he gets a STIFF sentence and that makes nat’l news, then those who think he was justified (and might go that route in a rather similar situation) would be put on notice that that isn’t self-defense. We don’t want people thinking that this is “self defense.” </p>
<p>If he gets a light/no sentence, then others will think that the self-defense law is really broad. </p>
<p>In the case that I described above with my H, my H is a tall athletic guy. He was bigger than the aggressor. If that had led to a wrongly-perceived physical threat of some sort, I would hate to think that the aggressor would have been considered “right” to shoot. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Agreed. If it is found that the shooter has no dementia/diminished mental capacity and he’s convicted of second degree murder & the aggravated assault charge(shooting widow in hand), he needs to serve the required time in prison so the message sent IS that what the shooter did wasn’t self-defense and is completely unacceptable. </p>
<p>In the bail hearing, the judge stated the mandatory minimum for second degree involving a firearm is 25 years and that for aggravated assault where a firearm was used is 20 years. Wonder if they will be served concurrently or consecutively.</p>
<p>"If it is found that the shooter has no dementia/diminished mental capacity "</p>
<p>I wonder what the percent of people in the age range of 70-75 have diminished mental capacity/confusion/early dementia?</p>
<p>“I wonder what the percent of people in the age range of 70-75 have diminished mental capacity …”</p>
<p>I think “100 percent” is a pretty safe response. (Consider the converse: “What percentage of the population is mentally sharper at 70-75 than at 40-45?”) Or in simpler terms “Why do they call it ‘a Senior moment?’” The issue here is whether Reeves’ reasoning abilities had degraded to the point where shooting an unarmed man seemed appropriate to him. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I would think it’s pretty low considering there’s plenty of 70-somethings I know who still work and maintain active retirements. See plenty of such neighbors and friends who are 70 and 80 somethings. </p>
<p>To be fair, I come from a family where nearly all relatives have lived well into their 80s and 90s while remaining as sharp as they’ve ever been. Only exception has been an older great-aunt who developed alzheimers in her late '80s and who is nearing 100 now. </p>
<p>Diminished capacity is a legal term, newhope. It doesn’t refer to age-related cognitive changes. When one talks about cognitive changes, the assessment administered utilizes tests that are normed on people their same sex, age, and often more sepcifically their same sex, age and education. They aren’t comparing the performance of a 78 year old HS graduate male with a 28 year old PhD female. They use demographically adjusted norms and compare the performance to others in their age/ sex/education. IIRC, that we reach our cognitive peak in our late 20’s to early 30’s and its downhill (even if ever so slightly) from there. So you can perform slightly more poorly at an older age and still get a score equal to what you got at a younger age. So your memory or reaction time can slow somewhat, but when compared to your cohorts, it can still be just fine.</p>