<p>Yes, I get that. But it’s extremely rare that a healthy thirty year old claims “diminished capacity.” So the fact we’re discussing the issue at all with regards to this shooting is tacit acknowledgment that the aging process (alone) can contribute to the condition. </p>
<p>Diminished capacity can be due to mental health or medical issues that may interfere with a person’s ability to comprehend the nature of their act. Remember the supposed “twinkie” defense? What it really was was the claim that the murderer of mayor Moscone and Harvey Milk was suffering diminished capacity because of his depression and subsequent junk food consumption. Its certainly likley that more older adults might be subject to other forms of diminished capacity, but 100% was an overstatment, because their abilities change compared to young adults, but may or may not compared to their peers. Thats all I was trying to say.</p>
<p>It’s not just “diminished capacity” that is at issue here. THis has not come up that we have heard at this point, but what if Reeves wife has privately said to the doctors that he has become more angry, agitated, and say thrown things, had some issues that way that have escalated recently? Like we did about my MIL a few years ago when we still did not suspect that she was losing mental capabilities. At that time, she seemed to remember things just fine. Didn’t fit the senility descriptions at all. She was always a bit loopy and eccentric and truly, neither DH nor I noticed anything off about her, other than she was losing her hearing,and getting a meanness to her, saying nasty things to and about people and being angry a lot. She was also in pain and on pain and other medications, going through medical procedures and physical therapy that she was so upset about, been uprooted out of her home and basically lost control of her life, so we just figured that her disposition had just changed because of all of those things. The medical personnel that brought up any mental issues, and, yes, some did, we assured them that she was always that way. Really no change at all.</p>
<p>But then she clawed someone and drew blood. Then she threw some things at people and at my kids, and again we blamed frustration and other things. My first sign that she was off was when she dressed herself with clothes inside out and when i suggested changing, she blew up in a way that made no sense. I then noticed her plucking at her clothes at times, buttoning and unbuttoning things, talking to herself as she always did, but something not right, and plucking at her sleeve, and just…something not right. When i tried to tie her shoe laces one day, she grabbed my hair and didn’t let go, and there was no reason for it. </p>
<p>The doctor at the Rehab place where she was having PT gave her short neuro test, and that was the first blow in that she failed it miserably. My husband was still in denial, as some things she never could have answered and some things a lot of people wouldn’t be able to answer, but she could not draw a clock with some numbers on it. Couldn’t even begin and then couldn’t take over when someone started to help. Yet, she could look at my kitchen clock and tell the time.</p>
<p>Bear in mind that at this time, my DH would have fought tooth and nail from having her declared “off” and would have sworn she was no worse than ever. But by then, I was having my doubts, and if she had done some violent thing or other, and as a strong woman, she could do harm if so inclined, say grabbed a fragile person at the nursing home over some inane dispute and say hit her over the head with something and killed her, I would stand right up and swear that she was going down hill that way. Whether tests would show this, I don’t know.</p>
<p>If Reeves should be going through something like this, if there are signs and if the family could/would wake up and recount them, this could be a factor. . </p>
<p>For MIL, she went through a violent period where she had outbursts, temper tanturms, struck out, and then she calmed down. I swear she had a mini stroke, but it never showed up,but then she became docile as she is now most of the time, and there aren’t the issues of her causing violence for the last few years, plus she is incapacitated enough so that we feel, I feel, she is not a threat. But had she gone a bit further down that path, she’d be in a home today. The thing is, if it weren’t for her joints all being replaced, she would have been as ambulatory as Reeves, and could have had a dangerous outbursts, though it was simply not in our minds or in the picture we had of her. </p>
<p>What you describe is a very common, normal response in families to make sense out of changes in behavior. Its often a gradual decline in a variety of areas, but then some significant event occurs (the clawing, or the dressing dyspraxia) that lead the family to say “ok its time to get this evaluated”. Then when the tests are administered, since they (the tests) are quite sensitive to even subtle changes, and measure a variety of areas of function in addition to memory (judgment, reasoning, problem-solving, expressive and receptive language skills, visuospatial skills, evidence of confabulation or perseveration, etc etc) in addition to mood issues and the variety of verbal and non verbal short and long term memory. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It wouldn’t show up, because by definition, a “mini stroke,” aka TIA (transient ischemic attack) is a temporary blockage of a cerebral blood vessel. It leaves no deficits, and afterwards, is undetectable on scans.</p>
<p>A lot of this is OT, but as you can see, I, who have no sympathy for gun toting citizens and feel that Reeves should be locked up for life, I also can see some reasons why this might have happened. THough I acknowledge it could be a simple case of blowing up and losing it. Doesn’t matter, really, in that I think he should be put away for life, but you can see defense possibilities and jurors who might see reason in this senseless slaughter of another person over something so trivial. There will be the yahoos that think “Dirty Harry” Reeves just made some jerk’s day, and did something they always wished they could do, and then those who with certain medical testimony, behavioural changes, might see loved ones who went or are going that way with explosive angers out of character. </p>
<p>The DA’s office will have all of these factors to keep in mind as they move towards a jury trial. If Reeves gets off, the prosecuting attorney will have to pack his bags and find another job so he had better step gingerly. And he well knows this. </p>
<p>There is no chance he is going to “get off”. If, by some chance, they find he has,say, a brain tumor or frontotemporal dementia or what have you, these will probably reduce the sentence to manslaughter. A lot of what he said in those taped inteviews poked holes in his “defense” , and the longest shot they had that could be of any assistanvce is that law in FL about assaulting a senior citizen. But haven’t heard that mentioned since the first days after the incident.</p>
<p>To clear up a legal point about capacity, since this isn’t a capital case - no death penalty - the issue isn’t going to matter. You have to claim an “insanity” defense and, bluntly, the evidence is obvious that he doesn’t fit the FL standard for insanity: he clearly knew what he was doing and that his action of firing a pistol would result in a person being hurt or killed. Whether he has aging issues doesn’t matter for guilt … unless his defense dramatically shifts gears and toward an even more far-fetched strategy.</p>
<p>If you think as a non-lawyer about judicial rules, you confuse yourself. It’s fun, I know, but the rules are what they are. </p>
<p>FL has a points system for sentencing. I don’t remember much about it except that (I think) murder involves a mandatory ton of points. So does use of a firearm. My guess is he’d hit the max for points even though he doesn’t have prior offender, violating existing orders, etc. points.</p>
<p>“To clear up a legal point about capacity, since this isn’t a capital case - no death penalty - the issue isn’t going to matter. You have to claim an “insanity” defense and, bluntly, the evidence is obvious that he doesn’t fit the FL standard for insanity: he clearly knew what he was doing and that his action of firing a pistol would result in a person being hurt or killed. Whether he has aging issues doesn’t matter for guilt … unless his defense dramatically shifts gears and toward an even more far-fetched strategy.”</p>
<p>??
Do you have to claim insanity? Do you have to go that far in FL? What if a person suffering from dementia hits someone? (My dear uncle slugged his healthcare person because he truly was very confused due to dementia. Would that be assault? I don’t think he’d be charge or at least convicted of that.) </p>
<p>In some states, you have to claim “insanity” as a so-called “affirmative defense”, which means you have to say you’re going to do it so the prosecution can perform sanity tests, etc. Florida presumes you’re sane and uses a fairly strict form of the rule, which limits insanity to either not knowing what you’re doing or didn’t know what the consequences of the action would be. So the shooter is not insane.</p>
<p>[Edited: to answer the question, if you are demented, like my mother, then you likely don’t know what you’re doing or the consequences of your act. If my mother lashed out, you might say she knew she was hitting but had no concept of what that would actually do. The line is never perfect but you can see how it works.]</p>
<p>My assumption is they’ll use a “heat of passion” argument, if they concede murder, which they haven’t done. That is, as of now they’re claiming “self defense”. But you can argue you acted like a hot-headed doofus to negate the intent in murder. “Heat of passion” doesn’t fit as a total excuse in this case. An example would be a kid who grabs a knife and kills her mother because she’s enraged.</p>
<p>AFAIK, the guy is charged with 2nd degree murder. Here’s the statute: “The unlawful killing of a human being, when perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual, is murder in the second degree and constitutes a felony of the first degree, punishable by imprisonment for a term of years not exceeding life or as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.” You can see how “heat of passion” can work here; it can take away the element of the “depraved mind regardless of human life”. </p>
<p>“Heat of passion” comes from the statute excusing homicide: “Homicide is excusable when committed by accident and misfortune in doing any lawful act by lawful means with usual ordinary caution, and without any unlawful intent, or by accident and misfortune in the heat of passion, upon any sudden and sufficient provocation, or upon a sudden combat, without any dangerous weapon being used and not done in a cruel or unusual manner.” Note that it says “by accident and misfortune in the heat of passion”, meaning like with the kid stabbing mom there was a wild overreaction in the context of the relationship. </p>
<p>Problem is “heat of passion” usually means bigger provocations, like a confrontation over adultery. An argument over texting in a theatre isn’t “passion”, just anger. If every act were excused, there would be no murder, just manslaughter because the standard defense is “I didn’t mean to kill him”. I honestly don’t know if there’s case law about people who get really angry fast or how the courts view that in light of the person’s decision to carry a deadly weapon. And I’m not sure if firing a gun at close range constitutes “accident and misfortune” the way a stab might or maybe taking a swing with a heavy pan; a gun is a deadly weapon by definition. [Edited: I realized I could look this up: FL case law says that pointing a gun and pulling the trigger is, well, a new case says, “Pointing a loaded gun at the victim and firing constitutes an act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life.” So it looks like “heat of passion” is a long shot.]</p>
<p>If he argues “heat of passion”, he could get to manslaughter: “The killing of a human being by the act, procurement, or culpable negligence of another, without lawful justification according to the provisions of chapter 776 and in cases in which such killing shall not be excusable homicide or murder, according to the provisions of this chapter, is manslaughter, a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084”.</p>
<p>If I were prosecutor, I’d make the case that this was a police officer who knew what guns do, who not only had the opportunity to walk away but did, who forced a confrontation in full knowledge he was carrying a deadly weapon and that this is sufficient evidence of “a depraved mind regardless of human life”. The prosecution has to prove this element.</p>
<p>I also don’t see any possible argument about competency to stand trial, meaning no issue of dementia or some form of criminal insanity. It obviously doesn’t fit. </p>
<p>BTW, if anyone has been following the other FL case, the guy who shot kids at a gas station, that case is more bluntly a claim of self-defense. He admits getting the gun out of his glove compartment and then says he fired only because he saw a shotgun pointed at him. He has very little credibility: his fiancée has testified he didn’t tell her he saw a gun (as he says he told her) and that he never called a neighbor who is in federal law enforcement. The latter statement is, I assume, meant to indicate he wasn’t running away, though in fact he was arrested from ID of the car and didn’t turn himself in. They even have a letter to her in which he insists to her there was a gun while indicating he didn’t actually tell her he saw one. That’s an admission against interest, fully admissible in court. I believe the crime investigators will also testify the dead person was sitting in the car, leaning away - meaning from the gun pointed at him - not standing outside the car. In other words, you argue what you can to get away with murder and then people confuse the issue to sell newspapers. This was never stand your ground but a claim a gun was fired in traditional self-defense. </p>
<p>“Edited: to answer the question, if you are demented, like my mother, then you likely don’t know what you’re doing or the consequences of your act. If my mother lashed out, you might say she knew she was hitting but had no concept of what that would actually do. The line is never perfect but you can see how it works.]”</p>
<p>In my uncle’s case, he thought he had been kidnapped. This sort of thing isn’t unusual. My MIL’s mom thought she was being kidnapped. Another time, my uncle thought someone was stealing his money. All of these things (while extreme) can happen when dementia is severe. </p>
<p>However, what about when dementia hasn’t yet gotten “moderate” or “severe”? could there be bouts of confusion.</p>
<p>. I can remember once being in Home Depot with my Dad, and suddenly he didn’t know where he was. But a few minutes later he was fine again. Years later, his symptoms worsened. </p>
<p>With Reeves, the actual firing of the weapon seemed to “snap him back into reality.” “oh shoot”. Well what the heck? What did you think was going to happen when you pulled the trigger? </p>
<p>I don’t think a former cop with a totally sound mind would think, “oh shoot” after firing his gun. </p>
<p>In a MIL’s case, she thought the neighbors were trying to kill her. The family moved her to a different Assisted Living facility forty miles away. Yep, the neighbors there were trying to kill her too … even though she had yet to meet any of them.</p>
<p>
Maybe he said… "oh… did I shoot?? " @-) </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, and that he had years and years of training regarding how to use guns and when to use them. And he spent hours and hours on the target range practicing the use of guns and how to control them so that accidents don’t happen.</p>
<p>We’ll see how all of this plays out. At the moment, anything about Reese’s issues are all conjectures, nothing solid here at all</p>
<p>But what if someone who is so out of it, like MIL, should get her hands on a gun, say we kept a loaded gun in our house, and she took it, stuck it in her purse, and shot someone who got mean with here in a movie theater? </p>
<p>Yes, she would at times know full well it’s wrong to shoot someone. But she is so out of it that the idea of her being put in jail, on trial, imprisoned seems absurd to me. </p>
<p>cptofthehouse - the scary thing is that, if all retired police officers are allowed to carry guns, think of the number of people out there with early-onset dementia (like your MIL) who are carrying. I’m sure dementia/Alzheimer’s risks are the same in the retired police officer population, as they are in the rest of the population. What safeguards are in place to make sure these retired officers are not a risk to the public? Who finally says to this group of individuals, “You are no longer able to carry firearms due to _______.” </p>
<p>I’m not too concerned about retired cops carrying concealed guns. If the retired cop is senile, hopefully others like family members will take any guns away from him. I’d be more concerned about retired cops or anyone else who has a gun on him/her and is drinking or is a boozer.</p>
<p>Don’t confuse law with fact. If a person is demented, they’re clearly incapable of standing trial - they fail the “competency” test for understanding the proceedings and their consequences. If a person has bouts of dementia, as people do, then it becomes how the facts fit the law. The law doesn’t change. A person can be temporarily insane, though not in the way TV shows where you do something and go “oh my God, what have I done” - that’s generally a “heat of passion” defense. </p>
<p>Let’s say a person’s occasionally deranged father takes a chainsaw that’s on display and uses it on a person. If he knew he was using it on a person, meaning he intended to cut off that arm, then he might be found incapable of standing trial but wouldn’t be excused. That would mean, depending on age and the offense, something like commitment or some other way of dealing with the situation. Note that if you’re out with your deranged father and this happens, you are liable for damages in a civil suit: you can’t take dangerous people out in public without risk. You may even be liable criminally if you exposed the public to danger. Think of it as taking an explosive with you. If it goes off, you’re liable and may be arrested for having it with you though you thought it was safe.</p>
<p>I see no evidence the shooter is deranged. He didn’t act deranged because he went out to see a theatre employee to complain. People may say “well he was quick to anger and that happens as people start to show symptoms” … true, but shift the circumstances a bit and you can see why the law is what it is: imagine the shooter was instead a 19 year old black male, a product of a broken home, mother an addict, father in prison, subjected to violent abuse both at home - where his mother’s boyfriend put out cigarettes on him - and where gang members beat him if he didn’t run drugs for them. So this person, a 19 year old black male, shoots a guy in a theatre because the rage inside him boils over when the guy texts during previews for a movie. You know what happens: the 19 year old spends the rest of his life in prison and many people argue for the death penalty. EXACT SAME CASE, but you change a few details and people get confused. </p>
<p>Or imagine the shooter was a recently returned war veteran suffering from PTSD after seeing his friends die in a burning HumVee. The guy in front of him texts during preview and the vet snaps. Prison? What if the vet is black and the victim white? Prison? What if the shooter is white and the victim black? Let’s make it more confusing: same shooter but now the victim is the 19 year old black male described above. </p>
<p>We can come up with versions where the shooter has more reason to be afraid or less. We can come up with versions where the rage seems more justified by past experience. We can come up with versions where the victim is more or less sympathetic. What if the victim is a youth pastor? A black youth pastor responding to text about a young parishioner who is missing? </p>
<p>This is the problem when people focus on the actual shooter without thinking about law. He’s just a guy. The law isn’t written to fit his exact circumstances. One of my favorite examples is the ancient “eggshell skull rule”. The name means this: imagine you are in a mild beef in a bar or outside a restaurant. Maybe it’s about nothing, like whether this guy parked too close to you. You get mad and shove the guy. He hits his head against the wall … and dies because he has an “eggshell” skull, whatever that means. If this were posted here, people would argue that, well, other people would have survived being shoved against the wall. Too bad: you are responsible for your actions and this guy died from what you did. You take your victims as you find them. (Within limits of course, as defined by the courts over the years.) Say you are playing a joke on a friend and you set up a trip wire but instead his wife comes into the room first holding her baby in her arms. She trips and the baby is killed. You didn’t mean it, did you? It was an accident. Yes it was and it’s also at least manslaughter, plus civil suits for wrongful death.</p>
<p>The state released a new video clip…it shows Reeves out in lobby, sitting back down inside theater, then the video clip skips about 15 seconds and shows commotion after shooting…clip doesn’t show actual shooting for some reason. The state seems to be trying to convict Reeves before the trial by releasing videos to public now.</p>
<p><a href=“Watch: New video released in movie theater shooting”>http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/watch-new-video-released-in-movie-theater-shooting/2165417</a></p>
<p>Oh, my goodness. </p>
<p>Well, at least we know he actually spoke to someone who worked at the theater rather than giving himself a pep talk before he shot the guy.</p>