<p>Yeah, on the surface Reeves would appear to be a regular straight up guy…what is so puzzling is what happened with him…why and how could he shoot the guy?</p>
<p>[Closer</a> look at Curtis Reeves shows theater shooter’s two sides | Tampa Bay Times](<a href=“http://www.tampabay.com/news/humaninterest/closer-look-at-curtis-reeves-shows-theater-shooters-two-sides/2161618]Closer”>Closer look at Curtis Reeves shows theater shooter's two sides)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>lol, jym626 :D</p>
<p>Reeves’ attorney has hinted at a defense strategy by saying a “dark object” was thrown and that the police report didn’t say popcorn. The Sheriff says that’s nonsense. </p>
<p>I really don’t see the point of noting that the defense will put on a defense. Isn’t that taken for granted?</p>
<p>I expect this case would go to trial if there is something to be gained by the defense, meaning first if they think they can get off but also if they see a chance for a substantial reduction in time. I’m counting in there that they claim diminished capacity or some other physical ailment we haven’t yet heard about. </p>
<p>The timeline presented so far makes defense very difficult. My analysis as a lawyer is:</p>
<ul>
<li>you have a shooter who chose not to move seats when bothered by another customer, though the theatre had a number of empty seats. </li>
<li>you have a shooter who left the theatre and came back and went to the same seat rather than move.</li>
<li>the shooter was hit by popcorn (and maybe the popcorn container, though it doesn’t seem that way) and then drew his gun and fired. </li>
<li>the victim’s wife had enough time to try to protect him; she reached out to cover his chest and was shot through the hand. </li>
</ul>
<p>The first two are huge issues for any self-defense argument because he could have moved seats but instead chose to force a confrontation. The second is really bad because it literally shows he walked away … and came back for more. That behavior is really hard to overcome legally as self-defense. The second two are huge problems of basic fact for the defense: he was already hit by popcorn and there was enough time in his reaction for the victim’s wife to get between them. It’s tough to argue he was afraid of what might be thrown at him - because it already had been thrown - and even a short time period between actions is enough to say the guy could have turned and left, had time to see the victim clearly, etc. I would bet the prosecution will argue the shooter knew the victim had two hands and one had popcorn and the other a cellphone so there was no chance the victim had some other weapon in his hand. If I were prosecuting, I would make a big deal of the shooter’s police training: he would know this, unlike the average Joe who wouldn’t necessarily connect those dots.</p>
<p>*We don’t know what this guy is like “behind closed doors”. As someone said upthread, a person who was portrayed as a salt of the earth great guy was actually an arrogant, awful, mean-spirited person. *</p>
<p>I completely agree. SIL’s former H was thought to be the nicest guy…because 99% of people never saw how he was to her “behind closed doors”. He was VERY good about keeping up the “good image” most of the time. 99% of folks didn’t seriously annoy him, so they never saw his wrath. We only saw a few incidents when he was so dysregulated that he couldn’t contain himself when we were there.</p>
<p>However, if this same crime had involved “person with rap sheet as long as your arm,” this thread would have had a few posts and a few views. The reason it has multiple pages of posts and views is because a seemingly normal person has done the unthinkable. When that happens, people are naturally going to wonder why. </p>
<p>If it comes out that he has been explosive to wife/kids over minimal or perceived “sins”, then that would explain a lot. However, I think that his wife/kids wouldn’t be too forthcoming at this point. The wife doesn’t have to answer questions. The kids may be called to provide info, but if they refuse to reveal anything bad, then that won’t go anywhere.</p>
<p>Nrdsb4,
Intermittent explosive disorder is a real diagnosis! [Intermittent</a> explosive disorder Definition - Diseases and Conditions - Mayo Clinic](<a href=“http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/intermittent-explosive-disorder/basics/definition/con-20024309]Intermittent”>Intermittent explosive disorder - Symptoms and causes - Mayo Clinic)</p>
<p>Lergnom,
Nice summary. Add to that the fact that there was a posted “no weapons” sign at the theater, which he violated.</p>
<p>[Wesley</a> Chapel theater shooting suspect had concealed weapon permit](<a href=“http://tbo.com/pasco-county/wesley-chapel-theater-scene-of-shooting-death-remains-closed-today-20140114/]Wesley”>http://tbo.com/pasco-county/wesley-chapel-theater-scene-of-shooting-death-remains-closed-today-20140114/)</p>
<p>Good grief. Don’t a lot of people have “intermittent explosive disorder”? I think we used to just call it “having a bad temper.”</p>
<p>The shame is that the state of Florida, and others, won’t recognize the simple truth that it wouldn’t have mattered how angry he was if he had not had a gun. Perhaps there would have been this headline, “Movie Theater Food Fight Ends in Hilarity.”</p>
<p>^Agreed!!!</p>
<p>Wow jym! I thought you were being facetious! :o</p>
<p>I learn something new every day here.</p>
<p>Sally…</p>
<p>I think that disorder involves more than just a “bad temper” or a “quick temper”. </p>
<p>Intermittent explosive disorder involves repeated episodes of impulsive, aggressive, violent behavior or angry verbal outbursts in which you react grossly out of proportion to the situation. Road rage, domestic abuse, throwing or breaking objects, or other temper tantrums may be signs of intermittent explosive disorder.</p>
<p>The “grossly out of proportion to the situation” (irrational anger to minor or perceived “wrongs”) and violent behaviors (hit people or throw/break things) can go beyond just having a short-fuse. And, maybe the frequency is unusually high. </p>
<p>Some of these folks may seem to be “on edge” all the time. So, if someone accidentally cuts them off on the road, they erupt because they: believe it’s intentional, believe that it was directed specifically at them, believe that a “pay back” is in order. The “pay back” can be huge because the person believes the (minor) offense is huge, so a big pay back is “deserved.”</p>
<p>They won’t stop and think, “hey, it was a misjudgment, the person didn’t see me, the person doesn’t know me so it’s not personal, the person may be in a hurry and made a mistake.”</p>
<p>Even someone with “just” a hot temper, may express loud annoyance, but then move on.</p>
<p>from Lizard’s link;
“Old police evaluations mention a hot temper, forceful personality and inflexibility.”</p>
<p>personally if his behavior was noted in a police evaluation, and not simply mentioned by a neighbor or friend in a media interview, I think it would have had to have been more than an occasional issue, as most managers are reluctant to actually write negative information. I consult with managers on violence prevention in the workplace and it is difficult to get managers to document their employees inappropriate behavior, even when it has been threatening. We know that when we address the lower level aggression, like raising one’s voice, pointing a finger at someone, banging on a desk, it gives the person a an opportunity to recognize it and potentially stop. When not addressed it generally escalates. who knows what this guy was like at home behind closed doors. Look at George Zimmerman.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>One of those workplaces where I witnessed such behavior was coincidentally a NYC biglaw firm. However, no thrown objects. </p>
<p>Several years ago, an acquaintance/“bar buddy” of a few former colleagues was hit by an object thrown by a senior partner at another comparable firm in the midst of a temper tantrum over a separate matter. Firm ended up giving him a nice settlement to not sue and the partner was ordered to attend anger management classes by fellow partners.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Agreed. I do have a minor quibble, however. </p>
<p>It may be mere semantics, but IMO…someone who is “arrogant, awful, mean-spirited person” is cut from the same cloth as “an arrogant blowhard power monger”. Arrogance by its very nature is a form of power-mongering to some degree.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Except that the murderer KNEW that he victim was holding a cell phone. That excuse won’t wash.</p>
<p>I hope that the spot that Reeves finds himself in is prison for the next 20 years, at least, until he is too feeble to be a threat to anyone. </p>
<p>I see absolutely no justification for a person who has been retired from a police force for 20 years to be carrying a concealed weapon, unless he or she is working in a capacity that traditionally is considered a reason, such as the person who takes receipts to a night depository.</p>
<p>I also think that the police force attracts a certain type of authoritarian bully who gets even worse when given a gun to carry. It sounds likely that this murderer was among that number.</p>
<p>And BTW, the suggestion that in FL you can’t start a confrontation, kill the other person, and then successfully claim self-defense is simply laughable.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>mmmhmm, indeed.</p>
<p>
LOL. You’ll have to take that up with the many physicians that are involved in the development of the diagnostic and statistical manual, Sally. Mom2collegekids is correct-- it is more than just “bad temper”, just as clinically diagnosed depression is more than just the blues.</p>
<p>I know, jym. It just seems sort of ridiculous. But you are right–I am not an expert.</p>
<p>To mention, violation of a sign posted by the theatre is likely meaningless. You could be kicked out, even banned for life for a violation but I doubt you can be arrested. I doubt it fits the definition of engaging “in an unlawful activity” in the FL statute - which reads thusly: “A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.” But I may be wrong.</p>
<p>Yes, probably as meaningful as the “we are not responsible for stuff stolen out of your car on our property” type signs. But still, I’d use the argument if I were the prosecution, as his defiance of rules and taking matters into his own hands.</p>
<p>Dont know what you are quibbling about Cobrat. Those were some general examples or descriptors of potential negative character attributes. Don’t over-analyze, or attribute everything to power mongering.</p>
<p>*
And BTW, the suggestion that in FL you can’t start a confrontation, kill the other person, and then successfully claim self-defense is simply laughable.
*</p>
<p>Do you mean…you CAN start a confrontation, kill the other person…</p>
<p>That may be a concern right now in Florida if this isn’t prosecuted right. Heck, there may be a whole lot of ex’s that may think this is a convenient way to get rid of an old partner. ;)</p>