Posted on 02/07/2014 7:21:32 AM PST by Uncle Chip
After watching the testimony of the retired Air Force officer some things are clearer but there’s other questions now.
The retired officer sat in the aisle seat. Reeves was polite when he returned from the attempt to speak with management. Reeves displayed no anger. That was brought out in the questioning. The retired officer and his wife entered while the previews were playing. Oulson was standing at that time. Reeves returned and sat down. Words were exchanged. The retired officer could not tell what Reeves said. He did hear Oulson state he had a message he wanted to take.
Oulson threw his bag of popcorn at Reeves. The gun shot came immediately afterwards. Reeves did recognize he had been hit with popcorn. Reeves was angry after getting hit by the popcorn. Which makes sense in his statement to his wife. He was not angry before the incident based on his demeanor observed by the retired officer when he returned.
The retired officer did not observe the gun in Reeve’s hand when he returned and did not see the gun until it was fired. He could not tell whether the gun was already out in Reeve’s lap or was drawn from after the popcorn.
I think the gun was drawn from the pocket as soon as the popcorn was thrown. Oulson was talking loudly enough that the retired officer could hear every word. Oulson never said anything about the gun.
So far I haven’t seen anything that has convinced me that Reeve’s training didn’t kick in with getting hit by the thrown popcorn. That reaction btw may have not been the result of conscious thought. OTOH it was probably a reflex defensive move, a habit, instilled by years of training.
Once you have a habit, it never goes away. You may learn a new habit. But the old one can resurface.
Wrong --
Witnesses said that he was agitated when he left and agitated when he returned .
I think the gun was drawn from the pocket as soon as the popcorn was thrown.
You think wrong --
Not even Wyatt Earp could draw that fast in his prime much less sitting in a cramped theatre seat with the gun in his pocket in less than a second. That gun was already drawn safety off in his hand and on his lap -- showing that he had full intention of shooting Oulson as he walked back from the lobby and then sat down.
Watch the video again and you will see him apparently kick Oulson's seat @ 1:26:24 then lean forward and say something to Oulson and then sit back.
No doubt he already had his gun at the ready at this point before antagonizing the guy in front of him for the next 12 seconds in hope of a response so that he could then shoot him.
12 seconds later @ 1:26:36-37 he gets all the response he needs. Oulson reaches over & takes Reeves popcorn & tosses it back at him and then instantaneously Reeves quickly leans forward pushing his arm out & firing with a gun already in his hand and on his lap, and then sits back fully satisfied with his cowardly action.
Once you have a habit, it never goes away.
So you are saying that he has done this before -- that he has a habit of doing this????
Still beatings that dead horse....I see...
If your premise is correct....there would hundreds if not thousands of people shoot by the police for simply getting in confrontation with a non uniformed LEO....
I’m not going to waste my time looking for off duty police shooting people and their defense is “it was a trained habit”...go for it....!!!
The retired air force officer saw no gun. He was questioned about Reeve’s temperament when he returned from trying to speak to the manager. That never happened by the way. Reeves was polite and didn’t show signs of anger.
The retired officer stated it was Oulson’s popcorn that was thrown. I’m sure Reeves was agitated before when he left. That wasn’t apparent when he squeezed by the retired officer when he reentered the row.
I’m not sure when Oulson decided to stand up. Per the testimony he was standing when the retired officer and his wife entered the theater.
As loudly as Oulson was talking and if Reeves had the gun out, why didn’t Reeves see it and comment on it? Throwing popcorn on someone with a gun seems like tempting fate.
the retired officer stated Oulson’s threw his popcorn. He also stated he never saw Oulson strike/touch Reeves other than throw the popcorn. Was the witness lying?
Given Reeve’s statement heard afterwards something to the effect of what have I done? Something is being missed. I highly recommend the book, The Power of Habit to you. It explains quite a few things that I’ve wondered about for a long time.
It also provides an explanation for what appears to have been an irrational reaction from Reeves. The key is that habits are not controlled by rational thought. We’ve all heard the term muscle memory. It’s has nothing to do with muscles. It’s practicing something so many times, it no longer requires conscious thought.
Nor did he see him reach back into his pocket to pull out a gun but he did see the fluid motion of the shooting indicating to him that Reeves already had the gun out.
The retired officer stated it was Oulson’s popcorn that was thrown.
It happened so fast that it appeared like that but the tape clears that matter up.
I’m not sure when Oulson decided to stand up.
It would have been after Reeves kicked the back of Oulson's seat to antagonize him and get Oulson's attention @1:26:24 but before 1:26:36 when Oulson reached over and took Reeves' popcorn and threw it back at him.
Throwing popcorn on someone with a gun seems like tempting fate.
No one saw the gun out before the shot -- not even his wife who was sitting next to him looking at him. Who expects someone to pull a gun in a theatre with signage on the front door saying No Weapons Allowed especially in an incident such as this.
Was the witness lying?
The only person lying as corroborated by the video is Reeves himself.
Something is being missed.
Yeh -- the truth from Reeves and his attorney and his supporters.
I highly recommend the book, The Power of Habit to you.
Making that recommendation in every post has become a habit for you. Perhaps it's time to engage your rational mind and break that irrational habit.
I’ve mentally flogged dead horses for decades. For most things I eventually get an answer. You never know which book, or which article will provide the answer. The incident struck me as not being as cut and dried as many think. A 71 year old retired cop shooting someone in a movie theater doesn’t happen every day.
Most folks want to hang it on an irresponsible, angry man with a gun and not examine the incident further. I’m not sure it’s as simple as that after reading the book I mentioned previously.
Reeves telling his wife to STFU afterwards seems straight forward, being angry. That came across as a reaction. His statement, What have I done? raises an interesting question. Did he not know what he was doing when he shot Oulson? Why did he blurt that out in front of witnesses?
Something went on in Reeves brain. I say brain instead of mind since I’m not sure conscious thought was involved. I think it’s important to the case.
I’m reading supposition on the part of the posters. People’s estimate of elapsed time can be faulty. That was obvious during the retired Ar Force officer’s testimony. He was a good witness and was responsive. The time question threw him.
Some can draw and fire a firearm in less than a second. We’ve yet to find out how Reeves carried the gun. Did he have a pocket holster which would have made access easier?
The other factor which most want to ignore is that Reeves’ eye sight could not have adjusted to the dark after returning from a lighted area. Reeves is obviously over the hill physically. I hope all current LEOs would be in better shape than a 71 year old man.
A set of circumstances came together that day set the stage for tragedy. I don’t believe Reeves returned to the darkened theater planning to shoot Oulson. Thinking that, IMO, is jumping to conclusions.
You are on the jury... Based on what we know now, would you convict of at least manslaughter ?
I know I would not think twice about it...
I’m more inclined to negligent homicide...
Sorry in my book if you are authorized to carry a weapon, the responsibility of being able to correctly handle thar weapon at all times leaves very little room for the a “twinke” type defense ...
IMO at this point it’s at most involuntary manslaughter.
Nothing I’ve read or seen so far proves premeditation. That’s a leap I can’t justify. After listening to Reeve’s testimony, I have doubts he knows why he did what he did. His self defense statement seems over done. Especially after his acknowledgment according to the retired Air Force office that he knew it was popcorn that hit him.
I want to see what the other witnesses say about whose popcorn got thrown, what Reeve’s said before that, what he said after that, and his reaction to the deputy taking the gun.
The State has never alleged premeditation. That is why he is charged with murder in the second degree , A/k/a as in a fit of passion. Should premeditation be alleged, the charge will have been murder in the first degree.
We don’t call jurors the “rocks in the box” for nothing. Thanks for proving it.
Thanks! You are correct that premeditation is not required.
You are welcome. “Heat of passion” is the term I should have used. It was used mostly in the case[s] of husbands catching wives and lovers in passionate acts and vise versa with wives catching husbands in passionate acts. it was also used when two or more individual were fighting and one or more was killed with a weapon.
Here is the video tape of the shooting:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G27d9hCjsUE&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Here’s what the timeline looks like from the video:
1:14:56 Reeves arrive & sit down in theatre after which he leans forward in his seat 3 separate times and says something to Oulson.
1:23:26 Reeves gets up from his seat to go to the lobby to complain to management.
1:26:20 Reeves returns from the lobby & picks up with his right hand whatever he had left in his seat which appears to be a sweater and whatever & sits down.
1:26:24 Reeves kicks the back of Oulson’s seat. There is then a flash on the tape after this which may be Reeves’ cellphone flying off his lap as he kicks the seat. His cellphone was found on the floor at his feet after the shooting.
1:26:26 Reeves then leans forward & says something to Oulson who is sitting at this time. He also reaches over at this point and grabs whatever was under the sweater and then sits back.
1:26:36-37 Oulson who is now apparently standing reaches over & takes Reeves popcorn & tosses it back at him as Mrs Reeves leans forward and looks toward her husband.
1:26:37-38 As Oulson is taking his arm back, Reeves instantaneously leans forward pushing his arm out in a fluid motion & fires & then sits back putting the gun on his knee.
I suspect that the weapon was under his sweater the whole time. He put it there when he first sat down. He set it there and wisely left it there when he went to see management. He then picked it up when got back to his seat.
And then he reached for it after he kicked Oulson’s seat. From that point he had the gun in his hand and in his lap under the sweater ready to fire.
He claims to have pulled it out of his pocket but it appears that is was under his sweater on the right side of his seat the entire time.
Watch the above mentioned video at the 58 minute mark, and listen to the sheriff deputy testimony. He said he heard Reeves tell his wife afterwards: “You shut your fu#king mouth, and don’t say another word” -That was after his wife told him, “That was no reason to shoot someone. “ -You can hear that testimony at the 58 minute mark to 1:01 in that same previously posted YouTube link (just above)
You sure do see a lot of detail for such a dark and low resolution video.
What makes this 2nd degree and not manslaughter??? Where is the evidence of a depraved mind???
To which the prosecution answered:
the nurse who overheard Reeves say: "I'll teach you to throw popcorn in my face".
That's evidence of a depraved mind and murder 2.
The judge agreed.
That proves Reeves was angry. I have no doubt of that. It’s Reeves’ statement afterwards that’s a WTF.
It helps when you actually watch the Bond hearing and listen to the eyewitnesses and watch the video and put them all together.
I’m not sure that proves Reeves’ state of mind when he drew and shot. Afterwards it proves he was angry. Did he draw because he was angry or was it a legitimate reaction in self defense? A lot happened in a very few seconds.
I still don’t believe that Reeves knew what he did when he drew the gun. I’m not convinced that was a conscious decision unlike many here.
Correct. He [Mr. Reeves] entered the theater in the frame of mind of taking someone’s life. The victim, I can’t spell his name, just met the criteria. And if he had not found a victim that day, he would have continued until he did. It may not have been that day, it might not have been next week or even next month, but he had made up his mind that he was going to take someone’s life. Judging by the way he spoke to his wife, she is very fortunate that it was not her. The Judge and prosecution read this one correctly.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.