Widow tells ‘GMA’: Put theater shooter in prison for life

The Tampa Tribune ^ | January 23, 2014 | Rick Mayer

[Justa]

We’re not the DA so we don’t have all the facts. Which leaves speculation for many issues. Borrowing your format:

Fact: Reeves knowingly entered the theater armed with a gun in violation of the establishment’s ‘No guns’ policy.

Reeves was willing to violate one theater rule in order to enforce another? Or did he just intend to kill a texter, which was ultimately a veteran and father of a 3 year old girl?

If Reeves’ Deputy son was also coming to the showing it cannot be asserted that he was armed for self-defense. That’s means he was carrying the gun into a ‘no gun’ establishment with the intent to kill. The shooting was pre-meditated. He should have been charged with 1st degree murder.

So many things are going against Reeves living much longer. In particular the widow’s lawyers. She doesn’t need lawyers for Reeves prosecution but for a civil suit against him and his estate. I won’t be be surprised in the least if Reeves is extended a professional courtesy this weekend and he’s found to have taken his own life.

[NautiNurse]

If Reeves’ Deputy son was also coming to the showing it cannot be asserted that he was armed for self-defense. That’s means he was carrying the gun into a ‘no gun’ establishment with the intent to kill. The shooting was pre-meditated. He should have been charged with 1st degree murder.

I would be willing to entertain your speculation about free LEO movie tickets before jumping the shark into premeditated murder because the shooter's LEO son was going to join his parents at the theater.

You have a remarkably colorful and detailed imagination! Have you considered writing novels? Are you already published in the fiction department? Do tell!

[Justa]

"...before jumping the shark into premeditated murder..."

You do realize that barring a full confession most proesecutions are based upon speculation and assertion?

Taking the gun into a theater against the theater's policy as an indication of pre-meditated intent is exactly what a good DA would go after to charge 1st degree murder. Maybe this one didn't want to take the chance and went with 2nd degree charge. It's rather common.

Oh, and btw, the criminal justice system is based upon prosecuting perpetrators of crime, not excusing them or blaming the victim based upon ones own personal experience. A reasonably conscionable person would recuse them self from debate in such a case.

[DCBryan1]

JustaBieber (as he/she should be called) definitely has an imagination and a penchant for projecting the absurd.

Just look at the melodrama in his/her exchange with me. LOL! Pathetic and insipid doesn't even come close. Thanks for the entertaining thread! Freegards!

[a fool in paradise]

Early articles said she was restraining him.

Frsnkly I don’t care about this story. But a lot of jerks love their damned cellphones. That’s the thing I’ve learned from these threads.

Damned electonic pacifer. Smoke some pot and enjoy the frickin’ movie already.

[dmz]

If you feel this is one of the least significant details of the entire story, why do you also feel the need to persistently dispute the discrepancy?

<><><>

In a nutshell:

There is a subset of freeperdom that absolutely pounces on any discrepancies in reporting, and uses those discrepancies to turn the entire situation into a major conspiracy, involving the government and the MSM. You pointed out such a discrepancy (22 months old or 3 years). Added to that was your concern about mom skipping work to be with her hubbie and did she know her child was ill. Which is also apropo of nothing. But exactly the kind of thing conspiracy types love and run with.

Go back and look at Newtown and the Boston Marathon bombing threads here on FR. You should very quickly see what I mean.

If I mistook you as one of them, my apologies.

[dmz]

Damned electonic pacifer. Smoke some pot and enjoy the frickin’ movie already.

<><><><

LOL.

I’m sure he would have enjoyed watching the movie but never got the chance, as Reeves shot and killed him during the previews.

[NautiNurse]

Go back and look at Newtown and the Boston Marathon bombing threads here on FR.

I have no desire to read those old threads. I am not a conspiracy theorist. I am interested in facts and how they may affect the outcome of the trial (ie: who are believable witnesses). I don't see either side of this tragedy as a saint or a martyr. I see one as a grumpy senior citizen, and one as a self-absorbed texterrific media addict.

I will accept your offer of apology for conspiring to believe I am a conspiracy nut.

[Vaquero]

wow....dude.

the guy should have got up and moved...

you really can’t defend this troll for killing an albeit inconsiderate bastard....this is not a reason to kill anyone. the knockout game is a reason...not this. the cop/perp should FRY.

[alexander_busek]

OK Second attempt to make a point you seem to want to miss... I have children, 4 of them. The never talked that way. It sounds made up. It does not sound like ‘normal’ babytalk. Doesn’t it to you? Did any of your child ever refer to themselves in the third-person? or say “Me happy too” That’s more like tarzan and jane english. My point is about the mother- not the children - it sounds like the mother is making it up, to me.

Now I understand what you're driving at! You're saying that, because the mother employed stereotypical (instead of actual) babytalk, she is less credible.

No, I think that many people might unconsciously lapse into "Stage Babytalk" when quoting what a 22-month-old child might have said. It could very well be too labored and unintelligible if she were to have accurately quoted the infant. So I'm guessing that the mother "cleaned it up" for public consumption.

Regards,

[FBD]

Eyewitness accounts ( video below)don’t put Mr Reeves actions in a very good light.
Particularly the Air Force col.who was closest to him, who said Reeves made a statement about “ throw popcorn at me”, after shooting Oulson . Now, I’m not going to say that Mr. Oulson wasn’t a jerk too, but after watching the theater video, it’s clear to me that Reeves had the gun in hand, and shot Oulson in a split second after the popcorn was thrown. He had just returned from the lobby and exchanged words with Oulson. Keep in mind, he shot two people in that theater and ruined everyone’s day, and two people’s lives... over thrown popcorn. He clearly wasn’t in fear for his life.
bond hearing, witness testimony video here: (AF Col. Is first up)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5iw1xtJx58&feature=youtube_gdata_player

[null and void]

One wonders if someone pulled a gun on you and all you had was a bucket of popcorn would throw it at them to distract while you ducked and/or grabbed?

[null and void]

[FBD]

The popcorn was thrown first. That seems uncontested.
Here’s the shooting video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G27d9hCjsUE&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Have you all heard the sheriff deputy’s testimony? He said he heard Reeves tell his wife afterwards: “You shut your fu#king mouth.” He also said: “what have I done? “ -You can hear that testimony at the 58 minute mark to 1:01 in my previously posted YouTube link (just above)

[a fool in paradise]

He ruined more than 2 lives. The dead guy. Dead guy’s wife. The dead guy’s daughter. His own life. His wife’s life. His son’s life (who was also at the screening) etc.

And the guy who got shot was a jerk. Doesn’t mean stupid = death but he didn’t “Do the right thing” as Spike Lee once said.

Butthead meets butthead.

And a thousand cantina shootings go uninvestigated.

The “videotape” of him “going to his car to get his gun” never did materialize.

[FBD]

It really does pay to be polite and civil. But the absence of civility can cost everything. We see the results everyday.

[a fool in paradise]

At Altamont, the Hells Angels were not kind to the crowd or the bands (they even assaulted Jefferson Airshipplanestar).

There were several deaths at that show (produced by the same f_ck up who produced a failed Miami concert and then suckered the “partners” in the Woodstock venture and he even produced the lousy 1999 repeat riot arson fest, things that happened in 69 but are forgotten today).

Anyhoo, the Hell's Angels famously knifed a man on camera but in the still frames you can see "the victim" holding a long barreled pistol. He hadn't shot anyone but they were the hired “security”. Ultimately none of them went to prison for the death (I don't think any charges were taken to court).

[dmz]

Really, this is your prime takeaway from this case?

To focus on the completely unimportant aspects? Like what the wife does after she and her husband have both been shot by a guy in a theatre over texting during previews?

That’s just weird.

[dmz]

Are you under the impression that your post #1 is an example of reasoning and thinking? I beg to differ.

The wife is an innocent bystander in this case. There is nothing currently in evidence that we have seen that indicates she was involved. Why focus on her actions after the fact? They have no bearing on the case at all.

You have created, but only in your own head, what is going on in both the husband’s head and the wife’s head without any evidence whatsoever. You know exactly nothing about them. And it seems on the basis on your invention, you have now found the victims both guilty of something and deserving of what they got.

I will likewise suggest that you get out to your local community college and take a course in logic. It may help you learn to separate useful details from that which has no bearing on the facts of the case.

[Ditter]

Nothing the wife does now has now bearing on what the ex cop did in the theater.

Tex ting before the movie starts, making wise ass remarks (if he did) or throwing popcorn gave the ex cop a right or a reason to kill the man.

I hope he rots in a filthy jail cell until he dies for what he took from this woman and child!