Posted on 07/13/2014 10:21:09 AM PDT by Albion Wilde
Bail was set at $150,000 for the release of Curtis Reeves, 71, accused of second-degree murder in the shooting death of Chad Oulson, 43
Appeals court ruled that a district judge may have made an error by failing to set bail for Reeves
Reeves shot and killed Oulson at a movie theater in January after a dispute over text messaging
The former police captain must stay home, wear an ankle monitor, surrender his guns and avoid contact with victim's widow
'We are flooded, we are devastated,' said lawyer representing Nicole Oulson after news of Reeves' impending release
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
I have no idea what you look like but you haven’t displayed any intelligence or integrity here. lol
She lost all sympathy I might have had for her by her shallow matter-of-fact response to him after he shot him.
She could have done something to calm him down or gotten up to move.
She knew that he carried that gun with him and into that theatre and that he was working himself up to use it.
That's stretching it a bit, since apparently he has carried a gun most of his adult life and never used it before. So exactly how would she know he was working himself up to do something that he'd never done before?
Some young buck tried to beat up an old man in Colorado Springs about 15 or 20 years ago alongside the highway.
Old man is enjoying retirement, as he was never charged. Young buck never will.
No matter how it turns out for the old man, the younger guy may very well not live to regret picking the fight.
As happened here, he died doing what he loved more than life itself.
Are you serious? Oh, wait...
I guess you don’t understand humor. The point is everyone would have been better off if the ex cop had shown his weapon and his ass instead of killing someone.
I’m with you. Time to take a stand on this bunch!
“Texting doesn’t bother because it doesn’t make noise.”
Not entirely true. Some morons enable the audio feature to make a click or other sound on each character entry to indicate the character was received. I’ve seen it myriad times from people who obviously are oblivious to caring if it impacts others. To hell with em!
I was responding to that quote from another poster.
I know you were.
Well they had been married for 50 years so I'm assuming that she has seen what he can do when he gets angry and in this case that thing he could do it with was right next to her with his hand wrapped around it.
Despite all these disturbing attempts at apologetics he most likely will.
“Waiting for the badge polishers to show up in force.”
Isn’t the correct term “badge lapper” or “cop sucker”?
The bottom line is that you don’t think he deserves due process. Which means that you don’t believe in due process. Which makes you the same as 0bama. I’m done talking to lawless anarchist oxygen wasters like you.
Sorry to mislead you, the book does not refute thousands of years of human experience. What it does do is focus on the break through that scientists made due to the unusual condition of one man who lost the ability to transfer short term memory to long term memory due to an illness.
What came out of that was new insight into habits and how they are not governed by the part of the brain we attribute with thinking. Instead habits are lodged in the primitive brain.
And that’s the point, habits are not subject to as much self control as most believe. Folks with bad habits are considered to have poor self control which is now known not to be the case.
You can never get rid of a habit. You can develop a new habit instead. But the old habit remains and can resurface in times of stress. The book was a constant stream of Eureka moments for me. It provided the answer to issues with human nature that I’ve been wondering about for most of my life.
For some situations it explains why smart people do stupid things.
So glad you’re done. You stay classy, hear?
The book comforted you; okay. However, I believe that the theory is an excuse that I doubt would carry much weight in front of a judge, since this ex-cop’s lethal behavior is the issue. If it did, it would work against him, since he might “snap” again at any time.
“You’re ignoring the testimony of the retired Air Force intelligence officer.”
After over 20-yrs in the Air Force, knowing all sorts of intel guys from the squadron level to HQ AF, being an ‘intel officer’ doesn’t give him that person more credibility than anyone else.
Good guys, usually, but not more credible in situations like this.
Most sane post on this entire thread.
Thank you.
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.