Texting in theater sparks fatal shooting

[jmra]

If that video shows that crazy old man initiated contact by standing up and leaning over the victim, it is not going to work out well for the crazy old BG. Maybe the story was wrong at first but how did popcorn become a cell phone? Sounds like crazy old BG is trying to make it sound as though he was in danger. I would love to read the crazy old guy is getting "special" treatment by his fellow inmates.

I think you've got your wires crossed. It was the dead guy that stood up and leaned over the shooter.

After reading it again, I think we both got our wires crossed up. The story didn't say the video showed anyone leaned over anyone. It said Vivian,(crazy nuts wife), claimed the dead guy leaned toward her nut cake husband. Then the story said the video showed a confrontation but never said the video showed any contact or leaning. Sounds like the crazy old guys wife is trying to help justify her whacked out husband being a cowardly, cold blooded killer.

Vivian roasted her crazed killer husband with this statement.

Reeves' wife told a detective she didn't see Oulson strike her husband, but he told her he had been hit in the moments after the shooting.

Vivian Reeves also told detectives that Oulson used expletives, but didn't make any threats. She cried during the interview and said she didn't know why her husband fired the single shot.

Right here she testifies that she never saw what her husband claims happened. His cop training made him realized he shot an innocent man. He made up the hitting part to cover his rear end.

My court experience is limited to episodes of Ironsides and the OJ trial, but isn't there something about a spouse can't be compelled to testify? How much of her statements are admissible? Is this a case of shut your mouth until your lawyer gets there for her as well as the husband?

[WildBill]

My court experience is limited to episodes of Ironsides and the OJ trial, but isn't there something about a spouse can't be compelled to testify? How much of her statements are admissible? Is this a case of shut your mouth until your lawyer gets there for her as well as the husband?

No body is compelling her to testify. I know she can't be forced to testify against a spouse, but this is not testimony in court. It seems like she could still invoke her 5th amendment rights. I suppose the statements made to the police in a police report could be entered into evidence. One of the LEOs or lawyers would have a more definitive answer.

A lawyer friend told me of a story where he was defending a man and the DA was going to call the man's girlfriend to testify at the trial. Since they were in the courthouse anyway, they found a judge and during the lunch break the man and he girlfriend got married!

[Jumping Frog]

My court experience is limited to episodes of Ironsides and the OJ trial, but isn't there something about a spouse can't be compelled to testify? How much of her statements are admissible? Is this a case of shut your mouth until your lawyer gets there for her as well as the husband?

No body is compelling her to testify. I know she can't be forced to testify against a spouse, but this is not testimony in court. It seems like she could still invoke her 5th amendment rights. I suppose the statements made to the police in a police report could be entered into evidence. One of the LEOs or lawyers would have a more definitive answer.

A lawyer friend told me of a story where he was defending a man and the DA was going to call the man's girlfriend to testify at the trial. Since they were in the courthouse anyway, they found a judge and during the lunch break the man and he girlfriend got married!

I believe the spousal privilege protects the husband, not the wife. In other words, a wife's testimony cannot be used against her husband even if she is willing to talk so long as he is position is what was said inside the marriage is privileged. Of course, I have about as much court experience as jmra (unless traffic court counts).

[WildBill]

Most importantly, § 504(b) (1) provides that the spouse of an accused in a criminal case has a privilege not to be called as a witness for the state. It is the spouse called to testify that must raise this privilege, not the accused spouse. But this rule does not prohibit a spouse from testifying voluntarily for the state, even over the objection of the defendant-spouse. It should also be pointed out that a spouse who testifies for a defendant-spouse is subject to cross examination by the prosecution as provided by Tex. R.Crim. Evid. 611(b).

http://www.johntfloyd.com/comments/november08/08a.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I was just thinking that divorce cases would be a lot less stressful if spouses were forbidden to testify against each other.

[Abraham]

Previously, in this thread I asked: "Does everyone KNOW the geezer was completely, positively in the wrong"

What part of this question defends a crazed shooter?

None of us was there - so everything offered is speculation, including my own...

Of course, I wouldn't defend the actions of a crazed shooter.

I would say if YOU weren't there all you have is an opinion.

[03Lightningrocks]

Previously, in this thread I asked: "Does everyone KNOW the geezer was completely, positively in the wrong"

What part of this question defends a crazed shooter?

None of us was there - so everything offered is speculation, including my own...

Of course, I wouldn't defend the actions of a crazed shooter.

I would say if YOU weren't there all you have is an opinion.

WRONG ABE! We have the full and complete story. The guy is a whacked out crazed ex power hungry cop with a bad attitude and an over all poor example of a human being. We have his own story and he admits he was wrong! The guy needs hanging!

Saying you are sorry after you start a confrontation and then kill a human being does not make it OK. Saying you wished it never happened does not make it go away. But It does equate to saying you know what you did was illegal.

Maybe I can rob a bank and then say I am feeling remorse after I get caught. Yeah... That is believable.

[Abraham]

03Lightningrocks,

Take a few deep, cleansing breaths...

Better?

I thought so.

(glad you won't be on the jury)

[03Lightningrocks]

03Lightningrocks,

Take a few deep, cleansing breaths...

Better?

I thought so.

(glad you won't be on the jury)

I imagine this story probably strikes close to home. Think about this the next time you are slow driving down the road instigating drivers behind you.

Oh... If a jury turns this nut lose, it doesn't change the fact that a tricky defense attorney pulled some kind of crap. The guy did the crime.

You have the same concern for a major drug criminal getting off through trickery? I doubt it.

[Abraham]

03Lightningrocks,

You're still upset I see.

Once again, deep, cleansing breaths until all that rage fades away...

Or, if that doesn't work, exercise until fatigued, you'll definitely feel better.

[03Lightningrocks]

03Lightningrocks,

You're still upset I see.

Once again, deep, cleansing breaths until all that rage fades away...

Or, if that doesn't work, exercise until fatigued, you'll definitely feel better.

You are instigating a fight with me. Are you gonna shoot me if I respond?

[03Lightningrocks]

And hell yeah this subject makes me mad. I have loved ones living out there that could be the victim of this kind of crazed cowardly lunatic. We can never condone this type of situation or we WILL lose our right to own weapons.


As for the chances a jury will somehow say it is OK to kill a human for texting in a theater, I think are very slim. My bet is on a plea bargain. They have this nut dead to rights. I would be seriously concerned by the precedent set if this lunatic walks without serving some serious time.

[Oldgringo]

And heck yeah this subject makes me mad. I have loved ones living out there that could be the victim of this kind of crazed cowardly lunatic. We can never condone this type of situation or we WILL lose our right to own weapons.


As for the chances a jury will somehow say it is OK to kill a human for texting in a theater, I think are very slim. My bet is on a plea bargain. They have this nut dead to rights. I would be seriously concerned by the precedent set if this lunatic walks without serving some serious time.

Is your angst driven by the shooters actions or his age?

[03Lightningrocks]

And heck yeah this subject makes me mad. I have loved ones living out there that could be the victim of this kind of crazed cowardly lunatic. We can never condone this type of situation or we WILL lose our right to own weapons.


As for the chances a jury will somehow say it is OK to kill a human for texting in a theater, I think are very slim. My bet is on a plea bargain. They have this nut dead to rights. I would be seriously concerned by the precedent set if this lunatic walks without serving some serious time.

Is your angst driven by the shooters actions or his age?

His actions. That was one dumb question my friend. It makes me question your motivations. Is your angst for the crazy nut because of his age?

Personally, if I were related to the victim, I would do everything I could to get that crazed killer out of jail.

[Oldgringo]

And heck yeah this subject makes me mad. I have loved ones living out there that could be the victim of this kind of crazed cowardly lunatic. We can never condone this type of situation or we WILL lose our right to own weapons.


As for the chances a jury will somehow say it is OK to kill a human for texting in a theater, I think are very slim. My bet is on a plea bargain. They have this nut dead to rights. I would be seriously concerned by the precedent set if this lunatic walks without serving some serious time.

Is your angst driven by the shooters actions or his age?

His actions. That was one dumb question my friend. It makes me question your motivations. Is your angst for the crazy nut because of his age?

Personally, if I were related to the victim, I would do everything I could to get that crazed killer out of jail.

Just kiddin'....

[Cedar Park Dad]

Does everyone KNOW the geezer was completely, positively in the wrong or could he sincerely have felt threatened by the younger guy - given the disparity of force i.e., the younger guy could potentially and easily beat up the old guy?

Sure, the old guy could've kept quiet and simply tolerated the rudeness of the texting guy and perhaps all would've ended peacefully. Since he didn't tolerate the rudeness, spoke up, insults exchanged and at some point the O.G. thought, uh-oh I'm about to be pounded to a pulp and I'm too old/frail to take a beating.

Perhaps, now he feels dreadful guilt for having shot texting man and would have taken the beating were it possible to re-live the experience.

None of us were there to know how it actually led up to the shooting.

All we can do is speculate after the fact.

Or look at it the other way, the old guy got loud for no reason. The person he was being loud with replied so he shot him.
You can't just say "I was in fear." That case has already occurred...you have to show evidence to support the reasonableness of this belief.
I may have missed it but it appears the shooter did not render aid or call 911, just sat down.