Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: conservative98
His lawyers successfully argued that police training informed Reeves’ decision to open fire, as he believed his life was in danger when the victim threw his cellphone at his face and appeared ready to climb over the seat and attack him.

Sounds like a civilian would have been convicted under the same circumstances. A case of police privilege, something I don't care for.

Based upon my limited knowledge of the case, I'd have voted to convict.

12 posted on 02/26/2022 6:25:29 AM PST by Angelino97
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Angelino97

I’m also at odds with some here.

So, I guess I’m satisfied that there’s precedent for me to murder an unarmed person who throws their phone at me if I can make a convincing argument that ‘he was gonna attack me with his hands’.

Oh, wait: I’m not retired LEO with all the right connections. /s

He never would have provoked Oulson if he wasn’t armed, which is EXACTLY the case a prosecutor in my state would make against any armed citizen who killed an unarmed person, and a fundamental ‘morality’ which guides all of my decisions.

Obviously Reeves lives by a different standard.

For the record, Reeves was convicted, he appealed, the ‘stand your ground law’ shifted the burden of proof to the prosecution, he got a biased jury IN THE SAME JURISDICTION and the rest is history.

Anyone who believes this was justifiable homicide is a dumbass.

Reeves is an embarrassment to the profession and one who will be judged for his actions.


21 posted on 02/26/2022 6:48:57 AM PST by logi_cal869 (-cynicus the "concern troll" a/o 10/03/2018 /!i!! &@$%&*(@ -)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson