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 ...
Oh yeah. It could have been "tactical" popcorn for all you know. /s
It’s scientific fact. Read the book referenced in the Forbes article. When a person with brain damage can’t convert short term memory to long term memory but can form new habits, what’s going on? The what’s going on is a recent discovery.
Read the Forbes article if you really want the answer to your question.
didn’t have to wait long
While you might very well be worried about what he'll do next, you don't get to shoot someone unless they actually do something to present a deadly threat. In certain circumstances I might be worried about what a lot of people might do next, but I don't get to shoot them.
Yeah. I'm sure Reeves mistook the cellphone for a muzzle flash and fired in self defense.
That still begs the question of how often do people charged with murder, even second degree murder, get out on bail? Especially such a low bail?
It wouldn't matter even if true. Reeves was the only person to initiate deadly force. Getting into a conflict, even picking a conflict, doesn't authorize the other person to shoot you. You only get to use deadly force in response to a deadly threat.
The statement I addressed was that reeves started the conflict.
I agree with your criteria, but one does not know the intent of an attacker. The safest thing is to think the physical attack may be deadly.
It is the attacker who assumes the risk. When the person grabbed the food and threw it, it is a guess as to what their intent is.
The person defending himself does not have to be accurate in his analysis of the scenario. The attacker is taking the risk of the defender and armed person not knowing how far the attacker intends to go.
You don’t know much about this case, do you???
You’re just firing at the hip just like that lunatic Reeves did.
The law requires them to be both subjectively and objectively reasonable. Not perfect, no, but objectively reasonable. It is not enough to be afraid because of what someone might conceivably do, but hasn't actually done.
The texter was engaged in a physical attack. Should the person being attacked take notes or ask, how far are you going to take this attack?
The person who happened to be 71 has the right to defender himself. The attacker guessed wrong and was killed. Too bad.
He’s an old man, who didn’t have any criminal record. Really?! He’s also a retired policeman who should have known better. In fear for his life because the man snatched popcorn out of his lap. omg.
Listen. I know those texters in theaters are irritating, but you don’t MURDER THEM.
I responded to your question but you didn’t like the answer.
Not my problem.
Reeves shot and killed a man for no reason. He deserves to spend the rest of his life in jail.
No reason. Lol
Throwing popcorn is not deadly force.
"The person who happened to be 71 has the right to defender himself."
No, you cannot use deadly force to defend against an non-deadly force attack. Sorry. If you do it you are going to find yourself charged.
If you believe you are under attack which he was, you don’t have to delay a response to see if the attacker will stop.
When your 71 being hit by fists can be life threatening.
The texter guessed wrong. Good riddance.
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.