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 ...
Even in those that aren't, the duty to retreat applied only as long as it can be done in safety.
Nice in theory, but in practice, you'll get tangled up with the Money & Time-Sucking Kraken that is the Great Big Giant Large Crimnel Jesters Machine. Retreat to safety, I say.
I said, “it might be a good personal policy”. Responsible armed citizens should retreat if possible, if for no other reason than avoiding the mess you will get into if you shoot someone. But I was specifically addressing a claim that it was required.
I'm re-reading the thread tonight. One thing that has stood out to me is that cops/ex-cops seem to be defending their cop training, which stresses shooting the instant you believe there is deadly force. That is why they are straining at a gnat to try to characterize the popcorn as a deadly weapon, which doesn't say much for their powers of perception.
But having served as a consultant to a metropolitan policing organization, I have concluded that retiring cops need re-training on how to be a private citizen. Don't laugh; I know of corporations in other fields that give their retirees training to help them adjust to life outside of work. It strikes me that police and military could benefit by some conflict resolution and other types of civilian-life instruction as they separate from active duty.
I'll continue to maintain that it's required, because I wouldn't want to give some poor starry-eyed sucker the idea that in his particular case, this one time, that things will go swimmingly for him.
Remember, you're dealing with the Jesters System, and most of them don't like peasants exercising their Natural Rights. Ask young George Zimmerman.
I don't know what you are talking about.
"I'll continue to maintain that it's required, because I wouldn't want to give some poor starry-eyed sucker the idea that in his particular case, this one time, that things will go swimmingly for him."
You'll lie because it's good for people?
You'll lie because it's good for people?
It's not a lie if it's the truth. The Jesters System is run by sociopaths, for the most part. The law is in their mouth, as it was in the mouth of King John before Runnymede.George Zimmerman found that out, to his lasting sorrow.
Surely you've been here long enough to realize that particular fact.
Probably re-training is a good idea. So is marriage counseling. Some officers really expect instant obedience when they speak, at least when they give a “command”. That just doesn’t work in the give and take that is ordinary life.
If you are going to interact with the public, and you are carrying, it is wiser to go with the flow until in the very very rare case that you cannot. If you use your weapon it better be in defense of family, or a friend with whom you have a very strong relationship, or your own life. An employer, employee relationship is also strong legally. But a concealed carrier better think twice before intervening between strangers in a situation he or she may not understand.
A story told to me at my concealed carry class is this: A man was beside the road changing his tire. A woman, who was a known crack addict came up behind him while he was kneeling in front of the tire. She stabbed him twice in the back. The man turned around and started defending himself with the tire iron, beating the woman who stabbed him. A concealed carry permit holder driving by saw a man beating a woman with a tire iron. He jumped out of his car and shot the man dead. Then went to prison for manslaughter.
So don’t jump into things you don’t understand. Don’t get involved unless you have a relationship with a victim. Don’t start unnecessary conflict with anyone. De-escalate any situation and/or walk away. Don’t get into fist fights, don’t yell. Walk away. Until you cannot.
This cop was itching for a fight. He escalated a situation involving a stranger until it got physical. Then he shot the man. Only an idiot could defend this. Idiots and ex cops. If the man doing the shooting had been a young black man with a gold grill, everyone of these guys would be demanding they string up the “feral human”. Sad.
I was talking about "confrontations"
You started talking about a "legal obligation to retreat from a deadly threat".
We're not talking about the same thing. Not all confrontations are deadly threats. Sometimes, a confrontation is just a confrontation.
Let someone else have it, on both counts.
“I’m trying to imagine being in a movie theater and having a argument with another theater patron....Then shooting him to death in front of everyone, claiming self defense because he tossed some popcorn on me.”
-You wouldn’t, because you’re someone with an actual conscience. It’s quite possible that a number of people here who are defending this shooting, are sociopathic, and are lacking any conscience or empathy for human life.
At first, I thought you were talking about Monica Lewinsky, and I didn’t understand what you meant by that! :-)
From your link:
“Depending on who you ask, Lewinski pioneered or invented the study of police psychology, after he earned a doctorate from online classes at Union Institute. He founded a research center called the Force Science Institute at the University of Minnesota at Mankato, where he also taught classes. When asked in the past about what he charges as an expert witness, Lewinski would only say his payments include $475 an hour fee that goes to his institute.
Among Lewinski’s 75 cases in the U.S., Canada, and Great Britain, he used the shoot-first doctrine to successfully defend a Los Angeles Police Department officer who shot and killed a man at a Halloween party who pulled out a toy gun.
Two sources in the SFGate article call Lewinski a fraud. Oakland attorney Michael Haddad, the president of the National Police Accountability Project, says: “He’s an opportunist who will say whatever is expedient to get the cop off, so why in the world would any reputable district attorney’s office rely on someone like him?”
Pasadena attorney John C. Burton says Lewinski is “an uncredentialed police expert who will say whatever they need to justify the situation.”
-Well. He sounds *perfect* for the Reeves defense dream team, who have already tried ever dirty trick under the sun, from questioning the integrity of the eye witnesses at the bond hearing, to claiming Reeves was possibly struck by Oulson’s cell phone, even though there was no physical evidence to that claim.
I wouldn’t be surprised if they get Reeves off. Police are rarely held accountable for their actions. I’m not aware of the percentage of retired cops who are excused of crimes, but based on the number of people who are defending him here, I suspect he may find a sympathetic jury. He was an old man, “feared for his life”, etc, etc. The judicial system is rigged for those government employees who have made their living off of it.
Is Reeves defense team paid by police union funds?
“I’m re-reading the thread tonight. One thing that has stood out to me is that cops/ex-cops seem to be defending their cop training, whichever stresses shooting the instant you believe there is deadly force. That is why they are straining at a gnat to try to characterize the popcorn as a deadly weapon, which doesn’t say much for their powers of perception.”
I think what we’re witnessing, AW, is Sociopathy. These people don’t need “retraining”. They need a *conscience*. That’s something Sociopaths don’t have, and something a retraining program can’t give them. I suspect Reeves, is a closet Sociopath. And so are many of his supporters. They are not troubled by killing people over the most trifling of offenses, (such as annoying texting) and see no reason for remorse or empathy for the injured widow either. Mrs. Oulson was just collateral damage. You can’t teach empathy to Sociopaths.
Here’s another article on this hack:
http://www.citypages.com/2010-04-28/news/bill-lewinski-defends-cops-accused-of-excessive-force/
His work is found in the Andy Lopez report and the DA’s magic bullet theory.
Well, thank goodness those helpful liberals took prayer, the Bible and religion classes out of public schools so many years ago. They might have harmed the children...
Here we are, two or three generations later, with "moral relativism" the unwritten law of the land, and now look.
Bingo and I agree to everything you said. Even the marriage counseling part. There have been a number of news stories lately of cops shooting their families and then themselves.
I still can’t believe they cut the shooter loose on bail...
Make ya wonder how is is going to turn out.
What you said was:
"I'll continue to maintain that it's required, because I wouldn't want to give some poor starry-eyed sucker the idea that in his particular case, this one time, that things will go swimmingly for him."
"I'll continue to maintain that it's required", even though it isn't in most states, because it's better for people. If that's what you meant then own up to it, don't say it's not a lie.
Good, that should be helpful.
"I was talking about "confrontations". You started talking about a "legal obligation to retreat from a deadly threat".
No. In the my original reply, in which I quoted you, you said that retreating was required. Not a just a good idea, required.
I explained that this was not actually true in most states, and then you acted like it was a different subject.
Wow, what a snake oil salesman. From the article:
“The article was a big hit in the law enforcement community, and kicked Lewinski’s career into high gear. He was soon being hired as an expert witness in high-profile cases across the country. Lewinski now charges $475 an hour for his work as an expert witness. By his own estimate, he bills upward of $100,000 a year in expert testimony fees alone.
Lewinski took an odd path into law enforcement studies. He never wore a uniform himself—he began his career as a teacher and therapist working with mentally disabled children in Ontario, and only shifted into his current focus during his graduate work. His doctorate degree in police psychology is the first such degree in the country. Police psychology isn’t a field recognized by the American Psychological Association, and although Lewinski calls himself a psychologist, he isn’t licensed to practice as one. Union Institute and University, which gave Lewinski his Ph.D., is mostly a distance learning institution, and Lewinski didn’t attend any classes on campus during his three-year program. Union Institute doesn’t even have an accredited psychology program.”
I just posted the "Duty To Retreat law" information as a complement to your "Stand Your Ground" postings.
I'm not interested in getting dragged into the "Stand Your Ground" swamp. George Zimmerman is in the poorhouse in a strong Stand Your Ground state because he was like Flounder in Animal House.
I know that my state is a Duty To Retreat state. Those states are only 40% of the total, as you indicated above, but as I said, Zimmerman found out to his chagrin that even though he couldn't retreat through the sidewalk, that fact still didn't protect him from a malicious prosecution.
And remember, I was talking about confrontations, of which your "retreat from a deadly threat" scenario is a very small subset.
So what? What does that have to do with whether retreat is required? Zimmerman wasn't prosecuted because he failed to retreat.
"And remember, I was talking about confrontations, of which your "retreat from a deadly threat" scenario is a very small subset."
No, you brought up the duty to retreat. You said it was required. I simply pointed out that it wasn't in most states. I don't know why you've confused that with all this other commentary. It could have been left at that.
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.