Posted on 03/11/2017 9:33:51 AM PST by BenLurkin
The case dates to January 2014 when Reeves, then 71, confronted a man in a suburban Tampa movie theater about texting during the previews before a showing of "Lone Survivor." The two argued, and then Reeves walked out of the theater to complain to an employee. When Reeves returned, he and the man, Chad Oulson, began arguing again.
Oulson threw a bag of popcorn at Reeves, according to a criminal complaint, and Reeves then took out his handgun and fired at Oulson, killing him.
Defense attorneys asked the judge to dismiss the murder charge under the "stand your ground" law that allows residents to use deadly force when they fear death or great bodily harm.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
Militarized retired captain of SWAT team, maybe? /laughter
Read the book I referenced earlier. It’s a window into aspects of human behavior that defy explanation at times until you understand where habits are stored.
This actually brings up a very good question, and one I've not seen in discussions of this incident.
Perhaps people with this sort of training should be assessed to see if they should be carrying around weapons of the trade when they retire.
This one is a very good example of one that should not have been.
I've had a lifelong interest in workings of the mind.
Under Common Law, which the State of Florida was under until they replaced it with code or Statuary Law in the 1970s, one had a right to self defense. Statuary or Code law omitted the self defense provision. In its place was the ,In fear of one's life provision.If someone was"in fear of their life, they could use deadly force to defend themselves.
But from a legal standpoint, if you can leave and disengage, but stay and keep engaging, there goes your self defense argument.
Another dead bully.
Too bad.
He finally met someone who’d stand up to him m
And my response to you was based upon that, which was a pretty definitive response concluding guilt, and I was questioning your logic in making that determination.
Now you are expanding to include a lot of ifs that were not present in your first post. According to another poster he was texting with the babysitter. I do not know if that is true or not. Now as you say we do not know the entire story, but knowing what is available my initial conclusion is that this ex police officer played a large role in this becoming more than it ever should have. A person lies dead for perhaps rudely texting, but that does not justify him being shot to death. Especially when I can find no evidence that presents a scenario of imminent danger to the ex police officer.
I'll bet he wishes he had just got up and relocated himself to another part of the theater. That was the appropriate response to take in the first place. Not create a confrontation because the person has made you mad.
Yes, and in fact he did leave and then came back, which is even more damning to his case. As it proved he did have that option, but was really desirous of continuing the confrontation.
“The Power of Habit”
I need more Practice!
"Stand Your Ground" is neither. SYG refers to the lack of a duty to retreat, one of the five elements of legal self-defense. It is not "self defense" itself, as the press routinely uses it. And it is not the pre-trial hearing that was conducted here. This was a "self-defense immunity" hearing.
That is self-defense law, or part of it. There's more to it than that. But the idea that one can use deadly force to prevent a deadly force attack on themselves is basic, and is the law everywhere in the US. There's nothing special about Florida, now or at any other time.
It's not a "stand your ground" law. It's self-defense law.
Technically however, he might have been. Florida law also allows the use of deadly force to prevent a "forcible felony". There is also a law that reclassifies battery against a senior citizen as a felony. So, technically, throwing popcorn at a senior, which is battery, becomes a forcible felony, and deadly force is allowed to prevent.
I'm not saying that's how it should be, or that a jury would buy it, but he does have a shot at a legal defense.
If you carry a gun to defend yourself, it’s not to defend your ego or sense of propriety. You don’t become etiquette tutor for the gobs of ill-mannered jerks out there. If some random stranger’s poor manners is enough to precipitate a conflict with you, watch your movies and practice dry-firing at home.
One punch can kill.
It happens pretty often.
http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2015/01/fl-judge-rules-fists-are-deadly-threat.html
If you say so.
She is silent now... at the time witnesses said she said to her husband that he didn’t need to shoot him and was told to shut the eff up.
She appears well trained.
I watched the surveillance video.
A couple of things I noticed.
1. The theater was mostly empty. There were numerous empty seats that the parties coud have moved to, either of them.
2. When the shooting occurred, or just before, the person who was shot had his hand about a foot from the shooters face. This seemed to happen just after the popcorn throwing.
Popcorn throwing, hand near to face and shooting all seemed to happen in 1 or 2 seconds. Very, very fast.
3. The video does not show the person shot. They are out of the frame for most of the time. Only the arm and hand show up, very briefly.
4. The stand your ground hearing depends on a significantly different standard of proof than a self defense trial.
In a self defense trial, the prosecution has to prove that it was *not* self defense beyond a reasonable doubt. It is a much higher standard of proof, and on the opposite side, from a stand your ground hearing. (which is the immunity hearing)
I think the judge made the right call, and it will properly go to trial.
[[Now Bob you said:
Another dead bully.
Too bad.
He finally met someone who’d stand up to him m]]
No sir i never said that- another poster did- I wouldn’t say anything like that
[[Now you are expanding to include a lot of ifs that were not present in your first post.]]
Like any objective person should if you want to get to the bottom of what actually happened- several people; have brought out very good points that bring into question what really went down- and that is how the process of discovery works
[[ A person lies dead for perhaps rudely texting, but that does not justify him being shot to death.]]
Noone is sayign beign shot for texting is justifiable- what we are saying is that it’s pretty clear that this was not just about texting- and it’s questionable at this point who the aggressor was-
I think you’ve mixed me up with another poster- I have been presenting questions concerning Both parties, not just one side- but the evidence coming out is raising doubt that the man with the gun was ‘definitely the aggressor’
A civil lawsuit would probably strip them of most of his SWEET pension.
This shooting was extensively covered in the local papers at the time. Interesting fact; the shooter exchanged texts with his son before the the movie also. But then becomes enraged with the victim for the same thing.
Applying rules to others that you exempt yourself from makes him guilty of impersonating a congressman.
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.