Posted on 03/11/2017 9:33:51 AM PST by BenLurkin
.
Lead does seem like an extreme over-reaction to popcorn.
.
the objective is not this story.
The objective is to stop a pending law which would put the burden on the corrupt prosecutor offices throughout the state.
.
>> “How can you be sure?” <<
Do you have a copy of “Inane Responses Made Simple?”
.
[[We discussed this a lot 3 years ago when it happened.]]
Criminey- this happened three years ago? I wasn’t in on those conversations- so not familiar with the arguments made back then- it hasn’t been tried yet has it?
[[it was murder by a confrontation junky.]]
Well i still think that’s a big leap to make from a person being a confrontation junky to him committing murder intentionally-
I don’t know what the video showed- just going by what the defense lawyer stated really- He’ll have to show there wasn’t an escalation to the point where it could have been deemed the defendant didn’t ‘feel threatened’ - even ‘confrontation junkies’ have a right not to be assaulted- (IF an assault and escalation actually happened as claimed by the lawyer)
I’m not leaning any way on this - just trying to look at all sides- It is very likely it happened just as you described- and perhaps he was looking to shoot someone- but that is for a jury to determine based on the objective facts
“I hear you. I prefer to watch movies at home.”
==
Pretty much everything I wanna see I already own or can watch online.
But I did enjoy the “theatre experience” back in the day. Drive-ins too, where we kids would use a blanket to sit on the car roof to watch.
“As far as the ‘stand your ground’ concept goes, Reeves had the right to have the man arrested/thrown out of the movie theatre, filing assault charges if necessary. He did not have the right to kill him, unless popcorn is all that dangerous.”
He went to the theater workers. The popcorn throwing incident happened after that. Doubtful the theater employees would provide any help.
In stand-your-ground does a person have to wait until they are on the ground being beaten, like George Zimmerman, before it becomes justified?
Dynamic of this thread is interesting.
The SYG law in Florida is to me somewhat confusing. I have heard of at least one case where in a road rage situation one party angrily approached the other guys car to assault him. The other guy perceived the anger and assault and shot the first guy. Everyone walked due to SYG. This case was also a perceived anger and assault, in a dark environment with a bad outcome. I think what sunk Reeves was that the wife was also shot in the process. This Judge was not one to let it go and would rather a jury let Reeves walk rather than her.
Deadly Force continuum is specific, no justification should be no shoot. There is no wriggle room. Reeves knows that.
[[starting an argument removes all legal protections.]]
I don’t think that’s correct- people can yell and scream in most situations all they like- but when physical contact happens- the law is broken- and it usually is hte fault of the first one who contacted the other-
[[That certainly is aggressive and will start a fight in most environments.]]
It was Will rogers i think who said something along the lines of “Your rights end at the tip of my nose’ - meaning that people are free to yell and scream- even to start arguments- and that does not give the other person the right to use force to stop them
Another dead bully.
Too bad.
He finally met someone who’d stand up to him m
Me too. I loved drive-ins.
[[The objective is to stop a pending law which would put the burden on the corrupt prosecutor offices throughout the state.]]
Precisely- that is why SYG must be defended in all cases- where possible- this case looks like it’s not possible to claim that defense though
[[I have heard of at least one case where in a road rage situation one party angrily approached the other guys car to assault him. The other guy perceived the anger and assault and shot the first guy.]]
From what i understand- SYG doesn’;t require a person to ‘make every effort to flee what could be perceived as a dangerous situation’ like many states (unlawfully in my opinion) require-
“As much as despise idiots who have to play with their i-Toys all the time no matter where they are, this was an overreaction.”
How do you know?
Exactly.
You have no answer.
Just BS.
[[In stand-your-ground does a person have to wait until they are on the ground being beaten, like George Zimmerman, before it becomes justified?]]
I do not believe so- I think there just has to be a ‘reasonable perception’ that ‘imminent personal injury or death may happen’
But i am not sure on this- I do know that the zimmerman case should have been a no brainer- clearly justified case of self defense- getting one’s head smashed into concrete repeatedly is cause enough- it was an attempted murder of George- there was no ambiguity- trayvon was using the concrete as a deadly weapon
“Me too. I loved drive-ins”
==
They were great good fun as kids!
Used to hang with some filmmaker-artsy types years ago, would have impromptu showings in old warehouse/art studios of any films they could get their hands on. So you’d have the theatre experience with a laid back setting.
Haven’t been to a “real” theater in decades.
“I think there just has to be a ‘reasonable perception’ that ‘imminent personal injury or death may happen’”
I think you’re right.
This is why I don’t know how listers on this thread can be so certain that the shooting was not justified or SYG.
“How do you know?”
==
I regularly run into idiots playing with whatever I-toy in public settings. I haven’t killed any of them so far.
http://video.tampabay.com/Surveillance-video-of-Tampa-movie-theater-shooting-shown-in-court-25599715 Video here
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.