1. The article says the decedent threw a phone at the shooter before throwing he popcorn, but the judge didn’t believe that based on video. I would think a proper investigation would have found the thrown phone and cast more light on that.
2. A bag of popcorn may not be a deadly weapon, but it can be thrown as a distraction before a deadly attack.
Unless the other guy had a weapon in his hand, was physically attacking him, etc., Reeves did not have the justification to kill him.
He needs tobe in jail.
Why do you assume there was no proper investigation? There is a video of the incident and it shows no such cellphone assault, only the popcorn.
Angry, like drunk, is not a good mental state in which to make a shoot-don’t shoot decision.
Are you seriously trying to justify this killing?
Show me the video, popcorn and a phone thrown at you and you draw your weapon? I think reeves screwed the pooch on this one. I am pro gun and carry but unless a young man had laid hands on this old guy I don’t see this as a righteous shoot.
“A bag of popcorn may not be a deadly weapon, but it can be thrown as a distraction before a deadly attack.”
Anything at all can be a “distraction before a deadly attack”. If I approach you to shake your hand, my accomplice could be sneaking up behind you with a rock to bash your head in. Things like that simply aren’t enough to create a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm, otherwise anyone could shoot anyone at any time.