So far everyone here has failed to mention a very important point which is:
If you are the one who started the argument and things go bad, you forfeit the right of self defence.
From the news thus far, it is a guess, but my guess is that Reeves must have gone beyond the simple request to be quiet.
He left his seat to go somewhere, whether to his car or to find the manager, which in itself indicates really deep anger....so I suspect his words to the victim were extreme.
If that is the case, he did create the confrontation and that prevents him from claiming self defence.
This is exactly right...
“If you are the one who started the argument and things go bad, you forfeit the right of self defence.”
No. It depends on the chain of events from the start to the crime. There can be intervening events that turn it around, making the initial victim, now, the defendant.
Especially since he left his seat -- why the heck didn't he just come back to another seat? But noooo -- this seat behind the texter is MINE! It's MY TERRITORY!
If I were his prosecutor, I'd subpoena his medical records to find out if he was taking Viagra or testosterone.
In practice, that's not very helpful.
For instance, there's a suspicious guy lurking in your enclosed condo complex, which has seen its share of crime. You follow him, call 911 on him, and then you lose track of him. So, you get out of your truck and try to see where he went so you can update the responders when they get there (real soon now). Suddenly, the guy pops up out of the shadows and pins you to the ground and starts banging your head against the pavement. During the struggle, he realizes you have a gun. But you grab it before he can, point at his chest, and boom! He dead!
So. When did the "argument" start? When the "intruder" got pissed off that he was being profiled by da Man? Or when the intruder jumped the shooter, figuring he was going to mess up da Man for once?