Judge denies 'stand your ground' defense in movie theater shooting

CNN ^ | 5:24 AM ET, Sat March 11, 2017 | Eric Levenson, Tina Burnside

[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.

[editor-surveyor]

.
I do know what you had for breakfast!
.

[discostu]

The established facts are this guy had a history of pointless confrontation in that movie theater, the “disturbing” behavior was before the movie started. He started the confrontation, he escalated the confrontation, there’s simply no SYG precedent there. Face it, he’s a rude guy who liked to confront people, while armed, which also makes him an idiot, and then the inevitable happened, which makes him a murdered. It’s cut and dry, and painfully obvious, and defending him is at best pathetic. Learn the lesson he couldn’t be bothered to: walk away.

[discostu]

I was taught that when you’re carrying you need to be more calm, less confrontational, less concerned with minor slights. Because when you’re carrying a minor dispute has the ability to be the last thing anybody ever does and you really should avoid being the kind of person that kills somebody for texting in the movie theater, especially before the movie even started.

[LouieFisk]

“You have to remember that ifinnegan was a NeverTrumper back in the day”
==
Nothing personal against him. Just that this incident is a silly example to try to hang a “self-defense” or SYG hat on.

[ifinnegan]

You make a good argument.

[Bob434]

‘picking a fight’ is not illegal- it’s all perfectly legal —until— someone makes contact

[LouieFisk]

“I was taught that when you’re carrying you need to be more calm, less confrontational, less concerned with minor slights.”
==
As I mentioned on another topic a few days back; I was brought up being taught to avoid fights whenever possible.

And when our Dad taught us about using firearms, the number one point was never to aim a firearm at anything you don’t mean to kill.

[LouieFisk]

“‘picking a fight’ is not illegal- it’s all perfectly legal”
==
http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/disturbing-the-peace.html

[discostu]

Actually it’s not. Even without contact it can be criminal intimidation depending on what’s surrounding the situation.

[mykroar]

I agree the overreaction seems clear, but texting in some was worse than talking because the phone screen is distracting for a longer/wider area.

[discostu]

Yep, don’t be eager to fight, do be ready to win and bullets can’t be recalled.

[kiryandil]

I mentioned it because it's the same "site pest" behavior - defending silly postulates to the death.

You're correct - it amazes me that people are trying to defend this example, in the face of many people being trained in CCW and the mindset that you get from the classes.

All my friends tell me the same thing - walk away. Run away.

[Bob434]

[[I think he liked enforcing his authority.]]

Well that’s pretty evident, still no reason legally to convict him though

[[If you wander the earth starting crap eventually crap’s gonna get ugly.]]

He certainly isn’t accused of being smart- and likely has blood pressure issues, or mental problems which cause anger issues- but again- being angry doesn’t mean being guilty of anything-

[[Problem with the defendant “feeling threatened” is he started the fight, he turned it physical, the other guy was defending himself.]]

I must have missed that part- where did he turn it physical? I thought the dead fella turned it physical by one, supposedly throwing a phone, and two throwing popcorn- then ‘leaning in aggressively’ according to the defense? (Not sure if there was physical contact when the dead fella ‘leaned in aggressively’ if that’s what actually happened- Did he challenge the fella to a fight?

[LouieFisk]

“Yep, don’t be eager to fight, do be ready to win and bullets can’t be recalled.”
==
In this case I would have just moved to an different seat in the half-empty theatre.
If I had an uncontrollable urge toward violence, I’d go with sitting quietly behind the guy and sucker-punching him from behind when he least expected it. Pretty easy to do when you’re behind someone like that. I’d still go to jail, but not for the time the shooter will likely be doing.

[Brooklyn Attitude]

As a general rule when carrying you are supposed to avoid confrontations and DE-escalate situations. If someone complains about what you are doing, be polite and apologize even if you think the complainer is an ahole. After a shooting you are going be judged on everything you do or say that may have contributed to the conflict.

[LouieFisk]

“in the face of many people being trained in CCW and the mindset that you get from the classes.”
==
In this case, even worse, an ex-cop should know better. I can understand being POed, but going for the gun wasn’t the right response.

[discostu]

There’s a very good reason to convict him: he murdered another human being.

Throwing popcorn is not turning a fight physical. Shooting somebody is.

[Bob434]

I stand corrected on my ‘picking a fight’ BUT-

That is what has to be determined- it sounds from the article that the shooter left to talk to management- to try to resolve the issue- he returned- and another argument ensued- where is the proof that the shooter was guilty of ‘criminal intimidation’? Was it determiend that the dead fella didn’t initiate the second contact out of anger?

If it can be shown that the shooter ‘challenged the fella to a fight’ then we have a clear case of the shooter ‘being the aggressor’, but Simply confronting someone over an issue - doesn’t necessarily rise to the level of ‘disturbing the peace’- Especially when the shooter felt he was ‘being disturbed’ by the distracting cell phone use (Not that that thought makes it a fact legally-)

[discostu]

Since it was still just the previews I’d have ignored it, if he kept up during the movie maybe said something, and if he didn’t respond correctly move just like you. Really who cares what somebody does during the previews, that’s usually my signal for quick trip the bathroom to try to be “empty” for the movie.

[LouieFisk]

“I agree the overreaction seems clear, but texting in some was worse than talking because the phone screen is distracting for a longer/wider area.”
==
When I was a movie-goer sometimes I’d end up sitting behind someone who was distracting in one way or another (e.g. a “talker”). I’d just get up and move to a different seat; I came to relax and enjoy a movie, not to get worked up.