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 ...
you know as well as i do that it;s not the popcorn that is the issue-
[[Throwing popcorn is not turning a fight physical.]]
I’m sorry- but it is a case of ‘disturbing the peace’- it can be interpreted as ‘challenging someone to a fight’, and does constitute physical contact- no matter how slight- it’s not a matter of degree- it’s a matter of law- You do not have a right to throw water on someone- or anything for that matter- UNLESS you are defending yourself-
But the only issue at that point was him. The movie hadn’t started yet, who cares if a guy is texting during the commercials. He turned it into a verbal altercation that didn’t need to happen. Then he talked to management who probably said they’d take care of it (while thinking, it’s the previews, who cares). Then he came back and started arguing again, when he could have just left it to management to handle. And of course the entire time he could have diffused the situation by sitting elsewhere, or remembering that it was the freaking previews and get over it already.
Confronting somebody who isn’t doing anything wrong is starting a fight. Period.
“I stand corrected on my ‘picking a fight’”
==
I was just clarifying what could perhaps fall under the “fight starting” column legally, not so much it’s application here.
To me, the outcome here was easily and totally avoidable by either one or both persons.
“Since it was still just the previews I’d have ignored it, if he kept up during the movie maybe said something”
==
Yup. During the main feature it can be a royal PITA sitting behind someone who, as I noted by way of an example, is a “talker” (or, worse, a two talkers).
[[Shouting in a public place intending to incite violence or unlawful activity;]]
Shouting to ‘incite violence’ - that’s a hard thing to prove- (However, ‘challenging someone to an act of violence like fighting’- is easier to prove if there are witnesses or video) however, more importantly- it remains to be seen WHO was doing the actual ‘shouting to incite violence’ OR WHO acted in such a way as to ‘challenge the other person’ to an act of violence
The cell phone throwing (if it happened) and then hte pop corn incident- both could be argued to have been the initiation of ‘acts to incite violence’ (especially the contact done by the dead fella- no matter how slight- especially if accompanied by increasing hostility and threatening postures as claimed by the defense lawyer)
This case, from what I’m able to gather from the facts, isn’t as cut and dried as it might at first glance appear- there are extenuating circumstances- and again- we only know a small part- not all the facts- it could very well be that the shooter directly challenged the dead fella to violence- but that is not clear that he did- it ‘seems more clear’ that the fella throwing the ‘objects’ was the one inciting to violence, but again- the facts will show one way or the other-
You don’t have a right to throw water on someone, but that’s not a lethal threat. Face it, it’s murder. Not first degree, but murder. He killed a guy for the sole and simple reason that he’s a confrontation addicted jerk.
[[To me, the outcome here was easily and totally avoidable by either one or both persons.]]
both acted ‘stupidly’ but it’s to be determined which one acted illegally (likely it’s the cop- but the facts during trial wil l determine that)
[[He turned it into a verbal altercation that didn’t need to happen]]
Do we know how the initial contact happened? Did the shooter rush right in threatening? Did he ask politely first only to have the dead fella blow his top?
[[Then he came back and started arguing again,]]
Who started the second conversation? Was the dead fella fuming bout being confronted previously? Did he start the second ‘conversation’? Who actually escalated the issue to dangerous levels? Some people really take exception to being asked not to do something- Especially if they are asked rudely (Again i don’t know how it all went down- just trying to present ll sides objectively)
That is what needs to be determined- Who escalated it to the point where it broke the law? (which then tragically ended in death)
Likely it was the shooter- but knowing people, it very well could have just as easily been the dead fella who took umbrage to being told not to do something
Two hotheads- sure- but who stepped over the line legally first?
DOES NOT MATTER. You’re missing the only important part:
NOTHING the guy who got shot did warrant lethal reprisal. EVER. It’s MURDER. Trying to pretend otherwise is sick and stupid. There’s a good reason his lawyer is dragging this out, hoping he’ll die before conviction.
[[You don’t have a right to throw water on someone, but that’s not a lethal threat. Face it, it’s murder.]]
You left out “And then began acting in an aggressive manner threatening manner” Again- it’;s not a matter of degree of force cocnernign the assault- it’s what happens ‘along with’ the act
Again- it’s not about the popcorn- it’s about the popcorn starting something that was perceived to be getting dangerous- rightly or wrongly- by the shooter- that has to be determined- It ‘Appears’ that the dead fella was the one to break the law- and then escalated the issue- (IF the shooter’s lawyer is telling the truth about what transpired- a jury will have to determine that)
it absolutely does matter legally-
Pinging my “Theater Shooter” list from when this case first started.
If you want to be OFF this ping list, freepmail me.
That’s what i mean about us not being in the courtroom- there’s lots of info that we don’t know about which could have justifiably been reason to throw out the SYG pre-trial argument- But I’m wondering if his lawyer will argue he was ‘coerced into saying that’ under duress of interrogation or soem such argument
...
If I were a juror or judge I wouldn’t believe he was coerced. He was a police officer after all. There’s a reason lawyers tell you to keep your mouth shut.
Folks on this thread, if you want to be ON my “Theater Shooter” pinglist for future articles about this case, freepmail me.
“Aggressive and threatening manner” only according to the murderer.
You got one thing right, it’s not about popcorn. But you got the rest wrong. What it is about is a jerk with a history of forcing confrontations with people while armed finally doing what every non-idiot on the planet knows somebody like that will do. He murdered someone. Period. And denying it just makes you look stupid.
He is Done...
Hope he enjoys the Movie.
They already banned coconut oil. Time for an outright corn ban.
Because it is our perception that the perception that ‘imminent personal injury or death may happen’ was not reasonable.
Site Pest Behavior ...
Interesting term.
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.