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.

[Bob434]

[[But the idea that one can use deadly force to prevent a deadly force attack on themselves is basic, and is the law everywhere in the US. There’s nothing special about Florida,]]

Except that it, stand your ground law, removes the ‘requirement’ to ‘make every effort to flee an impending violent act’

Many states require you to ‘make every effort (maybe they say ‘a reasonable effort’- not sure how they word it)’ to ‘avoid deadly confrontation’

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

It might have been buttered popcorn. Movie theatre butter makes it a deadly weapon. :-)

[Strac6]

As I posed earlier, SYG is not part of a Self-Defense claim. Self-Defense is an issue raised at trial, as all “fact” defenses are. SYG is a “law” issue. Remember, juries are the “triers of facts.” Judges are “triers of law.”

On the other issue, I’m sorry, but you incorrect. It was a pre-trial hearing, as it was a hearing conduced solely before a judge, not a jury, on a motion of an indicted defendant before the trial on that indictment.

[Bob434]

but the point is that he did not keep engaging- according to testimony- it was the other man that re-engaged, and it was his wife that tried to stop him (the texter) from doing so apparently- if this is the case- then the texter then becomes the aggressor- judging by what happened- the cop may have tried to do the right thing by trying to get management involved- and leave it in their hands from there on out

This is why the case isn’t as clear cut as ‘man shot for texting’ He actually wasn’t shot for texting (Nor for just throwing popcorn)- he may very well have been shot for what he did afterwards-

The question now is- IF that is how it went down- then was there enough perceived threat there for the cop to do what he did? likey not- but that is what the trial will be about- not the popcorn or texting really-

[Bob434]

[[In its place was the ,In fear of one’s life provision.]]

Wasn’t there an added “In fear of one’s life —and— or fear of bodily harm’ in the stand your ground law at soem point? I think i read somewhere that it doesn’t necessarily have to be a fear that one might be killed- but also includes fear that one might be hurt?

[sarge83]

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.

[Valpal1]

I can tell you right now that issue is not guilt or innocence. Trials and juries never find anyone innocent and there is no doubt that the cop shot and killed the popcorn thrower. He might be found not guilty by self defense, but it is still homicide and he will never be innocent of that.

After the criminal trial there will be a civil wrongful death suit.

[sport]

You are correct.

[Bob434]

[[there is no doubt that the cop shot and killed the popcorn thrower.]]

You are right- a man was killed- what remains to be determined is whether it was justifiable homicide- or was it murder-

[[After the criminal trial there will be a civil wrongful death suit.]]

[[He might be found not guilty by self defense, but it is still homicide and he will never be innocent of that.]]

Depends on if it’s ‘justifiable homicide’ or not (likely it won’t be)

That’s a totally different issue- I believe civil lawsuits go more for ‘wrongful death’ convictions- and monetary compensation- but i don’t follow civil suits much so maybe they are about more than that too- if it was justifiable homicide- i believe it will be harder to win a civil suit- but again- i’m not too up on civil suit stuff-

[Bob434]

[[I think the judge made the right call, and it will properly go to trial.]]

I do too-

[[In a self defense trial, the prosecution has to prove that it was *not* self defense beyond a reasonable doubt.]]

Which if i recall, was the case in the trayvon case- the defense failed to prove that George wasn’t defending himself justifiably

[[Popcorn throwing, hand near to face and shooting all seemed to happen in 1 or 2 seconds. Very, very fast.]]

That and a few other points you brought out earlier are all going to be key to the case I believe-

[[2. When the shooting occurred, or just before, the person who was shot had his hand about a foot from the shooters face. This seemed to happen just after the popcorn throwing.]]

Which would be considered an aggressive assault in progress if the cop was just sitting in his seat and the other man re-engaged him- if that is the case- then the texter becomes the aggressor- but we’ll have to see what the prosecution brings out about the cops words and actions before that happened- before he went to the manager

It’s an ugly case all the way around- but the facts will bear out the answer in the end likely

[marktwain]

Outstretched Arm of person shot is under the red arrow.  Cup of popcorn just to left, in flight. Head of shooter just to left of cup in flight, barely visible.

A video has been released from the Tampa Bay Theater shooting from three years ago.

The shooting has been characterized as a retired police officer shooting someone for throwing popcorn at him.

A video has been released showing the violent confrontation. It happened very fast, about a second and a half.

Video of Theater Shooting link

The person shot appears to grab the shooters popcorn from the shooters lap, then fling the popcorn cup at him, then his hand comes back at the shooter and retreats, then the shot is fired, all in about a second and a half.

 ©2017 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch

[KrisKrinkle]

“You realize that Reeves shot the wife, too?”

What does that have to do with my comments?

[KrisKrinkle]

“You realize that Reeves shot the wife, too?”

What does that have to do with my comments?

[Robert DeLong]

LOL, sorry Bob. It was indeed ifinnegan that said that. My bad so sorry. I found the post and failed to look at who actually had said it. I mistakenly thought the original poster was responding back to my response back to him.

I was wondering why it was completely different. Sometimes I just miss to look at the obvious. 8>)

[Bob434]

No worries- I do the same thing too far too often- that’s what happens when we have limited time and loads of posts and articles to go through-

[Bob434]

Thanks for researching that- puts a new twist on the case- It could be though that the cop was sitting behind the man egging him on- but we don’t know that- could be he was just sitting there minding his own business after he came back in- even if he was egging the man on though- that doesn’t give the text dude the right to turn around and cross the lien he did- The actions from this point on are what caused the shooting, not the original texting complaint

Where it happened so fast- I’m thinking it may very well have been more of an instinctive shooting based on rapidly unfolding events in a dimly lit room- than a premeditated one- it’s possible I suppose that the cop couldn’t tell if the man had a weapon or not

[KrisKrinkle]

“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.”

In this post I’m not addressing whether or not this was a righteous shoot, nor whether or not this young man threatened this old guy. But I’ll say that if someone threatens you with death or serious bodily harm, has the capability to carry out the threat, and the threat is immanent, if you wait for that someone to lay hands on you, you may not be able to respond by drawing and shooting or in any other way. Unless maybe you’re Chuck Norris.

[mlo]

"In a self defense trial, the prosecution has to prove that it was *not* self defense beyond a reasonable doubt. It is a much higher standard of proof, and on the opposite side, from a stand your ground hearing. (which is the immunity hearing)"

It's a self-defense immunity hearing not a stand your ground hearing. I know, there terminology is so misused that even the lawyers and judges are doing. But it's still wrong.

"I think the judge made the right call, and it will properly go to trial."

The end result may be right, but the judge did make basic mistakes on the law and this is subject to appeal.

[mlo]

"If you say so."

Well, can you name any state where at any time in its history you did NOT have a legal right to self-defense?

[sport]

Right now, I think that I misread your post. By misreading it, I meant that I read something in it that wasn’t there. I gnore me, I find I been doing that a lot recently.