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 ...
That's not an "except", but yes, that's what I've been saying. You have the right to self-defense in every jurisdiction in the US. There are different elements to what qualifies as self-defense, and these vary from on to another. One of them concerns an obligation to retreat if you can do so safely. Some states you have to, some states you don't. In MOST you do not. These are "Stand Your Ground" states. Even in non-SYG states, there are places where you don't have to retreat. In your home for example, where it's called the "Castle Doctrine".
The press keeps using "Stand Your Ground" when what they are really only talking about is "self-defense". And they keep saying "Florida's 'controversial' Stand Your Ground law", even in cases where the principle has no bearing, and even though it's not a controversial idea.
It is, because one of the elements that is needed to make a self-defense claim is the obligation to retreat. In an non-SYG state, even if you did everything else right, but you could have avoided the fight be retreating, you can be found guilty. Therefore SYG is very much a part of a self-defense claim generally. It is part of self-defense law.
"SYG is a “law” issue."
It's a pre-trial immunity hearing. By law, it is heard in front of a judge, who judges the facts as well as the law. If the defendant wins he is immune to prosecution, otherwise it can go to a normal trial. But the terminology is what's causing confusion here. It's not a "Stand Your Ground hearing", it is a "Self-defense Immunity hearing".
"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."
You say I'm incorrect about something, but I haven's said anything contrary to what you wrote here.
Applying rules to others that you exempt yourself from makes him guilty of impersonating a congressman.
Applying rules to others that you exempt yourself from makes him guilty of impersonating a policeman.
Fixed it.
I’m sorry, but if you do not understand the law and process as stated, there is no need to explain it again.
Well, he actually was a retired officer, so didn’t have to impersonate one, he was just being himself.
I understand it just fine. I've been explaining it.
I wrote: “You realize that Reeves shot the wife, too?”
KrisKringle wrote: What does that have to do with my comments?
Is it your position that the former SWAT captain is authorized to shoot everyone in sight if he [has] some concern for [his] well being...?
Seems like, Kris... 😀
Bob, I can't tell you how FOS you are, even though I'm not limited to Twitter's 140. 😀
I just come back here some times to see what's going on, and to compare the "breaking news" component.
Twitter is beginning to get ahead of the game...
I don’t see a thrown bag of popcorn to be “the” end of that fight.
It is only getting started at that point (initial assault has been made).
Some even use such tactics to throw the other off-guard (temporary blind or cause your opponent to go into a defensive position with arms).
Just don’t be bringing spit or popcorn to a gunfight.
First strike is first strike, choose your weapon well.
The deceased was offensive (offense, assault). Both were jerks.
Assume that any “fight” in public is going to barroom brawl/street fight tactics.
Both sides could’ve walked away at any time or backed down.
The popcorn was assault (or provocation).
Throw a bag of popcorn at an officer’s face at a protest and see if there is any charge or response.
I’m not arguing that the shooter was justified, go into the animal kingdom and see what happens if you throw popcorn at a hissing snake or bobcat.
Freshman sociology 101 taught the universal human reaction to someone stepping onto a crowded elevator who doesn't turn around to face the elevator doors as everyone always does. It results in a strikingly uncomfortable experience for the rest of the elevator passengers.
In a movie theater, the same human reaction occurs when someone stands and turns their back to the movie screen. Add aggressive stance, behavior, reaching over the back of the seat into the back row into another's personal space, snatching something out of someone's hand, then forcefully throwing it back in the face of person in back row.
Social norms have been thoroughly disrupted.
Reeves is a retired police captain, according to the article. The surveillance film damns his case.
No argument on the throwing popcorn/assault, but it doesn’t warrant a shooting. It warrants getting up, calling the police, and pressing charges.
I’ve been carrying since PA went shall issue. We have “Stand Your Ground” here too. But any jury seeing that surveillance film is going to put this guy in jail.
“...Both sides could’ve walked away at any time or backed down....”
True enough. And the man with the lethal force capability in his hand should have gotten up and called the police. He WAS a cop, after all, and ostensibly knows the laws he was supposed to be enforcing.
“...Throw a bag of popcorn at an officer’s face at a protest and see if there is any charge or response...”
The protestor would be pepper-sprayed and billy-clubbed, most likely. Not shot.
Again, though... none of us were there, so it’s is difficult to say what we “should” or “would” do. Anger is a powerful emotion, and some patsydumbf*ck throwing popcorn (and a cellphone too, allegedly) at you would piss anyone off. And it is indeed possible the older guy was “in fear for his life”. That may well be the case; 71 is no match for 31, 41, 51...
The film, however, as grainy and lousy as it is, is going to damage him.
” Is it your position that the former SWAT captain is authorized to shoot everyone in sight if he [has] some concern for [his] well being...?”
My question stands: “What does that have to do with my comments?”
Since you’re cornered and unwilling to admit it, I’ll answer for you: In both instances, it has nothing to do with my comments. It’s an attempt to change direction so that kiryandil can play “kiryandil wins”.
“...you n00bs...”
Noob? Me? You reveal yourself to be a twit so go back to Twitter.
Thanks for the ping. This is a travesty of justice. Let me get this straight — you can barge into others and threaten them. When the victim fights back, the victim gets charged instead.
His yoot and six-four frame was his downfall, trying to charge at the senile cranky old bastard who was just trying to enjoy the movie. Guess the weak geezer was packin, so advantage — old geezer.
Let's pretend old man stood up from his seat after initial assault by younger guy. The younger guy is still facing older guy, but now they are face-to-face. Does younger guy fear that older guy is standing with intent to confront him and physically retaliate? Is younger guy within his rights to throw a punch because old guy stood up, and young guy perceived this as threatening behavior?
Would old guy be obligated to inform younger guy that he planned to stand up with the intention of contacting law enforcement? Is old guy obligated to sit still until the younger guy makes his next move, whether it be a solid fist, or heeding his wife and sitting down?
Exactly right.
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.