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]

[[No argument on the throwing popcorn/assault, but it doesn’t warrant a shooting.]]

Not in a well lit space where there is plenty of space between the two no- it wouldn’t- however in a dark theater- with a man screaming at you- and throwing popcorn and taking a swing at you- knowing that the man is already enraged- there is no telling what the fella might or might not have had in his hands-

[[And the man with the lethal force capability in his hand should have gotten up and called the police.]]

He had just gone to management to have the situation taken care of- The incident should have been over by the time he got back- but the text dude reengaged- and like someone said in previous post- The shooter’s eyes may not have been readjusted to the dark by then- and here this text dude starts swinging at him-

[[Anger is a powerful emotion,]]

True- and that is I think the crux of the case- it was no longer about a cell phone being thrown, nor popcorn being thrown, but was now about an enraged man attempting to attack the cop- and again, in today’s day and age- rage is more and more turning to deadly violence-

The shooter was an ex cop- He very likely has been witness to a great many cases of rage turning to violent ends- I’m sure that was going through his mind when the man re-engaged- and usually when people re-engage- they are doing so after having crossed a line of anger- in other words after they have sat and thought through the situation and become so pissed off that they re-confront the person-

We know that the victim’s wife tried to restrain him- likely fearful that his temper would result in a fight or perhaps bad ending either in arrest or whatever- unfortunately it did just that- it ended in his death-

I think post 232 breaks it down well- the text dude very likely blew his top while sitting and stewing about the previous incident- and the atmosphere turned hostile and dangerous as soon as He got up and turned around and did the things he did-

[Bob434]

but i think you re right, he probably will be convicted- but we don’t know, as you say- all the evidence- maybe his lawyers can make a case for him- but it’s going to be tough=- many peopel just see 4 facts

Man with gun

Man with gun was a hothead

Man texting

Man with gun shoots man who texted-

And thinks the man with gun is automatically guilty of cold blooded murder-

[NautiNurse]

throwing popcorn (and a cellphone too, allegedly)

Evidence photo with phone located at Curtis Reeve's feet. Multiple news sources describe the phone belonged to Chad Oulson.

[kiryandil]

My question stands: “What does that have to do with my comments?”

Your comment was: I don’t know that I’d be terrified, but I’d have some concern for my well being.

He shot the man AND the woman.

Mere CCW peasants have a duty to know where their bullets are going, or they get the book thrown at them.

The modern militarized American Samurai-police class - not so much.

I guess "concern for Reeves' well-being" trumps the right of the peasant wench not to get shot, in the minds of the samurai class defenders here on this thread.

Fortunately, we'll know in a short while if the jury peasants bow to the samurai class, or not. 😀

[kiryandil]

Just don’t be bringing spit or popcorn to a gunfight.

Oh, dealing with this samurai-class POS, I would definitely be packing behind the spit. :)

[kiryandil]

Noob? Me? You reveal yourself to be a twit so go back to Twitter.

This is my FR 20-year anniversary month, Kris. 😀

Of course, many of us originals went by our real names till it got too dangerous to be identified by the vindictive clintonite hordes.

So, yeah - a class of 2000 looks like a n00b to me. 😀

[Popman]

-—Of course, many of us originals went by our real names till it got too dangerous to be identified by the vindictive clintonite hordes.——

Yup...I was one of the first 1,000 members. Signed up under my name..

I used my first and last name and you are 100 % correct...

I finally had to use a new screen name it got so bad...

I think some of the younger bucks here have no idea since cyber security has vastly improved since then...

One of the reasons I despise liberals and progressivism...

They know no bounds in civility...

[kiryandil]

We were young and naive, and believed in free speech. :)

Eschoir contacted my ISP, and tried to get me booted off.

That's when I wised up. 😀

[UCANSEE2]

Here is how I view it.

Could the situation have been resolved without the use of a gun ?

[Bob434]

[[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?]]

Or worse- whether it be a knife or gun even- it was dark- the man was swinging at the older guy- you bring up several great points- Had he stood- the other hothead likely would have exploded thinking the old man was challenging him- meanwhile old man likely can’t see if the younger man is holding a weapon- all these things have to be taken into account to try to determine the frame of mind of all involved- in a reasonable manner- it’s certainly not as clear cut as “older hothead with gun wanted ot enforce his alpha persona, and wanted to just fire his weapon on someone, and so he shot younger fella” - his immediate reaction to the whole incident ‘suggests’ that he reacted instinctively to a situation that he perceived, rightly or wrongly, to be a dangerous situation

[KrisKrinkle]

Further upthread you wrote:“It’s amusing that the beefy CCW ex-SWAT captain was all “terrified” of a 6’4” guy “leaning in”.”

I responded: “A “beefy” (if you say so) “CCW ex-SWAT captain” who is 71 years old and faced with someone who looks to be 20-30 years younger and in good shape, and is not just “leaning in” but in the words of the story “aggressively leaning in”. I don’t know that I’d be terrified, but I’d have some concern for my well being.”

Your Post 244 still doesn’t have anything to do with that.

[KrisKrinkle]

" This is my FR 20-year anniversary month, Kris. 😀

Of course, many of us originals went by our real names till it got too dangerous to be identified by the vindictive clintonite hordes.

So, yeah - a class of 2000 looks like a n00b to me. 😀"

Oh my! I didn't know. You signed up 20 years ago and I signed up 3 years later. No wonder a person like you feels superior enough to try and diminish me by calling me a n00b. Of course you didn't know if I signed up earlier and changed my screen name too. I didn't, but you didn't know that.

I suppose you consider someone who graduated 3 years after you as a n00b, even after all those years. And that you consider someone born 3 years after you a n00b at life. Oh well, some people grow up.

For their sake, I hope your spouse (if anyone would have you) isn't younger than you.

If it stokes your ego I'll let you have the last word. I won't be bothered to respond unless you accidentally write something worthwhile.

[kiryandil]

To summarize: the defenders of the retired SWAT captain/American samurai class still ignore the fact that he shot the woman because he didn't have fire-control of his weapon.

But they're OK with that, and act like their jack-booted samurai is somehow justified, even though the local prosecutor would be throwing the book at a mere peasant for doing the EXACT SAME THING. 😀

[NautiNurse]

To summarize: Time and again, you willfully ignore facts in evidence and intelligent deliberation. Similarly, your vapid insults and caricatures do not bolster your assertions.

I seriously doubt that you are capable of engaging in thoughtful discussion without tossing spears.

[kiryandil]

Once upon a time, we were allies.

It appears that you've abandoned your love of the Constitution in favor of the militarized samurai class.

You will SEE that I'm correct about this. :)

[Wyrd bið ful aræd]

"Perhaps people with this sort of training should be assessed to see if they should be carrying around weapons of the trade when they retire."

Oh sure, and the Social Security Admin. should defermine whether veterans should be allowed to own guns. Most of your commentary thus far points in the direction of not liking cops. That you would posit such a statist, anti-constitutional suggestion indicates that your judgement has been fogged by an overarching problem with LEOs.

There are millions of confrontational people out there. Some of them are cops, like this Reeves character. Sorry if you've been given trouble by such individuals, but of all the LE guys I've known, most have been good men those who've been the most laid-back, nonconfrontational were almost always SWAT cops. Nothing about the incident involving Reeves suggests to me that yet more government encroachment, especially on firearms, is warranted in the slightest.

[Boogieman]

“A bag of popcorn may not be a deadly weapon, but it can be thrown as a distraction before a deadly attack.”

Anything at all can be a “distraction before a deadly attack”. If I approach you to shake your hand, my accomplice could be sneaking up behind you with a rock to bash your head in. Things like that simply aren’t enough to create a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm, otherwise anyone could shoot anyone at any time.

[KrisKrinkle]

Please note that my comment “A bag of popcorn may not be a deadly weapon, but it can be thrown as a distraction before a deadly attack” was prompted by all those making light of the idea of a thrown bag of popcorn being dangerous.

As you say, it’s true that “Anything at all can be a ‘distraction before a deadly attack’”. That includes a thrown bag of popcorn. The other circumstances at the time are important. And I’m not saying the circumstances in this case did or did not justify the shooting. I’m saying a thrown bag of popcorn can be the opening move in an attack.

“If I approach you to shake your hand, my accomplice could be sneaking up behind you with a rock to bash your head in.”

True. Or you might firmly grasp my hand to hold me in place while you draw a gun and shoot me with your off hand. I seem to remember reading about a professional killer who did that.

“Things like that simply aren’t enough to create a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm, otherwise anyone could shoot anyone at any time.”

“Reasonable” is the key word here. I’ve been threatened with immediate “great bodily harm” and under the circumstances I would have considered a thrown bag of popcorn the beginning of the threatened physical attack. (House Security intervened before anything too bad happened.)

I can’t speak to the laws of all the states or all the nations in the world, but it’s my understanding that in many places the prosecutor or the jury must decide what was reasonable under a given set of circumstances, what a “reasonable man” would do.

[sarge83]

It all depends on the circumstances. Since I started carrying I have had to clear leather once and didn’t have to engage, the weapon itself stopped what was an ATM robbery and the goblin ran away.

I wasn’t there so I can only go on news accounts. If I were on a jury I would want to see this video and hear the accounts by the witnesses before rending a judgement. The problem with the old guy is he escalated the situation and he was armed. He should have just got a theater usher if it was such and issue. And texting? If it is in silent mode why does anyone care. If he is carrying on a full blown conversation, then you go get an usher.

[NFHale]

All points noted and understood.

I’m thinking, though, that the jury is going to jail him, just based on the surveillance film alone.

Right or wrong, that’s probably going to be the outcome. Sucks, but that’s the world we’re in.