Curtis Reeves gets bond set at 150K (Spring Hill: 2015, assault)

[Spring Hillian]

Originally Posted by Zaba

Totally.

You're a dead man and in his eyes, he's perfectly justified.

Just like you feel Reeves was wrong you are seeing into my mind telling someone how I would react in a situation. Are you related to that Long Island Medium or something?

[Zaba]

Originally Posted by PriusH8r

Ummmmm....innocent until proven guilty is the LAW.

You completely failed to grasp the point I was making.
Honestly, it comes as no surprise.

[Zaba]

Originally Posted by Spring Hillian

are seeing into my mind telling someone how I would react in a situation.

A reasoned estimation based on the meaning of your own words and expressed positions.
Maybe you wouldn't, maybe deep down you're really a lot saner than your words here suggest and your inner-sanity would prevail but if you, personally, are anything like your ideals suggest, yes.

In that situation, you shoot and probably shout "STOP RESISTING!" a few times just in case any unseen witnesses are in earshot.

[Spring Hillian]

Originally Posted by Zaba

Your entire concept of what constitutes justification for deadly force.

I know what constitutes justification for deadly force as I am a concealed weapons permit holder and have been since 1988. Maybe you need to read FS 776.013.


776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—
(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.

(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or
(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or
(c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or
(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.

(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.


(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.
(5) As used in this section, the term:
(a) “Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.
(b) “Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.
(c) “Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.

[Spring Hillian]

Originally Posted by Zaba

A reasoned estimation based on the meaning of your own words and expressed positions.
Maybe you wouldn't, maybe deep down you're really a lot saner than your words here suggest and your inner-sanity would prevail but if you, personally, are anything like your ideals suggest, yes.

In that situation, you shoot and probably shout "STOP RESISTING!" a few times just in case any unseen witnesses are in earshot.

It would probably help your position if you knew me personally and had some idea of my values.
Since you dont know me personally I will advise you that your assumptions are totally incorrect.
I work on reason, not feelings.

[Zaba]

Right.

And in the end, that is decided by a jury, not their expressed 'feelings' which is why Mssr's Dunn and Juratovac are in prison. They too thought that all they had to do was incant the magic codewords of 'IN FEAR FOR MY LIFE!!" and that justified whatever they did but that's not how it works.

The magic word is:

if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

That word wasn't put there for filler. The whole statute hinges on it and that is where unreasonable people with carry permits get themselves into a ****-pickle.

Here you are in this thread making the case that a reasonable response to someone throwing popcorn and a cel phone is opening fire on them.

... aaaaaaaaaaaaaand, welcome to the fringe.

[Zaba]

Originally Posted by Spring Hillian

It would probably help your position if you knew me personally and had some idea of my values.
Since you dont know me personally I will advise you that your assumptions are totally incorrect.
I work on reason, not feelings.

You've been rampantly expressing your 'values' in this thread.

On that basis, I judge. If it turns out its all just a big troll job and in real life, you're nothing like what is clearly implied by your own words, great (and thank god for you) but whatever personal nuance you may exhibit in real life is negated by your out-there ideals as promoted here.

[Spring Hillian]

As I stated above, it is clearly apparent that neither Dunn or Juratovac were in their rights for firing a weapon in the situations they were in. On the other hand, Reeves did.

You have done nothing but rant and rave using thoughts made up in your mind while disregarding any of the facts as we know them. You dont want to see the popcorn snatch, popcorn throw, object throw as a problem. You do not see Oulsen getting up, facing and yelling at Reeves to be a problem.

You stated Reeves is guilty when you have not heard any testimony. Again, you dont want to see the popcorn snatch, popcorn throw, object throw as a crime. You do not see Oulsen getting up, facing and yelling at Reeves to be an assault.

Originally Posted by Zaba

Right.

And in the end, that is decided by a jury, not their expressed 'feelings' which is why Mssr's Dunn and Juratovac are in prison. They too thought that all they had to do was incant the magic codewords of 'IN FEAR FOR MY LIFE!!" and that justified whatever they did but that's not how it works.

The magic word is:



This is where unreasonable people with carry permits get themselves into a ****-pickle.

[Spring Hillian]

Originally Posted by Zaba

You've been rampantly expressing your 'values' in this thread.

On that basis, I judge. If it turns out its all just a big troll job and in real life, you're nothing like what is clearly implied by your own words, great (and thank god for you) but whatever personal nuance you may exhibit in real life is negated by your out-there ideals as promoted here.

Why dont you take the time to go back to the very start of this thread and read through it to see that I have stood by my words all the way through. And yes, if I were attacked I would use what ever force necessary to cease that attack. As a human being I have that right whether you think so or not.

I hope you never find yourself in a situation where your well being is at risk as it would be a sad outcome for you based on the thinking you have expounded.

[Zaba]

Originally Posted by Spring Hillian

As I stated above, it is clearly apparent that neither Dunn or Juratovac were in their rights for firing a weapon in the situations they were in. On the other hand, Reeves did.

You have done nothing but rant and rave using thoughts made up in your mind while disregarding any of the facts as we know them. You dont want to see the popcorn snatch, popcorn throw, object throw as a problem. You do not see Oulsen getting up, facing and yelling at Reeves to be a problem.

You stated Reeves is guilty when you have not heard any testimony. Again, you dont want to see the popcorn snatch, popcorn throw, object throw as a crime. You do not see Oulsen getting up, facing and yelling at Reeves to be an assault.

Prattle prattle prattle. We mostly agree on the facts.

The point here is that none of that warrants opening fire on a man to anyone but the kookiest of kooks which you seem to be.