Curtis Reeves gets bond set at 150K (Spring Hill: skateboarding, retirement)

[Spring Hillian]

Originally Posted by EngGirl

total BS
This argument had absolutely no need to use gun, at all.
Otherwise everyone could justify using guns here and there - in the store, in the park, on the road... Not every fight has to get to this point and this situation in movie theater was obviously something that could be avoided - no justification to use gun whatsoever.
you can keep your blah-blah-blah for yourself I have my opinion

Hey, if that is your position, stand by it. Nobody, especially a senior citizen, should have to endure a physical attack with out being able to defend themselves. Nobody should be in fear for their health, safety and well being. If you feel otherwise, good for you. I guess you have never been in a situation where you feared for your safety at the hands of someone else. I hope your luck holds out for you.

Yes, people can be attacked in a store, a park, on the road. Not every fight does get to the point of deadly force but sometimes, as in the case of Mr. Reeves, it does happen.

[Spring Hillian]

Originally Posted by ChuteTheMall

If OJ can get away with murder, anything is possible. I wouldn't bet more than one dollar either way.

If Reeves is exonerated, people might think twice before getting into it with Florida senior citizens.
That would be good. An armed society is a polite society.

If Reeves goes to prison, others might hesitate too long before defending themselves with deadly force.
Dying with a pistol still in the pocket would be as bad as leaving it in a car.

Either way, there will not be riots.

No, no riots from this one. Not a single march, no boycotts. I would hope it makes everyone think twice about getting physical with anyone else. Nobody has the right to strike another individual. Nobody.

[Soup Not See]

Originally Posted by Spring Hillian

No, no riots from this one. Not a single march, no boycotts. I would hope it makes everyone think twice about getting physical with anyone else. Nobody has the right to strike another individual. Nobody.

I would hope it makes everyone think twice about complaining and badgering someone about something so trivial as texting when you have been doing it yourself in the same situation.

[Spring Hillian]

Originally Posted by leftee

I would hope it makes everyone think twice about complaining and badgering someone about something so trivial as texting when you have been doing it yourself in the same situation.

I agree with that. That is certainly the kettle calling the pot black. Do onto others are you would want others to do onto you.

[seain dublin]

Originally Posted by leftee

Whether Reeves is found guilty or not guilty does not change the fact that two families have been destroyed because an old man chose to pursue a texting issue when he himself was texting in the theater. He will most likely get off as a jury similar to the Pinellas 12 will not be able to convict poor old Mr. Reeves. I will certainly score one for SH should he walk.

Reeves is an old hothead(FL is loaded with them). He thinks he can go around controlling what others do, well you can't.

Even if he walks he has done severe financial damage to himself and his wife, which will not be recovered.

All because he couldn't control his temper.

If any good comes out of this it might get others who walk around looking to instigate, to think twice and remove themselves from the situation.

The movie theater 75% empty, why even sit close to anyone else.

[EngGirl]

Originally Posted by seain dublin

Reeves is an old hothead(FL is loaded with them). He thinks he can go around controlling what others do, well you can't.

Even if he walks he has done severe financial damage to himself and his wife, which will not be recovered.

All because he couldn't control his temper.

If any good comes out of this it might get others who walk around looking to instigate, to think twice and remove themselves from the situation.

The movie theater 75% empty, why even sit close to anyone else.

exactly
the bottom line - old dude couldn't control his temper and killed someone and injured another person as a result. There were no real danger to his life. We will see the trail and what jury thinks. I really hope jury will consist of people with common sense.

[EngGirl]

Originally Posted by Spring Hillian

Hey, if that is your position, stand by it. Nobody, especially a senior citizen, should have to endure a physical attack with out being able to defend themselves. Nobody should be in fear for their health, safety and well being. If you feel otherwise, good for you. I guess you have never been in a situation where you feared for your safety at the hands of someone else. I hope your luck holds out for you.

Yes, people can be attacked in a store, a park, on the road. Not every fight does get to the point of deadly force but sometimes, as in the case of Mr. Reeves, it does happen.

I guess you can find a justification for these old crazy people who run over crowd on their cars just because they cannot control their emotions and cannot/ don't want to wait...
You can talk about self defense all say long. There were no justification for one.
Are you related to the killer?

[Zaba]

Originally Posted by EngGirl

I guess you can find a justification for these old crazy people who run over crowd on their cars just because they cannot control their emotions and cannot/ don't want to wait...
You can talk about self defense all say long. There were no justification for one.
Are you related to the killer?

"Self Defense Fetishists" are real big on the idea that using a firearm is a perfectly justified response for being 'disrespected'. They then torture the facts and make absurd narratives about how they felt in fear of their life because the thing and that one thing and if the other thing did the thing and maybe the thing had done the thing, it might have hurt them real bad!

In this case, we have video that speaks for itself:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2Rly-Qohu4

... yet notice how their position isn't just "Yeah, see the video" but rather requires all manner of elaboration and excuses and justifications and rationalizations beyond what is readily apparent before your eyes.

This case isn't even getting much 'justifiable use of force' traction from anyone but the most fringe elements who basically insist that their perceived, perverted sense of cosmic justice- "YOU SASSED THE WRONG GUY!" - justifies shooting anyone in any encounter where they feel disrespected.

[Spring Hillian]

Are you telling me that after 71 years or walking this earth suddenly he developed a mania that caused him to loose his temper and shoot somebody because of texting? Yes, I am sure that is what you would say.

However, what really happened is a man, 71 years old, being physically assaulted by a 6'6" 43 year old who has thrown an object at him which it Reeves and then gets his popcorn snacked from his hands with he man still yelling at him. Was Reeves supposed stand there and wait for the knock out punch?

Of course the answer is no, so he took the only step he could to protect himself.


Keep in mind:Autopsy report indicates movie theater shooting victim raised his hand before gun was fired (the knock out punch on its way)

The autopsy report also mentions unburned powder and debris found on the back of Oulson's right hand.
In order go get unburned gun powder on his hand that hand had to be pretty close to Reeves.

the video shows Reeves leans forward in his seat, then Oulson's hand extends across the chair, just barely entering the video clip.

Prosecutors said Oulson didn't hit or touch Reeves. Really? Then how did Oulson take possession of the popcorn? And of course there was that thrown cell phone that knocked Reeves' glasses off.

The wife of an associate of Mr. Reeves' who worked with Reeves at Bush testified
""He's a very honest and honorable man"

Reeves' personnel files from the police department show he led other agencies in gun safety training and received numerous letters of commendation for his leadership.

As a police officer, Reeves regularly received outstanding evaluations and numerous letters of commendation for his leadership skills and the frequent trainings he led for other agencies on gun safety and other topics. He was lauded for leading the tactical response team for Vice President George H.W. Bush's visit to Tampa in 1987.

Sure doesn't seem to have any history of being a "hothead".
Sure doesn't seem to be a guy with a bad temper.

If any good comes out of this it will be that people will learn that they cannot physically attack another person without suffering serious consequences.


You, like others have made statements that would require direct personal knowledge of Mr. Reeves.
You, nor the others meet that requirement.

However, we know what happened in that theater. Oulson physically and felonously attacked Reeves.

That is all that matters here. Nothing else.


He was often praised for his problem solving abilities to manage stressful situations.

Originally Posted by seain dublin

Reeves is an old hothead(FL is loaded with them). He thinks he can go around controlling what others do, well you can't.

Even if he walks he has done severe financial damage to himself and his wife, which will not be recovered.

All because he couldn't control his temper.

If any good comes out of this it might get others who walk around looking to instigate, to think twice and remove themselves from the situation.

The movie theater 75% empty, why even sit close to anyone else.

[Spring Hillian]

Originally Posted by EngGirl

I guess you can find a justification for these old crazy people who run over crowd on their cars just because they cannot control their emotions and cannot/ don't want to wait...
You can talk about self defense all say long. There were no justification for one.
Are you related to the killer?

You feel that old people are crazy?

You go ahead and stay stuck on your no justification for self defense idea.

Maybe someday you can testify in court that there was no justification of force when you get grabbed on the street and assaulted. That way they can let your assailant loose.

If you werent so biased you would know that an equal number, if not more, non-senior people run cars into crowds. Usually not by driver error either.