Curtis Reeves gets bond set at 150K (Spring Hill: gated, transport)

[SeaSpur]

SpringHillian, you are way in over your head here. You started in this conversation by trying to take up for responsible gun owners who have the right to fight back when threatened...yet have spiraled out of control in support of a old man who acted like wussy and pulled a weapon instead of hundreds of other options that he could have chose (and 95% of people who have chose). Reeves showed he was a coward instead. At this point, you see no way out of this conversation and find yourself involved pretty deep with some, let's be honest, preeeeettty crazy ideals.

If you *seriously* think Reeves' decision to shoot someone over a spat in a movie theater, then I am prone to believe you would kill another person for thousands of reasons less than what my mind would deem acceptable for the same. And I'm the type of guy that doesn't take a lot of **** from anyone. That is what makes it even scarier to read what you'd shoot someone less for.

Scenario:

It's Black Friday and you are shopping in the same Best Buy as myself.

There is one iPhone 6 left (that we both badly want) and we both see it and reach for it...grab it at the same time and tussle over it for a couple of seconds before you come away with it. I call you some bad names and push my buggy into you.

Do you shoot me? I'm a strapping 30 year old white male with my girlfriend shopping for a vacuum on aisle 5, if it matters.

[Zaba]

Originally Posted by SeaSpur

SpringHillian, you are way in over your head here. You started in this conversation by trying to take up for responsible gun owners who have the right to fight back when threatened...yet have spiraled out of control in support of a old man who acted like wussy and pulled a weapon instead of hundreds of other options that he could have chose (and 95% of people who have chose). Reeves showed he was a coward instead. At this point, you see no way out of this conversation and find yourself involved pretty deep with some, let's be honest, preeeeettty crazy ideals.

If you *seriously* think Reeves' decision to shoot someone over a spat in a movie theater, then I am prone to believe you would kill another person for thousands of reasons less than what my mind would deem acceptable for the same. And I'm the type of guy that doesn't take a lot of **** from anyone. That is what makes it even scarier to read what you'd shoot someone less for.

Scenario:

It's Black Friday and you are shopping in the same Best Buy as myself.

There is one iPhone 6 left (that we both badly want) and we both see it and reach for it...grab it at the same time and tussle over it for a couple of seconds before you come away with it. I call you some bad names and push my buggy into you.

Do you shoot me? I'm a strapping 30 year old white male with my girlfriend shopping for a vacuum on aisle 5, if it matters.

Totally.

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

[Spring Hillian]

It is apparent that Juratovac was wrong. Shooting at the vehicle was not defending anything.
How that case is related to the Reeves case, besides they were both ex cops , is beyond me.


I also think Dunn was guilty. If a shotgun was found in the van that would be a whole different story.
He thought he saw a weapon. Apparently he did not. He had no right to fire upon the vehicle.

Case has nothing to do with Reeves.

Next case?

Originally Posted by Zaba

Popcorn and a cel phone.
Get beyond the idea that popcorn and a cel phone constitutes an 'escalation' to deadly force. You're clinging to completely trivial semantics as if they're relevant.

This is why the fringe gun rights types (ie- open carriers of AR15s into IHOP, people who think that throwing something at someone is a valid escalation to deadly force) basically just wind up marginalizing themselves due to their own self-unawareness of how their opinions play to the less fringe public.

Here's another one:
Ex-Flagler Beach Cop Juratovac Sentenced to 4 Years in Prison in Attempted Murder of Flagler Firefighter | FlaglerLive

Ex cop, road range incident, the guy threw a water bottle at his car. They pull over to the side, the guy gets out of his car unarmed, yelling, little-big man shoots him and then tries to play the "I WAS JUST DEFENDING MAH FAMILY!"

[SeaSpur]

double post

[Zaba]

Originally Posted by Spring Hillian

It is apparent that Juratovac was wrong. Shooting at the vehicle was not defending anything.
How that case is related to the Reeves case, besides they were both ex cops , is beyond me.


I also think Dunn was guilty. If a shotgun was found in the van that would be a whole different story.
He thought he saw a weapon. Apparently he did not. He had no right to fire upon the vehicle.

Case has nothing to do with Reeves.

Next case?

Re-read the Juratovac case. You're wrong.

The Dunn case, just like this one, was a petty man with a carry permit who felt 'disrespected', shot someone over it in the heat of the moment and once he realized he had his head caught in the mousetrap, made up a flimsy self defense story that a jury didn't believe, even though there were a lot of people on Glocktalk who were happy to see the 'thugs' (<- codeword) get put in their place and were perfectly willing to buy his bull**** story.

It was a great example how how justified homicide isnt' about what you 'feel'.
It's about what a jury believes is a reasonable response to what happened.

Every time you hear a pro shoot-everyone-always-for-every-reason loon claiming that the justification for self defense is how one 'feels', that is an idiot who should be ignored because that's simply not true. Justification will not be adjudged bu how you claim you 'felt'. You can claim you felt threatened but whether it is justified or not depends on whether a prosecutor and/or grand jury and/or trial jury believes you.

[Spring Hillian]

Lets look at the facts as we know them to date:

Oulsen was asked to stop texting as it was bothering a fellow patron.

Oulsen blows off the request from Reeves.

Reeves gets up to seek management.

Reeves returns to his seat.

Oulsen stands up, turns around and begins to verbally assault Reeves.

Oulsen grabs Reeves' popcorn from him and throws it at him.

Oulsen throws some other object at Reeves causing Reeves' glasses to be knocked off.

Oulsen is still ranting and raving.

Reeves draws a legal weapon and shots Oulsen.

Who caused that action to be necessary?



I am standing by the exact same chain of events that I have stood by since the onset of this matter.
I have not wavered. I have not changed anything.

The scenario you propose on Black Friday has no relation to the Reeves situation. None.

To answer your question: Would I shoot you for getting the phone.

No, of course not. My life is not being threatened. My well being is not at risk. I am not at risk for bodily harm at that juncture.

If at any time that my life is being threatened, my well being put t risk or if I am at risk of bodily harm,
I would take the necessary steps to stop one or more of those events from happening. It may be picking up a brick and crushing a skull, it may be to lunge at someone and choke them to death, it may be a push out of a window, it may be using a gun or a knife, but one way of the other I am not going to allow it to happen.

The question the law needs to have answered is "Were you in fear of your life ?"

The Florida statute allows a person to use deadly force in self-defense “anyplace” where there is “imminent peril of death or great bodily harm.”

Case closed

Originally Posted by SeaSpur

SpringHillian, you are way in over your head here. You started in this conversation by trying to take up for responsible gun owners who have the right to fight back when threatened...yet have spiraled out of control in support of a old man who acted like wussy and pulled a weapon instead of hundreds of other options that he could have chose (and 95% of people who have chose). Reeves showed he was a coward instead. At this point, you see no way out of this conversation and find yourself involved pretty deep with some, let's be honest, preeeeettty crazy ideals.

If you *seriously* think Reeves' decision to shoot someone over a spat in a movie theater, then I am prone to believe you would kill another person for thousands of reasons less than what my mind would deem acceptable for the same. And I'm the type of guy that doesn't take a lot of **** from anyone. That is what makes it even scarier to read what you'd shoot someone less for.

Scenario:

It's Black Friday and you are shopping in the same Best Buy as myself.

There is one iPhone 6 left (that we both badly want) and we both see it and reach for it...grab it at the same time and tussle over it for a couple of seconds before you come away with it. I call you some bad names and push my buggy into you.

Do you shoot me? I'm a strapping 30 year old white male with my girlfriend shopping for a vacuum on aisle 5, if it matters.

[Spring Hillian]

Where do you get the fact that Reeves shot because he was "disrespected"? Where?????

It was not until after he was assaulted that he exercised deadly force to prevent further harm to himself.

Originally Posted by Zaba

Re-read the Juratovac case. You're wrong.

The Reeves case, just like this one, was a petty man with a carry permit who felt 'disrespected', shot someone over it in the heat of the moment and once he realized he had his head caught in the mousetrap, made up a flimsy self defense story that a jury didn't believe, even though there were a lot of people on Glocktalk who were happy to see the 'thugs' (<- codeword) get put in their place and were perfectly willing to buy his bull**** story.

It was a great example how how justified homicide isnt' about what you 'feel'.
It's about what a jury believes is a reasonable response to what happened.

Every time you hear a pro shoot-everyone-always-for-every-reason loon claiming that the justification for self defense is how one 'feels', that is an idiot who should be ignored because that's simply not true. Justification will not be adjudged bu how you claim you 'felt'. You can claim you felt threatened but whether it is justified or not depends on whether a prosecutor and/or grand jury and/or trial jury believes you.

[Spring Hillian]

What am I wrong about??

Originally Posted by Zaba

Re-read the Juratovac case. You're wrong.

The Dunn case, just like this one, was a petty man with a carry permit who felt 'disrespected', shot someone over it in the heat of the moment and once he realized he had his head caught in the mousetrap, made up a flimsy self defense story that a jury didn't believe, even though there were a lot of people on Glocktalk who were happy to see the 'thugs' (<- codeword) get put in their place and were perfectly willing to buy his bull**** story.

It was a great example how how justified homicide isnt' about what you 'feel'.
It's about what a jury believes is a reasonable response to what happened.

Every time you hear a pro shoot-everyone-always-for-every-reason loon claiming that the justification for self defense is how one 'feels', that is an idiot who should be ignored because that's simply not true. Justification will not be adjudged bu how you claim you 'felt'. You can claim you felt threatened but whether it is justified or not depends on whether a prosecutor and/or grand jury and/or trial jury believes you.

[The Villages Guy]

Originally Posted by Zaba

The best part is, all the very obvious stuff that discredits his story, well, they write it off to 'ya never know' or 'innocent until proven guilty!' or "HOW CAN YOU JUDGE WHEN YOU DON'T KNOW ALL THE FACTS!" yet they're perfectly willing to propose elaborate hypothetical scenarios based on facts they've made up that bear no relationship whatsoever to the actual facts as we know them.

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

[Zaba]

Originally Posted by Spring Hillian

What am I wrong about??

Your entire concept of what constitutes justification for deadly force.