Curtis Reeves gets bond set at 150K (Spring Hill: houses, donated)

[Soup Not See]

Originally Posted by Spring Hillian

You have never asked someone to hush it up in a movie theater?

Was Reeves texting before or after being attacked?

The answer is before. That does not change the fact that Oulson attacked Reeves and could have caused great bodily harm or cause Reeves to in fear of his life. It was as the attack escalated that Reeves shot the aggressor and nothing anybody says is going to change that fact.

Nope, never have asked anyone to hush up in a theater. Most people are civilized enough to shut up when the movie starts.

Nothing you, or the handful of Reeves supporters say or do will change my mind. Reeves provoked the incident, Reeves shot an innocent man for NOTHING, and Reeves will pay. Curtis Reeves/Michael Dunn/Michael Vilkin are all cut from the same cloth - hypocritical, angry old men who refuse to live and let live. God forbid the Pasco 12 contains anyone who thinks like you do ...

[Spring Hillian]

Originally Posted by leftee

Nope, never have asked anyone to hush up in a theater. Most people are civilized enough to shut up when the movie starts.

Nothing you, or the handful of Reeves supporters say or do will change my mind. Reeves provoked the incident, Reeves shot an innocent man for NOTHING, and Reeves will pay. Curtis Reeves/Michael Dunn/Michael Vilkin are all cut from the same cloth - hypocritical, angry old men who refuse to live and let live. God forbid the Pasco 12 contains anyone who thinks like you do ...

Right on! You're entitled to your opinion and can take any position you wish.

Reeves did nothing but ask the man to stop the annoying action.

Reeves acted in good faith and went to alert management about his discontent. It is then that
Oulson blows the whole thing out of proportion by standing up and facing Reeves and then took it even further when he made it physical. Once it gets physical the ground rules change. If Reeves would have pulled out a iron skillet and struck Oulson over the head causing death it is still a man defending himself.

Your thinking is like telling the Japanese that we have no problem with them attacking Pearl Harbor and killing hundreds and then we sit down and forget about it. Attack is attack.

This is not very much different than having a thug come up to you on the street and demands your property. You draw your weapon and eliminate the threat. No one is compelled to submit to a robbery.

Innocent men do not launch physical attacks on others. When an innocent man reduces himself to the point where he needs to use physical violence against someone else he is no longer innocent.

This is nothing like Dunn or Vilkin since neither of them suffered an attack on their person.
Those men were wrong to use deadly force in their situations. You cant use the same can of
paint every time an aggressor is neutralized.

[Zaba]

Originally Posted by Spring Hillian

Your thinking is like telling the Japanese that we have no problem with them attacking Pearl Harbor and killing hundreds and then we sit down and forget about it. Attack is attack.

Jesus H Christ, how delusional are you?

"Attack is attack" 100% not true according to the law as it relates to self defense.
It even specifies "reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm" to specifically negate anyone who might think that "ATTACK IS ATTACK!" and shoot someone for 'disrespecting' them or shoving them or spitting on them.

If they wanted the law to say "Any time anyone threatens you or touches you, you are within your rights to shoot them", they could have but they didn't because only psychos believe that.

Here you are comparing an idiot gunning down a man for throwing popcorn (all other factors are completely semantic and irrelevant, no matter how breathlessly you try and pretend that arm movements and cel phones matter) to PEARL HARBOR!!

It just goes to show why the 'gun movement' is its own worst enemy. Even if there are some nuances where they may have valid points, there are just too many lunatics among them and the internet lets them all embarrass themselves- and in turn, everyone else- in public.

[Irishiis49]

You're entitled to your opinion and can take any position you wish. Opinions are like *****holes everyone has them and most of them stink...

[Soup Not See]

Originally Posted by Zaba

Jesus H Christ, how delusional are you?

"Attack is attack" 100% not true according to the law as it relates to self defense.
It even specifies "reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm" to specifically negate anyone who might think that "ATTACK IS ATTACK!" and shoot someone for 'disrespecting' them or shoving them or spitting on them.

If they wanted the law to say "Any time anyone threatens you or touches you, you are within your rights to shoot them", they could have but they didn't because only psychos believe that.

Here you are comparing an idiot gunning down a man for throwing popcorn (all other factors are completely semantic and irrelevant, no matter how breathlessly you try and pretend that arm movements and cel phones matter) to PEARL HARBOR!!

It just goes to show why the 'gun movement' is its own worst enemy. Even if there are some nuances where they may have valid points, there are just too many lunatics among them and the internet lets them all embarrass themselves- and in turn, everyone else- in public.

Great post Zaba ... there are lunatics like Reeves with itchy trigger fingers all over America. What's next for us -
metal detectors at theaters ? Be careful out there ...

[Spring Hillian]

Originally Posted by leftee

Great post Zaba ... there are lunatics like Reeves with itchy trigger fingers all over America. What's next for us -
metal detectors at theaters ? Be careful out there ...

Dont you think that somebody with a "itchy trigger fingers" would have taken someone out before or at least get charged with unlawful display of a weapon? Hey - maybe he knew he was getting old and wanted to take someone out before he went.

20 years as a LEO, then years as head of security at Busch Gardens without incident and suddenly he is a mad man? Come on, be realistic.

The man has a slew of friends who have known him for years and never knew or had any problems with him.

The event comes along and everybody and his brother is lined up to state how much of a nutcase, bad guy, etc. Reeves is though they had no idea the man existed the day before the shooting.

How can anyone of you justify that thinking? You're all just following what the media told you.

[Soup Not See]

Originally Posted by Spring Hillian

Dont you think that somebody with a "itchy trigger fingers" would have taken someone out before or at least get charged with unlawful display of a weapon? Hey - maybe he knew he was getting old and wanted to take someone out before he went.

20 years as a LEO, then years as head of security at Busch Gardens without incident and suddenly he is a mad man? Come on, be realistic.

The man has a slew of friends who have known him for years and never knew or had any problems with him.

The event comes along and everybody and his brother is lined up to state how much of a nutcase, bad guy, etc. Reeves is though they had no idea the man existed the day before the shooting.

How can anyone of you justify that thinking? You're all just following what the media told you.

People snap all the time ... the man who shot Upton snapped ... Michael Dunn snapped. I don't give a rat's ass what happened in the past 20 years or at Busch Gardens. And what do you think his "friends" are going to say ? I'm sure we'll hear a lot about Mr. Reeves ( aka Super Citizen ) during the trial.

[The Villages Guy]

Originally Posted by Zaba

It even specifies "reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm"

I think that is what the jury will be charged with deciding. Was it reasonable for him to fear death/harm or was he over the line?

I really don't know why people can't just let it rest right now and wait to see what the jury decides.

[Soup Not See]

Originally Posted by North_Pinellas_Guy

I think that is what the jury will be charged with deciding. Was it reasonable for him to fear death/harm or was he over the line?

I really don't know why people can't just let it rest right now and wait to see what the jury decides.

You're right North_Pinellas_Guy - I'm done and will wait for the jury.

[Zaba]

Originally Posted by North_Pinellas_Guy

I think that is what the jury will be charged with deciding. Was it reasonable for him to fear death/harm or was he over the line?

I really don't know why people can't just let it rest right now and wait to see what the jury decides.

The reason people aren't 'letting it rest' is because the SpringHillian narrative about how any encounter is a deadly encounter and a guy throwing popcorn is akin to Pearl Harbor.

It begs confrontation. You just can't let asinine nonsense like that slide.

We all agree. A jury will decide. In the meantime, though, spare everyone the indignity of grotesquely distorted characterizations of inarguable fact.