Curtis Reeves gets bond set at 150K (Orlando, Spring Hill: station, gas)

[The Villages Guy]

Originally Posted by Irishiis49

Your three questions are absurd based on the fact that poor childs body was so badly decomposed...how about forget all facts presented in the case...and just listen to Casey's own mother cry out on the 911 tape...'it smells like a damn dead body was in that car"...

Forget the facts? That is not how it works.

[Spring Hillian]

Originally Posted by Irishiis49

Your three questions are absurd based on the fact that poor childs body was so badly decomposed...how about forget all facts presented in the case...and just listen to Casey's own mother cry out on the 911 tape...'it smells like a damn dead body was in that car"...

Yes, that was what I said. kid in the trunk a long time. moved when she dumped the car at auto place. put in boyfriends car for ride to the dumping area. remember dad and lot guy said the car stunk too.

but if you and the jury could not answer the questions, how could you or anyone else say she was guilty? ]
You dont know who did what when. To prove the crime you need those answers. Those questions are far from absurd.

[Spring Hillian]

Originally Posted by PriusH8r

Forget the facts? That is not how it works.

Most of the detractor like to use only the facts that they feel are important.

The WHO WHAT WHERE of the crime does not need to be known.

[Irishiis49]

Originally Posted by PriusH8r

Forget the facts? That is not how it works.

Prius I think you know hyperbole when you see it??

[Irishiis49]

Originally Posted by Spring Hillian

Most of the detractor like to use only the facts that they feel are important.

The WHO WHAT WHERE of the crime does not need to be known.

Well the WHO matters...but the what and where unknown have still sent many a person to prison...life is not a tv detective show neatly wrapped up at the end of 60 minutes...some criminals catch lucky breaks...like decomposition or being adept liars... Or coming from dysfunctional families where the parents take the stand and swear to tell the truth and then lie or omit important facts...but that doesn't mean the jury has to fall for every red herring the defense puts forth...

[Spring Hillian]

Originally Posted by Irishiis49

Well the WHO matters...but the what and where unknown have still sent many a person to prison...life is not a tv detective show neatly wrapped up at the end of 60 minutes...some criminals catch lucky breaks...like decomposition or being adept liars... Or coming from dysfunctional families where the parents take the stand and swear to tell the truth and then lie or omit important facts...but that doesn't mean the jury has to fall for every red herring the defense puts forth...

That is right. Life is real.

The whole thing was a mess, no doubt about that. The bottom line is they could not pin the murder on Casey due to lack of evidence. I still think the boyfriend (from Long Island) is the culprit. I could not believe that the lawyers missed his error in testimony or why they did not cross exam him on the fact there was a gas station right there and that Casey told him it was out of gas but he insisted on playing mechanic.

[Soup Not See]

Originally Posted by Spring Hillian

That is right. Life is real.

The whole thing was a mess, no doubt about that. The bottom line is they could not pin the murder on Casey due to lack of evidence. I still think the boyfriend (from Long Island) is the culprit. I could not believe that the lawyers missed his error in testimony or why they did not cross exam him on the fact there was a gas station right there and that Casey told him it was out of gas but he insisted on playing mechanic.

Spring - better check your Casey facts ... the car was left at an Amscot store and Casey had no cash. The boyfriend drove Casey back to the Anthonys to get the lawnmower gas cans to put gas in the car. Where was any testimony about him playing mechanic ? I must have missed it ...

IMO, Casey left a drugged Caylee in the car in the Orlando heat to party with boyfriend, Caylee died, Casey panicked and ended up dumping the body near her house.

[bannedontherun]

Big difference between Zimmerman and Reeves is George was clearly the victim of a forcible felony, where with Reeves is not even close... Not even a violent misdemeanor. Reeves in his statement says so "I don't know how it (the popcorn) got on the floor, I either dropped it or he knocked it out of my hand". Reeves in his statement also admits he was not in danger "if he (Oulson) would've been in front of me that would have been it". Oulson wasn't sitting directly in front Reeves, Nicole was. The row Oulson was in is 11" lower than Reeves row. It would have been near impossible for Oulson to hurt Reeves or even get hands from where he was.

I suspect that's why the detectives seemed so disbelieving of his story, and all the while Reeves is shooting his mouth off about what a supercop he was back in the day the detective is slipping the word "unarmed" into the questioning and Reeves is acknowledging yes I'm aware he was unarmed with a "yes" answer. Clever and excellent detective work IMO.

[bannedontherun]

Originally Posted by Spring Hillian

Yes you are right there Prius! I was flammed to no end when I said Zimmerman was innocent. I never got one single comment saying "hey you were right" because all the accusers were too busy on a gun law rant.

Look at this video. Reeves gets up, calmly walks into the lobby, calmly waits for the theater employee to finish up with the other person. Then he calmly explains the situation, points out the door of the theater and calmly returns to his seat. No signs of yelling, ranting, or being angry at all.

New video released of movie theater shooting | TBO.com, The Tampa Tribune and The Tampa Times


Notice how we can clearly see an arm reaching out towards Reeves twice before the shot is fired.

Nobody who knows Reeves or worked with him ever saw him angry. I am sure in his line of work getting angry would go with the territory. He has never been known to threaten anyone or draw a weapon on someone. He certainly never had to shoot someone.

So I still see a pleasant older gentleman who was being attacked and who reasonably believed that such force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony;

The statute also says; 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.

By the way, a forcible felony is;
“Forcible felony” means treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; carjacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.

This is just some kind of nonsense you'd see on Nancy Grace. The only appropriate charge for Oulson would be under FL Statute 812.014(1)(A) Theft. Chad took his popcorn and temporarily deprived Reeves use or benifit thereof. A petty non-violent misdemeanor.

[The Villages Guy]

Originally Posted by Irishiis49

Prius I think you know hyperbole when you see it??

My mistake then. Sorry.

In her case, they could not show who the person was that did the actual killing. It appeared like multiple people were involved, but you cannot convict someone of murder if there is not strong evidence showing they did it.

I put the blame on the prosecution side. They should know what they have for evidence and charge only high enough on the ladder, which will result in a conviction.