Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Haha. Pacifism - exactly what your boy was thinking when he started striking out at Reeves.
It seems that the majority of people don't agree with you or Reeves ... not only here on C-D, but public opinion in general. On legal TV shows, other forums, general conversation, talk shows, etc. You like being in the minority so you can gloat in the rare chance that Reeves gets off. But "not guilty" by a jury does not mean innocent by any means. We all know that Casey Anthony killed her daughter.
I play ice hockey with a respected Atlanta lawyer and asked his opinion about the case. He said that the "attack" mustered up by Oulson IN NO WAY warranted the response by Reeves. Guilty as charged, although he did think a plea is a possibility. A large civil suit against Reeves is a definite ... family ruined.
Since he's been a respected lawyer for 20+ years, I'll take his word over a keyboard jockey any day.
The scenario you give could only play out in a ghetto, and it has, but none of the shooters would have permits and only a few would be able to hit their targets.
Yes, we are in the real world and that is why lots of the "good guys" want to be armed.
If Reeves pulled out a blackjack (do you know what that is?) and opened Oulsons skull with it causing his death would you still be so upset or is it the fact a firearm was involved have you going wild?
Quote:
Originally Posted by EngGirl
I literally cannot wait for the situation when people with guns would kill each other while bad guys will be out unharmed. Example: movie theater. Person with the gun (A) stands up and starts shooting. Someone with the gun (B) (or even few - why not? we are in FL after all!) start shooting back and then running outside and meet another guy with the gun (C) who was rushing there because he heard gun shoots and also have a gun. He (C) doesn't know that guy with the gun (B) is not the bad guy, he only sees he has gun and running out, so guy (C) shoots guy (B).
Or guy C rushes into the theater and see at least 2 people with guns. How would guy C be able to tell who is the bad guy here?
Come on people. We are not playing computer game or watching movies here, we are in the real world and cannot see through the walls to determine who started first and who need to be shoot.
The scenario you give could only play out in a ghetto, and it has, but none of the shooters would have permits and only a few would be able to hit their targets.
Yes, we are in the real world and that is why lots of the "good guys" want to be armed.
If Reeves pulled out a blackjack (do you know what that is?) and opened Oulsons skull with it causing his death would you still be so upset or is it the fact a firearm was involved have you going wild?
No-ballers feel power when they have guns. They feel they are Rambo alike. By looking at some "Rambo" pictures you know they probably would not even open their mouth to voice their concerns if they had no gun in their pocket, so all this topic "how you feel if gun wasn't involved" is completely irrelevant.
I bet if Reeves had no gun, he wouldn't be in jail now and Oulsen would be alive .
Actually I havent seen nor heard mention of the incident anywhere except our local newspapers when a event such as the bail hearing takes place. I really dont care what everybody else thinks, what is important to me is what I think and I think Oulson was a punk picking on an old man because he thought he could get away with it.
I would think that the legal TV shows and talk shows you refer to must get pretty boring quickly since all the parties agree Reeves was wrong.
I believe your position on Zimmerman was guilty as was the majority of people.
What proof do you have that Casey Anthony killed her kid? How do you know it wasnt Anthony Lazzaro or someone else for that matter.
So I guess your attorney friend never heard of the convent called "self defense".
Here is what self defense means in U.S. law: Self defense is the right for civilians acting on their own behalf to engage in a level of violence, called reasonable force or defensive force, for the sake of defending one's own life or the lives of others, including, in certain circumstances, the use of deadly force.
Florida Instructions to a Jury in a self defense case say:
In deciding whether defendant was justified in the use of deadly force, you must judge [him] [her] by the circumstances by which [he] [she] was surrounded at the time the force was used. The danger facing the defendant need not have been actual; however, to justify the use of deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force. Based upon appearances, the defendant must have actually believed that the danger was real.
If the defendant [was not engaged in an unlawful activity and] was attacked in any place where [he] [she] had a right to be, [he] [she] had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand [his] [her] ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if [he] [she] reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to [himself] [herself] [another] or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
Define applicable forcible felony from list in § 776.08, Fla. Stat. that defendant alleges victim was about to commit.
Presumption of Fear (dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle). Give if applicable. § 776.013(2)(a)-(d), Fla. Stat.
If the defendant was in a(n)[dwelling] [residence] [occupied vehicle] where [he] [she] had a right to be, [he] [she] is presumed to have had a reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily harm to [himself] [herself] [another] if (victim) had [unlawfully and forcibly entered] [removed or attempted to remove another person against that person’s will from] that [dwelling] [residence] [occupied vehicle] and the defendant had reason to believe that had occurred. The defendant had no duty to retreat under such circumstances.
Exceptions to Presumption of Fear. § 776.013(2)(a)-(d), Fla. Stat. Give as applicable.
The presumption of reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily harm 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]] [the 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] [occupied vehicle] to further an unlawful activity; or
d. the person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, who enters or attempts to enter a [dwelling] [residence] [vehicle] in the performance of [his] [her] official duties and the officer identified [himself] [herself] in accordance with any applicable law or the person using the force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.
If requested, give definition of “law enforcement officer” from § 943.10(14), Fla. Stat.,
§ 776.013(4), Fla. Stat.
A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter another’s [dwelling] [residence] [occupied vehicle] is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.
Definitions. Give if applicable. § 776.013(5), Fla. Stat.
As used with regard to self defense:
Prior threats. Give if applicable.
If you find that the defendant who because of threats or prior difficulties with (victim) had reasonable grounds to believe that [he] [she] was in danger of death or great bodily harm at the hands of (victim), then the defendant had the right to arm [himself] [herself]. However, the defendant cannot justify the use of deadly force, if after arming [himself] [herself] [he] [she] renewed [his] [her] difficulty with (victim) when [he] [she] could have avoided the difficulty, although as previously explained if the defendant was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where [he] [she] had a right to be, [he] [she] had no duty to retreat.
Reputation of victim. Give if applicable.
If you find that (victim) had a reputation of being a violent and dangerous person and that [his] [her] reputation was known to the defendant, you may consider this fact in determining whether the actions of the defendant were those of a reasonable person in dealing with an individual of that reputation.
Physical abilities. Read in all cases.
In considering the issue of self-defense, you may take into account the relative physical abilities and capacities of the defendant and (victim).
Read in all cases.
If in your consideration of the issue of self-defense you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether the defendant was justified in the use of deadly force, you should find the defendant not guilty.
However, if from the evidence you are convinced that the defendant was not justified in the use of deadly force, you should find [him] [her] guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proved.
You can copy and paste FL statute all day long and it don't mean squat. No felony was committed against Reeves, period. Also, how on earth does one conclude that Oulson was looking for a confrontation? People looking for a confrontation don't ask "Do you mind? or say "get out of my face". That statement right there is evidence Oulson wished to withdraw from the contact. Reeves just couldn't let it go.
You dont know jack about how someone feels when they carry firearms.
You make assumptions when you do not have any facts or personal experience.
Whether a gun was involved or not is very relevant. You just cant answer the question without looking stupid.
Perhaps if Reeves was not armed then it is possible that a 3rd strike by Oulson could have caused Reeves to be seriously injured or could have caused his death. It was apparent that Oulson was not going to stop his attack until Reeves was incapacitated. The first attack, the cell phone did not incapacitate Reeves.
The grabbing of Mr. Reeves' property and throwing it at him did not incapacitate Reeves. Thus a 3rd physical attack was imminent.
Oh, please! Reading only your posts shows what people like you and Reeves think when they are caring a gun. Power! They can tell people what to do!
Last paragraph of you post is a fly of your wild fantasy and pure speculation.
You can copy and paste FL statute all day long and it don't mean squat. No felony was committed against Reeves, period.
The funniest part is, all you have to do is read those statutes to realize how completely sunk Reeves is yet he posts them like it's some triumphant revelation in support of the pro-shoot position when all it does is demonstrate just how deliberately the statutes were written to eliminate any claim to justifiable self defense from shooters in situations just like this.
Florida Instructions to a Jury in a self defense case say:
In deciding whether defendant was justified in the use of deadly force, you must judge [him] [her] by the circumstances by which [he] [she] was surrounded at the time the force was used. The danger facing the defendant need not have been actual; however, to justify the use of deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force. Based upon appearances, the defendant must have actually believed that the danger was real.
Reasonable, cautious and prudent does not apply to Reeves.
Reasonable ? Hardly, any reasonable person would not have badgered Oulson, gone to management, returned to management, then leaned over to Oulson and said something else to further incite the situation. Reasonable people don't text themselves and then go to management over someone else texting !!!!
Cautious ? Hardly, just watch the video and how quick Reeves shoots after the popcorn flying.
Prudent ? Prudent means showing care and thought for the future - Reeves obviously does not care about the future as he ruined two families.
The appearance of danger "must have been so real" ... the popcorn and cell phone lol ...
And as far as Casey Anthony ... you must be blind if you don't see that she killed her kid. Why would she protect Anthony Lazzaro when she threw HER OWN FATHER to the wolves.
Defendant does not report kid missing for 30 days -> Defendant lies to police -> Defendant tries to borrow shovel from neighbor -> Defendant leaves car at Amscot and lies to boyfriend -> Car towed -> Dead body smell in car -> Internet searches for chloroform and other incriminatory things found on home computer when only defendant home -> Body found with tape from Anthony garage and other personal items -> DEFENDANT GUILTY.
Lots of murder defendants are convicted with only circumstantial evidence. You do know what "infer" means, don't you SH ? When juries are presented with a set of circumstantial evidence, they need to weigh such evidence and make inferences as to the meaning of the evidence.
Last edited by Soup Not See; 08-04-2014 at 03:27 PM..
You can copy and paste FL statute all day long and it don't mean squat. No felony was committed against Reeves, period. Also, how on earth does one conclude that Oulson was looking for a confrontation? People looking for a confrontation don't ask "Do you mind? or say "get out of my face". That statement right there is evidence Oulson wished to withdraw from the contact. Reeves just couldn't let it go.
Getting up out of your seat, turning to face me, yelling at me, throwing your cell phone at me, grabbing my stuff and throwing at me concludes Oulson was looking for a confrontation. Otherwise he would have stayed in his seat and went on with his life after Reeves returned to his seat.
It was Oulson who didnt want to let it go and that is obvious. You say no felony which was based on case law that has nothing to do with this type of matter. The Statue is clear. Otherwise it would be amended to drop those over 65.
Give it up already dude. Your boy went one step beyond.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
