Curtis Reeves, guilty or innocent?

[McBain II]

Originally Posted by Daryl_G

Sounds like every high-profile Florida trial.

Exactly. Would be kind of interesting to debate who had the worst courtroom display. My vote goes to Linda Burdick and Jeff Ashton, who made absolute fools of themselves in the Casey Anthony trial.

[Benny the Mutt]

"forcible snatching" was the victims 2nd crime. The 3rd was assault (throwing the snatched property). The 1st crime was throwing the cell phone at Reeves.

Originally Posted by McBain II

It really doesn't matter that Reeves didn't know what hit him the first time. Simply knowing that he was struck and that it was by Chad Oulson was enough. And yes, throwing popcorn at someone is in fact battery. I'm not sure where you got the idea that it isn't, but you are incorrect.

And yes, you are (generally) responsible for the placement of your shots. However, the law has to balance that with the fact that in high stress scenarios--like where lethal force is justified--there is a decent probability of shots being missed. Rather than potentially handicap citizens with a no-win situation, the law places the burden on the shoulders of the one provoking the lethal force.

Frankly, I think that is the way it should be.

[Benny the Mutt]

Pre verdict thoughts.



You just dont launch an attack on someone, then escalate your actions, you can get hurt.

Originally Posted by City Guy997S

Shooter was a retired cop............he clearly should have known better than to start an argument with someone texting during the movie previews. Old man cop was looking for trouble and he got it. Throwing popcorn certainly isn't life threatening AND throwing bullets back is definitely overkill.

If the guy didn't pack a gun he likely wouldn't have been so argumentative about the texting. He was lying in wait looking for a reaction so he could start shooting.

[Benny the Mutt]

What if Oulsen hit Reeves causing him to fall and break his neck? Would you still back Oulsen?

Originally Posted by EngGirl

I swear any person would be annoyed by the request of stranger to put the phone down in demanding tone... multiple times... for the duration of at least 20 minutes (I am counting from the time old fart texted his own son and the time of shooting)... before movie even began.... After someone will be verbally attacking you from behind the person sitting in the front would turn around at some point.... Hey! this is what defend is using - he was facing the killer for like 3 seconds instead of movie screen.

So, two people who killer confronted over the use of phone before, one male and one female, on two different occasions, were not allowed to testify on this hearing as it apparently has nothing to do with this case... okeeey

Judge seems to favor defense more than anyone else... seems highly biased.

[9162]

Originally Posted by EngGirl

BS!
From the facts Curtis Reeves initiated contact and provoked Mr. Oulson for confrontations.

Fan facts - Reeves did the same with another person at the same theater weeks before the shooting. He had anger issues - specifically for cell phone usage at the theater, however..... Reeves texted his own son at 1:04 pm stating he is inside seated... as his son was running late for this moving, however Reeves didn't want anyone else to use their phones. Reeves had a gun and all intention to bully people around him and use gun claiming stand your ground.
Reeves is guilty as hell. He was not in danger by any mean. He created issues and placed himself in the middle.

Hoping for state and jury to see the whole picture.
Defense is arguing the use of video on Day 1 of trail.... what a sh#t show!

Agreed. It also needs to be mention police officers are trained how to use their gun, and where to aim; it’s not the police officer intention in most cases to shoot to kill. Reeves could have flashed his gun to Oulson, indicating “you better not mess with me”, and that he should back down, more importantly when a police officer uses his gun, he is trained to not shoot at a vital area of the body. Mr Reeves made it a point to shoot to kill. Another case of a cop going out of control.

[HWTechGuy]

Originally Posted by 9162

Agreed. It also needs to be mention police officers are trained how to use their gun, and where to aim; it’s not the police officer intention in most cases to shoot to kill. Reeves could have flashed his gun to Oulson, indicating “you better not mess with me”, and that he should back down, more importantly when a police officer uses his gun, he is trained to not shoot at a vital area of the body. Mr Reeves made it a point to shoot to kill. Another case of a cop going out of control.

That is called brandishing, which itself is illegal.

[MortonR]

Originally Posted by HWTechGuy

That is called brandishing, which itself is illegal.

As is "printing", which is when someone who is concealed carrying allows a firearm to be visible through their clothing - not directly, but by the outline or shape to be obvious.

RM

[LKJ1988]

Not this old hashed out crap again dan.

[Dino1]

Does anyone really think the world is a poorer place without a bully who throws popcorn in an old man's face? I guarantee had Curtis been a young musclular guy the other guy would not have had the guts to throw popcorn in his face. His last words were "I can't believe he shot me" tells us everything we need to know about him. He did not expect someone who would fight back. Tough.