Sheriff rejects popcorn killer’s ‘stand your ground’ defense: ‘Why didn’t he move sea

[theDoctorisIn]

The take away from this and Zimmerman is.

Don't put your hands on people unless you are defending yourself.

You may get ventilated.

Right or wrong. Free or imprisoned.

You are still dead.

Actually, what I take from this is that gun nuts are willing to go so far into left field to defend guns at all costs that you guys are actually able to convince yourselves that a man truly deserved to be killed because he threw popcorn at another man.

What I take from this is you can't put your emotional reckoning aside to deal with facts and law.

edit: The facts and law aren't on your side that it why you had to make it personal.

We don't know the "facts". We know what the lawyer for the defense said.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Actually, what I take from this is that gun nuts are willing to go so far into left field to defend guns at all costs that you guys are actually able to convince yourselves that a man truly deserved to be killed because he threw popcorn at another man.

What I take from this is you can't put your emotional reckoning aside to deal with facts and law.

edit: The facts and law aren't on your side that it why you had to make it personal.

We don't know the "facts". We know what the lawyer for the defense said.

We know Florida law.

We know the Shooter went to authorities first.

And when he came back, he was assaulted.

The wife had her hand on his chest and was shot through it which indicates she was trying to hold her husband back.

 

[Politico]

How does texting in a theater bother someone else? I could see getting upset with someone yapping on their cell phone, although not to the extent to gun them down.

I don't have that problem. Cell phone service goes down when I see a movie.

You can't strike the elderly................. its a Felony in Florida.

Popcorn? You really think popcorn constitutes a felony assault?

There are no lists of acceptable items to batter the elderly with in Florida law.

Well maybe they should make one.

 

[Yurt]

Sorry folks, but OODA is correct.


As distasteful as it is, as much as we disagree with it, a good lawyer who argues and applies the law as it is written, if the jury follows their instructions, there's a good chance this guy walks...

how could he fear for his life from popcorn?

 

[OODA_Loop]

You're not discussing "facts and law", you're simply parroting the defense's case.

I posted the law.

And produced a plausible defense based on the facts, based on that law as identified in the media.

Is there a particular fabrication, mistruth or inaccuracy you are referring to ?

 

[OODA_Loop]

Sorry folks, but OODA is correct.


As distasteful as it is, as much as we disagree with it, a good lawyer who argues and applies the law as it is written, if the jury follows their instructions, there's a good chance this guy walks...

how could he fear for his life from popcorn?

He didn't fear popcorn.

He feared the irate maniac who went to this level to attack an old person for asking him not to text during a movie and whose wife was trying to hold back.

The elderly threshold makes the fear of great bodily harm from the aggravated battery greater.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Sheriff rejects popcorn killer’s ‘stand your ground’ defense: ‘Why didn’t he move seats?’

The sheriff who’s investigating the fatal shooting of a moviegoer this week in Florida said the state’s “stand your ground” defense doesn’t apply in this case, but an attorney said it likely does.

“What most people don’t understand is, the law is not concerned with what started your argument; the law is not concerned about how petty it is,” attorney Stephen Romine told First Coast News. “The law is concerned about the acts between two people — the person who died and the person who did the shooting.”

Retired police captain Curtis Reeves was charged with second-degree murder after he shot 43-year-old Chad Oulson to death Monday afternoon because he refused to stop sending a text message to his 2-year-old daughter’s day care provider.

A 2-year-old will never know her father because of this man.

Nuts?

I thought the shooter was the one complaining, so obviously he wasn't standing his ground.

If he had been the one being complained to, maybe there'd be a rationality behind using that poor defense.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

You're not discussing "facts and law", you're simply parroting the defense's case.

I posted the law.

And produced a plausible defense based on the facts, based on that law as identified in the media.

Is there a particular fabrication, mistruth or inaccuracy you are referring to ?

Before I comment on the "defense" that you've produced, I want to ask: Why do you feel the need to come up with a defense for this guy?

Your "defense" relies on proving in court that the retired cop because he feared bodily harm from the incoming popcorn projectiles, and not because he was riled up and angry (which is the obvious reason).

The mental state of the man involved is not a known "fact" to anyone other than the man himself.

 

[wavingrl]

Sorry folks, but OODA is correct.


As distasteful as it is, as much as we disagree with it, a good lawyer who argues and applies the law as it is written, if the jury follows their instructions, there's a good chance this guy walks...

how could he fear for his life from popcorn?

He didn't fear popcorn.

He feared the irate maniac who went to this level to attack an old person for asking him not to text during a movie and whose wife was trying to hold back.

The elderly threshold makes the fear of great bodily harm from the aggravated battery greater.

I am 'elderly'--and do not have such fears. Also would not care if someone was tweeting.

just throwing that in.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Before I comment on the "defense" that you've produced, I want to ask: Why do you feel the need to come up with a defense for this guy?

Your "defense" relies on proving in court that the retired cop feared bodily harm from the incoming popcorn projectiles, and not because he was riled up and angry (which is the obvious reason).

The mental state of the man involved is not a known "fact" to anyone other than the man himself.

There are two sides to every story and everyone deserves to put on their defense.

Your mistake is focusing on the lethality of the popcorn.

The throwing of popcorn is the indication the man's mental state and unmitigated projection of force.

Did he fear that projection of force could reasonably produce great bodily injury to him as an elderly man ? Florida law specifically deals with elderly assault.

The placement of the wife's hand on her husband's chest is a clear indication of trying to restrain someone from fighting. We have all done that or had that done to us at some point.

My wife has put her hand on my chest to stop a fracas in my younger days.

 

[wavingrl]

Before I comment on the "defense" that you've produced, I want to ask: Why do you feel the need to come up with a defense for this guy?

Your "defense" relies on proving in court that the retired cop feared bodily harm from the incoming popcorn projectiles, and not because he was riled up and angry (which is the obvious reason).

The mental state of the man involved is not a known "fact" to anyone other than the man himself.

There are two sides to every story and everyone deserves to put on their defense.

Your mistake is focusing on the lethality of the popcorn.

The throwing of popcorn is the indication the man's mental state and unmitigated projection of force.

Did he fear that projection of force could reasonably produce great bodily injury to him as an elderly man ? Florida law specifically deals with elderly assault.

The placement of the wife's hand on her husband's chest is a clear indication of trying to restrain someone from fighting. We have all done that or had that done to us at some point.

My wife has put her hand on my chest to stop a fracas in my younger days.

all of that is true and yet 'not enough' for me.

I would like to hear the Prosecutor's side. lacking the ability to generate that myself tonight.

'The Law' v common sense?

 

[Politico]

To answer the question above. The reason they keep coming up with a defense is to protect their precious guns. And to avoid the obvious question. Why was this nut job ever allowed to have one?

 

[SmedlyButler]

He is in a suicide smock.

He must have been threatening to kill himself in the jail.

I saw an article somewhere that mentioned he was wearing a bullet proof vest at some point. Could that be it?

 

[OODA_Loop]

He is in a suicide smock.

He must have been threatening to kill himself in the jail.

I saw an article somewhere that mentioned he was wearing a bullet proof vest at some point. Could that be it?

No it looks like that is tear proof suicide smock to me.

That photo look like he is being video arraigned from the jail (which they do in Pasco Co) so no need for ballistic vest in jail.

It is so thick you can't tie it around your neck.

 

[SmedlyButler]

To answer the question above. The reason they keep coming up with a defense is to protect their precious guns. And to avoid the obvious question. Why was this nut job ever allowed to have one?

The event certainly seems to provide another good argument for thorough background checks.

By the way....I'm close to "elderly" and if I perceive that a situation has the potential to escalate beyond words I usually just walk away. I admit that course may be viewed as cowardly but I'm also not afraid to admit "I'm not the man I used to be." Makes me sad sometimes, in the good old days I used to stand my ground against any odds...and not with any weapon.

 

[OODA_Loop]

To answer the question above. The reason they keep coming up with a defense is to protect their precious guns. And to avoid the obvious question. Why was this nut job ever allowed to have one?

The event certainly seems to provide another good argument for thorough background checks.

Background check ?

The shooter passed a background check.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

To answer the question above. The reason they keep coming up with a defense is to protect their precious guns. And to avoid the obvious question. Why was this nut job ever allowed to have one?

The event certainly seems to provide another good argument for thorough background checks.

By the way....I'm close to "elderly" and if I perceive that a situation has the potential to escalate beyond words I usually just walk away. I admit that course may be viewed as cowardly but I'm also not afraid to admit "I'm not the man I used to be." Makes me sad sometimes, in the good old days I used to stand my ground against any odds...and not with any weapon.

He's a retired police chief. I have no doubt he passed the background check with flying colors.

 

[OODA_Loop]

By the way....I'm close to "elderly" and if I perceive that a situation has the potential to escalate beyond words I usually just walk away. I admit that course may be viewed as cowardly but I'm also not afraid to admit "I'm not the man I used to be." Makes me sad sometimes, in the good old days I used to stand my ground against any odds...and not with any weapon.

It appears he did. He went to tell the manager.

When he returned, most likely thinking it that would work, it escalated.

It is escalated to the point the shooting victim's wife appeared to get between it placing her hand on her husband's chest.

We all have been in or witnessed wife's stopping their husbands about to kick some ass.

 

[OODA_Loop]

This is no doubt tragic on all accounts.

 

[wavingrl]

This is no doubt tragic on all accounts.

I completely agree.

fwiw--support the 2nd amendment

just don't understand things like this and don't think I ever will. which is neither here nor there

in related news--

Harvey Weinstein and Meryl Streep are making a movie that will make NRA 'wish they weren't alive' | Mail Online