By Dean Weingarten
Arizona – -(Ammoland.com)-
Video of Theater Shooting link
On January 13, 2014, a retired police officer, Curtis Reeves, and his wife were preparing to watch “Lone Survivor” in a theater in the unincorporated area of Wesley Chapel, part of the Tampa Bay Florida metro complex.
Directly in front of the retired officer and his wife were another couple, Chad Oulson and his wife.
Reeves and Chad got into a dispute after Reeves asked Chad to stop using his cell phone during previews.
The case has been characterized as a retired police officer shooting someone who threw popcorn at him. I was surprised to see the reality when surveillance video of the confrontation was released. The violent confrontation took about 1.3 seconds.
During that period, Chad Oulson snatched the popcorn container from Reeves lap, flung it at his face from about a foot away, rapidly extended his hand toward Reeves face again, and pulls it back, fractions of a second before Reeves shoots. In the video, you can only see Oulson’s outstretched arm and hand. The rest of him is outside the surveillance video frame.
Correction: There were two thrusts at Reeves, but the above paragraph has the sequence wrong. The first thrust is to grab the popcorn, the second is to fling the popcorn. The above paragraph states that the grabbing and flinging were in one motion, and then a second motion without the popcorn. That is incorrect. Tip of the hat to Kevin in the comments.
The outstretched Arm of Chad Oulson is under the red arrow. The container of popcorn is just to left, in flight. Head of retired officer Reeves is just to left of cup in flight, barely visible.
The defense in the case has nothing to do with the “Stand Your Ground” law. The action happened so rapidly that there was no chance to retreat. Reeves was confined in the theater chair, is elderly, and in no condition to fight a younger man. Both men are large, but Oulson, at 43, was nearly 3 decades younger, in his prime. Clearly, this was an assault by Oulson.
The establishment news coverage has characterized this as a “Stand Your Ground” case, and the pre-trial hearing as a Stand Your Ground hearing.
In reality it is a completely separate part of the the law, a pre-trial immunity hearing. The immunity hearing just ended, with the judge finding a preponderance of the evidence did not prove self defense. From palmbeachpost.com:
A retired Florida police captain who shot and killed a man in a movie theater will face a second-degree murder charge after a judge ruled that the state’s “stand your ground” law does not apply in this case.
The hearing will be appealed. From tampbay.com:
Dino Michaels, a member of Reeves’ defense team, said they respect the judge’s ruling but intend to file a challenge with the Second District Court of Appeals.
One of the strongest points of the defense is that Reeves, 71, was defending against an assault on the elderly. That makes Oulson’s assault on Reeves a violent felony. In Florida, deadly force is justified to stop a violent felony. From fox6now.com:
“The claim of the defense is that Mr. Oulson was committing a felony against Mr. Reeves by abuse of the elderly when he threw his cell phone at Mr. Reeves,” Swartz said.
The judge in the immunity hearing never mentioned the violent felony justification in her ruling. She did not refute it or dispute it.
This was a tragic case. It seems that either party could have de-escalated early on. Either party could have moved to other seats. It looked as though there were many empty seats. It did not get physical until Oulson snatched Reeves popcorn and flung it in his face at extremely close range.
This may be a classic case of the old canard: “Don’t frighten an old man. He won’t fight. He will just kill you.”
©2017 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.
About Dean Weingarten;
Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of constitutional carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and recently retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.
Idadho is a libtard site troll, ignore the loser
Poor Gene. You must be from the shallow end of the gene pool. I’d put my conservative credentials up against anybody. I work with facts, not preconceived opinions like Dave. By Dave’s explanation, Reeves could not help himself because he was confronted by a younger man and had cause to be upset. Just like the snowflakes in college. They believe everybody else is the problem.
Why? He insinuated you can’t get to automatically shoot others when you want to?
How about everybody in this thread pull their heads out of their asses, and finally understand that this is now, I repeat now, in the hands of a jury.
Remember the jury system you idiots?
If you believe in the Constitution, then you believe in the jury system, leave it to them!
That juries will effectively legalize duelling in the U.S. again?
That would be awesome.
Sorry guy – you got that one all wrong. He is not old and feeble by any means. He sure had that gun cocked and ready to go in his pocket with those “feeble, arthritic” hands PRIOR to his having popcorn thrown at him. This guy wasn’t standing his ground. This guy was a bully who thought he was the phone police and used lethal force knowing he was going to make a smart ass comment and the man might get angry. He PROVOKED the confrontation. And had his gun ready. Perhaps by your peer recognition of Mr. Reeves you… Read more »
ASSAULT is THREATENING to throw the bag of popcorn at someone’s face. BATTERY is THE ACT OF THROWING the bag of pc into someone’s face!!! I watched a self-defense program where one man swung a club at another man’s head. The 2nd man took it away from the man attempting to commit BATTERY on the 2nd man. The instructor said once the club was taken away it would have been ILLEGAL for the 2nd man to strike the 1st man in the head with the club which act COULD HAVE BEEN LETHAL. If the 1st man continued his aggression it… Read more »
An assault is carried out by a threat of bodily harm coupled with an apparent, present ability to cause the harm. The bag of popcorn cannot inflict bodily harm. I can just imagine Reeves claiming he was fearful that he was going to be battered by a half-empty bag of popcorn. That self-defense program was very generic with its information and trying to avoid legal specifics due to the differences between state statutes. In the U.S., the general rule is that “[a] person is privileged to use such force as reasonably appears necessary to defend him or herself against an… Read more »
Hence 2A supporters want to support duelling – proportionality shouldn’t be a consideration.
I haven’t read any comments supporting dueling. As far as the threat of assault, the decedent’s aggressive/violent reaction is a threat, the pop corn wasn’t the threat, the act of aggression was. The younger, stronger man trying to intimidate the older man by showing an aggressive/violent reaction to a verbal dispute was the threat of violence. Without knowing all the facts, and not knowing what was going on in each man’s mind, we can only speculate about the real cause(s) that resulted in the shooting. The only things we know for sure are that neither man was in the right,… Read more »
Even the Zimmerman vs Martin case had proportionality, dimwit. As soon as you & co. allow for emotions to dictate the right to shoot others you’re in the realm of honor defense not self-defense.
The only emotion/honor that we know for sure that were involved were the decedents. He turned a verbal dispute into a violent one. Self-defense is not emotional, unless you consider wanting to remain uninjured or not killed emotional.
History is filled with verbal exchanges that have turned deadly. Never get into a confrontation that you are not willing to die for – this was not one of those times.
The “facts” as known would seem the shooter over-reacted. This is up to the courts to decide if the shooter was justified.
Any half-wit should know anger and emotion aren’t reasons for claiming self-defense let alone the “he might have gotten violent” excuse. This case would clearly set a precedence for duels and honor killings should he be acquitted.
I believe you posted to the wrong thread. Your post isn’t remotely related to my last post, which yours is under. There was no duel nor any “killing due to honor”. The shooter was not a Muslim killing his daughter because she was “defiled” or refused to marry the man who bought her. This was strictly about a verbal confrontation that turned violent, then deadly. A situation that was not worth dying over. A situation that one paid the ultimate price for stupidity, regardless of whether or not the shooting is ruled justified. Based on the facts presented in this… Read more »
Garbage, it was not a violent confrontation but an argument that the old man felt he couldn’t look weak in the eyes of others therefore he shot the guy dead. No, the other guy shouldn’t have “let it go” because he might dealing with a violent psychopath. You might as well lock yourself if you’re going to assume everyone is a violent psychopath with a hair trigger. Apparently you think its’ okay to get shot if you look at someone the wrong way and they get offended. P.S. Yes it was an honor killing because his sense of pride and… Read more »
I never stated that “honor” killings are *only* done by Muslims, but that is what we read frequently in the news when they do occur, even here in the USA. Yes, the decedent should have walked away. He died because he felt *his* ego/honor would be tarnished, instead, he lost his life. Not a situation I would get into, and I sure wouldn’t escalate it by an aggressive/violent action toward someone that you said was already agitated/enraged. That’s pure stupidity, and that is what got him killed. Apparently, I am aware that people that are agitated/enraged may act on those… Read more »
In EVERY case, Reeves escalated this event. After going to the lobby, he could have just returned to his seat. Instead, he got in Oulson’s face. Oulson responded to Reeves obnoxious and belligerent behavior. It was Reeves’ honor that was injured. I bet Oulsen said something like “Shut the F.. up old man and sit down.” Throwing the popcorn was his way of dismissing the old man. “What we do know is the decedent decided confrontation and intimidation was the right way to proceed and died for it.” “The only emotion/honor that we know for sure that were involved were… Read more »
Idadho, if he said what you stated, or similar, then threw something at the older man, he *escalated* the confrontation with that aggressive/violent action and words. No, it was not about honor, and if it was, it was Oulson’s “honor” that he did not just walk away. Apparently Oulson’s “response” got him killed. That shows how stupid he was to not just walk away. I personally would choose walk away and live another day. That was a confrontation he didn’t have to escalate and then he could have lived to live to tell about it. I am in no way… Read more »
Dave, You stated “I do believe that if the decedent had just walked away, and not escalated the situation, he’d be alive today. ” This could have easily said,”I do believe that if the DEFENDANT had just SHUT UP, and not escalated the situation, he’d not be facing prison today. ” The court documents state that Reeves confronted Oulson 3 times. Each time, he could have left it alone. The third time, Oulsen was sitting quietly in his seat with his cell phone in his pocket when Reeves confronted him after returning from the lobby. Reeves could have observed that… Read more »
Idadho, that will not make the decedent any less dead. The point is the decedent chose to continue the confrontation, and chose to escalate it. No matter how you wish to twist it, he’s dead due to his actions. Yes, the shooter could have also chosen not to shoot, but he didn’t. The fact is other man is dead due to choices he (the decedent) made. You are now trying to justify the decedent’s actions that got him killed. It takes two to tango. A glass of water would also spur an already enraged/agitated person to violence. So you are… Read more »
I do not agree that Oulson escalated the event. He was just responding to Reeves continued harassment. Who would ever expect that telling someone to Shut Up would result in getting shot. Even throwing the popcorn should not result in getting shot. Reeves was not a gang banger in gang attire. I do not agree that the popcorn was aggressive/violent. As I said, It was likely meant as a insult to a petty old man. It could just as easily caused Reeves to stop, if just to pick up the popcorn. I put the whole event on Reeves. Oulson had… Read more »
Whether or not you agree, the fact is Oulson is dead and he could have avoided that by not throwing the pop corn and just letting it go and walk away. He died due to his actions. Yes, it is unfortunate that the decedent didn’t abide by the rules of self-defense and situational awareness and decided to continue the fight, and lose his life due to that. If he hadn’t done that, then Reeves would not have shot him. I’d rather be alive and not have “defended my honor” by escalating the confrontation. Oulson made the wrong choice and paid… Read more »
Apparently DE you’re soon envisioning a society where armed people will be everywhere and risking making someone angry and getting shot dead will become commonplace. Hence the new form self-defense is let other people walk all over you.
No, I am envisioning a civil society where people respect others, and the reality of when you confront someone in an aggressive/violent way, don’t be surprised if that person reacts violently. The news is filled with confrontations that started as *only* a verbal dispute that resulted in injury or death of one or more of the participants of said dispute. As I have repeatedly stated, self-defense and situational awareness training instructs that one avoids those situations, and for those exact reasons, that confrontations can turn violent with unpleasant results; therefore the best thing to do is avoid them or walk… Read more »
And, who has a lifetime of training in de-escalation in confrontations ? What situational awareness skills would have changed this ? Had Oulson known that Reeves was a gun carrying deranged maniac rather than just a loudmouth old man, he might have reacted differently. Cops in uniform are obviously carrying a weapon. Cops in plain clothes and without identifying themselves are an unknown commodity. A movie theater is a low risk environment. Who would ever expect a mouthy older man at the movies with his wife to be carrying a firearm and be so quick to turn lethal ? I’d… Read more »
Idadho, one does not need a lifetime of self-defense and situational awareness to know not to escalate a confrontation. I remember as a kid being told by my parents not to get into fights. Reading stories like this, and self-defense and situational awareness also tells one the same thing, avoid confrontations because they can lead to violence, injury and death. That isn’t a difficult idea to comprehend. Who would expect a heated confrontation to turn violent? Anyone with even an ounce of sense. We read about this happening often enough. If Oulson had used situational awareness, he’d have known not… Read more »
You’re just like the old man. You can’t take the truth and just SHUT UP. What was Reeves complaining about once Oulson had put his cell phone away ? Reeves kept the confrontation going after Oulson put his cell phone away. “So the only reason to Oulson had for escalating the confrontation was that he thought he could intimidate or “take” the older man.” You are taking a giant leap into that thought. I say, Oulson thought he could get the old man to just shut up. When it appeared he couldn’t, he threw the popcorn as a final word… Read more »
Idadho, Now I should “just shut-up”? Now I understand better, you like Oulson, have anger management issues, which why you believe throwing something at someone during a heated confrontation is a reasonable action and not an aggressive/violent react, which it is. The true is if Oulson walked away he’d be alive today.
Yes, Reeves should not have shot him, but if Oulson wasn’t there, he couldn’t have. I don’t see how that concept is so difficult to understand.
Use this event as a learning aid – avoid needless confrontations.
You keep stepping right into my points. ‘Just shut up’ shows that even you have a hard time letting things go. You have conceded that Reeves should not have done what he did and was beyond any justification. But, then you say it was Oulson’s responsibility to recognize that Reeves was likely to get out of control. I can imagine the argument. Reeves, ‘You can’t use you cell phone in the theater.’ Oulson, “I’m just checking with my baby sitter and will use my cell phone to text if I feel the need. It’s not you business.” Reeves, “But you… Read more »
I have stated repeatedly that based on the facts as we know them that Reeves was not justified in shooting. You seem to have a disconnect with what I write and what you believe I wrote. The situation could not have gotten to where it did without two willing parties. We know that Reeves confronted Oulson and that Reeves shot him after Oulson threw something at him during a heated dispute. I repeatedly have stated that if Oulson hadn’t escalated the confrontation and just walked away that he’d be alive today. Yes, that is my opinion, but it is based… Read more »
@BJI Actually, Battery is an unconsented to touching. Assualt is the attempt. The first man used deadly force and remained a dangerous threat, the second hypothetical man would have been justified in using deadly force of any kind to defend himself.
The fact is, a violent confrontation happened within just a few seconds. One could argue that Mr. Reeves was reacting according to his training. He certainly wanted to avoid injury at the hands of a physically more powerful and younger man. Like it or not, there is enough material here for a first year law student to put together a case of reasonable doubt. And that’s all it will take to acquit. At a minimum, it will be a hung jury. If they retry it, then another hung jury, at which point it will be over with. I’ve been a… Read more »
Using the “it might have turned violent” is putting the cart before the horse when in reality it was an honor killing. He couldn’t think of a middle ground solution so he took the extreme one.
Be careful you don’t spill popcorn on Dean Weingarten. It sounds like he just might respond with deadly force. It is interesting how Dean makes it into felony assault because the shooter is elderly. If the shooter was 60, would Dean have said it was just misdemeanor assault and did not warrant use of deadly force ? “You are being a jerk but since you are an old man, I don’t dare throw your popcorn or you will feel entitled to shoot me. If you were younger, we could go mano a mano. The assault on the elderly laws are… Read more »
Not only is a disparity in size is a disparity in force, but also a disparity in age. Why did did the younger man react in a violent manner? In my experience it is because he was using his size/age to intimidate the elderly man. He paid for that mistake with his life. Both were wrong. I worked with an 83 year old man. He was always in good health until one day he fell. After that event, he didn’t recover, even though the fall was not a life threatening event, he eventually died several weeks later. Any injury when… Read more »
He disrespected the old man and the old man used his 2A right to restore his honor.
Heller never mentioned wounded honor as worthy of lethal force. He will never have any honor except with the pro-cop crowd who do not deserve any respect when they act so ignorant.
Anybody who has seen first hand how fast cops can escalate a confrontation will understand how this happened. Cops are trained to never lose control of any contact no matter what it takes The escalation of force rules are always use more force than the subject. Stronger voice beats normal voice. So, gun beats popcorn, even if it is just a bag.
Gil, and you use your 1A to continually show the ignorance and insanity of those that are anti-gun. Honor killings are done by Muslims and those that inhabit inner-city welfare tracts. This site is not the place for your nonsense.
Throwing a bag of popcorn is not violence. He grabbed the popcorn then threw it in Reeves face. Tough cop Reeves can’t take a bag of popcorn without drawing his firearm. The crime scene photos show that it wasn’t even very much popcorn .Reeves was sitting in a row about a foot above Oulsen. Reeves had a superior position position on Oulsen. Maybe he should go look for a safe place. He has one with house arrest while on bail. It has been 4 years and he is still out on bail. I bet Reeves’ complaint was the light from… Read more »
I think the physical layout of the theater will be the deciding factor in this case and should hopefully remove any reasonable doubt from the minds of the jury. As mentioned above, Reeves was sitting in a row both above and behind Oulson. It’s entirely possible Oulson grabbed and threw the popcorn at Reeves simply because it was the only thing in reach but never would have been able to mount any kind of serious assault or do any life-threatening damage without either first climbing/jumping over his row or walking around and down Reeves row to his position. Had he… Read more »
No, Dave, Your bad logic is that throwing a small bag of popcorn is a violent/aggressive act when the judge, with the help of experts reviewing the video, determined that throwing the popcorn was not a violent act or attack at Reeves. You keep ignoring that. You ignore the fact that Oulson was stepping away after throwing the popcorn. You and your ‘situational awareness’ training obsession does not change the facts. What did Oulson not observe in the situation ? Reeves was trained in situational awareness but failed miserably. You don’t even get my point then I said you can’t… Read more »
Idadho, Reeves did not suffer from poor situational awareness, he survived the incident. Whether he was justified in shooting does not pertain to his situational awareness. According to him, he perceived a threat. Whether or not the throwing of an object during a heated dispute is aggressive/violent or not, doesn’t really matter. Reeves took it to be, and shot Oulson because of it. Reeves did not have the opportunity to discuss his perception of that act with you or the judge before he shot Oulson. Even if I agree with you that throwing something during a heated dispute isn’t an… Read more »
Dave, You can’t even read and understand other’s posts. You are so protective of your own ego and opinions, you can’t even see when others try to show your hypocrisy, like claiming the truth but denying the evidence presented in court. You don’t even read my screen name correctly. More importantly, I did not threaten to knock down your door. I said that you could find me and knock down mine. Based on your logic, I should back away and stop this cyber confrontation because I don’t know what YOU are capable of. Reeves situational awareness was a total failure.… Read more »
Idadho, I read you quite clear. You obviously were threatening me, since I am the only one using my name in this thread. You projected that threat on you, which was clearly meant for me, since I would (1) not be trying to find you geographically, and (2) couldn’t use your screen ID to find you, but you could find me that way, since my last name is very uncommon. You don’t know what I am capable of? Oh, yes, you are afraid of me now? That is beyond ridiculous. You are the one that has gotten emotional, told me… Read more »
I just googled David Eckart. Just LinkedIn has 10 profiles plus many other google references. Eckart is a common name in Idaho. I’d never be able to find you. But, I have used Idadho for a decade with some comments that link to my real name. I am one of 7 with my real name in the entire country and the only one in Idaho. Anybody willing to spend some time sleuthing would be able to find me. But, now I understand your perspective. You are of a similar personality to Reeves and can’t let things go. You started defending… Read more »
Idadho, admitting that I am a gun owner on a website called Ammoland is “online brandishing”? I believe that’s beyond ridiculous. Speaking of lack of awareness, would it not be reasonable to expect that most people visiting such a site are gun owners? Would that not be the audience one would expect? I’ve been patient and have fully explained my position multiple times in multiple ways. If you still don’t get my point, I can’t help you any further. It would seem that since you do frequent this site that you should already understand self-defense and situational awareness and how… Read more »
Dave, You appear to not understand the concept of brandishing. Someone can walk around with a gun on their hip in many places with not problem. People are aware of the presence of the gun. But, when that person highlights the possession of a gun in a “Hey, I’m armed.” manner, that is brandishing. I bet there are plenty who get the Ammoland email who do not possess any firearms, due to state or city restrictions, finances, children at home, living with a felon, etc. I follow the self-defense use of guns because I know somebody who is doing 5-20… Read more »
Idadho, sorry about your friend. I gather it was not considered self-defense, since he is in prison. I fully understand what brandishing is as I, too, follow gun laws and 2A issues. I was writing from my phone, so I didn’t fully explain some of the points you addressed, such as that obviously not all people on this site are gun owners, I know that, and it was implied by my stating that is the target audience. That means that not everyone here is a gun owner. My statement that I am a gun owner was not “brandishing” nor meant… Read more »
You & friends are defending the old man’s right to restore his sense of honor.
Not in the least. We all believe that both parties were wrong. Both could have de-escalated the confrontation, but didn’t. This is more proof of one of the rules of situational awareness and self-defense, avoid confrontations when possible. Now the court gets to decide, not a place I would want to be. It also proves that firearms are force equalizers, the younger, stronger man lost the fight.
No the younger guy was still in the edge of the 1A while the old man took liberties with the 2A. When you use force to defend yourself and others against a credible threat of unjustified force then it’s self-defence. When you use force to defend your property against vandal and theft it’s property defense. When you use force to defend your pride and sense of honor because someone is being jerk it’s honor defense.
The violent reaction of the decedent is what led to his death, not his words. It was his unwillingness to just walk away and his willingness to intimidate an old man that got him killed.
It’s now up to the court to decide if the shooter was justified. I don’t know about you, but if I were the decedent, I would have just walked away and not escalated the confrontation. It would seem he thought being younger and stronger he could intimidate the old man. He paid with his life for his stupidity. To me, that was not worth it.
You’re confusing anger with violence. As Dude Man wrote you want this guy to be acquitted because you could see yourself doing the same thing in the same situation. You’re hoping this case being acquitted would see you getting a bravery medal instead of the rest of your life behind bars.
Gil, I don’t know where in my statements where I have posted that the facts as known in this story do not support self-defense that you could possibly read into that that I believe he was justified. Also, trying to personally tie me to this man is absurd, since I have repeatedly stated I would not find myself in that situation, since I would just walk away, and that I do not see any benefit in getting into a dispute over cellphone use at a theater. I am not mistaking anger for violence. Throwing something at someone during a confrontation… Read more »
AL, you & co. are constantly defending the old man as if to say the younger guy was looking for a fight and found one so he can hardly cry foul when he lost the fight.
Gil, I’m not sure how in my statement where I stated based on the facts as we know them, that it does not appear that he was justified do you interpret that to mean I believe he was justified. I do believe that if the decedent had just walked away, and not escalated the situation, he’d be alive today. That is in no way stating that shooting him was right nor justified. As I have stated, it does not appear to be justified, based on the known facts. I also repeatedly stated that I would not get into that situation… Read more »
Your first comment made it clear you think the old man has the right of self-defense as if to say “throwing popcorn was an aggressive criminal act and should be seen with the same severity as throwing a knife. The fact popcorn is less dangerous than a knife doesn’t matter rather hitting someone is criminal as should be treated the same way regardless.”
“he should have just walked away – I would have, and as proof, I am still alive today.”
So, you were there and confronted by Reeves ?
You wouldn’t have to shoot anybody. You would just bore them to death repeating the same old bad logic.
Gil, you state I posted, throwing popcorn was an aggressive criminal act and should be seen with the same severity as throwing a knife. The fact popcorn is less dangerous than a knife doesn’t matter rather hitting someone is criminal as should be treated the same way regardless.” I never stated that.
Yes, everyone has a right to self-defense. I also stated that based on the facts as presented, Reeves does not appear justified in shooting. Keep beating that dead horse.
@Idadho, interesting that you find it “bad” logic to not get into a needless violent confrontation. My “bad” logic has kept me out of many situations that could have become dangerous or violent. That seems “smart” to me. No, I wasn’t there, and *if* I was, as I have repeatedly stated, I would not have escalated a heated dispute with, as witnesses have stated, an agitated person. As I have stated confrontations can turn violent. This is just another instance of this. Since this story here was published, I have found a number of theater shootings that started as a… Read more »
You keep clearly stating right from your first comment that because the younger guy threw the popcorn he became officially aggressive and such “started the fight” hence the older guy now on the defensive. As such the younger man brought it on himself so why should the older guy be in trouble with law. To say the guy should’ve walked away is akin to saying ‘I don’t condoned women getting raped but . . . women should dress modestly and have a male escort with them at all time. Women should understand when they dress immodestly and are on their… Read more »
Gil, no reasonable person would compare my posts to being raped, and I have repeatedly stated that it does not appear that Reeves was justified in shooting Oulson.
Why not? Had the guy kept his mouth and his popcorn by his side he’d would avoided a deadly confrontation. That guy only had himself to blame because he was looking for a fight and found the hard way what happens when you do, right?
Idadho, I never got “riled up”. I have been completely calm in this entire thread. It would seem that you got emotional because of what happened to your friend. I did answer your question about if someone tossed something at me. I stated that if it were accidental and I was not being physically assaulted, I would have no issue with it. If I was being physically assaulted, then I would first try to get away, if not, then de-escalate, then if I had no other choice, I would defend myself however possible. The decision to shoot must be only… Read more »
For someone who doesn’t get riled up, you sure do sound like you take offense easily. You turn my comment about finding me into a threat that I could find you. You took “Accept the facts that Oulson was not the aggressor. And shut up.” as an attack. I did not respond because of what happened to my friend. I’ve only met him once when he was out on bail. He is the son of my wife’s friend. But, I do take interest when cops, even retired cops, go ‘badge heavy.’ It is bad enough when the untrained do stupid… Read more »
Idadho, none of my posts have any inkling of “taking offense”, much less easily. Just because I disagreed with you, and defended my opinion, that is not being offended — that’s ludicrous statement. I did not take “[A]ccept the facts that Oulson was not the aggressor[.], as an attack on me, and my posts did not indicate that to be so, either. You are attempting to twist the conversation into something it was not. I also never stated that telling me to “SHUT UP” was an attack, this what I did state, “You are the one that has gotten emotional,… Read more »
You sure are intent on not addressing my comments straight on. You redefine just about everything I say. Maybe the problem is you are a narcissist. You have a way of twist everything from the obvious truth to something the entire opposite. Have you taken a course in police report writing ? Or maybe you write reports for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and NASA in support of human caused global warming so you have developed expert skills at making facts say the opposite of what they mean. I can see why you say you avoid verbal conflict. You… Read more »
Idadho, I have answered your questions, you just didn’t like the answers. Based on your last post, it seems you did get emotional, since you implied that my words would get someone angry, “You would be at risk of inflaming somebody by constantly twisting their words against them.” I have not twisted any of your words. I have directly quoted you a few times, though, and you have misquoted me a few times, which I then corrected. Apparently someone defending themselves and using your words against you gets you angry. I previously stated that you have anger management issues. It… Read more »
@Dave E, You have the patiences of a saint.
You have always redefined the question to fit your agenda. You use a common argument technique. If the question asked does not fit your agenda, instead of answering it directly, answer the question the way you wanted the question to be asked. This concept is used in politics all the time. And again, you assume anger. I have never answered in anger. If I was angry, I wouldn’t be able to type straight. This has been a debate. I have tried to be direct with the facts. You reply using Saul Alinksy tactics. You sound like a liberal. That’s OK.… Read more »
Idadho, you are almost amusing. You believe I am a Liberal? It seems you’re a bit confused. I believe in personal responsibility, that is not a trait typically found in Liberals. You are the one that believes getting into heated arguments and throwing things is acceptable, civil behavior. Those are traits typically found in Liberals. It’s also amusing that you are upset that someone else agrees with me. You seem to be drowning in a pool of emotion. Please seek help. And as such you are wrong, not only in your ignorant claim that I am a Liberal, but in… Read more »
Discuss it, damn phone auto-correct got me again.
First, I suggest you look up the exceptions to the LEOSA and No Gun signs. Although LEOSA preempts state and local laws, there are two exceptions when the laws of that state: 1. Permit private persons or entities to prohibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their property (such as bars, private clubs, amusement parks, etc.) 2. Prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on any state or local government property, installation, building, base, or park. Except for active LEO’s, carrying a gun with or without CC onto a property with a No Guns sign can be trespass… Read more »
Will this affect the use of popcorn as a weapon if they continue to claim self-defense ? “BUT, he assaulted me with popcorn and it was my $8.00 tub of popcorn.” It sounds like Reeves was a common control freak cop. What’s next? Farts are offensive so you can shoot back. “I’ll show you. You’ll know what a fart smells like when I severe your spinal cord and your bowels let loose.” What about Reeves chomping on popcorn or rustling the popcorn in the victim’s ear ? Could the victim have turned and said, ‘Stop comping on popcorn in my… Read more »
Some of the testimony from the trial is not mentioned. I am also local to this court case. Reeves first asked Oulson to refrain from using his cell during the movie and was rebuffed. He then asked the theater manager to intervene, angering Oulson. This led to the popcorn throwing. Testimony indicated that Oulson then threw his cell phone in Reeve’s face, dislodging his eyeglasses and blurring his vision. Reeves testified that he believed that Oulson was continuing to assault him at the time although his vision was blurred. The judge’s decision seemed to be based on a disportionate use… Read more »
Everything you said was dismissed as lies by the judge. No phone was thrown, it was the light reflecting off his shoes (he was wearing those damn plastic/leather ones) that were buffed to high heaven. Reeves actually texted his son 4 minutes before all of this happened, that is on record as well.. So it is ok for him to do it but nobody else? Reeves actually started the confrontation as mentioned by all the witnesses brought in to testify. Apparently your are not local enough to have any reading comprehension. I too am local to the area. Live in… Read more »
“During that period, Chad Oulson snatched the popcorn container from Reeves lap, flung it at his face from about a foot away, rapidly extended his hand toward Reeves face again, and pulls it back, fractions of a second before Reeves shoots. In the video, you can only see Oulson’s outstretched arm and hand.” ????? I watched the video at least a dozen times, and though I am a senior myself, I’m far from blind. Mr. Weingarten’s makes it sound as if Oulson reached out toward Reeves a second time after flinging the popcorn at him. That’s simply isn’t reflected in… Read more »
There ARE bad cops and from everything that is known from the video and discussion here REEVES IS A BAAAD COP! I wonder how many other citizens were mistreated by Reeves during his active duty as a police officer?
There was a passage in the “Godfather” where Veto Carleon was mentoring his son. The old Don said, “Son there are people in this world that walk through life just begging to be killed. They are most disagreeable in their social intercourse with their fellow man. Or words to that effect.
It would seem to me that the individual who assaulted the elder retired police officer was one of those people. He finally got what he wished for. I wonder how many other aggressive and violent acts this individual had perpetrated against other people? kind of makes you wonder.
Really? How many times have you done something stupid or had a bad time and why didn’t someone shoot you like you deserve? The Cop should have went to the the usher “the appropriate authority” and filed his complaint, like we all have to DO when some jack ass like you pisses us off with stupidity. The usher would have then gone and asked the guy to get off the cell phone and leave. The Cop “took matters into his own hand,” and this is what makes all of us gun owners look bad. The Cop, should have followed the… Read more »
Please read the previous comments… I feel like the proverbial broken record here but I fail to see how a father and husband with, as far as I know, a clean criminal record and no reported violent behavior who threw popcorn in somebody’s face is somebody “begging to be killed.” The remorseless shooter, regardless of being an elderly, infirm, ex-cop or whatever was the only one armed that day and was the one who initiated this completely petty confrontation. He’s the one who should have been the bigger man and de-escalated the situation instead of gunning down a guy who… Read more »
Nothing gets a quick death sentence as offending a man’s honor.T
Or an arrogant ignoramus believing he could intimidate an older man.
When this incident originally broke, I was on Reeves’ side. But during the SYG hearing, a sheriff’s deputy who was there that day testified that he clearly heard Reeves say (after firing the shot) “Throw popcorn in my face, will ya'”. He was adamant that was what Reeves said, and didn’t waver at all under cross-examination. That totally changed my mind, and now I agree with Dave Eckart when he said “Maybe the former captain still felt he had “authority”?” Reeves was being a jerk and felt he was entitled to be the “law” in that situation, and grossly overreacted,… Read more »
Yeah, bad deal all around for everyone, especially for the phone texting, popcorn throwing punk.
By “punk” you mean the unarmed 43 year old father of a 3 year old girl and husband with no history of violent behavior or criminal record to speak of?
So what derogatory name would you call his wife, who tried to stop the bullet (that ultimately killed her husband) by lunging in front of him in order to shield him and was wounded in the process?
Idiot comes to mind.
Oh, and don’t forget that the late, evil Chad Oulson was texting the babysitter to check on his daughter DURING THE PREVIEWS when Reeves initiated the confrontation. The damn movie hadn’t even started yet! That alone should get Reeves a 2nd Degree Murder conviction, since no reasonable person would actually get that up in arms about missing a few trailers, most of which are a total waste of time anyway. I’d even wager that Oulsons emotions and action were intensified by this simple fact out of sheer incredulity. Furthermore, Reeves has shown zero remorse over the killing. Talk about your… Read more »
You know I think that is why I have such a hard time believing Reeves. He did walk out to the lobby to complain about Oulson then returned to his seat and continued the argument. Even if this texting for some reason, and I don’t know why that would be, REALLY pissed you off wouldn’t you have had time to cool off a little bit while you were waiting to complain to the staff. It should have allowed you to maybe reevaluate the situation and walk away from it. Especially as trained prior law enforcement. I know pride and my… Read more »
And was it worth Oulson’s life to violently confront the requester about use of his cellphone? Another good reason not to needlessly confront anyone; they were both wrong, and the aggressor paid for it with his life.
I am a pacifist, and avoid physical confrontations, when possible, but I will defend myself and my family to any extent if needed and necessary. My life is worth more than yours, and because of that I avoid bad situations. Much better to live to see another day than risk it for no good reason.
From what has been made public, Reeves was startled and reacted by shooting. Without wanted to ‘blame the victim’, I would not have confronted Olson about the cell use. As has been many times, if you’re armed, you’re bringing a gun to the party. I go out of my way to avoid situations that might develop, um, poorly.
I agree Rick. I am a CCW holder in Florida and carry everyday. I also live about 20 minutes from where this happened. I have followed this story closely as it has the potential to affect my stand your ground rights. Even though this was only an evidentiary hearing for a self defense ruling, the anti-gunners will use this to try and neuter our stand your ground laws. Just like everyone else, I only have the facts as reported by the media as left leaning as it may be. We will never get Oulson’s side of the story. As a… Read more »
Armed or not, avoiding unnecessary conflicts is always prudent.
It would seem that both parties overreacted, and the aggressor paid with his life. Was it worth it to him to assault a person over a request not to use a cellphone in the theater? It is a ready a rule in theaters. Though I, too, would not have confronted him about that. Maybe the former captain still felt he had “authority”?
Based on known “facts” the shooter appears to be in the wrong, but that is what the trial is for.
When someone almost half your age suddenly turns violent and starts swinging at you it is clearly SELF DEFENSE, that is evident by the elapsed time of the incident. When it all happens in under 4 seconds the older man had every right to shoot the big punk BULLY who instantly knew he had a distinct advantage. I know because it happened to me and I’m 83 years old and I would have shot him at least twice!!!
Except he DID NOT swing at him…
He grabbed Reeves popcorn and threw it in his face. While offensive and annoying, it was hardly an action that deserved retaliatory lethal force. If Oulson had spit in his face, I have a feeling Reeves would have reacted in exactly the same manner.
I guess you would’ve shot his wife as well then with that second round you say you would’ve fired had it been you in that situation and taking into consideration that she was trying to shield her husband…
Except for this one likely scenario… what says the younger stronger man was not going to use the popcorn bag in the face as the startling agressive move to throw the old guy off his guard, then come back against him with something a WHOLE lot more lethal than a bag of popcorn? A VERY aggressive taunting move like that is often a prelude to a second move, once the victim is disoriented and surprised, that COULD well have seriously injured or killed him. We none of us were there… the video is very poor, ….. this younger guy had… Read more »
Tonico, Now you are a fortune teller. A bag of popcorn is just a bag of popcorn. Reeves was sitting a foot above Oulsen. He had a superior position. NO punches were thrown. Somebody needs to check out B Dalton if he is a trigger happy as he says. Maybe an 83 year old man should not carry if he has that thought process. He may be a threat to himself or others…. Reeves demonstrated that he was insulted, not threatened. I am amazed at how many people try to justify the actions of this ex-cop thug. Oulsen was rude… Read more »
Idadho, one important point to understand about older citizens is that any injury can be life-threatening. I had worked with an 83 year old, one day he fell. The fall was not a life-threatening fall, he only suffered minor scrapes and bruising. Unfortunately his body couldn’t handle injury and in a few weeks he died. So what would be a minor injury to a younger person is potentially deadly to an older person. The younger person should have had more respect for others and not get into an aggressive/violent confrontation over his use of the cellphone, which isn’t allowed in… Read more »
Dave Eckart, The texting happened 4 minutes before the shooting. Reeves would not let it go. He was cussed out by Oulsen in the beginning. Even though the texting was long over, Reeves still wanted to make a scene. He came back from the lobby and mouthed off to Oulsen. Oulsen responded with the popcorn bag. Reeves showed he could walk away but then came back to the confrontation. Rudeness is not assault, not matter how old the target of the rudeness is. A bag of popcorn is not assault. btw, You don’t need to lecture me about the fragility… Read more »
Idadho, and that should serve as warning to you not to be stupid and be aggressive toward someone you believe you can “take” or intimidate. Your debating his “fragility” is not the issue. The arrogance, insolence, incivility, aggressiveness and violence of the younger one not just letting well enough alone got him killed. I would have just let it go. It’s not worth fighting over. And, yes, throwing anything at someone is a violent action. He got what was coming to him. Why get into a violent confrontation when one does not have to? He did because he felt he… Read more »
By your reasoning the old man will be doing the rest of his life behind bars be worth because his sense of honor was more important that the concept of genuine self-defense? He’d rather be a lifer than thought of looking weak in the eyes of others? He sounds as though he will spend the rest of his life in the place where he was always meant to be.
You are the one that is stating this is about the shooter’s honor. The facts as known do not support that claim. The younger man became aggressive/violent during a verbal dispute. The shooter’s reaction to a violent act has nothing to do with his honor. Whether the shooting was justified is now up to the courts to decide. If I were the decedent, I would still be alive today because I would not have gotten aggressive/violent over this issue. I would have just walked away. Based on the “facts” as we know them, it would seem the younger man thought… Read more »
The FACTS do show this was about Reeves’ honor. He said “Throw popcorn in my face” preceded by “I’ll show you to” or “I’ll teach you to.” This was heard by three witnesses/patrons. Reeves’ own son said Reeves said “He threw popcorn in my face.” Dave, You keep trying to frame this as “aggressive/violent” but the judge said it was not violent. She said that Reeves was the aggressor as he confronted Oulson THREE times. A fourth theater patron, Jane Roy, was seated down the row from Reeves. She said he brushed past her when he left the theater to… Read more »
The court did not rule that Reeves is guilty of killing Oulson. The court ruled it didn’t meet SYG, which it wasn’t anyway, if anything, it was self-defense. Yes, throwing anything at someone during a confrontation is an aggressive/violent act. How you arrive at this being about me and what my actions may or not be is absurd and I have repeatedly explained I would have avoided the confrontation to begin with. Too bad the decedent didn’t use self-defense methods to avoid or de-escalate the situation or avoid it altogether, and/or situational awareness methods to avoid conflict and death. Being… Read more »
The court ruled that is was not only not SYG but that it was also NOT SELF-DEFENSE. I’m not arguing my opinion. I am arguing the court ruling and the facts in evidence. The court ruled IT WAS NOT SELF-DEFENSE. That is not my claim. That is the court’s. The court ruled that the evidence showed there was not an attack on Reeves and that Reeves was not in fear of Oulson. Those two issues mean it was not self-defense. SYG is easier to claim than self-defense. If he could not even get a SYG immunity, he could not get… Read more »
And again, this was only an immunity hearing, not a trial by judge or jury on whether or not he was justified in shooting. Whether or not the judge ruled it wasn’t SYG or self-defense at the immunity hearing does not mean when he is prosecuted for killing the man, he can’t be found not guilty. That is the reason for trial. All we are doing is speculation. I have repeatedly stated that based on the facts in this story, it would not appear to be a justified shooting, and that is purpose of the trial. The immunity hearing was… Read more »
You repeatedly said that even though it was not a SYG case, it WAS a self-defense case. The judge said that, based on statute, it did not qualify for immunity under self-defense. She said in her ruling that Oulson’s actions were not aggressive/violent. She said what it wasn’t. Only a due process trial can say what it is.
So, now we wait to see if his attorney’s waste his money on appeals of the immunity denial or negotiate a plea to keep his sentence to a minimum.
Correct, he lost the immunity plea and will now go to trial. That does not preclude him being found justified; however, as I have repeatedly stated, the known “facts” do not appear to support self-defense.
He will not be found justified by a jury. That is what the judge refused to do. He may be found ‘not guilty’ but that does not mean he was justified. Juries just decide if a trial convinces them of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
I think throwing the popcorn bag was done as an insult, not as an act of aggression. Reeves comments show he took it as an insult.
This was like street gang posturing.
@Rick, I believe you’ve given a very good explanation of common sense. Carrying a firearm comes with a great deal of responsibility.
This pig is getting life.
A well deserved life sentence.
It really is shameful and disgusting to see the ignorance in those who would justify this pigs behavior.
It is these types of people that are the problem with society.
Jay: You’re right, he should have waited for that split second that the younger man who went back to the older mans seat and was assaulting him killed him and his wife and then hit the time machine button and rented Redbox. Idiot.
Sounds like Jay has a problem with “pigs”. I’m a former “pig”, disabled, about the same age as Reeves, and would have done the same thing as him if confronted by an assailant I knew I could no longer physically compet.
the problem is little minded jackazzes like you that think that anything they want to do against anyone and get away with it. just because your black, white red or yellow doesn’t give you the rights to do as you damn well want to. wake up and breath the air. i’m 76 and carry every day. i won’t hesitate for a second to protect anyone from stupidity of azzes.
I’ll turn 60 next month and I am physically impaired, as well as being a long time severe chronic pain suffer. I have severe spinal issues, heart issues, severe GI issues, one of which nearly killed me about four and a half years ago, and like others in this thread about 20 years older than me have already said, I can’t compete physically with younger men during a confrontation. I refuse to allow someone to murder me because they’re upset with the world, or because they have a severe lack of self-confidence, and think that beating up innocent people who… Read more »
I’m an old man, former LEO, and somewhat disabled, and I will never take any kind of assault from anyone without reacting like this “old man” did. So buckle up buttercup, if you do this yourself, you may get the surprise of your life as well.
Keep it up. We need more LEO’s to show the world just how out of control LEO’s can be. Is your primary disability how your mind works ? Sounds like it.
Be sure to teach everybody the Two Rule System.
Rule One, Cops are never wrong.
Rule Two. When cops are dead wrong, remember Rule One because the cops will lie to prove it.
You appear to have as much respect for others as the rude theater customer that was shot for his aggressive/violent reaction to a request to not use his cellphone in the theater, which is against theater policy, which is also rude to all others in attendance. His act of incivility cost him his life. Isn’t it better to treat others as one would like to be treated? I wouldn’t have gotten into an argument over that, nor would I have been rude enough to use my cellphone to begin with. And if I had, knowing it was wrong, I would… Read more »
I’m guessing Idaho is young and virile and apparently unapologetically stupid about the concerns older adults have with any injury. It can be life threatening in many ways. I have broken ribs that will not heal and a sharp blow to my side would probably kill me slowly. When he gets to be older and possibly feeble, I hope he can remember his callous words. My mind is sharp, my body, not so much.
Did you know if was also theater policy that firearms were prohibited inside the theater? This came out at the trial. Mr. Reeves had also sent a text from the theater just a few minutes before the shooting. I’m a senior also and I can’t take on a much younger man physically. But I don’t think I would assume every argument I have with someone more powerful than I am is a life-threatening situation, even though I suppose it could be. I’m a pretty big guy myself. I don’t think my only choices (when I was young) were to either… Read more »
He used his cell phone in one text exchange 4 minutes before the shooting. Oulsen had put his cell phone away long before the shooting. Reeves would not let it go. A cop mentality of ‘He broke the rules.’ and deserves to be reprimanded. REEVES HAD EARLIER TEXTED HIS SON SAYING THEY WERE IN THEIR SEATS in the theater. This is in the court transcripts. It was a ‘Do as I say, not as I do.’ issue. Reeves wanted a pissing contest to show Oulsen who was boss. As I said, if he was feeble, he should have backed away… Read more »
Idadho, it takes two to tango. The younger one got shot because of his aggressiveness/violent temper. Why did the elder need to “back down”, why not the younger one? He paid for his stupidity with his life, is that smart? I would have, one, not been aggressive to the elder, and, two, would have just well enough alone. Again, they were both wrong. The dumber one died because of his stupidity, that would not be me.
Dave Eckart, Reeves left the confrontation to go to the lobby to complain. Oulson put his cell phone away. Reeves returned, he did not need to back down. He could have just gone back to his seat and left it alone. But, NO, he had to get in Oulsen’s face again. He reignited the confrontation. Throwing a mostly empty bag of popcorn is not a violent temper. Reeves had the temper issue. In fact, the charge of Second Degree Murder relates to exactly such a situation where the shooter loses it and commits murder. The witnesses say that Reeves was… Read more »
He didn’t “demonstrate” that he was an old man? How does one do that? Walking with a cane? Saying, “oh, my arthritis”? Even if Reeves came back and tried to escalate it, again, it takes two to tango. If you tried that with me, I’d just walk away, it isn’t worth a confrontation over that. Oulson decided to use his youth and strength to fight the old man. And don’t tell me that you can tell someone is that old when they are right in front of them even in a darkened theater, it isn’t that dark. Yes, again, both… Read more »
Reeves did not demonstrate he was an old man by being forceful and continuing to engage Oulsen. His mouth was trying to write checks of a younger man. Sure, Oulsen could have ignored him. But, he was being verbally assaulted in front of his wife without cause. Twice, Reeves instigated a confrontation with Oulsen who was there on a quiet matinee date with his wife. Oulsen was not ‘fighting’. He tossed an almost empty bag of popcorn. He DID NOT TOUCH Reeves. Only the popcorn bag came in contact with Reeves. As I said, it is more like Reeves felt… Read more »
Idadho, throwing anything at someone who you are confronting is an aggressive/violent act. His standing up for himself is acting young? So older people are just cower and take it? Apparently that is what the decedent thought, too. So because he was with his wife he was required to assault an old man? I guess it’s just my pacifist in me and everything I have learned about situational awareness and self-defense, but the prudent thing I believe to do in a situation like that is to just walk away. The decedent decided to fight and die. I guess that is… Read more »
Oh Dave, I am so sorry I have intimidated you. You are such a wuss if you think a half empty bag of popcorn can be a weapon that can be used to assault someone. “Oh, I got a paper cut from a bag of popcorn. My elderly skin just can’t take such abuse.’ Did somebody kick sand in your face and you regret not standing your ground and shooting him for assault with a sandy weapon ? Even his elderly wife said to Reeves, “You didn’t have to shoot him!” This was a pissing match, not an assault. Maybe… Read more »
Idadho, that’s a mighty big chip on your shoulder. Why are you now attacking me? I will be the better man and let it go. Again, throwing anything during a confrontation is an aggressive/violent act. He paid for his stupidity with his life. It seems that you haven’t learned that yet and you would choose the same ignorant choice. The decedent whether “right” or not is still dead. I would have walked away. The case hasn’t been tried, yet, so the jdge hasn’t ruled on that yet. The only thing that was ruled on was that it wad not “SYG”,… Read more »
I was chiding you because you continue to claim that a half empty bag of popcorn is a dangerous assault weapon. ‘Your honor, he committed an act of violence with a half-empty bag of popcorn.’ Reeves’ recent hearing was to get a self-defense immunity ruling. His attorneys did not argue for Stand Your Ground specifically. The judge ruled against the motion for self-defense immunity. The judge also observed that Reeves is in no way frail, but a large and robust man. https://legalinsurrection.com/2017/02/popcorn-shooting-defendant-has-self-defense-immunity-hearing/ You may benefit from reading Massad Ayoob’s pamphlet, “In the gravest extreme : the role of the firearm… Read more »
I never stated a bag of pop corn is an assault weapon. I stated that it is an aggressive/violent act. I also didn’t state that Reeves is frail. I stated that older people are more likely to suffer death from *any* injury, which makes any injury life-threatening. I offered an example of that of a coworker that died after a fall. He, too, was not frail – he jogged daily, but the stress on his body – which were minor injuries, a few scrapes and a few bruises – proved to be fatal. He was 83 years old and was… Read more »
I wasn’t wrong about the judges ruling. The court ruled this was not a self-defense immunity qualified case. Read the legal analysis link. The SYG statute is a subset of self-defense immunity as far as the required components. You can’t get to SYG without fulfilling the self-defense requirements minus the avoidance requirement. The defense will have a steep hill to climb to convince a jury of self-defense. Courts usually give police, even retired police, a lot of leeway in shootings. Instead, the judge basically says he should know better that to behave the way he did. You sound like a… Read more »
@Idadho, there is an old saying in the law, I forget which case that it comes from, it is: “You take the plaintiff as you find him.” No matter what the attacker’s intent, physical condition, or weapon (if any) of choice, it is the defender (plaintiff) in whose mind the need to defend and how to defend occurs. The hypothetical defender is allowed to consider his own physical condition when deciding on his method of defense. If I am for what ever reason, nature, old age or disease infirm or fragile a young, strong, or vigorous person who attacks me… Read more »
I can’t wait to see you screaming “but I sucked obama’s and BLM’s rear end!” while you are getting the crap beaten out of your next week at your gas station by some other “pig” hater.
He should’ve used the 2A as his right to self-defense.
Apparently he did, he shot the man. As explained, this is not a case of “SYG”, but a case of self-defense. As also explained, it could have ended much differently if one or both parties didn’t react angrily/violently, but instead, acted civilly. The younger man was clearly wrong by trying to intimidate an older person(s) and getting violent, and paid for that with his life.