TurkeysGhost
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2018
- Messages
- 35,043
Incredible outcome. I tend to think I have an appropriately pessimistic view of this country, but now and then even I'm surprised at its depravity.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Retired cop shoots/kills man in theater for texting
- Thread starter 12AX7
- Start date
In most countries, people don't carry guns when they go to a movie theatre. In most countries, people don't carry guns at all, and it is usually illegal to do so. In Denmark (pop. 5.8 million), we had "about 16 homicides with firearms in 1992, about 10 in 2016". 25 års danske skuddrab er kortlagt ned til mindste detalje (Videnskab.dk, March 23, 2021)
It isn't very different in the other Nordic countries (more homicides in Finland, fewer in Norway) or in most European countries. List of countries by intentional homicide rate (Wikipedia)
newyorkguy
Penultimate Amazing
What's amazing to me is, the off-duty police officer who took Curtis Reeves into custody testified that Reeves' wife said to him, immediately after the shooting, "That was no reason to shoot someone." That Reeves turned to her and angrily said, "Shut your effing mouth!"
My sense is, Reeves didn't shoot Chad Oulson because he was scared, Reeves shot him because he was very angry. In fact, that's always seemed to me to be what enhanced self-defense laws are really about. Giving 'decent people' the legal right to shoot low lifes who anger them. So long as they can plausibly claim, "I was scared." Many prosecutors warned we'd see cases exactly like this one. That people with anger management problems -- who also happen to be armed -- will shoot people and claim, "I was scared."
In other words, for a shooting to be considered legal, you don't just evaluate the threat the shooter was faced with, you have to consider, "Was the shooter scared?" Not whether they should have been scared, just were they. How does a juror determine that, other than giving the benefit of the doubt to a person who testifies under oath that they were scared?
My sense is, Reeves didn't shoot Chad Oulson because he was scared, Reeves shot him because he was very angry. In fact, that's always seemed to me to be what enhanced self-defense laws are really about. Giving 'decent people' the legal right to shoot low lifes who anger them. So long as they can plausibly claim, "I was scared." Many prosecutors warned we'd see cases exactly like this one. That people with anger management problems -- who also happen to be armed -- will shoot people and claim, "I was scared."
In other words, for a shooting to be considered legal, you don't just evaluate the threat the shooter was faced with, you have to consider, "Was the shooter scared?" Not whether they should have been scared, just were they. How does a juror determine that, other than giving the benefit of the doubt to a person who testifies under oath that they were scared?
In this particular case, another factor is that the shooter was a retired cop. He had spent his life telling people what to do and expecting to be obeyed.
newyorkguy
Penultimate Amazing
The fact that immediately after the shooting Reeves snarled at his wife, and said "Shut your effing mouth!" seems to be strong evidence he was angry not scared. Apparently the police thought so, they arrested him. Also troubling:
In other words, Reeves had many alternatives to using deadly force. In fact, his attempt to be granted immunity under the Stand Your Ground law was turned down by a judge.
Below is video from the theater-
- Reeves apparently initiated the contact with Oulson.
- There were many nearby empty seats.
- Reeves was able to leave, in fact he did so at one point.
In other words, Reeves had many alternatives to using deadly force. In fact, his attempt to be granted immunity under the Stand Your Ground law was turned down by a judge.
Below is video from the theater-
Last edited:
Of course it was anger. Ex cop gets away with murder because the PEOPLE in this country (on the jury) are so ******* stupid I just can't come to grips with it. It's like reality has completely shattered. I swear to ******* gawd I must be in an alternate universe.
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
He's also learned how to game the legal system from experts.
TurkeysGhost
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2018
- Messages
- 35,043
I guess. I'm still puzzled by this one. It's caught on camera, there's tons of witnesses.
Throwing popcorn at someone is certainly something that could escalate into a serious attack where lethal self defense could be justified, but it's hard to watch the video and see the standard had been met by the time this psycho retired cop decided to snuff this guy out.
I wonder if there's any good reporting about the day to day trial. I am very curious how they managed to achieve a not-guilty result.