Posted on 01/15/2014 5:09:04 AM PST by Anton.Rutter
Edited on 01/15/2014 6:21:09 AM PST by Sidebar Moderator. [history]
No, look at Great Britain. They were so proud of their unarmed bobbies. Our media would love to have EVERYBODY disarmed. They would truly prefer that everybody just get along; nevermind that it has never happened in all of human history.
Of course, there would always be the rare exceptions: Hollywood, the political elite, those wealthy enough to hire armed security, and whoever else whose life is worth more than yours or mine.
I don't think that is true. The reasonable fear of great bodily harm is enough, I believe.
I've asked others to describe just what was the attacker going to do after throwing the popcorn if he hadn't been shot? One poster suggested that he would just turn around and take his seat; as if he was anticipating no retaliation whatever. I can't picture this.
At the very least, I believe the popcorn was an attempt to get the ex-cop to retaliate physically so that the attacker could give the guy a beat down and feel justified in doing so.
Here's a hypothetical for you: Imagine that it was the ex-cop who threw the popcorn and then the texter retaliated by punching the ex-cop repeatedly until the ex-cop, on the verge of losing consciousness, draws his gun and shoots.
Is that a good shoot? Does the ex-cop get a free ride to throw objects at the texter to goad him into physically retaliating?
Imagine Zimmerman if he had thrown the first punch. He'd be in jail now.
"The victim was unarmed but used objects at hand as weapons”
-Unlike Zimmerman, there were no injuries of any kind on the shooter. He has no corroboration that he was struck by anything. The witnesses say they saw popcorn, about the same time they heard the gunshot. There wasn't any screams for help, and Mr Oulson wasn't seen hitting Reeves. In fact, he collapsed on the person sitting right next to him.
“The victim dies immediately without making a statement.”
- Mrs. Oulson was shot through the hand. That makes her a shooting victim also. She is alive and well, albeit without a left ring finger now. I suspect she will be a chief prosecution witness, and will be making a very damning statement against this idiot, Curtis Reeves.
One other huge dissimilarity:
Zimmerman called the cops. He was returning to his vehicle when he was jumped from behind. Reeves went to complain to the management, he didn’t call for the police. Then he went and sat right back down and with gun in hand engaged in a confrontation about Mr. Oulson texting. Logic would indicate he was ready to pull his gun, and did so, after he was hit by popcorn. Now, he might have been able to make the case for second degree assault, if he hadn’t shot both Mr and Mrs Oulson. But the Idea that popcorn is a “weapon” is pretty laughable.
-what are his injuries? It’s not going to fly in court.
What you are describing sounds a lot like second degree murder to me.
How did you determine that Reeves had his hand on his gun?
How did you determine that Reeves engaged in a confrontation after re-taking his seat?
How did Reeves trick his antagonist into throwing popcorn at him?
In what jurisdiction is it necessary for a person to sustain injuries in order to be assaulted? Is it not sufficient that a reasonable person would fear injury?
Tell me how you rule out a charge of voluntary manslaughter?
Or for that matter, involuntary manslaughter?
“The reasonable fear of great bodily harm is enough, I believe.”
You might be right if there was reason for fear of great bodily harm. I don’t think that throwing popcorn goes anywhere to that level. And if you or I had shot someone for throwing popcorn on us we would rot in jail for the rest of our life.
Witness statements, my friend.
In and of itself that sounds reasonable. I've asked what the popcorn thrower's intention was. Did he turn a verbal argument into a physical assault? Did he do so in order to provoke retaliation and use that as justification to beat the cop senseless? I don't know.
On a different thread there are claims that the shooter threw popcorn first. That puts him into the position of possibly having initiated the physical confrontation. Would it then be fair to believe, in that case, that the ex-cop was the one trying to provoke a retaliation, knowing that he could then try to claim justification for shooting? If so, his culpability rises dramatically.
There is certainly a sharp legal boundary between not shooting somebody and shooting. My point is that there is also a sharp legal boundary between a verbal argument and physical assault.
“On a different thread there are claims that the shooter threw popcorn first.”
suppose the shooter didn’t throw the popcorn at all? The reaction to being shot could have caused the popcorn to go flying...
If that were the case, a proper forensic investigation could prove this. There would be gunpowder residue on the popcorn.
Are you equally curious to know why the progenitor of the thread is prohibited from posting in this forum?
>”Are you equally curious to know why the progenitor of the thread is prohibited from posting in this forum?”
-actually, I’m equally curious as to who it was that got him banned/ suspended, and for what reason (s).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.