http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/14/justic...ater-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t1


"When Reeves returned, witnesses and authorities said that Oulson asked him if he had gone to tell on him for texting. Oulson reportedly said, in effect: I was just sending a message to my young daughter.

Voices were raised. Oulson threw a bag of popcorn at Reeves, according to a police report, and then the former Tampa Police Department officer took out a .380 semi-automatic handgun and shot Oulson.

Oulson's wife Nicole raised her hand just before the shot was fired and the bullet went through her hand and into her husband's chest, authorities said. She suffered a non-life threatening wound."


So here we have another Florida handgun issue.

It goes on to later state that Reeves didn't know what hit him and he was afraid,

Does "Stand Your Ground" apply here? I am just wondering since it seems Reeves alibi is already set up by not knowing it was popcorn.


The mitigating factor being guns and cellphones are not allowed in the theatre by management. Does Florida law still apply even with a concealed permit?


Tragic all around and it didn't have to happen as there were only 25 people in the theatre.

He has to be acquitted. He never could have known the popcorn wasn't lethal and he was standing his ground. All I can say is Thank God he has the means to defend his life. Butter kills.

I find this quote interesting:

Reeves admitted to firing his weapon at the victim because "he was in fear of being attacked," according to the police report.

Can you now shoot someone if you're fearful that you might be attacked? Or do you need to actually be attacked?

Quoting casinterest (Thread starter): It goes on to later state that Reeves didn't know what hit him and he was afraid

Maybe somebody could help me with this…but what else could popcorn look like? Let alone something dangerous?

If I'm in a movie theatre and somebody throws a bunch of yellow/white bits of stuff at me, I'm probably thinking "Did this a-hole just throw food at me?", not "I need to shoot this guy in the chest!".

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 2): Can you now shoot someone if you're fearful that you might be attacked? Or do you need to actually be attacked?

Not a lawyer here, but I don't predict this defence being successful. But then again…Florida.   

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 3): But then again…Florida.

This is what I am thinking. However I do think 2nd degree is easily provable here. This is what happens when a gun is present in an argument. It escalates a situation that did not need escalation.

Quoting wingman (Reply 1): He has to be acquitted. He never could have known the popcorn wasn't lethal and he was standing his ground. All I can say is Thank God he has the means to defend his life. Butter kills.

No doubt someone will sue the maker of the popcorn...

Quoting gkirk (Reply 5): No doubt someone will sue the maker of the popcorn...

The butter topping might be chemical warfare.

Either way, this one is going to light up the circuits in all the papers and media this week.

I don't think he has a case for self-defense. I read the shooter was a long time member of the Tampa police, retired in 1993 then took a job as head of security for Busch Gardens.

I find it hard to believe in that length of law enforcement/security his temper didn't flare up like this before in public.

Not trying in any way to justify the shooting, but I think it's better to de-escalate encounters like this. Better to take a blow to the ego by backing down then end up a crime victim.

It is going to be interesting.

Both are in violation of theater policy - having prohibited items in the theater. If a person needs to send a text, then need to walk out of the theater into the hallway.


The man who was shot and died had started an argument with the retired cop because that fellow had complained to the theater staff.

The shooting occurred during the previews - so presumably the theater was dark and the retired cop could easily have confused the popcorn bag or bucket for something more substantial.

A key question in my mind is how long passed between the throwing and the shooting. If they were at almost the same time, then the shooter could receive at most an involuntary manslaughter conviction, but could easily be acquitted.

If more than five or six seconds passed, he could be convicted of second degree murder.

You're a bit of a dick for reporting someone for texting during the trailer.

I'm pretty sure most defense laws don't say it's ok to shoot if you feel like you're threatened it's if a reasonable person thinks they are being threatened (and also I believe most the time it's a life threatening/serious bodily harm threats.) Every state has different laws

Quoting casinterest (Thread starter): young daughter.

I know the esoteric discussion is interesting but my real thoughts and concerns are on the young daughter...

In addition to losing her father, a good man by the reports I have seen so far, this girl will on some level have to deal with the fact that her father was killed "because of her". Because he was trying to communicate with her for whatever reason he felt it was necessary to do at that moment. That is a terrible horrible psychological weight to have to carry.

I hope very much that it doesn't happen but I am almost certain it will, humans begin human and kids being kids.

My thoughts go out to the family and especially the kids of the man killed.

Tugg

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 2): Can you now shoot someone if you're fearful that you might be attacked? Or do you need to actually be attacked?

Yes! In Florida you can. ... And any non-uniformed person who holds a gun certainly qualifies. Given that you only have a split second to make those decisions, it is always legal AFAIK.

Quoting casinterest (Thread starter): The mitigating factor being guns and cellphones are not allowed in the theatre by management. Does Florida law still apply even with a concealed permit?

I don't know Florida law and whether or not a 'No Weapons Sign' has the force of law in Florida. If it does, there will be a charge, if not, then I can't see a charge being leveled for the possession.

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 2): Can you now shoot someone if you're fearful that you might be attacked? Or do you need to actually be attacked?

In states that have 'stand your ground' or 'castle doctrine' laws, the threshold for use of deadly force tends to be whether or not a reasonable person would feel threatened with imminent death or great bodily harm. The key, of course, being the word 'reasonable'; and based on what I've read, I can't see this not going to a jury and allowing the jury to determine the reasonability of the action.

Quoting canoecarrier (Reply 7): I don't think he has a case for self-defense.

Neither do I.

Witness statements and the timeline are going to be big in this case.

Quoting tugger (Reply 11): My thoughts go out to the family and especially the kids of the man killed.

Same here,
It is a tragedy on so many levels.


An update shows that Reeves is being held for 2nd Degree with no bail. I suppose Stand your Ground is not currently in play, at least in the eyes of the court.

Was Oulson actually sending a text to his daughter? The daughter - God be with her - is three years old.

Three-year-olds can't read.

Quoting Airstud (Reply 15): Three-year-olds can't read.

Funny Icons maybe?

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 8): the retired cop could easily have confused the popcorn bag or bucket for something more substantial

Such as?

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 13): Witness statements and the timeline are going to be big in this case.

   The witnesses will be a goldmine for the prosecution. IIRC there about 20 other patrons in the theatre at the time of the shooting. Even if some didn't see the shooting, they no doubt heard the entire altercation.

Quoting casinterest (Reply 14): I suppose Stand your Ground is not currently in play, at least in the eyes of the court.

"Stand your ground" laws are a defence, not an immunity. Even in situations where "stand your ground" applies, you can still be charged. It's up to the defence team to raise the issues and legality of said laws.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 9): You're a bit of a dick for reporting someone for texting during the trailer.

No kidding, eh. It's reasonable to be pissed if someone is texting during the movie, but in this case it was still just the commercials.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 12): Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 2): Can you now shoot someone if you're fearful that you might be attacked? Or do you need to actually be attacked? Yes! In Florida you can. ... And any non-uniformed person who holds a gun certainly qualifies. Given that you only have a split second to make those decisions, it is always legal AFAIK.

Using that logic, if someone were to accidentally bump my shoulder while walking past me in a crowded place, I could shoot and kill them.

Quoting Airstud (Reply 15): Was Oulson actually sending a text to his daughter? The daughter - God be with her - is three years old. Three-year-olds can't read.

I thought about this as well. The only conclusion I could come to is that he was texting someone who was reading the texts aloud to his daughter.

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 18): Using that logic, if someone were to accidentally bump my shoulder while walking past me in a crowded place, I could shoot and kill them.

That's correct. Ah, so you've heard about the Trayvon Martin case.   

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 18): Using that logic, if someone were to accidentally bump my shoulder while walking past me in a crowded place, I could shoot and kill them.

To be fair, he did qualify his statement with :

Quoting Flighty (Reply 12): who holds a gun

Bumping into your shoulder does not meet the reasonable person standard, does it?

Does the wife have a case too? Something like attempted murder? After all the bullet went through her hand.

Quoting Airstud (Reply 15): Was Oulson actually sending a text to his daughter? The daughter - God be with her - is three years old. Three-year-olds can't read.

Maybe he has a stepkid or something somewhere, but I think he was being snarky when he said it. I noticed that too that his kid is pretty young to be getting a text message.

Sometimes two people have personalities that won't let them stand down. In this case one was an ex-cop with a gun. Maybe it's that I'm a parent but I really try to avoid getting into confrontations anywhere near this now. Like I said, you never know if the other guy is ready to be a criminal. Me being dead or in prison doesn't do my son any good.

Quoting AR385 (Reply 21): Does the wife have a case too? Something like attempted murder? After all the bullet went through her hand.

I think he gets charged with anything from wanton endangerment to assault w/ a deadly weapon for the injury to the wife.

Attempted murder would be a reach because she was not the target.

Thinking about it...if the prosecution can prove that he did not act reasonably, I wonder if the prosecution can bring additional charges of wanton endangerment for each person in the theatre.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 23): I think he gets charged with anything from wanton endangerment to assault w/ a deadly weapon for the injury to the wife.

Thanks. Seems the DA is going to have a bunch of charges to throw at the guy.

All I know is that it's easy to judge a situation where you weren't there and aren't in the shoes of the two. Was the man texting acting aggressively? Did he start a physical altercation? Was he thirty years younger than the man he was threatening physically?

What was said? Quotes from relatives don't count. What's going to be important is what the bystanders saw. Many will try to testify to what they heard, but seeing is tough in this case...it's a theater. Were the lights on? You judge without knowing. And if a person is threatening you and advances on you in some way they are committing assault. You don't have to wait for them to lay their hands on you to defend yourself.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 8): the retired cop could easily have confused the popcorn bag or bucket for something more substantial.

Yup milk duds would have hurt a whole lot more. Just another typical case of idiots being allowed to carry guns in the US.

Quoting Airstud (Reply 15): Three-year-olds can't read.

Not true, my niece could read at three, was writing before she was 4, no such luck with my kids.

Quoting dl021 (Reply 24): All I know is that it's easy to judge a situation where you weren't there and aren't in the shoes of the two.

We do know the dead guy was unarmed so there had better be a good explanation. A damn good one.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 26): We do know the dead guy was unarmed so there had better be a good explanation. A damn good one

Not to mention the fact that the shooter was a cop... captain at that that was trained in many things including controlling escalating arguments, and judging by rank, should have had a handle on this type of decision.

Quoting dl021 (Reply 24): Was he thirty years younger than the man he was threatening physically?

That's going to be a big part of it. The shooter is 28 years older than the victim...or, more correctly, the victim and alleged aggressor was 28 years younger than the shooter.

Lots of ways to look at this.

What is reasonable cause to use deadly force for a 70 year old may not constitute reasonable cause for a 45 year old.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 26): We do know the dead guy was unarmed so there had better be a good explanation. A damn good one.

Yup. Usually, being in fear for your life is a good reason. Need to see how this shakes out. Witness statements are going to be the lynch pin here...and the mental state of Reeves, including his mental condition prior to entering the theatre.

Quoting casinterest (Reply 27): Not to mention the fact that the shooter was a cop... captain at that that was trained in many things including controlling escalating arguments, and judging by rank, should have had a handle on this type of decision.

He retired 20 or so years ago. When was the last time he went through a de-escalation class? Was he really still a 'trained police officer' or was he someone who had some hazy recollection of training attended 20 years ago?

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 28): He retired 20 or so years ago. When was the last time he went through a de-escalation class? Was he really still a 'trained police officer' or was he someone who had some hazy recollection of training attended 20 years ago?

I find it hard to believe that someone that originated Tampa's SWAT team and ran the security team for Busch Gardens didn't have some form of recurrency training in conflict management. Hell, I had that when I worked for an airline.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 28): He retired 20 or so years ago. When was the last time he went through a de-escalation class? Was he really still a 'trained police officer' or was he someone who had some hazy recollection of training attended 20 years ago?

He was also worked security at Busch Gardens more recently Much more customer oriented. .

Quoting casinterest (Reply 30): He was also worked security at Busch Gardens more recently Much more customer oriented. .

He was Director of Security until 2005. How much belligerent, customer contact would the director have to deal with? More likely, he watched a lot of things from the air conditioned confines of the security control room and had customer 'contact' only after a situation had been stabilized.

And, that gig ended 8 or so years ago.

Quoting canoecarrier (Reply 29): I find it hard to believe that someone that originated Tampa's SWAT team and ran the security team for Busch Gardens didn't have some form of recurrency training in conflict management. Hell, I had that when I worked for an airline.

Again. he's been out of the muscle end of the business for 20 years and the light end of the business for 8. Cops have that sort of training at least once a year and I'm sure security at the parks gets the touchy-feely training at least annually...I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't bi-annual. In fact, as director, he may have instructed.

Bottom-line: chances are he wasn't even close to current on conflict de-escalation techniques.

[Edited 2014-01-14 14:22:25]

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 31): Bottom-line: chances are he wasn't even close to current on conflict de-escalation techniques.

Bottom line, the guy was in the business for decades. That's not the kind of thing you forget. I know I use conflict resolution skills I learned 10 years ago as an airline security person all the time.

People can try and make this a gun issue, but in almost any country a guy like him would be allowed to have a gun even if the citizens weren't. This is an issue of someone with anger management issues IMO. I bet he had them years ago and no one brought it to the attention of his superiors.

Why focus on how recent the shooter's de-escalation training was? It almost sounds as though one needs special conflict de-escalation training just to ask someone to stop sending a few texts during a movie (the commercials prior to the movie actually). Most people will have learned that in their teens without special training.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 9): You're a bit of a dick for reporting someone for texting during the trailer

No, you just have to be someone who likes movies.

People don't text in silence any more. They talk, joke and carry on with completely callous disregard for other people.

They are almost universally huge self-important a--holes.

Quoting petertenthije (Reply 33): Why focus on how recent the shooter's de-escalation training was?

It's a national news story because this is apparently some reflection on Florida's Stand Your Ground law. But, it's really a shooting by an ex-police officer who worked for years as a security chief at a major US amusement park. He should have known better and this doesn't appear to be self defense related. But, we will find out as witness statements are taken.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 34): No, you just have to be someone who likes movies. People don't text in silence any more. They talk, joke and carry on with completely callous disregard for other people. They are almost universally huge self-important a--holes.

I don't disagree that texting in a movie theater is a dick move, but it shouldn't get you shot. At the very most you should get arrested for disturbing the peace.

Quoting canoecarrier (Reply 35): I don't disagree that texting in a movie theater is a dick move, but it shouldn't get you shot. At the very most you should get arrested for disturbing the peace.

Arrested for texting!?! At the very most kicked out by the employees (and arrested only if that person refuses which would then be trespassing)

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 19): To be fair, he did qualify his statement with

Except that in reply #18 he agreed with my statement.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 19): Bumping into your shoulder does not meet the reasonable person standard, does it?

I made that comparison to point out the sketchy logic of that poster's assessment, to which, again, he agreed with.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 22): Thinking about it...if the prosecution can prove that he did not act reasonably, I wonder if the prosecution can bring additional charges of wanton endangerment for each person in the theatre.

That's a good point. Especially considering there's a chance that there were innocent theatre-goers behind the victim. If the shooter had missed a shot that went on to strike someone a few rows down, it could have added another tragic element to this case.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 34): People don't text in silence any more. They talk, joke and carry on with completely callous disregard for other people.

People were doing all of that long before the advent of cellular telephony.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 34): No, you just have to be someone who likes movies.

People don't pay to go see the commercials before the movie. If you complain about somebody texting before the opening credits even start then you're just an insufferable person.

Quoting canoecarrier (Reply 35): At the very most you should get arrested for disturbing the peace.

Texting during a movie isn't "disturbing the peace" by any definition of the law. At the very most he should be asked to leave the premises by management. Any involvement of law enforcement over texting at inappropriate times is a ridiculous waste of police resources.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 36): Arrested for texting!?! At the very most kicked out by the employees (and arrested only if that person refuses which would then be trespassing)

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 37): Texting during a movie isn't "disturbing the peace" by any definition of the law.

I'm not a lawyer, but disturbing the peace is a catch all for this kind of thing. It wouldn't surprise me if someone who wouldn't stop texting could be charged with it. I think we all can agree though that at most a low level charge like that should be the worst you could expect for texting in a theater. Trespassing if you don't leave.

Quoting casinterest (Thread starter): So here we have another Florida handgun issue

It probably shouldn't be another Florida handgun issue (but it probably will be), but rather a mental health issue.

That as a seasoned police officer, this individual still carried out a stupid act cannot lead to any other focus than he was not only NOT capable of making competent decisions but let his decision at the time drive a knee-jerk reaction that cost a life and injury.

That he is a retired 70 year old (hey! I'M seventy, but I'm not an incapable 70) might lead to an "Alzheimer's defense". But wait! Let's see what kind of attorneys are lining up and what the arguments will be.

Quoting cptkrell (Reply 39): It probably shouldn't be another Florida handgun issue (but it probably will be), but rather a mental health issue. That as a seasoned police officer, this individual still carried out a stupid act cannot lead to any other focus than he was not only NOT capable of making competent decisions but let his decision at the time drive a knee-jerk reaction that cost a life and injury. That he is a retired 70 year old (hey! I'M seventy, but I'm not an incapable 70) might lead to an "Alzheimer's defense". But wait! Let's see what kind of attorneys are lining up and what the arguments will be.

Then this could be another "mental health" issue regarding guns and who should own them or have access to them. Like driving (though not like driving, I know because of the constitutional aspect) the ability to manage a firearm can be significantly affected by age (among many other factors). So with that, should there be a time limit or age limit or recurrency requirement on a firearm license or a CCP etc.

Tugg

Quoting canoecarrier (Reply 32): Bottom line, the guy was in the business for decades. That's not the kind of thing you forget. I know I use conflict resolution skills I learned 10 years ago as an airline security person all the time.

So, are you saying that based on his experience and training, the shooting is justified? He's an experienced ex-cop (captain), an experienced ex-security director for a major theme park; therefore he's in the right?

Right now, I'm on the fence on his actions and am comfortable waiting for more information. We can assume he's had all the training we're discussing. We can assume, based on his positions within the police department and the security department, that he was competent in his work...in fact, that he excelled at what he did.

But, as outsiders to the situation that led to a man's death, we, with the benefit of hind-sight, also see that this entire situation was a tragic mistake.

Quoting cptkrell (Reply 39): That as a seasoned police officer, this individual still carried out a stupid act cannot lead to any other focus than he was not only NOT capable of making competent decisions but let his decision at the time drive a knee-jerk reaction that cost a life and injury.

You do not know that he did not make the right decision based on the wrong stimulus.

Let's review:

-they are in the dark (though, during the previews, theatres aren't completely darkened). How's his night vision?
-he is 71 years old, his alleged assailant is significantly younger (did Reeves even know that?)
-Oulson challenged Reeves
-Reeves was a retired police captain (assumption that he had all sorts of training and experience) and was therefore trained for these types of situations

I'm not comfortable saying he acted criminally. He may have acted wrongly. But, he may have been in genuine fear for his life. Question is: was his fear reasonable in light of the circumstances he was faced with?

I'm not sure it was...but, I'm not a 71 year old man facing off with a 43 year old man. I am not a decades long veteran of a big city police department who 'has seen it all' and that 'all' might color my judgment a little bit in a darkened theatre.

Personally, I think he's going to have a real big problem in front of a jury...unless that jury is made up of 70+ year old men.

That's where I think this case rests: was it reasonable for a 71 year old Reeves to be in fear for his life in the given situation?

[Edited 2014-01-14 17:07:07]

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 2): Can you now shoot someone if you're fearful that you might be attacked? Or do you need to actually be attacked?

You can be physically attacked and still be liable if you incited the attacker... hence why George Zimmerman was charged even though it was clear he was getting his butt whooped.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 41): That's where I think this case rests: was it reasonable for a 71 year old Reeves to be in fear for his life in the given situation?

Exactly. From what we've heard from the media; that's not the case. However, if there is a trial (which I doubt), the jury will get far more information than we will.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 41): I'm not sure it was...but, I'm not a 71 year old man facing off with a 43 year old man. I am not a decades long veteran of a big city police department who 'has seen it all' and that 'all' might color my judgment a little bit in a darkened theatre.

The real issue that is again arising is the fact that you had someone that did not have to place themselves in that situation. That they essentially created the situation in which the felt them needed to kill someone. I don't agree with that in whole. I understand the idea that you should not have to live in fear or be cowed or always need to get a "superior person" (whether the police or a theater manager or whatever), that you should be able to go about your day and live your life in peace.

But when you have an out and do not take it of your own free will, I think that directly affects the concept of "stand your ground". It is one to be be engaged by someone and not have a choice, it is another to enter a situation that you choose to enter. I am very much simplifying things and anyone here will be able to hypothesize a dozen different way that he could be in the right, I am just commenting on an element that I think should be considered in these "stand" situations.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 42): You can be physically attacked and still be liable if you incited the attacker... hence why George Zimmerman was charged even though it was clear he was getting his butt whooped.

There was a case this weekend where a Bronco's fan went and engaged and taunted people at a Chargers party after the game. He got beat up and though the assailants were charged with assault, he was charged with inciting a riot. You can;t just go in an create a situation and get off when people respond (of course people also can't just beat up people because they were taunted but it does not excuse what the instigator did either.

Tugg

[Edited 2014-01-14 17:36:35]

Quoting canoecarrier (Reply 38): I think we all can agree though that at most a low level charge like that should be the worst you could expect for texting in a theater.

Correct me if I'm wrong (in the context of Florida law, anyway), but "disturbing the peace" is only applicable in the public space. A private business, such as a theatre, is not public space.

But:

Quoting canoecarrier (Reply 38): Trespassing if you don't leave.

This I can agree with, and is a far more satisfactory remedy to the issue.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 41): That's where I think this case rests: was it reasonable for a 71 year old Reeves to be in fear for his life in the given situation?

I personally see that as a problem. I don't think the question should be "was it reasonable to be in fear for his life?", but rather "was his response to that fear reasonable?". People encounter (usually unreasonable) fears on a daily basis, but react rationally.

I also have some doubt regarding his fear at all, considering that he didn't remove himself from the scene after firing his weapon and his demeanor thereafter. He simply sat down right in front of the dying man, with one police officer describing him as being "very calm". That does not sound like a man you has any fear, reasonable or not.

Quoting cptkrell (Reply 39): It probably shouldn't be another Florida handgun issue (but it probably will be), but rather a mental health issue.

It will be a gun issue for this very reason. Much as taking keys from elderly relatives who can no longer drive safely, where is the dividing line for folks that cognitively fail as they get older.

Not sure it will apply to this case or not. But it is a discussion worth having at some point.

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 2): Can you now shoot someone if you're fearful that you might be attacked? Or do you need to actually be attacked?

You always could. What are people suppose to wait to be stabbed or shot first? This guy was clearly in the wrong but someone who legally has a gun is allowed to shot a man with a knife trying to come in their home or car or a man with a knife standing in front of him and showing aggression etc.. Not the case here but you don't need to be attacked to enable your right to self defense.

Quoting casinterest (Reply 4): This is what I am thinking. However I do think 2nd degree is easily provable here. This is what happens when a gun is present in an argument. It escalates a situation that did not need escalation.

Insane story. Can't believe this guy did this. It was very reactive though with very little thought input. Manslaughter would not surprise me. I can see a case for murder 2 but this was instant it seems. Instant in that he shot the second the man stood up and threw the popcorn. Not instant in that he went to complain about the manager and all and that is something the state can try to investigate but I think it will be a hard one to sell that this guy wanted to kill him because he was texting. He killed him because he thought he was going to be attacked, he was clearly wrong, but manslaughter IMO is the better charge. They overcharged Zimmerman and look how that turned out.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 10): I'm pretty sure most defense laws don't say it's ok to shoot if you feel like you're threatened it's if a reasonable person thinks they are being threatened (and also I believe most the time it's a life threatening/serious bodily harm threats.) Every state has different laws

Every state will be different but for the most part yes. But in Florida you can take into count the gender, and size of the attacker to the person using self defense.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 13): I don't know Florida law and whether or not a 'No Weapons Sign' has the force of law in Florida. If it does, there will be a charge, if not, then I can't see a charge being leveled for the possession.

He is a retired cop. Federal law gives retired officers more allowance in where they can carry their weapons just like current officers when off duty. Not sure though if the private establishment can still decide it or how Florida criminal law sees it. IMO without doing any research it would probably be more of a civil thing since I believe a movie theater is not a restricted CCW location under Florida law.

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 17): "Stand your ground" laws are a defence, not an immunity.

In Florida you can request a stand your ground hearing where you can be granted immunity from both civil and criminal prosecution. It is the judges decision. For the most part if the defendant does not ask for that hearing or immunity has been denied you won't here the words stand your ground much at trial and it is just a self defense case which in Florida you don't need to retreat.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 41): That's where I think this case rests: was it reasonable for a 71 year old Reeves to be in fear for his life in the given situation?

Are we really asking that question? Of course it wasn't. And if you're paranoid enough that you're going to shoot someone because they threw popcorn at you, the fact that you're carrying a gun represents a danger to society.

-Mir

Quoting Mir (Reply 47): Are we really asking that question?

We have to, because the answer of acquittal vs. conviction rests on that question. The rest of it is legal mumbo-jumbo. Was it manslaughter or homicide, blah-blah-blah. That's all details. The question is: "Did he have adequate reason to think his life was in danger?"

The other issue is that in a dark theater, unless the victim was in the very front or back row, the suspect was shooting through him and it's going to be hard to argue that he knew what was behind his target in a dark theatre. There's an argument there that his behavior was erratic and reckless, which won't help him.

The first two rules of gun safety I was taught was:
1) "Never point a gun at anything you don't intend to shoot."
2) "Know your target and what is behind it."

This is not the case for the anti-gun people to use for their advancement. The shooter, being a retired police officer, would have been permitted under LEOSA to carry a firearm almost anywhere in the entire United States. He also has years of police and private security experience. Clearly, this is not your average citizen carrying a gun and rest assured that he will be judged according to a tougher standard whether the law requires it or not.