One dead in movie theater shooting in Florida

Status
Not open for further replies.
hurleysrus said:
I know he didn't but it was in response to the hypothetical that was posed earlier
Click to expand...

Yes, I noticed that Stein made a lot of hypothetical statements.
 
*looking for Stein*

Hey Stein, stop hide from us. :lol:
 
Huh?

Even if Reeves was deathly allergic to popcorn?

;)

BTW, punching someone is considered aggravated battery.

http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/crime-penalties/federal/felony-assault-battery.htm

In other states, assault does not involve actual physical contact, and is defined as an attempt to commit a physical attack or as threatening actions that cause a person to feel afraid of impending violence
Click to expand...
Under this definition, verbal threats are usually not enough to constitute an assault. Some action such as raising a fist or moving menacingly toward a victim usually is required. In these states, threatening to hurt someone while walking toward him with a clenched, raised fist would constitute assault.
Click to expand...

In states that define assault as placing a victim in fear of violence, the victim’s response must not only be genuine but reasonable under the circumstances. The test normally is whether the defendant’s actions would cause a reasonable person to be in fear of an immediate physical attack. In other words, the victim’s response must be one that you’d expect from any reasonable person in the victim’s position.
Click to expand...

^ relevant quote

Now .. Reeves has been charged with murder in the 2nd .. so the prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, that Reeves was in a deranged state of mind with no regard for life.
 
Steinhauer said:
Huh?

Even if Reeves was deathly allergic to popcorn?

;)

BTW, punching someone is considered aggravated battery.

Felony Assault & Battery Laws and Penalties | Criminal Law

^ relevant quote

Now .. Reeves has been charged with murder in the 2nd .. so the prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, that Reeves was in a deranged state of mind with no regard for life.
Click to expand...

There is no such - Reeves isn't allergic to popcorn.

Chad didn't punched at Curtis - do you understand clearly?

For punching, it is depends on severity of injuries, if cause serious injury (like knockout) so it can be aggravated battery, but if injury is mild so it is misdemeanor or lower level of felony.

Based on existing evidence, Curtis could find guilty for shot Chad to death over throwing popcorn and he doesn't have solid ground based on SYG or self-defense. That's not same as Zimmerman vs. Martin that where Martin physically attacked Zimmerman, but Chad was simply throwing popcorn at Curtis. That why Curtis was jailed and charged with 2nd degree homicide immediately while it took little more than month to charge Zimmerman with 2nd degree homicide.
 
Foxrac said:
Chad didn't punched at Curtis - do you understand clearly?

.
Click to expand...

Reeves said he was struck in the face by an unknown object. You do understand that neither of us were there right? And that it is possible that Oulson struck Reeves in the face with his fist?
 
Police: Texting argument in movie theater sparks fatal shooting - CNN.com

The man who had been texting, Chad Oulson, got up and turned to Reeves to ask him if he had gone to tell on him for his texting. Oulson reportedly said, in effect: I was just sending a message to my young daughter.

Voices were raised. Popcorn was thrown. Punched at Curtis's face. And then came something unimaginable -- except maybe in a movie. A gun shot.

Oulson was fatally wounded. His wife was hit, too, through the hand as she raised her hand in front of her husband as the shooter drew a handgun.
Click to expand...

Steinhauer, would you like to add "Punched at Curtis's face" to news report?

That's disillusion. :ugh:
 
Steinhauer said:
Reeves said he was struck in the face by an unknown object. You do understand that neither of us were there right? And that it is possible that Oulson struck Reeves in the face with his fist?
Click to expand...

No, it was popcorn - unknown object.
 
Foxrac said:
No, it was popcorn - unknown object.
Click to expand...

Well, I read through the official court transcript, and nowhere does Reeves claim he was struck by any popcorn. His attorney said that the initial confrontation started when popcorn was thrown at Reeves, and escalated from there, and then was struck in the face with an unknown object (meaning he was struck after the popcorn was thrown at him).
 
Steinhauer said:
Well, I read through the official court transcript, and nowhere does Reeves claim he was struck by any popcorn. His attorney said that the initial confrontation started when popcorn was thrown at Reeves, and escalated from there, and then was struck in the face with an unknown object (meaning he was struck after the popcorn was thrown at him).
Click to expand...

Again, you don't understand.

Unknown object - popcorn.

It is over on news.
 
Foxrac said:
Popcorn defense: Can accused Florida movie shooter use 'stand your ground'?

Stein, come on, unknown object - popcorn so I'm embarrassed that you have trouble to understand the article. :ugh:
Click to expand...

I understand it perfectly clear. The very first article claimed Oulson was shot for texting. That was all over the news too. Now they are claiming he was shot because Oulson threw popcorn at him.

But the official court transcript says more than that.

I think you might perhaps be missing the fact that Reeves knew that popcorn was thrown .... but in addition to that, he was struck after he knew the popcorn was thrown. What that quintessentially means is that whatever struck him was not popcorn. But, the thrown popcorn was what escalated the incident ... in other words, Chad Oulson was being a dick.
 
Steinhauer said:
I understand it perfectly clear. The very first article claimed Oulson was shot for texting. Now they are claiming he was shot because Oulson threw popcorn at him.

But the official court transcript says more than that.
Click to expand...

"Got shot over texting" is make sense to news report because Chad and Curtis were arguing over texting, that lead to confrontation, Chad threw popcorn at Curtis and Curtis shot Chad.

There is none of news said that Chad punched at Curtis, so stop make speculation or nonsense story.

I can't believe that you have difficult to understand and you are only one member that side with Curtis.
 
Foxrac said:
"Got shot over texting" is make sense to news report because Chad and Curtis were arguing over texting, that lead to confrontation, Chad threw popcorn at Curtis and Curtis shot Chad.

There is none of news said that Chad punched at Curtis, so stop make speculation or nonsense story.

I can't believe that you have difficult to understand and you are only one member that side with Curtis.
Click to expand...

I haven't sided with anyone.

You even understand that there was a confrontation
, and that Chad Oulson was not shot because he was texting. It was whatever happened during the confrontation.

You also don't seem to understand that Curtis Reeves knew that popcorn was thrown at him. He also stated that he was struck in the face by an unknown object. The known object thrown at him was popcorn. There was an additional object that struck him in the face that was unknown.

Clearer now?

Also, since Chad Oulson was obviously being aggressive and confrontational as other witnesses indicated, then he could have possibly been moving towards Curtis Reeves in a menacing and threatening manner.
 
Steinhauer said:
I haven't sided with anyone.

You even understand that there was a confrontation
, and that Chad Oulson was not shot because he was texting. It was whatever happened during the confrontation.

You also don't seem to understand that Curtis Reeves knew that popcorn was thrown at him. He also stated that he was struck in the face by an unknown object. The known object thrown at him was popcorn. There was an additional object that struck him in the face that was unknown.

Clearer now?

Also, since Chad Oulson was obviously being aggressive and confrontational as other witnesses indicated, then he could have possibly been moving towards Curtis Reeves in a menacing manner.
Click to expand...

Your posts proved us that you sided with Curtis, period.

Curtis used unknown object rather than popcorn for some reason, but unknown object refers to popcorn - that where Chad threw popcorn at Curtis - that how he was struck by popcorn.

None of news report said Chad punched at Curtis and Curtis shot Chad after threw popcorn at him.

Curtis started confront Chad at first place over texting and went to find manager, but manager was busy with other patrons. Curtis came back angrily and Chad went spoke to Curtis for clear-up about texting to her daughter at daycare, but Curtis didn't accept his claim or continue to arguing. When arguing went loudly so Chad threw popcorn at Curtis, and Curtis shot Chad after struck by popcorn.

I understand those articles perfectly and you are only person that bought us into argument.

Now, I'm not interested to read about your speculation. Factually, Curtis got charged with 2nd degree homicide after LEO had probable cause and he's currently in jail, also he doesn't get bail right now. That's over for you and if you don't like those news, that's your loss.

Seriously, I would rather to laughing at your bizarre statement with pure speculation, but I chose to be nice with you instead. Now, that's not going happen anymore after you have trouble to understand. I don't know about anything to make you understand better.
 
Of course "He was struck after the confrontation" people will say anything to make themselves look more innocent! You think he's going to go in there saying "Yeah I shot him for throwing popcorn" HELL NO! He's going to go in there trying to make it look like the fight was much worse than it was to save his butt! He's not going to tell the truth because he knows he's in hot water! Like criminals just confess they were in the wrong all the time... :roll: Please, if only! :roll: Even if he WAS punched, you still don't shoot someone! OBVIOUSLY the "punch" couldn't have been that hard because I don't see any damage to him! Not a justified shooting, period.
 
There are so many ways I can explain to you that I haven't sided with anyone. By default, the accused is innocent until proven guilty, not guilty until proven innocent. Your claim that I am siding with Curtis is incorrect. I don't know who he is, I don't know his family, I have never had any relations with him, so how can I be siding with him?

What I am doing, is looking at possible scenarios that likely happened. I am also reading actual facts (such as court transcripts, eyewitness statements, and so forth) and presenting the likely circumstances of what happened. That's all. Is this wrong to do?
 
Steinhauer said:
There are so many ways I can explain to you that I haven't sided with anyone. By default, the accused is innocent until proven guilty, not guilty until proven innocent. Your claim that I am siding with Curtis is incorrect. I don't know who he is, I don't know his family, I have never had any relations with him, so how can I be siding with him?

What I am doing, is looking at possible scenarios that likely happened. I am also reading actual facts (such as court transcripts, eyewitness statements, and so forth) and presenting the likely circumstances of what happened. That's all. Is this wrong to do?
Click to expand...

perhaps you should leave the s'plaining to someone else more qualified to do so. perhaps you should listen to your own advice.... like you will reserve the judgment until all facts have been revealed... so that means you should sit down like a good boy and sssssshhhhhhhhh.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top