Sometimes we're our own worst enemy

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Andy Blozinski

New member
Florida man who shot theatergoer for texting to invoke 'stand your ground'
http://news.yahoo.com/florida-man-shot-theatergoer-texting-invoke-stand-ground-124807512.html

"I'll teach you to throw popcorn at me," an eyewitness recalled the shooter, retired Tampa police Capt. Curtis Reeves, saying.
http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts...-wesley-chapel-movie-theater-shooting/2164252

Sooo, this is right out of the textbook page 3 for those that say concealed carry holders are loose cannons and will make the world more dangerous. I hope this guy gets the book thrown at him. His abuse has potential to be used as ammo to hurt us.
 
As a retired police officer, he was more likely carrying under the LEOSA than as a CCW.

I don't think he has a prayer of making a "stand your ground" defense work. I hope I'm right. This certainly should be a wake-up call for all those who think police officers are somehow magically more safe to carry firearms than the rest of us ordinary citizens.
 
his attorney says there is a video which shows he was protecting himself from attack. anyone hear of this video in the beginning of this case?
 
I refuse to be held responsible for others action. I will try to continue to conduct myself in a responsible manner while letting others answer for their own actions.
 
A person can attempt to invoke any defense they want but that doesn't mean that it's going to work for them.

There's nothing about saying the words "stand your ground" in court that will exonerate the defendant if the law doesn't apply to the circumstances of the case.

I don't know all the circumstances of the case, but from what I've read in the news, he might as well invoke the "a space alien took over my body and made me do it" defense for all the good it's going to do him.

It will be pretty harmful to the stand your ground/no duty to retreat laws if this defendant is successful in twisting it to his benefit, but the sad truth is that many good laws can be and have been abused.
 
Yeah, he can invoke 'stand your ground' but the shooting still must first meet the standards for the use of lethal force and that just does not seem to be the case (from what has been reported so far).
 
Yep, firearm versus popcorn is not likely to meet the criteria for a reasonable fear of death or serious injury. The concern for the negative public image of carriers is shared.
 
The actual conditions that existed, and the conditions he believed existed are going to be what matters, NOT the conditions reported by the popular press, which must invariably leave out some details, and often misreports others.

One can be, and people have been "in the right" defending against an "unarmed" attacker, with deadly force. Details MATTER.

someone who jeers at you and throws a handful of popcorn, or the whole bucket, from 3 rows away and remains seated would be a tough sell to a jury that you HAD to shoot them.

Someone who throws popcorn at you as they rush you, with what you perceive as deadly intent is another matter.

BOTH could be reported in the press as "man shot for throwing popcorn".

At this point, ALL we know is what is being reported by the press, and that is NO basis for a sound decision, at this time.
 
I wonder if the facts will make the shooter seem more responsible since major media have not apparently picked up on this case. The media will have little interest if this is indeed, a legitimate defensive shooting, so maybe they know something the rest of us are not aware of. On the other hand, it is not unheard of to read about an LEO, or former LEO, who thinks that they are above the law.
 
I would guess that the retired officer thought that since the movie popcorn was probably salted he could claim that he was assalted. Sarcasm off. Being a police officer and police firearms instructor I have noticed far more police officers involved in questionable or wrongful shoots than I have CCW holders. I am not trying to bash other officers the job is difficult enough as it is. Officers are people who may have more training hours than others. Whether the training is better or not depends on the individual officer. Some will succumb to the various stresses the job offers. Others will sail smoothly through. Also in a situation that requires common sense we find that common sense is not as common as we might think.
 
The actual conditions that existed, and the conditions he believed existed are going to be what matters, NOT the conditions reported by the popular press, which must invariably leave out some details, and often misreports others.
Click to expand...

Well of course, but the only information we have to discuss about the conditions are what is being reported by the press. In fact, it seems all the information we have on this case is coming from the press as nobody here seems to be involved with the case in any manner.

I would also add that the actual conditions, what the defendant claims he believed (if he testifies), AND what the jury believes are the the conditions of the situation are what matter. The jury certainly may fail to accept the defendant's claims about the situation. No doubt the lawyers are going to spin out at least a couple of different stories/perspectives on this case which may or may not be reflective of what happened. Some of the information that the jury gets certainly may be no more accurate than some of the information reported by the media.
 
After the "twinkie defense" and the "Affluenza" defense, I'm just not sure anymore what can fly and get someone off the hook. So far there have been multiple quoted statements from witnesses printed, including the defendent's wife, that did not give any support that the defendent was actually threatened. The line of reasoning that it doesn't matter if he was actually threatened, but that if he FELT threatened will get abused for murder if this isn't contained to a reasonable standard in court. This is also a line from playbook page two of excessive gun control advocates that concealed carry holders are loose cannons and dangerous.
From what we have to go on so far, I don't think this is a case of him feeling threatened at all. It really does seem like he got angry and shot the guy. If that does turn out to be the case and his lawyer still pulls off some shenanigans, the political fallout will be negative for us. Like I said..twinkies and affluenza. It just makes me nervous when any case comes up like this because we have a lot to lose if it goes badly and only minor gains at best if it goes well.
 
When I decided to carry, I told myself "the last thing I ever want to do is shoot someone". And I tell myself this every time I carry a gun.
 
Andy Blozinski said:
The line of reasoning that it doesn't matter if he was actually threatened, but that if he FELT threatened will get abused for murder if this isn't contained to a reasonable standard in court.
Click to expand...
But it is supposed to be contained to a reasonable standard in court. The way it's supposed to work isn't that a defendant gets to claim anything is self-defense and the jury has to accept it. In general, a claim that the defendant felt threatened is supposed to be subjected to what's called the "reasonable man" test: the jury is instructed to compare the defendant's [alleged belief that his life was in danger against what a hypothetical "reasonable man" would likely have believed under the same circumstances.

This is also a line from playbook page two of excessive gun control advocates that concealed carry holders are loose cannons and dangerous.
Click to expand...
But the gun control advocates generally use a play book that says only police officers are safe to be entrusted with guns. This was not just an ordinary CCW holder, this was a retired LEO. I have not yet seen anything to indicate if he was carrying under a CCW permit or if he was carrying under the LEOSA.
 
The main point is, ban cell phones. The fight escalated because one man was using a cell phone in the theater. If cell phones were banned, then that man would still be alive.

I do think the shooter is going to have a hard time getting out of this shooting. He was a retired police captain, therefore I would say he should have known better than to shoot someone only armed with insults, popcorn and a cell phone.
 
I refuse to be held responsible for others action.
Click to expand...

YOU may not have any CHOICE in the matter. You may refuse to take responsibility, but it can still be foisted on you nonetheless, by the uninformed in the public, and the "mainstream" (drive-by) press, who seem to pride themselves on getting all firearms-related news items wrong. BOTH will paint those of us who carry concealed in the right way, with brush so broad that we cannot help but get lumped into a category with the ones who carry and use firearms in the WRONG way.

Merely "letting others answers for their own actions" can sink us as fast as misusing our CC rights. Perhaps, if the situation allows, we should monitor our own, and if we see someone messing up, ask them politely what they seek to accomplish. If someone breaks leather and the next step is lethal force, then obviously, my suggestion is off the table. But many incidents we read about appear to stem from bad or lax concealed carry habits.

Just sayin'...
 
Skans noted
When I decided to carry, I told myself "the last thing I ever want to do is shoot someone". And I tell myself this every time I carry a gun.
Click to expand...

I agree. Prepared to but prefer not to. One of the lawyers who taught part of a CHL class in Arizona (a very gun friendly place) had a pretty good graphic, the gist of which was *your $ legal cost* every time you pull the trigger in anger:

Good shoot, clear threat to your life and others, caught on multiple high def camera, 10 corroborating eye witnesses: $7K legal fees to a no-bill

Good shoot but unclear circumstances, no witnesses or video, unsympathetic police: Add a 0 to the cost above to (hopefully) no-bill

Bad shoot: Way more expensive
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top