ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Florida incidents , shooting incidents , texting incidents

Reply
Old 28th January 2016, 07:25 PM   #2201
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 19,505
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
A reasonable man would never have shot someone. If only there were more reasonable men in America.
It's whether a reasonable man would have feared for his life, not whether a reasonable man would have shot him, but I do understand the sentiment.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2016, 07:57 PM   #2202
newyorkguy
Penultimate Amazing
 
newyorkguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: NY
Posts: 10,508
I quoted Curtis Reeves' lawyer saying,
Quote:
[H]is client genuinely feared for his life. Under the law, a defendant must be able to show that he had a "reasonable belief" in a threat before using deadly force, not that the threat actually existed. link
I said that looking at Florida case law, proving someone didn't have a "reasonable belief" his life was in danger (or that he was in danger of suffering great bodily harm) has proven to be very difficult for a prosecutor. What a defendant believed and why they believed it is obviously very subjective. For the prosecutor to prove the person really didn't think they were in serious danger, that they just overreacted or panicked, has proven pretty close to impossible to prove. In fact studies show in the majority of cases where a shooter claims SYG immunity in Florida the person shot wasn't even armed. (As in this case.)

There have been many cases where the killer suffered no injury and had no actual evidence they were even threatened asides from their own word. One man was granted immunity even though when first questioned by police he claimed to know nothing of the incident.
newyorkguy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th January 2016, 10:16 PM   #2203
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 19,505
Originally Posted by newyorkguy View Post
I quoted Curtis Reeves' lawyer saying,
You're still looking at the wrong part. No one said a threat has to exist, the standard is that a reasonable person would believe that the threat existed.


Quote:
I said that looking at Florida case law, proving someone didn't have a "reasonable belief" his life was in danger (or that he was in danger of suffering great bodily harm) has proven to be very difficult for a prosecutor. What a defendant believed and why they believed it is obviously very subjective. For the prosecutor to prove the person really didn't think they were in serious danger, that they just overreacted or panicked, has proven pretty close to impossible to prove. In fact studies show in the majority of cases where a shooter claims SYG immunity in Florida the person shot wasn't even armed. (As in this case.)
Again, you are seem to have gone off on a total tangent.

First, it is not up to the prosecution to prove that the fear was not reasonable. SYG requires the Defense proving that it was. The Burden of Proof in a SYG Hearing is on the Defendant, not the prosecution. The Prosecution can certain;y show why they do not believe that such a fear would be one a reasonable person would have, but in the end the Judge will make a decision based on if the Defense has proven their claim that it was reasonable.

Second. Whether the victim is armed or not is irrelevant to whether a fear would be found to be reasonable or not. A victim could certainly be threatening and appearing to be able to kill someone without being armed.

Quote:
There have been many cases where the killer suffered no injury and had no actual evidence they were even threatened asides from their own word. One man was granted immunity even though when first questioned by police he claimed to know nothing of the incident.
There is no specification that you need to suffer injury before claiming self defense.

If there is no evidence that contradicts the defendants claim, then why shouldn't that claim be acceptable?

Is there anything in the law that says that if you lie about it at first that you can't claim self defense later?

Nothing you are saying contradicts that the Defendant has to prove SYG. It might make it harder to prove, but not impossible.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2016, 04:50 AM   #2204
newyorkguy
Penultimate Amazing
 
newyorkguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: NY
Posts: 10,508
The standard in SYG cases is what the defendant believed, not what a reasonable person may or may not have believed. In fact the case law demonstrates that what a reasonable person might or might not have believed is irrelevant. Judges have stated that the intent of the Florida legislature was to give people the right to use deadly force when they feel threatened. If the threat seems genuine, based on how the killer explains it, they go free.

You're contradicting yourself here. You state
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
First, it is not up to the prosecution to prove that the fear was not reasonable.
Then you state
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
If there is no evidence that contradicts the defendants claim, then why shouldn't that claim be acceptable?
You're saying it is not up to the prosecution to prove the fear was unreasonable but if no evidence is presented to the contrary the claim should be accepted. Who else would present that contrary evidence if not the prosecutor?

The fact is, as demonstrated by case law, the defendant need only make a claim, supported by their own account. They don't need to present witnesses or physical evidence. As Florida prosecutors have said, "The defendants know what to say." As the Florida law firm says, the defendant is entitled to a presumption he acted lawfully if he makes that claim.

As in the Reeves case, the threat seems to have been primarily verbal. Do you think people should have the right to kill someone for making a verbal threat?
newyorkguy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2016, 03:10 PM   #2205
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 19,505
Originally Posted by newyorkguy View Post
The standard in SYG cases is what the defendant believed, not what a reasonable person may or may not have believed. In fact the case law demonstrates that what a reasonable person might or might not have believed is irrelevant. Judges have stated that the intent of the Florida legislature was to give people the right to use deadly force when they feel threatened. If the threat seems genuine, based on how the killer explains it, they go free.
No it doesn't. All that SYG does is extend the "Castle" doctrine that was already in place in Florida to any place that a person lawfully is. What SYG does is remove the "duty to retreat" that's it. The belief still must be reasonable, which mean it has to pass the reasonable man test, just as it always did. A person can't be in a playground, shoot someone and then claim SYG because they truly believed the guy watching them while pushing his toddler on a swing was planning to murder him, even if they genuinely believed that.

Quote:
You're contradicting yourself here. You state

Then you state
There is no contradiction. It is up to the Defendant to prove self defense. They do not have to prove it beyond reasonable doubt however, nor do they need to prove it to a jury. They have to prove it to a level of balance of probability before a judge. If the prosecution has no evidence otherwise, then yes the Judge should accept the testimony of the defendant because that is the evidence of proof put before the court. It is not the Judge's job to decide if the defendant is lying or not, it is only up to them to consider the evidence provided and determine if that evidence proves self defense on a balance of probability. If all he has is a defense testimony and that is consistent with the physical evidence, then yes, he is to accept it and the law says this. The Judge must assume innocence, he can't just assume the defendant is lying when the only evidence provided says that he isn't.

Once the defendant has put forward their case, the Prosecution can still shoot holes in and prove evidence for why the defendant is lying. At that point the assumption is gone if the evidence says he's lying.

It is the Defendants job to prove they used self defense, it's the Prosecution's job to show up the holes in those claims and invalidate the evidence the defense presents. It's a role reversal of the trial where it is the Prosecution's job to prove their case, and the defense's job to poke holes in it and create doubt.

Quote:
You're saying it is not up to the prosecution to prove the fear was unreasonable but if no evidence is presented to the contrary the claim should be accepted. Who else would present that contrary evidence if not the prosecutor?
You seem to not understand how burdens of proof occur. The Defense starts with the burden if proof, they have to show, via evidence, that it was self defense. If the Prosecution want to claim that the action was not reasonable, then yes they will have to prove their claim, because they can't make an unsupported claim as evidence, but that doesn't mean they have to prove it wan't self defense any more than if the prosecution claim to have a witness that saw the event. They can't just say, we have a witness, it wasn't self defense, they actually have to provide the witness and have them testify and be cross examined. The same with the defense, if they call a witness or the defendant, then they have to testify and be cross examined before what they say goes into the record as evidence.

You seem to be mixing up having to prove your claims of evidence, with having to prove your case to a certain level, and who is is that is required to meet that level.

Quote:
The fact is, as demonstrated by case law, the defendant need only make a claim, supported by their own account. They don't need to present witnesses or physical evidence. As Florida prosecutors have said, "The defendants know what to say." As the Florida law firm says, the defendant is entitled to a presumption he acted lawfully if he makes that claim.
To make the claim the Defendant has to provide evidence of their claim. That can be their own testimony, which the Prosecutor will cross examine. No, they don't have to provide anything else, and if the state can't provide anything that contradicts that testimony, or show that there is reason to doubt it during cross, then yes, the Judge is requited to accept that testimony at face value, for what reason should he not do so? The cross examined testimony is evidence provided before the court, for what good reason should a judge ignore that evidence when there is nothing to contradict it? You seem to be wanting Judges to arbitrary decide if someone is lying or not when they have no actual evidence that this is the case. That is not how the law works, and nor should it. The Judge must rule on facts presented, and if the only facts are the defendant's testimony, then that is what he must rule based on. The law covers this by stating that the Judge when there is no evidence otherwise, the Judge must assume that the action was lawful.

Quote:
As in the Reeves case, the threat seems to have been primarily verbal. Do you think people should have the right to kill someone for making a verbal threat?
Considering that this case is yet to be decided in a court, no one has shown yet that there is a right to kill someone for making verbal threats.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)


Last edited by PhantomWolf; 29th January 2016 at 03:15 PM.
PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2016, 05:13 PM   #2206
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 59,856
Originally Posted by newyorkguy View Post
That has proven to be a very subjective standard. For a prosecutor to try and prove, "The shooter really didn't think he was in danger; he blew a fuse," is pretty close to impossible to prove.
That's not what the prosecutor has to show. The standard is a reasonable belief of great danger. Even if Reeves thought he was in great danger that won't fly if his belief was unreasonable.

ETA: I see PW has already done this in far more detail.
__________________
Vive la liberté!

Last edited by WildCat; 29th January 2016 at 05:19 PM.
WildCat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2016, 05:57 PM   #2207
newyorkguy
Penultimate Amazing
 
newyorkguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: NY
Posts: 10,508
I started to relate one of the absolute worst SYG cases but we've been through all this before and there's no sense in rehashing it.

One aspect I find foreboding about this case is: The shooting happened January 10, 2014. Two years later there has still been no trial. We haven't even gotten to the stand your ground immunity hearing. That was scheduled for January 25th but has been delayed until March. Why is this case taking so long to get to court? I think it's because the state is reluctant to proceed for fear they are going to lose.

Reeves lawyer is asking for an SYG immunity hearing on the basis Reeves was afraid he was about to be beaten up and fired a round to protect himself from suffering "great bodily harm." This is my problem with this:

The man who was shot possessed no weapons while Reeves was armed with a handgun (in violation of the movie theater's restriction on patrons carrying guns). Reeves was not injured even in a very minor way. Witnesses apparently only saw popcorn "in the air" when Oulson apparently slapped at Reeves' bag of popcorn.

There were many people nearby who could have aided Reeves if Oulson had attacked him. One was an off-duty police officer (the one that took Reeves into custody immediately after the shooting). And I emphasize if Oulson had attacked him. There is nothing in Oulson's background to suggest he would've attacked Reeves.

So why are we two years down the road and still no trial? I have a sneaking suspicion that the state suspects that when Reeves appears before a judge at an immunity hearing, and says he feared being beaten, the judge is going to grant him immunity. For that reason I think the state of Florida is not too eager to proceed.
newyorkguy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2016, 07:21 PM   #2208
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 19,505
Originally Posted by newyorkguy View Post
I started to relate one of the absolute worst SYG cases but we've been through all this before and there's no sense in rehashing it.

One aspect I find foreboding about this case is: The shooting happened January 10, 2014. Two years later there has still been no trial. We haven't even gotten to the stand your ground immunity hearing. That was scheduled for January 25th but has been delayed until March. Why is this case taking so long to get to court? I think it's because the state is reluctant to proceed for fear they are going to lose.

Reeves lawyer is asking for an SYG immunity hearing on the basis Reeves was afraid he was about to be beaten up and fired a round to protect himself from suffering "great bodily harm." This is my problem with this:

The man who was shot possessed no weapons while Reeves was armed with a handgun (in violation of the movie theater's restriction on patrons carrying guns). Reeves was not injured even in a very minor way. Witnesses apparently only saw popcorn "in the air" when Oulson apparently slapped at Reeves' bag of popcorn.

There were many people nearby who could have aided Reeves if Oulson had attacked him. One was an off-duty police officer (the one that took Reeves into custody immediately after the shooting). And I emphasize if Oulson had attacked him. There is nothing in Oulson's background to suggest he would've attacked Reeves.

So why are we two years down the road and still no trial? I have a sneaking suspicion that the state suspects that when Reeves appears before a judge at an immunity hearing, and says he feared being beaten, the judge is going to grant him immunity. For that reason I think the state of Florida is not too eager to proceed.
Or you could have just read the thread instead of inventing more things in your head.....

Quote:
DADE CITY — Circuit Judge Susan L. Barthle agreed Friday to postpone a "stand your ground" hearing for Curtis J. Reeves Jr., the retired Tampa police captain accused of shooting a man who was using a cellphone in a Wesley Chapel movie theater two years ago.

Barthle set a status check hearing for March 18, when she'll schedule the weeklong proceeding for April or May.

The judge heeded the concerns of both the state and the defense, who said they would not be ready by the Jan. 25 date.

One of the holdups is the FBI, which is doing analysis that won't be ready for another six weeks, said Reeves' attorney, Richard Escobar.

And the state has yet to depose all the expert witnesses in the case, said Assistant State Attorney Glenn Martin. Plus, Martin said, he may be inclined to do more depositions after the FBI returns its results.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2016, 08:16 PM   #2209
newyorkguy
Penultimate Amazing
 
newyorkguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: NY
Posts: 10,508
April or May for the SYG immunity hearing? Now we're up to 28-29 months and we're not even ready for the trial yet. I note the George Zimmerman-Trayvon Martin case took 17 months from shots fired to acquittal.

Something doesn't seem right. This is not that complicated a case.
newyorkguy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th January 2016, 03:58 AM   #2210
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 19,505
Originally Posted by newyorkguy View Post
April or May for the SYG immunity hearing? Now we're up to 28-29 months and we're not even ready for the trial yet. I note the George Zimmerman-Trayvon Martin case took 17 months from shots fired to acquittal.

Something doesn't seem right. This is not that complicated a case.
It's called the FBI having a backlog. The FBI report won't be available until mid-Feb. The Judge wants to give both sides enough time to go over the report and do any depositions that they feel they need about what is said in the report, and then head into the hearing with both sides ready. Do you think they should have to start the hearings before all the reports are competed just so you are happy with the time it's taken?
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th January 2016, 04:28 AM   #2211
FenerFan
Illuminator
 
FenerFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Istanbul...again
Posts: 3,102
Perhaps this case isn't as politically charged as the Martin and the loud music cases. There is not a lot of pressure to get this case to trial. Although tragic, the shooting of an innocent middle-aged white guy doesn't get the media or social justice activists in a frenzy.
__________________
"... no man wants his obituary to mention a pig." --phiwum
“Limp Bizkit did nothing wrong.”- Chalkman

Last edited by FenerFan; 30th January 2016 at 04:30 AM.
FenerFan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th January 2016, 08:22 AM   #2212
newyorkguy
Penultimate Amazing
 
newyorkguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: NY
Posts: 10,508
One of the original purposes of Florida's stand your ground law was to provide defendants with a faster, cheaper way to defend themselves against the possibility of criminal charges in self defense cases. The law allowed defendants to request an immunity hearing from a judge. If the judge agreed the facts of the case met the criteria as set forth by SYG than the judge could grant immunity from both criminal and civil charges.

The bill's sponsors in 2004, when the bill was first proposed, often cited the case of James Workman who shot a trespasser on his property. Though eventually cleared, proponents of SYG said Workman had been kept in limbo too long by the system. SYG offered a way for defendants to find quicker justice, to allow them to get on with their lives.

James Workman's case took three months to go through the system.
newyorkguy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th January 2016, 03:48 PM   #2213
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 19,505
Originally Posted by newyorkguy View Post
One of the original purposes of Florida's stand your ground law was to provide defendants with a faster, cheaper way to defend themselves against the possibility of criminal charges in self defense cases. The law allowed defendants to request an immunity hearing from a judge. If the judge agreed the facts of the case met the criteria as set forth by SYG than the judge could grant immunity from both criminal and civil charges.

The bill's sponsors in 2004, when the bill was first proposed, often cited the case of James Workman who shot a trespasser on his property. Though eventually cleared, proponents of SYG said Workman had been kept in limbo too long by the system. SYG offered a way for defendants to find quicker justice, to allow them to get on with their lives.

James Workman's case took three months to go through the system.
And you have still yet to explain why you think both sides should proceed when there is something they both seem to consider vital to the case not yet completed. It's not just the Prosecution asking for a delay, it is both sides. Why would Reeve's lawyer being pushing for a delay so he can get his hands on the report if the delay was because the Prosecution was scared of the hearing? That makes no sense, if that were the case, Reeve's lawyer would be doing everything he can to get it done as early as possible rather than asking for a delay.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st January 2016, 11:15 AM   #2214
Ladewig
I lost an avatar bet.
 
Ladewig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 27,150
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
And you have still yet to explain why you think both sides should proceed when there is something they both seem to consider vital to the case not yet completed. It's not just the Prosecution asking for a delay, it is both sides. Why would Reeve's lawyer being pushing for a delay so he can get his hands on the report if the delay was because the Prosecution was scared of the hearing? That makes no sense, if that were the case, Reeve's lawyer would be doing everything he can to get it done as early as possible rather than asking for a delay.
Some of the more recent news stories point out that Reeves formlally waived his right to a speedy trial in April 2014.
__________________
I lost an avatar bet to Doghouse Reilly.
Ladewig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st January 2016, 01:09 PM   #2215
newyorkguy
Penultimate Amazing
 
newyorkguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: NY
Posts: 10,508
April 2014 is still fifteen months after the incident. But you're right it does seem the defense is the one creating the delays. This is from a March 2014 news story:
Quote:
A possible trial date was discussed, but not set during Wednesday's hearing. Reeves himself was not present, but Oulson's widow, Nicole, was. Defense attorney Dino Michaels wanted six months before another pre-trial hearing, saying Reeves agreed to waive a speedy trial, so they can prepare a better defense.

"It's something that's necessary in this case. He's 71 years old. Any conviction or sentence is a death sentence for this man," Michaels said. Link
Reeves defense has continued to throw up road blocks. This is from a news story in the Tampa Bay Times eight months ago when Reeves' lawyers were asking for more time to depose witnesses:
Quote:
Reeves' attorney, Richard Escobar, blamed the delay on the state's recent listing of 22 more witnesses in the case and said he would need several more months to interview all of them. But Pinellas-Pasco Assistant State Attorney Bill Loughery said most of those people are minor witnesses who will not be called at trial. He expressed frustration that 15 months after Reeves' arrest, defense attorneys have not provided the state with their list of witnesses.

Reeves' case is supposed to go to trial in late August. Link
Seems to be a deliberate effort to delay the proceedings as long as possible.
newyorkguy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st January 2016, 01:29 PM   #2216
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 21,654
Originally Posted by newyorkguy View Post
April 2014 is still fifteen months after the incident. But you're right it does seem the defense is the one creating the delays. This is from a March 2014 news story:


Reeves defense has continued to throw up road blocks. This is from a news story in the Tampa Bay Times eight months ago when Reeves' lawyers were asking for more time to depose witnesses:


Seems to be a deliberate effort to delay the proceedings as long as possible.
I presume he isn't remanded in custody at the moment so has freedom until any eventual conviction
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Expenditure on healthcare
http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm
link is 2015 data (2013 Data below):
UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending
US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending
jimbob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st January 2016, 02:36 PM   #2217
newyorkguy
Penultimate Amazing
 
newyorkguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: NY
Posts: 10,508
Curtis Reeves, a retired Tampa police captain, was held in jail for six months after his arrest when a judge refused to set bail. In July 2013 his lawyers succeeded in getting bail set and Reeves was freed in hours.
Quote:
Circuit Judge Pat Siracusa set the $150,000 bail for Reeves in an order released Friday afternoon. The judge ruled that Reeves must remain at his Hernando County home except to go to church, the doctor's office or the grocery store. He also must surrender his firearms, wear an ankle monitor and avoid contact with Nicole Oulson [widow of the man Reeves killed]. news link
newyorkguy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st January 2016, 05:46 PM   #2218
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 19,505
Originally Posted by newyorkguy View Post
Seems to be a deliberate effort to delay the proceedings as long as possible.
Stall as long as possible to give him as much freedom as possible, and the older he it, the more sympathetic a Jury might be. Of course if he gets sick, then try and get him off the charges on compassionate grounds.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st January 2016, 09:57 PM   #2219
newyorkguy
Penultimate Amazing
 
newyorkguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: NY
Posts: 10,508
Originally Posted by newyorkguy View Post
In July 2013 his lawyers succeeded in getting bail set and Reeves was freed in hours.
Actually July 2014.
newyorkguy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2017, 10:53 AM   #2220
Hevneren
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 245
Bump. SYG hearing is to start February 20. It will last for several weeks, and there will be 150+ witnesses. And that's only the SYG hearing.
Hevneren is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2017, 11:05 AM   #2221
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility
Posts: 24,848
Originally Posted by Hevneren View Post
Bump. SYG hearing is to start February 20. It will last for several weeks, and there will be 150+ witnesses. And that's only the SYG hearing.

How did they manage to dredge up 150 witnesses? How big was the theater?
__________________
"A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep."

"Ninety percent of the politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation."
quadraginta is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2017, 12:47 PM   #2222
Hevneren
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 245
Originally Posted by quadraginta View Post
How did they manage to dredge up 150 witnesses? How big was the theater?
Big enough, apparently. One might suspect that the defense is doing this in order to increase the probability that the shooter will die of old age before ever going to trial. I think he's 74 now.
Hevneren is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th February 2017, 12:53 PM   #2223
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 20,103
Originally Posted by Hevneren View Post
Big enough, apparently. One might suspect that the defense is doing this in order to increase the probability that the shooter will die of old age before ever going to trial. I think he's 74 now.
May he have a long life.
__________________
Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God.
He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa

If I had a pet panda I would name it Snowflake.
Dr. Keith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th March 2017, 04:43 PM   #2224
Ranb
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 10,050
Stand your ground defense has been denied.
http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/J...415881043.html
Quote:
“The physical evidence contradicts the defendant's version of events,'' the judge wrote in her ruling. She found that while Reeves testified he was hit in the outside corner of his left eye with a cellphone or a fist, that “common sense and the credible testimony of the medical examiner'' casts doubt that he was hit in the eye beneath his glasses.

“The logical conclusion is that he was trying to justify his actions after the fact,'' she said.

Last edited by Ranb; 10th March 2017 at 04:51 PM. Reason: a link that works
Ranb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th March 2017, 04:49 PM   #2225
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 19,505
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
Stand your ground defense has been denied.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/10/us/sta...ial/index.html
Good.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th March 2017, 04:51 PM   #2226
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility
Posts: 24,848
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
Stand your ground defense has been denied.
http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/J...415881043.html

He might want to take a toothbrush with him when he goes to trial.
__________________
"A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep."

"Ninety percent of the politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation."
quadraginta is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th March 2017, 09:46 AM   #2227
newyorkguy
Penultimate Amazing
 
newyorkguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: NY
Posts: 10,508
Quote:
“The physical evidence contradicts the defendant's version of events,'' the judge wrote in her ruling. She found that while Reeves testified he was hit in the outside corner of his left eye with a cellphone or a fist, that “common sense and the credible testimony of the medical examiner'' casts doubt that he was hit in the eye beneath his glasses.

“The logical conclusion is that he was trying to justify his actions after the fact,'' she said.
The above sounds like a pretty accurate vetting of what was happening in that cinema. I think the big difference between this case and some of the earlier SYG cases is the political atmosphere surrounding the law has changed. In previous years there were many cases where SYG immunity was granted to persons who had shot and killed people who were unarmed and running away.

Judges would sometimes accept a defendant's assertion that a) the defendant had no way of knowing if the fleeing person might suddenly reverse field and attack (in one case even the state prosecutor said he thought that was legitimate grounds for shooting) and b) whether or not the assailant was armed was not known to the defendant at the time. Even some people in the criminal justice system said those kinds of rulings were changing Stand Your Ground into Just In Case.

I think the difference between those earlier cases and the Tampa case is the politics surrounding the law. I think the public has gradually begun to have doubts about the law.
newyorkguy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th March 2017, 02:09 PM   #2228
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility
Posts: 24,848
Originally Posted by newyorkguy View Post
The above sounds like a pretty accurate vetting of what was happening in that cinema. I think the big difference between this case and some of the earlier SYG cases is the political atmosphere surrounding the law has changed. In previous years there were many cases where SYG immunity was granted to persons who had shot and killed people who were unarmed and running away.

Judges would sometimes accept a defendant's assertion that a) the defendant had no way of knowing if the fleeing person might suddenly reverse field and attack (in one case even the state prosecutor said he thought that was legitimate grounds for shooting) and b) whether or not the assailant was armed was not known to the defendant at the time. Even some people in the criminal justice system said those kinds of rulings were changing Stand Your Ground into Just In Case.

I think the difference between those earlier cases and the Tampa case is the politics surrounding the law. I think the public has gradually begun to have doubts about the law.

I think the doubts started when they were seeing both sides in gang fights getting let off due to SYG.
__________________
"A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep."

"Ninety percent of the politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation."
quadraginta is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th March 2017, 04:54 PM   #2229
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 19,505
Originally Posted by newyorkguy View Post
The above sounds like a pretty accurate vetting of what was happening in that cinema. I think the big difference between this case and some of the earlier SYG cases is the political atmosphere surrounding the law has changed. In previous years there were many cases where SYG immunity was granted to persons who had shot and killed people who were unarmed and running away.

Judges would sometimes accept a defendant's assertion that a) the defendant had no way of knowing if the fleeing person might suddenly reverse field and attack (in one case even the state prosecutor said he thought that was legitimate grounds for shooting) and b) whether or not the assailant was armed was not known to the defendant at the time. Even some people in the criminal justice system said those kinds of rulings were changing Stand Your Ground into Just In Case.

I think the difference between those earlier cases and the Tampa case is the politics surrounding the law. I think the public has gradually begun to have doubts about the law.
Or perhaps you were just wrong about SYG and it was blatantly obvious to anyone that isn't wearing their political blinders that this case was never going to get thrown out in a SYG hearing because the guy clearly wasn't in danger. But no, you could never admit that because it'd explode your carefully crafted world view on this law.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th March 2017, 08:48 AM   #2230
fuelair
Banned
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 58,581
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
You're still looking at the wrong part. No one said a threat has to exist, the standard is that a reasonable person would believe that the threat existed.




Again, you are seem to have gone off on a total tangent.

First, it is not up to the prosecution to prove that the fear was not reasonable. SYG requires the Defense proving that it was. The Burden of Proof in a SYG Hearing is on the Defendant, not the prosecution. The Prosecution can certain;y show why they do not believe that such a fear would be one a reasonable person would have, but in the end the Judge will make a decision based on if the Defense has proven their claim that it was reasonable.

Second. Whether the victim is armed or not is irrelevant to whether a fear would be found to be reasonable or not. A victim could certainly be threatening and appearing to be able to kill someone without being armed.



There is no specification that you need to suffer injury before claiming self defense.

If there is no evidence that contradicts the defendants claim, then why shouldn't that claim be acceptable?

Is there anything in the law that says that if you lie about it at first that you can't claim self defense later?

Nothing you are saying contradicts that the Defendant has to prove SYG. It might make it harder to prove, but not impossible.
The embiggend and colored is what I am responding to. It is my advantage in this if I am ever involved in such a shooting/knifing - I do not appear at all dangerous and a number of people could be brought in to testify I am friendly and helpful. Because I am. I just found out many years ago that I am fast and accurate and that has not changed yet. I also do little to make that visible. I figure I have at least 5 more years before that changes based on current thinking and motion skills.

By the by, the old guy murdered the father and I hope he goes to jail for the rest of his life - he started the problem and upped the ante on it and he was not in fear, he was angry. After all, retired cops are special!!!! (I have nothing against good police officers. I strongly suspect he was either not one or one of those who still want to cop and have their AU-THAR-IT-EE (speak in Catman voice) followed unquestioned.)
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th March 2017, 06:30 PM   #2231
fuelair
Banned
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 58,581
Originally Posted by fuelair View Post
The embiggend and colored is what I am responding to. It is my advantage in this if I am ever involved in such a shooting/knifing - I do not appear at all dangerous and a number of people could be brought in to testify I am friendly and helpful. Because I am. I just found out many years ago that I am fast and accurate and that has not changed yet. I also do little to make that visible. I figure I have at least 5 more years before that changes based on current thinking and motion skills.

By the by, the old guy murdered the father and I hope he goes to jail for the rest of his life - he started the problem and upped the ante on it and he was not in fear, he was angry. After all, retired cops are special!!!! (I have nothing against good police officers. I strongly suspect he was either not one or one of those who still want to cop and have their AU-THAR-IT-EE (speak in Catman voice) followed unquestioned.)
Dammitall, Cartman voice
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th March 2017, 09:43 PM   #2232
fuelair
Banned
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 58,581
Still guilty as hell of murder!!!

Last edited by fuelair; 12th March 2017 at 09:44 PM.
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th March 2017, 03:09 AM   #2233
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 48,696
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
Or perhaps you were just wrong about SYG and it was blatantly obvious to anyone that isn't wearing their political blinders that this case was never going to get thrown out in a SYG hearing because the guy clearly wasn't in danger. But no, you could never admit that because it'd explode your carefully crafted world view on this law.
Yea only if the victim was black would that kind of fear be justified by a police officer. Remember this is florida where they arrest innocent victims of their missing their target when shooting. As a former police officer he would be solidly aware of how to treat them.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th March 2017, 06:28 AM   #2234
Mumbles
Philosopher
 
Mumbles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 7,498
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
Yea only if the victim was black would that kind of fear be justified by a police officer. Remember this is florida where they arrest innocent victims of their missing their target when shooting. As a former police officer he would be solidly aware of how to treat them.
Yep. The same state where Zimmerman was so scared that he got out of his car and ran after Trayvon Martin, who was just walking home from the store.

Because all black guys can just Hulk out at a moment's notice. Right.

But remember, race doesn't matter. Totally unimportant.

Yeah, right.
Mumbles is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2018, 11:54 AM   #2235
Hevneren
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 245
Trial date set

The trial will start February 25, 2019 (link to court order form), unless Reeves gets a new SYG hearing. Looks like the SYG law has been changed so the burden of proof now lies with the prosecution. http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/...case_168666185
Hevneren is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2020, 12:35 PM   #2236
Hevneren
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 245
Trial date set - again! Now it's October 5, 2020. Mills of God grinding slowly, and somewhat haphazardly. I wish mr. Reeves a long life.
Hevneren is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2020, 01:24 PM   #2237
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
 
a_unique_person's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Waiting for the pod bay door to open.
Posts: 42,070
Four years. Someone's got deep pockets.
__________________
Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.
Everything is possible, but not everything is probable.
“Perception is real, but the truth is not.” - Imelda Marcos
a_unique_person is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2020, 03:23 PM   #2238
Steve
Philosopher
 
Steve's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 6,888
The first line of defense will be "took too long to get to trial".
__________________
Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!"
Steve is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2020, 04:27 PM   #2239
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
 
a_unique_person's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Waiting for the pod bay door to open.
Posts: 42,070
"Justice delayed is justice denied."
"Who delayed it?"
"I did, of course."
__________________
Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.
Everything is possible, but not everything is probable.
“Perception is real, but the truth is not.” - Imelda Marcos
a_unique_person is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th February 2020, 05:36 PM   #2240
Seismosaurus
Philosopher
 
Seismosaurus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 6,092
Never mind
__________________
Promise of diamonds in eyes of coal
She carries beauty in her soul
Seismosaurus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:46 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.