I remember the Stand your Ground hearing turned into a mini-trial. There were a lot of witnesses that testified.
What happens if there are inconsistencies in testimony? A lot of years have passed and people’s memories fade.
Reeves testified at the hearing and didn’t make a good impression. He tried to minimize his own anger and foul language during the altercation and it wasn’t believable.
It’ll be interesting to see if Reeves testifies at the trial.
Reeves acquitted by jury. He plans to attend his daughter’s wedding.
I assume that he’ll bring his gun.
Shotgun?
NINE HOURS??? 
I guess an hour for every year of delay plus one for the pot.
Some phones make clicking, keyboard, notification, etc., sounds because the owners haven’t bothered to go into “settings” and turned them off. Or they don’t know there are settings on their phones. Probably the latter. I have all of those sounds turned off-- keyboard clicking makes me nuts even when I’m by myself.
I didn’t realize how far back the case went. They seemed to have bred this feature out of phones. My current Android comes with the keyboard sound turned off and even if you turn it on and all the way up it barely makes a sound. The older phones with this feature were clownishly loud and annoying. Like old style typewriter loud.
Reading through the particulars of the event it comes down to 2 people who are bullheaded and one of them had a gun. I think the retired officer essentially started a fight by engaging the person in front of him when the situation had been resolved. As a law officer he should have known better.
Despite ample real-life evidence that a large number of police officers don’t.
He didn’t “essentially” start a fight by engaging with someone; the other guy “actually” started the fight, at which point the situation then got resolved.
He initiated the confrontation, knowing that he was armed.
The popcorn musta been extra salty.
And the man’s dream finally came true. After decades of carrying a gun everywhere he went, he finally found an excuse to kill someone with it.
Is it legal to so ‘initiate’, whether armed or unarmed? Because I was under the impression that what he said to the other guy — regardless of whether either of them was armed — wasn’t, y’know, against the law: that you’d have to do something more, whether you’re armed or unarmed, to break the law.
If so, “knowing that he was armed” seems like an irrelevance.
Internet tough guys around the country must have popped their shoulders out of joint fist pumping this verdict.
Maybe it’s a new vacation strategy by Florida? “Tired of using blue pills to help your slinky dick? Come down to Florida and kill a man!”
On the contrary, I’d hope the takeaway to be along the lines of “Don’t Start None, Won’t Be None.”
Reeves was basically under house arrest for 8 years. His bail required an ankle monitor and he could only leave home for doctors appointments or church.
So what?
Reeves was punished. The aquittal doesn’t change anything. He served the time. He’s almost 80 and can never get those 8 years back.
His legal fees must have wiped out his life savings.
Maybe Reeves got what he deserved. He certainly didn’t get off scot-free.
Did I say it wasn’t? Not sure why you think that this question has any relevancy, at all.
Did I say it was? Cause, y’know, I didn’t say anything that your words seem to be responding to.
Like shooting someone? Oh wait, I guess that isn’t.
It certainly goes to state of mind. If I go to pick a fight with someone, I do so with the knowledge that there’s a chance that I lose that fight and get myself hurt.
Unless I’m armed, in which case, I know that there’s a chance that I will get to use my gun to defend myself.
If this guy hadn’t been armed, which by itself was against the law, given that the theater specifically said no weapons, then he would have sat quietly until the previews were over and the victim put away his phone, or moved to another seat. Knowing that he was able to end the life gave him the courage to do neither of these things, and instead, initiate a confrontation that he knew he could, as you put it, “resolve” with a homicide.
And sure, you may not care about the man who was killed or the wife who watched her husband get killed, but what about the other innocent theater goers that had to deal with a shooting, rather than getting to watch their movie?
Well, unless you are armed, then it’s “Start something, ‘Resolve’ something.”
They should blame the guy who started the fight and thereby earned himself a shooting; here’s to hoping he serves as an example to the next moron who’d be tempted to make things physical; possibly said moron may rethink things, and ultimately decide not to earn himself a shooting in front of innocent theatergoers.
How much time does his victim get back?
Maybe his victim would have liked to live to 80 as well, and will never get to do so.
Yeah, he got 8 years of “basically under house arrest.” Not actually under house arrest, not actually in jail.
And I’m sure that he got his gun back too.
Well maybe some of the salt got on the phone that was used in the ensuing fight.
Remember kids, always bring a cell-phone to a gun fight, since you’re the aggressor.