• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

State of Florida v. Curtis Reeves

Trippy Trekker

Trippy Trekker

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 26, 2016
Messages
12,158
Reaction score
5,700
Location
Tampa Bay area
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
One of the more sensational trials in the Greater Tampa Bay area continues to play itself out to an ever increasing sized audience.

Just over three years ago, retired Police Captain Curtis Reeves Jr. and his wife went to a movie theater in a Tampa suburb. A dispute occurred over a cell phone that escalated into a shooting incident and the death of another patron.

This week and next week the trial has progressed to a televised 'Stand Your Ground' hearing. IMO, the defense (Reeves) has not made a compelling argument. I expect the defense to lose on this motion and the trial to proceed to the next phase. The State has charged Captain Reeves with 2nd Degree Murder.

If the trial advances to the next phase, Florida juries have frequently baffled me and I do not feel inclined to predict an outcome.

Do you have a prediction?

State of Florida vs Curtis Reeves
 
Someone losing their life over a cell phone and a movie, it can't get anymore pathetic.
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
Someone losing their life over a cell phone and a movie, it can't get anymore pathetic.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the cop sighted stand your ground 'er something. It's just another idiot with a gun in my view. The cop ought to get the book thrown at him.
 
jet57 said:
Yeah, the cop sighted stand your ground 'er something. It's just another idiot with a gun in my view. The cop ought to get the book thrown at him.
Click to expand...

he was a cop. so tell us jet-in your jihad to disarm just about everyone and anyone how are you going to disarm cops who obviously passed through the police academy etc before being issued a firearm

you see that is the problem with your often idiotic hatred of people being able to carry guns is that your arguments are always based on hindsight and have no realistic way of judging the person's suitability to carry at the time they are issued a permit. You make the specious claim that a person should have to "show cause" to carry but that absolutely has no bearing on whether they will act responsibly. Some one who testified against the mob or carries large amounts of cash is no more likely to be responsible with a gun than a guy who lives in a gated community with no crime. But those former cases are almost guaranteed to meet any "cause" burden in the USA while the latter would not. SO your argument has no merit whatsoever.

now tell us how the state could have determined this cop was "an idiot" before he clearly acted like a criminally idiotic scum bag when he shot that man
 
TurtleDude said:
he was a cop. so tell us jet-in your jihad to disarm just about everyone and anyone how are you going to disarm cops who obviously passed through the police academy etc before being issued a firearm

you see that is the problem with your often idiotic hatred of people being able to carry guns is that your arguments are always based on hindsight and have no realistic way of judging the person's suitability to carry at the time they are issued a permit. You make the specious claim that a person should have to "show cause" to carry but that absolutely has no bearing on whether they will act responsibly. Some one who testified against the mob or carries large amounts of cash is no more likely to be responsible with a gun than a guy who lives in a gated community with no crime. But those former cases are almost guaranteed to meet any "cause" burden in the USA while the latter would not. SO your argument has no merit whatsoever.

now tell us how the state could have determined this cop was "an idiot" before he clearly acted like a criminally idiotic scum bag when he shot that man
Click to expand...

He has been thrown out of that theater before by causing a disturbance with other people there.
This was not his first tirade.

There is no way a judge can rule stand your ground. At most we know that he had popcorn thrown at him nothing else.
That is not a deadly weapon. That is the thing with stand your ground you have to actually prove your life was in danger and he can't.

Not only that but he hit the guys wife as well.

This will go to trial. What the jury will do is beyond me. We get some really stupid juries down here.
However murder 2 looks good for me. Based on the evidence. He had no reason to shoot he guy.

He could have easily gotten someone at the theater to handle it. He provoked the situation.
He was the aggressor which invalidates self defense and stand your ground.
 
Curtis Reeves might end up with a new stand your ground hearing under new rules that place the burden of proof on the state to prove that he was not in fear for his life before the prosecution can go forward.

‘Stand your ground’ decision raises prospect of new hearing in Pasco theater shooting

The earlier stand your ground hearing was conducted under rules that placed the burden of proof on him to prove that he was in fear for his life before the prosecution could be halted.
 
Well, it's Florida, depending on what crazies show up that day for Jury Duty, this man could walk, or spend a sizeable chunk of time in the slammer.

You can't predict Florida, only react to it.
 
Toggle Almendro said:
Curtis Reeves might end up with a new stand your ground hearing under new rules that place the burden of proof on the state to prove that he was not in fear for his life before the prosecution can go forward.

‘Stand your ground’ decision raises prospect of new hearing in Pasco theater shooting

The earlier stand your ground hearing was conducted under rules that placed the burden of proof on him to prove that he was in fear for his life before the prosecution could be halted.
Click to expand...

Well, why not just legalize murder at that point. Jeeze. I'm all for shooting someone that's threatening you. But, golly, making it to were you can basically, pick a fight with someone you don't like and then shoot them, and then having the burden of proof on the state to prove you didn't fear for your life. Is just asking for trouble.

I much prefer everyone that kills someone go through a trial, have a jury of their peers determine if the facts in evidence constitute self defense, "he pulled a gun on me, he trapped me in his bathroom for three days, he stalked me home" all of those examples produce evidence that they happened, unless the jury was extremely biased against the defendant, they won't find him guilty. Putting in a get out of jail loophole for anyone that claims they were scared is just a pass for murdering anyone you feel like.
 
IMO, in a situation like this (not sure I remember details correctly tho), a gun carrier should *walk away* instead of being an asshole and just getting into a pissing contest.

Because this is discussed in training for citizens, we are told this, and I'm sure cops *see it* during their jobs. These things escalate, they are stupid, unnecessary, and get out of control.
 
ThoughtEx. said:
But, golly, making it to were you can basically, pick a fight with someone you don't like and then shoot them, and then having the burden of proof on the state to prove you didn't fear for your life. Is just asking for trouble.

I much prefer everyone that kills someone go through a trial, have a jury of their peers determine if the facts in evidence constitute self defense, "he pulled a gun on me, he trapped me in his bathroom for three days, he stalked me home" all of those examples produce evidence that they happened, unless the jury was extremely biased against the defendant, they won't find him guilty. Putting in a get out of jail loophole for anyone that claims they were scared is just a pass for murdering anyone you feel like.
Click to expand...
No, no, no, no.

The argument you make is silly.

Rarely would there be a case with only the shooters word.
 
ThoughtEx. said:
Well, it's Florida, depending on what crazies show up that day for Jury Duty, this man could walk, or spend a sizeable chunk of time in the slammer.

You can't predict Florida, only react to it.
Click to expand...

Remind me to stay away from Florida. Along with California, it will be on my "do not visit" list.
 
I remember reading about this case a few years ago.

It is only my opinion that Captain Reeves acted in such an irrational manner because he was used to people obeying his word.

He was outraged that someone would ignore his command.
 
ludin said:
He has been thrown out of that theater before by causing a disturbance with other people there.
This was not his first tirade.

There is no way a judge can rule stand your ground. At most we know that he had popcorn thrown at him nothing else.
That is not a deadly weapon. That is the thing with stand your ground you have to actually prove your life was in danger and he can't.

Not only that but he hit the guys wife as well.

This will go to trial. What the jury will do is beyond me. We get some really stupid juries down here.
However murder 2 looks good for me. Based on the evidence. He had no reason to shoot he guy.

He could have easily gotten someone at the theater to handle it. He provoked the situation.
He was the aggressor which invalidates self defense and stand your ground.
Click to expand...

Yeah, there was another case I think in Florida where there was a party and one of the neighbors went there and got in people's faces and was the aggressor, then eventually shot someone, then claimed stand your ground. He lost, because he was the aggressor
 
Sampson Simpson said:
Yeah, there was another case I think in Florida where there was a party and one of the neighbors went there and got in people's faces and was the aggressor, then eventually shot someone, then claimed stand your ground. He lost, because he was the aggressor
Click to expand...

And then there was George Zimmerman....
 
"The Florida Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the 2017 law switching the burden of proof from the defense to the state in stand your ground cases is not retroactive."

"The ruling means stand your ground cases across the state that stalled while awaiting clarity from the justices can now move forward. That includes the infamous 2014 Pasco County movie theater shooting, where authorities say retired Tampa police captain Curtis Reeves fatally shot Chad Oulson after he threw popcorn at the former cop in a movie theater."

Florida Supreme Court rules 2017 stand your ground law change is not retroactive
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom