Curtis Reeves
Local news reports
The lawyer for Curtis Reeves, a
retired police captain who fatally shot a fellow moviegoer in 2014, is
planning to use Florida’s “stand your ground” law to defend his client.
Mr. Reeves was
arrested for the fatal shooting of Chad Oulson in January 2014. Police
say Mr. Oulson threw his bag of popcorn in Reeves' face after the former
captain criticized him for texting. Reeves responded by pulling out his
gun and shooting Oulson in the chest, according to law enforcement. A
bullet also grazed Oulson's wife, Nicole.
“I think we have a pretty solid stand your ground
case,” Richard Escobar, Reeves’ attorney, told the Tampa Bay Times.
Escobar plans to utilize a video taken at the scene to prove Reeves
acted lawfully under Florida’s self-defense law and ultimately have the
criminal charges dismissed. A five-day hearing is scheduled to begin on
Jan. 25.
There is a reason why people hate lawyers. Such is not always deserved. Some law firms truly do serve righteous people who deserve good representation. (A rare exception?) But in this case, it is merely a shyster seeking to play this fool right up to and including the appeals process. Money to be made. One can assume that the lawyer will be paid one way or the other. They don't normally take chances or do too much pro bono work. I guess it mostly depends on this guy's assets. What's next, gofundme? I don't think this genius is going to get very many right-wing fanatics to rally to his cause.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure I follow you, FJ. Are you condemning the attorney for representing Reeves? Is it your contention, then, that not all defendants should be defended (a contention that would seem to beg the question of how the term "defendant" would be appropriate for the undefended)?
DeleteI certainly hope that's not your position. No system of justice worthy of the name denies any defendant a competent defense. I strongly believe that Reeves is guilty of murder, and deserves to spend much, if not all, of the rest of his life in a cage. Still, he must be not only presumed innocent until proven guilty, but afforded every opportunity to challenge the prosecution's attempts to establish that proof. Without that, there is no justice.
In my opinion, Reeves doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of being acquitted. There is no mitigating circumstance where "stand your ground" could be logically invoked. I think it will be relatively simple for the prosecution to prove their case. Thus instead of mounting a competent defense, the attorney is mounting a comical defense.
DeleteThen he can string the guy along through the appeals process, all the time charging exorbitant amounts of money and hourly billing for presumably a defense of little or no value.
A competent attorney would much more likely introduce character witnesses and possibly attempt to explain the motivation or circumstances that drove the defendant to do such a horrible thing.
That way, the prosecution can offer leniency and the judge has more latitude to show mercy. If the guy just wants to roll the dice and take his chances on a murder conviction, that's usually the way to get the harshest sentence.
The lawyer is just playing Reeves for everything he can get in my opinion.
Ah--so I did misunderstand you. Thanks for breaking it down for me. You make a good case for your position.
DeleteWhat exactly is "filthy and lying"? Of course this guy is going to try and present a case of defense at his trial. Should we throw out the fifth amendment because guilty people invoke it? I don't expect him to win, barring any new details that come out during the case. What about you? Can we call you a "filthy lying gun control fanatic" if he loses the case?
ReplyDeleteWhen someone claims that they felt their life was in danger as a justification of shooting someone dead, and their life was really NOT in danger, they are a filthy liar. Did I really have to explain that?
DeleteKnowing you, I expect to hear that nonsense about it being our fault for misrepresenting what SYG really means. If it weren't for all the gun control folks talking about this, guys like Reeves wouldn't have gotten the idea. Am I right?
The gun control crowd misrepresented SYG during and after the Trayvon Martin trial.......so why would we think anything has changed?
DeleteActually, I only blame Reeves for this. I only bring up the blame game as a rebuttal for when you blame me and other gun rights supporters for what you call "stand your ground mentality" (your way of getting around the inconvenient fact that SYG does not protect murder). If we are going to say he "got the idea" from someone else, why would we say got the wrong idea from the people who are honest about the law instead of the people who lie and say it's a "get away with murder law"?
DeleteOh, and thanks for the clarification of who the "filthy lying gun rights fanatic" is. I thought you may have been blaming me again with that tag as you do often do. If you were referring to Reeves, I'm good with that.
Delete"SYG does not protect murder"
DeleteC'mon,man. You complain about being called a liar, which in fact I was no doing in this case, then you come up with a whopper like that. SYG is not supposed to protect murder, but in certain cases it does. I doubt if Mr. Reeves will be one of the lucky ones, though.
SYG is not supposed to protect murder, but in certain cases it does.
DeleteBy that "logic," the 4th Amendment's search and seizure rights "protect murder," as does the 5th Amendment's protection against self-incrimination, the Miranda Act, etc., etc.
Just because you call it nurse doesn't make if so. Obviously there is a big difference between popcorn and a concrete sidewalk used as a weapon. Even you acknowledge the distinction, so why don't you save your breathe for one of those cases where you do blame the law.
DeleteDon't worry about my saving my breath. I blame you and all the other gun rights nuts for encouraging idiots like this popcorn killer and the other loud music killer and the other Alzheimer's killer. None of those guys should have owned guns in the first place and they probably would't have if it weren't for guys like you. Keep pushing your agenda of death and fear. It's working great.
DeleteCool logic. We who exercise our Constitutional rights responsibly, and work to protect the same......are to blame for guy like this? You do see the obvious problems with this sort of rationale...don't you?
DeleteA police captain wouldn't own guns if not for me? Ok then...
Delete"You do see the obvious problems with this sort of rationale...don't you?"
DeleteYou can pretend there's an obvious problem with my position, but that's like whistling in the dark. SOME of you responsible gun owners who are simply exercising your Constitutional rights are going bad. I post the stories every day, day ofter day. And I do that with the most cursory glance at the daily news. It's not gun control advocates who are accidentally shooting people at home or going off the deep end and turning into mass murderers. It's you guys who are doing that, and in your convenient shirking way, you deny any association with them when in reality up till yesterday you were going to the shooting range with them and extolling their virtues.
I really haven't heard many gun rights folks supporting this guy. Mr. Escobar is an attorney, something entirely different since its his job to defend his client. It will be interesting to see the video he speaks of since I'm not seeing how the shooting can be justified.
ReplyDeleteSo it looks like we'll be getting to see a well publicized example of the stand your ground process in Florida. You posted a very good video of how its supposed to work by Massad Ayoob a while back Mike.
You mean they got the memo, stop supporting killers like this guy and Zimmerman.
DeleteI agree, I haven't heard anyone defending Reeves. He's even too much for you guys.
Delete