Florida: Another victim of the "stand your ground" law

[Lenona]

I thought it was interesting that Fox would admit that apparently, racial slurs were involved.

https://www.fox35orlando.com/news/florida-sheriff-mom-shot-killed-by-neighbor-amid-long-standing-feud-over-her-children

Other articles:

https://news.google.com/search?q=Ajike%20%20Owens&hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US%3Aen

[Adam H. Kerman]

Lenona <leno...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>I thought it was interesting that Fox would admit that apparently,
>racial slurs were involved.

You know, just because the shooter claims justified use of force under
"stand your ground" doesn't mean the shooter believed force was legally
justified under the circumstances. The shooter isn't going to admit to
having committed a felony.

As the woman was shot through the door, I don't see how an argument can
be made that she was intending to trespass inside or harm the shooter.
Only if she were carrying a weapon and threatening to use it can I see
some sort of self defense scenario.

>https://www.fox35orlando.com/news/florida-sheriff-mom-shot-killed-by-neighbor-amid-long-standing-feud-over-her-children

I've explained this before. "Fox" is branding for Murdoch's tv
properties. A local newsroom is not "Fox News" and doesn't operate under
"Fox News". At a local tv station, the news director reports to the
station manager and never the network. It doesn't matter if it's an O&O
or an affiliate.

When Murdoch sold the movie studio to Disney, they cannot use the brand
"Fox" at all.

>Other articles:

>https://news.google.com/search?q=Ajike%20%20Owens&hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US%3Aen

[Raul TW]

The shooter and the victim knew each other. The two women were neighbors.
Police had been called out several times before for noise incidents with these two. The victim was unarmed and standing with her
child outside the door. The shooter shot through the door. For the shooter to successfully claim "stand your ground" would be a stretch.
But then again it is Florida where a man successfully claimed "stand your ground" and killed a man for flinging popcorn at him in a theatre.

[Lenona]

On Tuesday, June 6, 2023 at 5:44:56 PM UTC-4, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

> Lenona wrote:
>
> >I thought it was interesting that Fox would admit that apparently,
> >racial slurs were involved.
> You know, just because the shooter claims justified use of force under
> "stand your ground" doesn't mean the shooter believed force was legally
> justified under the circumstances. The shooter isn't going to admit to
> having committed a felony.
>
> As the woman was shot through the door, I don't see how an argument can
> be made that she was intending to trespass inside or harm the shooter.
> Only if she were carrying a weapon and threatening to use it can I see
> some sort of self defense scenario.
>

Good points, thank you.

But so long as a "stand your ground" law exists in a trigger-happy state like Florida, thugs like this one are going to abuse it. For them, it's just another opportunity.

[J.D. Baldwin]

In the previous article, Lenona <leno...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I thought it was interesting that Fox would admit that apparently, racial slurs were involved.
>
> https://www.fox35orlando.com/news/florida-sheriff-mom-shot-killed-by-neighbor-amid-long-standing-feud-over-her-children

So ... in the *very first graf* of that report, it says "Marion
County Sheriff Billy Woods said it was not a justifiable shooting
under Florida's 'Stand Your Ground' law. 'It was simply a
killing,' he said."

So in what way does Florida's so-called "Stand your ground" law enter
into this?

And are you aware that "stand your ground" is the law in a) common law
and b) all fifty states[1] when it comes to defending yourself *in
your home*? When it comes to your home, the term isn't "stand your
ground," it's "castle doctrine" anyway.

(Yes, I saw that the accused claimed "stand your ground" per the
article. If I were the accused's lawyer, I'd tell her to clam up, but
if she absolutely HAD to say something, I'd tell her to claim
self-defense. So no real surprise there.)

[1] Vermont is possibly a gray area. Not definitively "gray"; they
just aren't 100% clear about what everyone else is clear about.

Adam has already addressed the difference between Fox affiliates and
Fox News, so I'll let that bit go.

But let's say it was Fox News: why do you think Fox News has a
history of suppressing credible reports of racial slurs in newsworthy
incidents? In this case, it's an unsubstantiated claim by the
deceased woman's family's attorney, so it's pretty self-serving and
probably shouldn't be reported without corroboration. But can you
name a story Fox News reported on where there was good evidence of a
racial slur being used, and where it was a factor in a newsworthy
incident, and Fox News simply ignored it?

Compare and contrast with, say, NBC News, who has a history of
fabricating racial slurs and reporting that they were uttered by
people who never did. Any opinions on that?
--
_+_ From the catapult of |If anyone objects to any statement I make, I am
_|70|___:)=}- J.D. Baldwin |quite prepared not only to retract it, but also
\ / bal...@panix.com|to deny under oath that I ever made it.-T. Lehrer
***~~~~----------------------------------------------------------------------

[Adam H. Kerman]

A self defense claim -- defense of one's self or others -- is an
affirmative defense. There is a doctrine called duty to retreat to avoid a
confrontation in which a self defense claim would not apply. I don't know
enough about it to state that duty to retreat applies. Stand your ground
laws modify the doctrine of duty to retreat to allow a self defense claim
to be made in additional circumstances.

Texas and perhaps another state allow the use of force in defense of
property.

btw, Chicago (where I live) had an extraordinarily violent Memorial Day
weekend: 46 shot, 9 fatally. These are Chicago police statistics that
aren't combined with state police statistics, who have jurisdiction over
expressways. I don't want to hear that Florida is uniquely trigger-happy.

In any event, after police conducted a series of interviews with witnesses,
they concluded that the shooter cannot successfully claim self defense
and she was taken into custody.

She was booked on manslaughter (with a firearm), culpable negligence,
battery, and assault.

The sheriff has identified her: Susan Lorincz, age 58

https://www.fox35orlando.com/news/florida-woman-who-deputies-say-shot-neighbor-through-front-door-in-custody-sheriff-says

[J.D. Baldwin]

In the previous article, Raul TW <raultenni...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> But then again it is Florida where a man successfully claimed "stand
> your ground" and killed a man for flinging popcorn at him in a
> theatre.

Never happened.

First off, I am not 100% sure it wouldn't be socially beneficial if we
simply started shooting people who talk on their cell phones in movie
theaters. But I admit I have kind of a bug up my ass about that one.

Second, the "victim" in that case whanged (stop me if I get too
technical here) his cell phone at the shooter's head and nailed him
good. When he went to throw something else -- it turned out to be
popcorn, but the shooter didn't know what was coming when he fired --
he got shot.

"Stand your ground" wasn't especially involved here because the trial
judge disallowed it as a defense. It was an ordinary self-defense
case.

I do agree that the shooter committed manslaugher at least -- but I
also agree that the prosecution did not meet its burden of proof
beyond reasonable doubt. So an okay result, but not a perfectly
correct one.

But no one shot anyone "for flinging popcorn at him," that's just dumb.

[J.D. Baldwin]

In the previous article, Adam H. Kerman <a...@chinet.com> wrote:

[legal critique]

> A self defense claim -- defense of one's self or others -- is an
> affirmative defense.

Not always. In Florida, "Stand your ground" claims specifically
impose a burden of proof on the prosecutor.

> There is a doctrine called duty to retreat to avoid a confrontation
> in which a self defense claim would not apply.

The "duty to retreat" is what "stand your ground" is all about. It
doesn't create any special case for self-defense claims, it just
removes that particular element from the accused's "duty." But it
never applies inside one's own home. A bad guy comes into your home,
you can basically[1] shoot his ass.

[1] My professional legal advice is never to shoot anyone -- even in
your own home -- unless he is threatening imminent serious harm to
you or another, in a situation where you were in no way the
initial aggressor. But in general, you won't be prosecuted for
shooting a burglar or other home intruder unless you give a
statement to the police that you had it all under control but
chose to shoot the guy for the hell of it. That would not be a
wise statement to make.

> I don't know enough about it to state that duty to retreat
> applies. Stand your ground laws modify the doctrine of duty to
> retreat to allow a self defense claim to be made in additional
> circumstances.

Yes. But in no state will it apply if you are the initial aggressor.

> Texas and perhaps another state allow the use of force in defense of
> property.

*All* states (and all civilized jurisdictions) allow use of force to
protect property. Texas allows use of *deadly* force (e.g., shooting
the thief) to protect property. And even then only at night. (Weird,
right? Yeah, weird.)

> btw, Chicago (where I live) had an extraordinarily violent Memorial
> Day weekend: 46 shot, 9 fatally. These are Chicago police statistics
> that aren't combined with state police statistics, who have
> jurisdiction over expressways. I don't want to hear that Florida is
> uniquely trigger-happy.

Florida is "uniquely" *something* for sure. But it's far from the
most violent place in the U.S.

> In any event, after police conducted a series of interviews with
> witnesses, they concluded that the shooter cannot successfully claim
> self defense and she was taken into custody.

Well, I don't think that's a legally coherent way to explain their
decision. They arrest based on probable cause, which is a low bar. I
think it would be more accurate -- and this is hair-splitting, I
cheerfully admit -- that they concluded that any reasonable observer
would think there is a good chance that the self-defense claim was
invalid.

> She was booked on manslaughter (with a firearm), culpable negligence,
> battery, and assault.

Not sure all of those will hold up to a Blockburger analysis, but it's
probably a reasonable start.

This will be complicated, legally. The outside of your house isn't
the same as the inside, but the "curtilage" (area immediately
surrounding your house) kind of is, legally. But on the other hand,
the porch is sort of a public area until you order someone off of it.
And even if you do that, it's probably not the same as "inside the
house," and I doubt any court will hold the castle doctrine applies.

But I don't think "Stand your ground" is going to enter into it
significantly. (The defense lawyer would be guilty of malpractice for
not trying, of course.)

[Adam H. Kerman]

J.D. Baldwin <ne...@baldwin.users.panix.com> wrote:
>Adam H. Kerman <a...@chinet.com> wrote:

>[legal critique]

>>A self defense claim -- defense of one's self or others -- is an
>>affirmative defense.

>Not always. In Florida, "Stand your ground" claims specifically
>impose a burden of proof on the prosecutor.

I'm wrong. I'd forgotten that bit. How can that possibly go wrong?

>>There is a doctrine called duty to retreat to avoid a confrontation
>>in which a self defense claim would not apply.

>The "duty to retreat" is what "stand your ground" is all about. It
>doesn't create any special case for self-defense claims, it just
>removes that particular element from the accused's "duty."

>But it never applies inside one's own home. A bad guy comes into your
>home, you can basically[1] shoot his ass.

Without perceiving a threat? I don't think so. A home invader breaking
and entering or entering through an unlocked window is one thing. A
drunken fool in an alchoholic blackout who enters the wrong house
through an unlocked door then passes out on the couch is something else.

>[1] My professional legal advice is never to shoot anyone -- even in
> your own home -- unless he is threatening imminent serious harm to
> you or another, in a situation where you were in no way the
> initial aggressor. But in general, you won't be prosecuted for
> shooting a burglar or other home intruder unless you give a
> statement to the police that you had it all under control but
> chose to shoot the guy for the hell of it. That would not be a
> wise statement to make.

Ok

What if the homeowner holds the home invader at bay with a shotgun,
orders the home invader to surrender and wait to be taken into custody
by police, and you shoot him to keep him from evading capture by
standing up to leave and walk out without fighting you?

>>I don't know enough about it to state that duty to retreat
>>applies. Stand your ground laws modify the doctrine of duty to
>>retreat to allow a self defense claim to be made in additional
>>circumstances.

>Yes. But in no state will it apply if you are the initial aggressor.

Both stand your ground and duty to retreat or just duty to retreat?

When does duty to retreat apply, in a state without stand your ground,
if you are not the initial aggressor?

>>Texas and perhaps another state allow the use of force in defense of
>>property.

>*All* states (and all civilized jurisdictions) allow use of force to
>protect property. Texas allows use of *deadly* force (e.g., shooting
>the thief) to protect property. And even then only at night. (Weird,
>right? Yeah, weird.)

I had no idea; thanks.

>>. . .

>>In any event, after police conducted a series of interviews with
>>witnesses, they concluded that the shooter cannot successfully claim
>>self defense and she was taken into custody.

>Well, I don't think that's a legally coherent way to explain their
>decision. They arrest based on probable cause, which is a low bar. I
>think it would be more accurate -- and this is hair-splitting, I
>cheerfully admit -- that they concluded that any reasonable observer
>would think there is a good chance that the self-defense claim was
>invalid.

Ok

>>She was booked on manslaughter (with a firearm), culpable negligence,
>>battery, and assault.

>Not sure all of those will hold up to a Blockburger analysis, but it's
>probably a reasonable start.

>This will be complicated, legally. The outside of your house isn't
>the same as the inside, but the "curtilage" (area immediately
>surrounding your house) kind of is, legally. But on the other hand,
>the porch is sort of a public area until you order someone off of it.
>And even if you do that, it's probably not the same as "inside the
>house," and I doubt any court will hold the castle doctrine applies.

Ok

I don't see how castle doctrine applies to a scenario in which the
victim of the shooting wasn't trying to enter the home without
permission and wasn't threatening the homeowner with a weapon.

I have a vague notion of what curtilage means but I think the main issue
was that she wasn't attempting to enter the home, let alone forcing her
way into the home.

>But I don't think "Stand your ground" is going to enter into it
>significantly. (The defense lawyer would be guilty of malpractice for
>not trying, of course.)

How would one offer facts that the victim was the aggressor?

[J.D. Baldwin]

In the previous article, Adam H. Kerman <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
> >Not always. In Florida, "Stand your ground" claims specifically
> >impose a burden of proof on the prosecutor.
>
> I'm wrong. I'd forgotten that bit. How can that possibly go wrong?

I'm what most people would consider extremely pro-gun and very much
pro-self-defense, in that I think if A threatens B to any significant
degree and B pops a cap in A's ass, that's usually going to be okay
with me. And even I think Florida's statute is ... well, let's just
say "less than ideal." Worse, I think it's overly complex and
downright perverse in the corner cases.

> >The "duty to retreat" is what "stand your ground" is all about. It
> >doesn't create any special case for self-defense claims, it just
> >removes that particular element from the accused's "duty."
> >
> >But it never applies inside one's own home. A bad guy comes into
> >your home, you can basically[1] shoot his ass.
>
> Without perceiving a threat? I don't think so. A home invader
> breaking and entering or entering through an unlocked window is one
> thing. A drunken fool in an alchoholic blackout who enters the wrong
> house through an unlocked door then passes out on the couch is
> something else.

Well, okay, there's a pretty good illustration of why "never" is
usually not a good word to apply in statements of law. I'll say that
a drunk passed out on your couch is not reasonably within the scope of
"bad guy," but there are always going to be corner cases.

In 49 states (not Vermont) and probably in that 50th state (Vermont),
a guy who enters your house when it's not *clearly* an absolutely
benign mistake is going to be fair game. That doesn't mean it's a
good idea to shoot him without any further analysis, legally speaking.
And as for the moral element, even a guy in my house is going to have
to meet a pretty high threat bar before I pull the trigger.

> What if the homeowner holds the home invader at bay with a shotgun,
> orders the home invader to surrender and wait to be taken into
> custody by police, and you shoot him to keep him from evading
> capture by standing up to leave and walk out without fighting you?

Corner case. Would depend highly on the details. I'd say that bare-
bones, as a law-school-level hypothetical (where there are no
questions of proof), that's probably a bad shoot. In real life, if he
stands up and you blow him into the Eighth Circle Of Hell, well, the
sonofabitch stood up when you told him not to. Case dismissed.

In Texas, at night, I'd say -- and this is a lawyer answer, so correct
accordingly --

- he's a trespasser
- I have a legal claim against him for his trespass
- A legal claim against someone is a property right (true in all
states)
- therefore, if he flees, he's deprived me of my property right

And what can you do to defend property in Texas at night ... ?

> >Yes. But in no state will it apply if you are the initial aggressor.
>
> Both stand your ground and duty to retreat or just duty to retreat?

Yes. If you are the initial *physical* aggressor, or if you seriously
escalate the physical threat in a situation (even by words), you will
generally forfeit your claim of self-defense when the other guy
retaliates. This is true everywhere -- or at least I've never heard
of a counter-example. It goes back to the common law.

> When does duty to retreat apply, in a state without stand your
> ground, if you are not the initial aggressor?

Well, that's a little complex:

A "stand your ground" statute is generally going to be *procedural* in
nature, and doesn't necessarily change the underlying self-defense
doctrine. So it's possible for a state to be "no stand your ground"
*and* "no duty to retreat." It may surprise you (it surprises most
people) to learn that California is a "stand your ground" state. It
doesn't have a statute that makes things procedurally weird in the
face of a "stand your ground" self-defense claim, but you still have
no duty to retreat in the face of a threat, even outside your home.

In New York (state), you are required to retreat when a) not in your
home or vehicle and b) when you can do so with *clear* safety. But
there is no duty to retreat if you are being threatened with a serious
felony such as kidnapping or rape. So it's complicated, but not
wildly irrational.

As I said above, I'm pretty far over on the pro-self-defense side of
things, and I strongly disagree with any legal requirement for a duty
to retreat in the face of aggression. But my personal choice and my
advice to absolutely everyone is that if you can be confident of
safety in retreat, retreat your ass and let the whole business go.

> I don't see how castle doctrine applies to a scenario in which the
> victim of the shooting wasn't trying to enter the home without
> permission and wasn't threatening the homeowner with a weapon.

I doubt it does. But being in the "curtilage" complicates things.
There isn't a lot of real clear case law on this anywhere. A guy who
shoots a burglar while still outside the house, but trying to jimmy a
door is probably in the clear. A guy yelling at him from his porch,
not so much. A guy yelling at him *and behaving agressively or
issuing clear threats* on his porch ... more complicated.

> I have a vague notion of what curtilage means but I think the main
> issue was that she wasn't attempting to enter the home, let alone
> forcing her way into the home.

Based on the facts we have, I accept that and would conclude it's a
bad shoot and the shooter is going to go away and that's the right
answer. But facts have a way of shifting as more and more come out
about an incident.

> >But I don't think "Stand your ground" is going to enter into it
> >significantly. (The defense lawyer would be guilty of malpractice
> >for not trying, of course.)
>
> How would one offer facts that the victim was the aggressor?

Announcing "I'm gonna kick your ass" and taking a step forward. Not
saying it happened, but if it did, that goes a long way right there.

[Adam H. Kerman]

J.D. Baldwin <ne...@baldwin.users.panix.com> wrote:
>Adam H. Kerman <a...@chinet.com> wrote:

>>>. . .

>>>Yes. But in no state will it apply if you are the initial aggressor.

>>Both stand your ground and duty to retreat or just duty to retreat?

>Yes. If you are the initial *physical* aggressor, or if you seriously
>escalate the physical threat in a situation (even by words), you will
>generally forfeit your claim of self-defense when the other guy
>retaliates. This is true everywhere -- or at least I've never heard
>of a counter-example. It goes back to the common law.

Thanks

By escalating the situation by words, do you mean making a threat or
provoking the opponent in some way sure to make him angrier that isn't a
threat?

>>When does duty to retreat apply, in a state without stand your
>>ground, if you are not the initial aggressor?

>Well, that's a little complex:

>A "stand your ground" statute is generally going to be *procedural* in
>nature, and doesn't necessarily change the underlying self-defense
>doctrine.

I hadn't realized that "stand your ground" was a burden on the state to
disprove something at trial that's separate from whether there is a
"duty to retreat" in law.

>So it's possible for a state to be "no stand your ground"
>*and* "no duty to retreat." It may surprise you (it surprises most
>people) to learn that California is a "stand your ground" state. It
>doesn't have a statute that makes things procedurally weird in the
>face of a "stand your ground" self-defense claim, but you still have
>no duty to retreat in the face of a threat, even outside your home.

I was not aware that California has no duty to retreat in statute.

>In New York (state), you are required to retreat when a) not in your
>home or vehicle and b) when you can do so with *clear* safety. But
>there is no duty to retreat if you are being threatened with a serious
>felony such as kidnapping or rape. So it's complicated, but not
>wildly irrational.

I really don't want to have a legal argument with the prosecutor about
whether I could retreat to a place of refuge to avoid further violence.
During the crisis, how can I possibly know I can take refuge in such a
way that the perpetrator cannot follow me in or break in?

>As I said above, I'm pretty far over on the pro-self-defense side of
>things, and I strongly disagree with any legal requirement for a duty
>to retreat in the face of aggression. But my personal choice and my
>advice to absolutely everyone is that if you can be confident of
>safety in retreat, retreat your ass and let the whole business go.

I'll ask the perpetrator to suspend trying to harm me for a moment whilst
I consult with my attorney who will remind me of my legal options during
the crisis.

>>I don't see how castle doctrine applies to a scenario in which the
>>victim of the shooting wasn't trying to enter the home without
>>permission and wasn't threatening the homeowner with a weapon.

>I doubt it does. But being in the "curtilage" complicates things.
>There isn't a lot of real clear case law on this anywhere. A guy who
>shoots a burglar while still outside the house, but trying to jimmy a
>door is probably in the clear. A guy yelling at him from his porch,
>not so much. A guy yelling at him *and behaving agressively or
>issuing clear threats* on his porch ... more complicated.

That's interesting. In the case of the guy making threats, I'm going to
assume he's going to keep trying to get inside till he's stopped.

>>I have a vague notion of what curtilage means but I think the main
>>issue was that she wasn't attempting to enter the home, let alone
>>forcing her way into the home.

>Based on the facts we have, I accept that and would conclude it's a
>bad shoot and the shooter is going to go away and that's the right
>answer. But facts have a way of shifting as more and more come out
>about an incident.

Sure. We may learn that in past incidents. the dead woman made threats. But
whatever happened in the past between the two women, in this instance,
the dead woman was there because her child had been attacked.

>>>But I don't think "Stand your ground" is going to enter into it
>>>significantly. (The defense lawyer would be guilty of malpractice
>>>for not trying, of course.)

>>How would one offer facts that the victim was the aggressor?

>Announcing "I'm gonna kick your ass" and taking a step forward. Not
>saying it happened, but if it did, that goes a long way right there.

Fair enough

[Thomas Joseph]

More front page media hyped bullshit to get out the vote
one way or the other. Sure, it really happened. But in a
world of 8 billion people the incident goes to the back pages
and maybe out of the paper altogether. They print this stuff
to get people steamed up and debate-ready for a long and
never ending line of elections. The point is no one can prove
these shootings would not have taken place if the SYG laws
did not exist. This goes for all kinds of laws. Raw emotion
and passion has no concern for the law no matter what it
is, not at the moment when those emotions take control and
people do things they might not ordinarily do.

[Thomas Joseph]

Sounds like a bunch of people waiting around for bad stuff to
happen so they can use it as debating ammo. I enjoy juicy headlines
too, disasters, killings, and so forth. No crime there. But for me it’s
about entertainment, not just a cheap opportunity to hop into every
political debate under the sun. Let’s be honest, the anti gun people
are salivating for more gun violence to prove that guns are dangerous,
and pro gun people are salivating for more front page knifings, poisonings,
and toxic attacks of all sorts to prove that guns are not needed to kill.
Either way both sides are sitting around waiting and hoping for
something to go wrong to prove it wouldn't have happened if things
were done their way.

[Raul TW]

On Wednesday, June 7, 2023 at 10:15:56 AM UTC-7, J.D. Baldwin wrote:

> Second, the "victim" in that case whanged (stop me if I get too
>technical here) his cell phone at the shooter's head and nailed him
> good. When he went to throw something else -- it turned out to be
>popcorn, but the shooter didn't know what was coming when he fired --
>he got shot.

>"Stand your ground" wasn't especially involved here because the trial
> judge disallowed it as a defense. It was an ordinary self-defense
> case.
>

What makes you so certain that a phone was thrown toward his head? The trial Judge said the video did not show the phone being thrown. (And even if a phone was thrown, it certainly did not strike nor injure him. He had no visible injuries to his face and yet you claim he was "nailed good" in the face).

"Reeves was charged with second-degree murder and aggravated battery. In seeking to have the charges dismissed under Stand Your Ground," Reeves's lawyers needed to show that Reeves reasonably believed that using deadly force was necessary "to prevent death or great bodily harm."

Reeves claimed Oulson had hit him in the face with a cellphone, leaving him dazed. But Circuit Judge Susan Barthle said surveillance video of the episode contradicted Reeves' account. "The video evidence contradicts this assertion, clearly showing that there was no hit from a fist, and the item argued by the defense to be a cell phone was simply a reflection from the defendant's shoes," Barthle writes in her order."

> But no one shot anyone "for flinging popcorn at him," that's just dumb.

That is indeed likely what happened and the victim has a slam dunk civil case. Just because the criminal trial failed to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean it didn't happen. This police SWAT Captain had several other incidents with theater patrons (those incidents were not allowed to be introduced in the trial). Even the Captain's wife sitting right next to him said, "You didn't have to do that!" Clearly the wife recognized there was no threat that would justify using deadly force.

Moreover, the former SWAT Captain has expert training to de-escalate such situations. It is simply not credible that he believed his life was in danger. Particularly since he approached the victim, went outside to talk to the manager and then approached the victim again. Since when does anyone get killed by a fellow theatergoer? It simply does not happen. It is far more probable that he overreacted in a fit of rage because he was annoyed by the theatergoer disobeying his order and throwing popcorn at him.

More Google info:

Why did the judge disallow the defense from using stand your ground in Curtis Reeves case?

The judge disallowed the defense from using Stand Your Ground in the Curtis Reeves case because he found that Reeves did not reasonably believe that he was in danger of death or great bodily harm when he shot and killed Chad Oulson. The judge based his decision on the following factors:

Reeves was not in his home or car when he shot Oulson.
Reeves had the opportunity to retreat from the situation, but he chose not to.
Reeves was not outnumbered or outmatched by Oulson.
Reeves had a history of violence, including a previous arrest for battery.
Reeves's testimony was inconsistent with the physical evidence.
The judge's decision was upheld by the Florida Second District Court of Appeal.

The Stand Your Ground law is a controversial law that has been used to justify a number of high-profile shootings. The law has been criticized for making it too easy for people to use deadly force in self-defense. The Curtis Reeves case is a reminder that the Stand Your Ground law is not a get-out-of-jail-free card. People who use deadly force in self-defense must still be able to prove that they reasonably believed that they were in danger of death or great bodily harm.


Stand Your Ground law eliminates the requirement that a person retreat before using deadly force in self-defense. Under Florida's self-defense law, a person was required to retreat if they could do so safely. Under Stand Your Ground law, a person may use deadly force if they reasonably believe that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm, regardless of whether they could have retreated safely.

Stand Your Ground law creates a presumption that a person who uses deadly force in self-defense acted reasonably. Under Florida's self-defense law, the burden of proof was on the defendant to prove that they acted reasonably in using deadly force.

Under Stand Your Ground law, the burden of proof is now on the prosecution to prove that the defendant did not act reasonably.

Stand Your Ground law applies to all places where a person has a right to be, including their home, car, and workplace

[radioacti...@gmail.com]

To Adam AND to J.D. Baldwin:

Thanks a heap to you BOTH for clarifying in detail as best is possible all these competing and applicable (or inapplicable) legal doctrines. Now, I claim a serious background in law as a paralegal, but ALL that experience was in civil law with ZERO criminal case-law exposure (and only in the states of California and Michigan). So I'm woefully ignorant of the nuts-and-bolts doctrines at play here, as well as many of the precise definitions applying for the various lynchpin words these cases can turn on. (Of course, I'm even more interested in this lethal Florida case than most, given I report here from The Hardly-Any-Sunshine-Post-Noon State.)

And Adam: your Fox News-vs.-Fox affiliates explication is a welcome and VITAL distinction to draw...but isn't it just a basics-fact argument which shouldn't be necessary to make here (or in ANY environment more elevated than a high-school media class)? That is, why can't the viewers at home bother to notice and remember (whilst weathering the daily local, national, international news blizzard) just WHO or WHAT NEWS OPERATION is saying or reporting what?* Are typical American viewers really just dunderheads by and large, oblivious to most of what they're watching?

Better not answer that question.

BRYAN STYBLE/Florida
===================
* Even as a public-schooled 11-year-old suburban St. Louis hick watching our mere five broadcast TV stations** back in 1965, I ALWAYS remembered if a particular story I watched was reported by, say, Charles Collingswood, Daniel Schorr*** or Robert Pierpoint for CBS, or instead by our local-yokel anchors and street-reporters on KMOX-TV Channel 4. But was I THAT rare of a news consumer? (Sure, you'd figure a guy who went into a media career would have that special interest. NOPE!; would have scrupulously consumed the news even had I been an aspiring plumber or mountaineer.) I mean, EVERY viewer has absolute intellectual obligation to watch or read EVERYTHING so attentively, no? That United Somethin'-or-other College Fund slogan should be EVERYONE'S motto: A mind is a terrible thing to waste.
** Well, we east Missouri morons may have had only 5 instead of 500 choices of channel, but my beloved folks' upscale home boasted fully SEVEN [monochrome] television sets--or even 8, counting a seldom-powered-up vintage-1950 set with its circular picture-tube--scattered around our 10-room home. And with twice as many sets as family members, my late brother and me--not to mention our late parents--had every opportunity to watch whatever we wanted whenever we wanted to. (Well, ALMOST whenever: the future late-night commercial newstalk radio yakker me was always annoyed that--unlike their counterpart stations on radio!--all the TV stations signed off WAY-too-soon after midnight, frustrating me to the point I would sometimes just scrutinize the standard test-pattern graphic data surrounding that familiar Indian chief**** in his feathered headdress. All of which explains why today I've a short-attention span.
*** My TV-news attentiveness would sure come in financially handy decades later, to the tune of something like $1,000; "Daniel Schorr" was the correct answer to a question the late Dick Clark posed his reigning week-long champ Styble--announced in each show's opening in annoyingly-inverse-sequence as a "Paralegal and Radio Personality"--on the syndicated quiz show The Challengers in 1991.
**** Gee, I wonder if the late Iron Eyes Cody--died at 94 in Los Angeles on Monday, January 4, 1999--was the guy who posed for that ubiquitous test-pattern illustration? I actually once had a chance to ask him; should have thought to raise it with the veteran actor when I found myself chatting up the aging, stoic Cody for a few minutes as he waited for a cab back to Brentwood out front of the Ventura Blvd. landmark Sportmen's Lodge Hotel in the summer of 1988.

[David Carson]

On Tue, 6 Jun 2023 18:05:51 -0700 (PDT), Raul TW

<raultenni...@gmail.com> wrote:

>But then again it is Florida where a man successfully claimed "stand your ground" and killed a man for flinging popcorn at him in a theatre.

On Thu, 8 Jun 2023 03:40:36 -0700 (PDT), Raul TW
<raultenni...@gmail.com> wrote:

>The judge disallowed the defense from using Stand Your Ground in the Curtis Reeves case because he found that Reeves did not reasonably believe that he was in danger of death or great bodily harm when he shot and killed Chad Oulson.

Did the Reeves successfully claim stand your ground, or did the judge
disallow it? It's one or the other, not both.

David Carson
--
Dead or Alive Data Base
http://www.doadb.com

[Adam H. Kerman]

radioacti...@gmail.com wrote:

>To Adam AND to J.D. Baldwin:

>Thanks a heap to you BOTH for clarifying in detail as best is possible
>all these competing and applicable (or inapplicable) legal doctrines.
>Now, I claim a serious background in law as a paralegal, but ALL that
>experience was in civil law with ZERO criminal case-law exposure (and
>only in the states of California and Michigan). So I'm woefully
>ignorant of the nuts-and-bolts doctrines at play here, as well as many
>of the precise definitions applying for the various lynchpin words these
>cases can turn on. (Of course, I'm even more interested in this lethal
>Florida case than most, given I report here from The
>Hardly-Any-Sunshine-Post-Noon State.)

My criminal law background is from watching tv and movies and trying to
learn legal basics and constitutional law that every American should be
familiar with. I listen to Supreme Court audio transcripts on C-SPAN and
their legal discussions. Jeffrey Rosen of the National Constitution
Center is a frequent guest. I also read Amy Howe and SCOTUSBLOG to keep
up with current law.

>And Adam: your Fox News-vs.-Fox affiliates explication is a welcome and
>VITAL distinction to draw...but isn't it just a basics-fact argument
>which shouldn't be necessary to make here (or in ANY environment more
>elevated than a high-school media class)? That is, why can't the
>viewers at home bother to notice and remember (whilst weathering the
>daily local, national, international news blizzard) just WHO or WHAT
>NEWS OPERATION is saying or reporting what?* Are typical American
>viewers really just dunderheads by and large, oblivious to most of what
>they're watching?

>Better not answer that question.

When I read a news article on the Web, I try to pay attention to what
newsroom it actually came from because practically everything I
encounter is a Web site reprinting something they did no reporting on.
If the article is still available on the Web site of the newsroom that
actually did the reporting, I cite that.

The Fox branding issue isn't immediately obvious, but Murdoch's media
empire, no longer as vast as it once was, is still an enormous
conglomerate. Fox News and the local television broadcast licenses are
sister companies within the media empire. Fox News, in an of itself, is
a satellite channel distributed on cable and in other ways. Now, local
tv news may take content from Fox News, but it's likely to be straight
news. There's no reason to take an opinion show, but there might be a
clip of a newsmaker saying something important or controversial on one
of the opinion shows.

The "Fox" in question is William Fox, who founded one of the early movie
studios and distributors in 1913, combined them into Fox Film
Corporation in 1915, then built a west coast studio in 1917. William Fox
lost control during a long recovery from serious injuries in a car
crash which came at an inopportune time as he couldn't save his fortune
during the stock market crash in 1929. His successor pursued the merger
with Twentieth Century Pictures. The merger, to become 20th Century-Fox,
occured in 1935.

Thereafter, Mr. Fox was forgotten as a studio owner and chief executive
but his last name made the ideal brand. I guess that's something.

>. . .

[J.D. Baldwin]

In the previous article, Adam H. Kerman <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
> By escalating the situation by words, do you mean making a threat or
> provoking the opponent in some way sure to make him angrier that
> isn't a threat?

Generally speaking, "provocation" in the form of offensive statements
is not going to be counted as aggression. That's not a door any legal
authority really wants to open up -- if you do, you start excusing A
for punching B because B called A a talking pile of pigshit. That
leads to a bad general result.

So it means threats, and exclusively threats.

> >A "stand your ground" statute is generally going to be *procedural*
> >in nature, and doesn't necessarily change the underlying
> >self-defense doctrine.
>
> I hadn't realized that "stand your ground" was a burden on the state
> to disprove something at trial that's separate from whether there is
> a "duty to retreat" in law.

It's worse (sort of). A "stand your ground" showing *prohibits* the
prosecutor from proceeding.

There's a bit of a legal terminological morass here that I won't try
to untangle in detail. Put aside "stand your ground" laws and
principles of law just now. Sometimes self-defense, independent of
duties to retreat, etc., is an affirmative defense, which means the
defense has to prove it to a certain standard; and sometimes it is
*not* an affirmative defense, meaning the prosecutor has to prove it
false.

The latter is the case, for example, in California. A is accused of
killing B, and A says "I feared for my life." The prosecution now has
to prove that B gave A no reason for that alleged belief, beyond a
reasonable doubt. It's procedurally not *quite* that simple, but
that's the gist.

In Florida, one source of the weirdness is that a prosecutor has to
rebut the presumption in favor of self-defense if he even wants to get
to trial at all. He must rebut it to a standard of proof called
"clear and convincing evidence." I don't think this is an
unadulteratedly bad thing, but the law itself is confusing and weird
and needs heavy revision at the very least.

> I really don't want to have a legal argument with the prosecutor
> about whether I could retreat to a place of refuge to avoid further
> violence. During the crisis, how can I possibly know I can take
> refuge in such a way that the perpetrator cannot follow me in or
> break in?

In such a situation, your state of mind controls. The prosecution
doesn't get to come to trial and demonstrate that there was some
theoretically perfect route of retreat that you didn't take advantage
of. He'll have to show that you could clearly have retreated safely.

This is a very high burden. In practice, it's probably going to be
met only when a defendant advances into harm's way, such as getting
out of his car to confront someone, that sort of thing. In one's own
home, it will almost never apply (nor should it, IMO).

> >Based on the facts we have, I accept that and would conclude it's a
> >bad shoot and the shooter is going to go away and that's the right
> >answer. But facts have a way of shifting as more and more come out
> >about an incident.
>
> Sure. We may learn that in past incidents. the dead woman made
> threats. But whatever happened in the past between the two women, in
> this instance, the dead woman was there because her child had been
> attacked.

So her lawyers say, anyway. Again, more may come out between now and
trial, and at trial itself. It will be interesting to see it unfold.

[J.D. Baldwin]

In the previous article, Raul TW <raultenni...@gmail.com> wrote:

> What makes you so certain that a phone was thrown toward his head?
> The trial Judge said the video did not show the phone being
> thrown. (And even if a phone was thrown, it certainly did not strike
> nor injure him. He had no visible injuries to his face and yet you
> claim he was "nailed good" in the face).

This is simply not the case. The video shows that Reeves had
something thrown at him, no one contradicted the account that it was a
cell phone.

> Reeves claimed Oulson had hit him in the face with a cellphone,
> leaving him dazed. But Circuit Judge Susan Barthle said surveillance
> video of the episode contradicted Reeves' account. "The video evidence
> contradicts this assertion, clearly showing that there was no hit from
> a fist, and the item argued by the defense to be a cell phone was
> simply a reflection from the defendant's shoes," Barthle writes in her
> order."

Yea, well, no. The "reflection from the defendant's shoes" is a
patently absurd interpretation of that flash. It would require this
elderly and somewhat frail guy to be executing some kind of weird
Chuck Norris roundhouse kick well over his own head.

> > But no one shot anyone "for flinging popcorn at him," that's just
> > dumb.
>

> That is indeed likely what happened [...]

This is simply not the case. Experts testified, and supported their
*unrebutted* testimony with timings and video, that the reaction time
from the popcorn-throwing to the shooting was sub-human-reaction time.
That is, Reeves (the shooter) initiated his action of shooting Oulson
*before* the popcorn was thrown. The initial investigating officer
based a conclusion on witness statements, and said that the shoot was
in response to the popcorn throw. Later analysis showed that this was
not humanly possible, but the story stayed in the media and in the
minds of people who never looked into it very deeply, or who simply
didn't want their preconceived notions upended.

> and the victim has a slam dunk civil case.

And yet the "victim's" widow didn't sue Reeves ... I wonder why not?

She did try suing the theater chain and an employee thereof, but that
suit went nowhere. (As it should have.)

> Reeves was not outnumbered or outmatched by Oulson.

That's completely absurd. Reeves was quite old and out of shape and
Oulson was buff and in h is early 40's.

[Raul TW]

In the recent Florida shooting between the two neighbors, the investigation concluded
that "stand your ground" did not apply and hence an arrest was made. It seems that "stand your
ground" is typically applied when the shooter is at home or in his car. Even in the Zimmerman patrol watch case, which many associate with "stand your ground", the defense did not seek a dismissal based on "stand your ground" (which is rather odd as they had nothing to lose).

"
Zimmerman’s lawyers opted not to pursue a “stand your ground” claim before trial, which could have resulted in a dismissal of
murder charges against him and immunity from prosecution. But the law was essentially used as his self-defense argument during the trial, which resulted in his acquittal.
"

Now in the Reeves case, if I understand correctly, the Judge refused to dismiss the case based on stand your ground AND the Judge would not allow the defense to use "stand your ground" during the trial; defense had to make a normal self-defense case. But even if the Judge had granted the defense motion, what exactly is the advantage for the defendant i he had to make a "stand your ground" argument versus a normal self-defense argument? Guessing it has something to do with more burden on the prosecution.

It is also strange that the Judge said Reeves had a chance to retreat. It is not really possible to retreat when you are sitting in your chair at a theatre.

"
The judge disallowed the defense from using Stand Your Ground in the Curtis Reeves case because he found that Reeves did not reasonably believe that he was in danger of death or great bodily harm when he shot and killed Chad Oulson. The judge based his decision on the following factors:

Reeves was not in his home or car when he shot Oulson.
Reeves had the opportunity to retreat from the situation, but he chose not to.

Reeves was not outnumbered or outmatched by Oulson.

[Adam H. Kerman]

J.D. Baldwin <ne...@baldwin.users.panix.com> wrote:
>Adam H. Kerman <a...@chinet.com> wrote:

>>By escalating the situation by words, do you mean making a threat or
>>provoking the opponent in some way sure to make him angrier that
>>isn't a threat?

>Generally speaking, "provocation" in the form of offensive statements
>is not going to be counted as aggression. That's not a door any legal
>authority really wants to open up -- if you do, you start excusing A
>for punching B because B called A a talking pile of pigshit. That
>leads to a bad general result.

>So it means threats, and exclusively threats.

I wasn't thinking of a minor vitriolic insult, but something sure to
provoke the other person. Say two parents get into an angry exchange of
words at their sons' athletic game. During the course of the argument,
after one kid made a spectacular play, the other parent makes the
accusation that the kid never before had shown that kind of athletic
prowess and must have cheated.

>>>A "stand your ground" statute is generally going to be *procedural*
>>>in nature, and doesn't necessarily change the underlying
>>>self-defense doctrine.

>>I hadn't realized that "stand your ground" was a burden on the state
>>to disprove something at trial that's separate from whether there is
>>a "duty to retreat" in law.

>It's worse (sort of). A "stand your ground" showing *prohibits* the
>prosecutor from proceeding.

I see.

>There's a bit of a legal terminological morass here that I won't try
>to untangle in detail. Put aside "stand your ground" laws and
>principles of law just now. Sometimes self-defense, independent of
>duties to retreat, etc., is an affirmative defense, which means the
>defense has to prove it to a certain standard; and sometimes it is
>*not* an affirmative defense, meaning the prosecutor has to prove it
>false.

I wasn't aware that there are situations in which the proseuction must
prove the affirmative defense false. If the defense makes an affirmative
defense, isn't it a clear and convincing evidence standard?

>The latter is the case, for example, in California. A is accused of
>killing B, and A says "I feared for my life." The prosecution now has
>to prove that B gave A no reason for that alleged belief, beyond a
>reasonable doubt. It's procedurally not *quite* that simple, but
>that's the gist.

I see.

>In Florida, one source of the weirdness is that a prosecutor has to
>rebut the presumption in favor of self-defense if he even wants to get
>to trial at all. He must rebut it to a standard of proof called
>"clear and convincing evidence." I don't think this is an
>unadulteratedly bad thing, but the law itself is confusing and weird
>and needs heavy revision at the very least.

Very interesting

>>. . .

[J.D. Baldwin]

In the previous article, Adam H. Kerman <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
> >Generally speaking, "provocation" in the form of offensive
> >statements is not going to be counted as aggression. That's not a
> >door any legal authority really wants to open up -- if you do, you
> >start excusing A for punching B because B called A a talking pile
> >of pigshit. That leads to a bad general result.
>
> >So it means threats, and exclusively threats.
>
> I wasn't thinking of a minor vitriolic insult, but something sure to
> provoke the other person. Say two parents get into an angry exchange
> of words at their sons' athletic game. During the course of the
> argument, after one kid made a spectacular play, the other parent
> makes the accusation that the kid never before had shown that kind
> of athletic prowess and must have cheated.

This will not be a defense to an assault charge. I don't believe
*any* verbal provocation (without an element of threat) can be used as
a real defense to a criminal charge of violence anywhere per common
law or any American statute. If there is an exception, it is a small
and narrow one somewhere, but I think not even that.

That said, two points: it can certainly be argued in mitigation. And
in some jurisdictions, severe enough provocation by words alone will
be an absolute defense in a civil suit for the assault.

> >There's a bit of a legal terminological morass here that I won't
> >try to untangle in detail. Put aside "stand your ground" laws and
> >principles of law just now. Sometimes self-defense, independent of
> >duties to retreat, etc., is an affirmative defense, which means the
> >defense has to prove it to a certain standard; and sometimes it is
> >*not* an affirmative defense, meaning the prosecutor has to prove
> >it false.
>
> I wasn't aware that there are situations in which the proseuction
> must prove the affirmative defense false. If the defense makes an
> affirmative defense, isn't it a clear and convincing evidence
> standard?

This isn't really my area of practice -- well, *no* area is my "area
of practice" because I do not practice law -- but I think this is
highly jurisdiction dependent. A couple of jurisdictions have defined
an "affirmative defense" in statute by describing a negating defense
procedurally. That is, all a defendant has to do is make some minimal
showing (the judge will allow or disallow this argument as a matter of
law) and then the prosecution must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt,
the element of the crime that evidence tends to "negate."

But what is and isn't an affirmative defense in criminal law is very
state dependent. This is one of the things making Florida's "stand
your ground" law so weird: it's procedurally very different from any
other defense.

[David Carson]

On Thu, 8 Jun 2023 13:31:43 -0700 (PDT), Raul TW
<raultenni...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Now in the Reeves case, if I understand correctly, the Judge refused to dismiss the case based on stand your ground AND the Judge would not allow the defense to use "stand your ground" during the trial; defense had to make a normal self-defense case.

[snip]

>The judge disallowed the defense from using Stand Your Ground in the Curtis Reeves case because he found that Reeves did not reasonably believe that he was in danger of death or great bodily harm when he shot and killed Chad Oulson.

I'm still waiting for you to explain how this amounts to a successful
stand your ground claim, which was your original comment in this thread
and your reason for bringing Reeves into it. If you were wrong, it should
be easy enough to say so, and it would be the honest thing to do.

[mik...@live.com]

Mr. B S........Maybe you should have stopped at "I'm woefully ignorant" rather than failing to impress us again with how "clever" your writing is. Another over-inflated post from the biggest bore here. Poor guy.

[Thomas Joseph]

In an odd way I'm hoping you were talking about me. You did not
indicate who you're responding to, other than Mr. B.S., which I assumed
was short for Mr. Bullshit. If you were talking about me I want you to
be sure to know that I am very aware that I am a bore and in fact am
beginning more and more to bore even myself. I really am a loser.
No, I take that back. I am not a loser. But I am a bore.

[J.D. Baldwin]

In the previous article, Raul TW <raultenni...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In the recent Florida shooting between the two neighbors, the
> investigation concluded that "stand your ground" did not apply and
> hence an arrest was made.

The *initial* investigation concluded that, yes.

> "Zimmerman's lawyers opted not to pursue a "stand your groun" claim

> before trial, which could have resulted in a dismissal of murder
> charges against him and immunity from prosecution. But the law was
> essentially used as his self-defense argument during the trial,
> which resulted in his acquittal."

This is legally illiterate. The so-called "stand your ground law" was
not used at trial because it is not a trial defense. It's a
*procedural* law that can forestall a trial. What he used at trial
was a garden-variety self-defense claim.

[Raul TW]

On Thursday, June 8, 2023 at 11:05:23 AM UTC-7, J.D. Baldwin wrote:
> > and the victim has a slam dunk civil case.
> And yet the "victim's" widow didn't sue Reeves ... I wonder why not?
>

That is false. The widow did sue the shooter and the shooter settled out of court. I wonder why.

> She did try suing the theater chain and an employee thereof, but that
> suit went nowhere. (As it should have.)

That is also false. I don't agree the theater is responsible but the civil suit was settled with the theater as well. I wonder why.

https://www.tampabay.com/news/2022/02/26/after-acquittal-curtis-reeves-renews-freedom-chad-oulsons-widow-grieves-anew/
"
Grimaldi settled a civil case against Reeves, on behalf of Nicole, in 2015. The details of the settlement are confidential. Last January, another civil settlement was reached against the theater.

He doesn’t believe that when the “stand-your-ground” legislation was enacted, it was intended to apply to this type of situation.
“When stand-your-ground self-defense was enacted, I cannot imagine that the legislature intended for it to cover a situation like this,” Grimaldi said. “And it really scares me what is going to be able to be overcome in the future.”
Escobar, the defense attorney, takes a different view. He believes the law was designed to protect people just like Reeves.
The vast majority of the public, they don’t understand how this law is applied,” Escobar said. “They don’t understand the danger someone is perceiving doesn’t even have to be actual. As long as the perception of the shooter is that he reasonably feared for his life, the law protects you. ... There’s a lot of wisdom in this law. That’s the reason we were confident.”

"

> > Reeves was not outnumbered or outmatched by Oulson.
> That's completely absurd. Reeves was quite old and out of shape and
> Oulson was buff and in h is early 40's.

What is absurd is that a retired SWAT Police Captain believed that he had to use deadly force while sitting in an upscale suburban movie theater. Deadly force against a man who was sitting with his wife and who had just told him that he was texting his daughter. When in the history of America has such a incident even occured. This is a man whom this ex Police Captain approached twice, before and after speaking to the manager. Since when do such people EVER pose a threat to the life of the average person let alone an ex cop's life? That is absurd..

Also interesting to note that "stand your ground" is typically applied during home invasions. But many believe the Reeves acquittal will expand "stand your ground" to public spaces.

"If this ends up in acquittal, it is definitely a landmark, absolutely," said Light, referring to the Reeves case. "It adds additional fuel to this impetus to continue stretching, selectively, the boundaries of lethal self-defense.

"It's going to open the flood gates for these stand-your-ground cases because now we're going to say that people can go into public places, they can be armed, they can start a confrontation because that's what the evidence shows," Thomas said. "The victim [Oulson] was on a cellphone, he then proceeds to start a confrontation and then he [Reeves} shoots him."