I’ve previously written over at Legal Insurrection about the Florida movie theater shooting, in which retired police officer Curtis Reeves shot and killed Chad Oulson in claimed self-defense after the two men argued about Oulson’s use of his cell phone in a movie theater:
[Update: If the above link does not work for you, try clicking here.]
“Popcorn” Shooting Trial Set For March (9/17/14)
Despite that second headline, the trial proper has not yet begun. Last week, however, defense counsel for Reeves filed a motion seeking self-defense immunity under Florida statute §776.032, “Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.” That motion is embedded as a PDF at the bottom of this post hosted at Legal Insurrection.
Naturally there remain factual disputes between the prosecution and the defense, and the resolution of those factual disputes will likely be dispositive on the self-defense immunity motion.
Setting those factual disputes aside for the moment, however, the motion does a very nice job of laying out the relevant law of self-defense immunity. It also provides a very clear and intuitive model for how such a motion should be structured and argued. (Nice work by defense counselors Escobar, Michaels, and Shah.)
To read the rest of this post, click over to Legal Insurrection.