# Here ya go.. Video of theater shooting.



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

Well, some of the questions got answered with this video.. 

You can see the guy grabs the old man's popcorn.. then he throws it at him.. In my eyes, very aggressive moves... I could see how someone could take this to be a threat.. because you don't know if it's going to stop there.. .

You can see the old man was seated when it all happened too... .He sure doesn't appear to be the one provoking the aggression.

Video here.. 

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/video-shows-fatal-shooting-florida-movie-theater-n24646


----------



## Harry Chickpea (Dec 19, 2008)

Had to grab it from an ABC news site instead. 

Threw the cellphone at him and hits him (physical assault)

Grabbed and threw the popcorn at him (physical assault)

Comes forward towards him over seat but with feet probably on floor (physical aggression)

I've seen similar stuff. The next action would likely have been his grabbing the guy's shirt in preparation of popping him one.

As for whether the guy was in fear for his life, I don't know. In fear of getting seriously hurt, heck yes. The speed of events is going to trigger automatic responses. Someone comes at a cop with intent of beating him on the face, he is going to pull a weapon. You might as well try to train a dog not to drool over a steak.

IIRC, the key in assault in FL is that a jury cannot take into account events leading up to the event of attack to determine whether or not an assault has happened. In this case a physical assault clearly did happen, and the physical part of it was clearly by the guy tossing the cellphone and popcorn.

The question of the justified use of deadly force is the only real issue. In a man that old, one good pop is going to completely incapacitate him and place him at risk. If he had been 25, that risk wouldn't have been the same.

I would say that once the guy got physical, the rest was inevitable. He didn't have to get physical. I would have to vote not guilty. Proving that he wasn't in fear for his life is impossible in this situation, and a murder charge requires a stringent standard of proof.

Was the guy a jerk? Yeah, possibly he was being a jerk in the face of jerks. That isn't criminal. Assault is criminal.


----------



## unregistered41671 (Dec 29, 2009)

Harry, have you got a link for the ABC video? I can't get the video link above to play. Thanks


----------



## haley1 (Aug 15, 2012)

Had to shoot, didn't want to get butter from popcorn on shirt, murder to get stains out


----------



## FeralFemale (Apr 10, 2006)

*sigh* 

I really, really hate to say this because I don't believe the shooter in the right, but as soon as I saw a pic of the victim when this first happened, I could tell by the look on his face that he was an A-1 class jerk. I knew exactly what happened. He was asked to put his phone away and decided to be a jerk and bully about it. Poor guy had no idea that he picked the wrong old man to mess with and would end up killed over it.

It's sad, all around.


----------



## Harry Chickpea (Dec 19, 2008)

http://www.abcactionnews.com/dpp/ne...ontinues-in-movie-theater-shooting#88960795-1

Look UNDER the video that shows up for the other videos. Find the one with the chairs in B&W.


----------



## unregistered41671 (Dec 29, 2009)

Thanks Harry, I saw it.


----------



## gimpy (Sep 18, 2007)

How many 3 year olds can text? That part of the story doesn't make sense to me.


----------



## itsb (Jan 13, 2013)

well,IMO,looked like it was justified shootin to me ! AS happy as the jerks wife appears to be, do you think that she is glad that the jerk husband got shot and she is rid of him :bouncy:


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

That dude is going to jail. His overreaction could have killed more than just the intended target.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

greg273 said:


> That dude is going to jail. His overreaction could have killed more than just the intended target.


I agree. He knows it as well.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

greg273 said:


> That dude is going to jail. His overreaction could have killed more than just the intended target.


Highly unlikely given the close quarters and the small caliber. Obviously the .380 was lethal. Its big advantage is the small size which makes it easily concealable. Many think it's too small to be effective. Up close it can do the job.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Darren said:


> Highly unlikely given the close quarters and the small caliber. Obviously the .380 was lethal. Its big advantage is the small size which makes it easily concealable. Many think it's too small to be effective. Up close it can do the job.


 Sure darren. Highly unlikely. Would you be willing to have your kids sitting in the line of fire and test that hypothesis?


----------



## Wanda (Dec 19, 2002)

If the popcorn container made him fear for his life i think the gun would make a few more in the theater worried.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

greg273 said:


> Sure darren. Highly unlikely. Would you be willing to have your kids sitting in the line of fire and test that hypothesis?


I don't take chances with firearms. Even the 9mm in Trayvon didn't exit. Could it have? AFAIK it only hit soft tissue. I don't know what brand and bullet the retired cop used. Self defense rounds are designed not to penetrate and exit the body. They're designed to dump all the energy in the target by controlled expansion.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

*Popcorn hitting Reeves.*


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

Popcorn.

Heck, I hit David Lee Roth in the face with cold pizza. I suppose he should have shot me.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

greg273 said:


> That dude is going to jail. His overreaction could have killed more than just the intended target.


Yes, he'll spend the rest of his life in prison, and since he's a cop it won't be easy time.

This case is very different from Zimmerman's case. Early on, Zimmerman and his defense team were promoting his defense to the public. I don't think this guy as a defense.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Tiempo said:


> Popcorn.
> 
> Heck, I hit David Lee Roth in the face with cold pizza. I suppose he should have shot me.


That depends. Did it have anchovies on it? :nono:


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Nevada said:


> Yes, he'll spend the rest of his life in prison, and since he's a cop it won't be easy time.
> 
> This case is very different from Zimmerman's case. Early on, Zimmerman and his defense team were promoting his defense to the public. I don't think this guy as a defense.


I agree about his defense. They need some more horsepower. They're just going through the motions. the jury may end up bored out of their minds. The judge couldn't make sense of the tape after viewing it 15 times. What's the jury going to do? That one frame shows that Reeves had reason to believe he was under attack. His statement afterwards undermines his claim of self defense. His statement after that is bizarre. It doesn't fit the context of either self defense or being angry.


----------



## unregistered5595 (Mar 3, 2003)

When I look at Darren's depiction of Oulson's head, Reeves this or that picture, it looks like an ultrasound picture where you can't find the baby nor the head of the baby. I can in no way see Mrs. Reeves anything.
I'm afraid that I could in no way be on that jury. I've already made up my mind, the retired cop has the attitude that he can just shoot anyone if they make him mad. He is old, angry, has an authority problem and a trigger finger.
There wasn't even enough time for a sane individual to decide that he had the right to kill someone.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Until he's proven guilty, I'm not making that call. I still believe it was self defense, if he drew the firearm because of Oulson's action with the popcorn.


----------



## Tango (Aug 19, 2002)

This is so difficult. I feel for both sides  and I wonder how Mrs. Oulson could have possibly even summoned that smile. I feel for Mr. Reeves who clearly knows his own over-reaction. I don't know what others who pack guns would have done. I don't know if having a gun would make any difference. Seems like in this situation someone thinking rationally would get up and move. Very sad.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Darren said:


> Until he's proven guilty, I'm not making that call. I still believe it was self defense, if he drew the firearm because of Oulson's action with the popcorn.


Sounds like you have all ready made that call, you just hope they can prove it.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

painterswife said:


> Sounds like you have all ready made that call, you just hope they can prove it.


Yes and no. The key question for me is whether Reeves already had the gun out before the shooting. Did he verbally taunt Oulson into throwing the popcorn? Or had Oulson worked himself up since he was a jerk. I still think Oulson's wife's hand on his chest was to try and calm him down. Oulson was standing up and had been standing up from the testimony of a retired Air Force officer that saw Oulson standing before Reeves returned after trying to talk to management.

If I was a juror, knowing what I know now and having read the book on habit, I'd say not guilty.

Reeves was shocked by what he had done. The deputy who took the firearm afterwards testified about three statements by Reeves. Read the excerpt from the news article and ask yourself why Reeves would say the first two. Those two statements and the speed of the reaction after the popcorn indicate to me that Oulson triggered the shooting. IMO, it was a subconscious reaction by Reeves that had been habituated through his years of training as a LEO. The first two statements don't sound like anger to me. Only the third statement indicates anger.

"Hamilton says Reeves said a couple of different things at that point. According to Hamilton, Reeves said he needed to leave, he needed to get up, and he wanted to get his cell phone. Hamilton said he prevented Reeves from doing so. "He (Reeves) pushed his glasses back and said* âI can't believe what I've done.' "*

Reeves said he had an injury to his eye. In the meantime, Hamilton said he could hear a gurgling sound coming from Oulson, and made a remark to the effect of "that's not good." Reeves responded by saying *"Holy  what have I done?'"* Hamilton testified.

Then Hamilton says he heard some remarks back and forth between Reeves and his wife. "He leaned toward his wife and made a comment, and she postured and said 'that was no cause to shoot anyone.' And then he leaned back around, stuck his finger out, as to scold her, and said *'you shut your  mouth and don't say another word.'* Mrs. Reeves gets up and goes down one chair and again postures, and the look on her face, she was P.O.ed at him, she was mad at that point." 

http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/story/...-offers-new-details-in-movie-theater-shooting

​


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

How about Reeves overreacted and shot someone for no good reason? Ever considered that one Darren? Seems to be the case. 
As far as 'habit' goes, cops are trained when NOT to shoot as well.


----------



## joseph97297 (Nov 20, 2007)

Did he make those remarks to sway the officer's opinion and to get the track laid down since he knew what would be going into the report?

I don't know, we may never know.

I am still perplexed as to the single cause of this was 'texting'. Not talking, nor hanky panky between the couple... but texting.

As to the popcorn and all the other, difficult to say what I would do in that situation. If I felt threatened enough, I would immediately remove myself if possible and if not, well......


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Whether he overreacted or not depends on what Oulson was going to do next after hitting Reeves with the popcorn. Based on what Oulson said after getting shot, my guess is he hadn't thought of anything beyond jamming the popcorn in Reeves face. Knowing that, yeah Reeves probably overreacted. As they say hind sight is 20/20. It wasn't that way for Reeves.

From a self defense POV you can't can't call a time out and ask the other contestant what he plans to do. Reeves was in a vulnerable position after he sat down. Not knowing what was coming next, Reeves reacted in self defense. So far, I see it as a justified killing.

I'd like to know why Oulson was standing. Originally I thought Oulson was sitting down and had to get up and turn around to throw the popcorn. Now we know he was already standing. That was probably to confront Reeves over going to see the manager.


----------



## davel745 (Feb 2, 2009)

it looks like the popcorn and the guys fist came inches from his face. I think the shooting was ok. but given the climate from the trevon withch hunt I think the guy doesn't have a chance.


----------



## davel745 (Feb 2, 2009)

was the guy screaming at the old man


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Oulson was talking loudly enough for the Deputy who sat 4 or 5 seats away to hear. He could not hear Reeves responses. IIRC the retired Air Force officer who was sitting in the aisle seat also heard what Oulson was saying.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Darren said:


> Oulson was talking loudly enough for the Deputy who sat 4 or 5 seats away to hear. He could not hear Reeves responses. IIRC the retired Air Force officer who was sitting in the aisle seat also heard what Oulson was saying.


Would that be the same officer who described Oulson's demeanor as "calm" and Reeves as "extremely agitatated" when he left to get management. Reeves also made a statement about not meaning to pull the gun and references counseling other officers which make me question the "he reverted to training" defense. There is also a key 5 second gap in that tape where the camera wasn't running so the video isn't a complete recreation of events.

I don't think Reeves was a crazed maniac ready to go off. I am very interested in what words were exchanged between the the two. Any provocation by Reeves makes his self defense claim weaker. You can't goad someone into attacking you and then use self defense as an excuse to shoot them. I still think that Reeves said something to set Oulsen off and panicked at Oulsen's response and shot him. Second degree murder, no. Voluntary manslaughter, likely.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Darren said:


> I still believe it was self defense, if he drew the firearm because of Oulson's action with the popcorn.


While you didn't say what your belief was based on, we have a preliminary legal opinion (preliminary because we haven't see all the evidence yet) from the judge. But since the preliminary legal opinion takes the popcorn action into account, it seems to contradict your opinion that the popcorn throwing justified self defense.

******
_âThe affadavit says that he was struck in the face by an unknown object, not that he was knocked around,â Tepper said in reply to defence lawyer Richard Escobarâs claim that Reeves was protecting himself._

_â*It may or may not have been popcorn, but âunidentified objectâ does not equal taking out a gun and firing it at someoneâs chest.* The proof is great in the probable cause affadavit that a second-degree murder took place,â she added._
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/14/florida-police-captain-held-without-bail-murder-charge
******

In fact the judge was very specific about her opinion that she does not believe the popcorn throwing justified the use of deadly force. I doin't see room to interpret her opinion any other way.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

mmoetc said:


> Would that be the same officer who described Oulson's demeanor as "calm" and Reeves as "extremely agitatated" when he left to get management. Reeves also made a statement about not meaning to pull the gun and references counseling other officers which make me question the "he reverted to training" defense. There is also a key 5 second gap in that tape where the camera wasn't running so the video isn't a complete recreation of events.
> 
> I don't think Reeves was a crazed maniac ready to go off. I am very interested in what words were exchanged between the the two. Any provocation by Reeves makes his self defense claim weaker. You can't goad someone into attacking you and then use self defense as an excuse to shoot them. I still think that Reeves said something to set Oulsen off and panicked at Oulsen's response and shot him. Second degree murder, no. Voluntary manslaughter, likely.


I agree except the Air Force officer described Reeves as being polite when he reentered the aisle when he returned. Reeves did not appear to be angry at that time. The deputy that took control of Reeves' gun mentioned hearing loud voices which attracted his attention but he couldn't hear what was being said.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Would it also be safe to assume that a retired LEO would know just the right words to use after the incident and during questioning to meet certain legal criteria? Hit with popcorn sounds kinda playground but hit in face with unknown object sound pretty serious. I felt it was in danger when big guy stood up and turned around sounds way better than, I was kicking the back of his seat repeatedly to get his attention.

Realistically, it's a no win situation and I'm sure if it could done over, the old boy would probably just want to change seats rather than make a minor thing into a major event.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Darren said:


> I agree except the Air Force officer described Reeves as being polite when he reentered the aisle when he returned. Reeves did not appear to be angry at that time. The deputy that took control of Reeves' gun mentioned hearing loud voices which attracted his attention but he couldn't hear what was being said.


The problem with that is he doesn't know what was actually said. Many of my friends told me in the past that as long as I looked agitated they didn't worry about my actions in a confrontation. The quieter and calmer I appeared, the more they worried. To this day I can look someone in the eye and never raise my voice and say things with a smile designed to annoy someone greatly. I enjoy this skill, too much at some times in the past.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

wr said:


> Would it also be safe to assume that a retired LEO would know just the right words to use after the incident and during questioning to meet certain legal criteria? Hit with popcorn sounds kinda playground but hit in face with unknown object sound pretty serious. I felt it was in danger when big guy stood up and turned around sounds way better than, I was kicking the back of his seat repeatedly to get his attention.
> 
> Realistically, it's a no win situation and I'm sure if it could done over, the old boy would probably just want to change seats rather than make a minor thing into a major event.


I like certain seats to be able to see and hear. Hindsight would say the Reeves should have moved. People are funny after spending money and having expectations. Maybe someone in the trail will ask that question.

Reeve's statement's after the shooting went against anything a lawyer would have advised him. He was talking beside a law enforcement officer. If that was acting he should be up for an Oscar. It looks to me like it was spontaneous and not filtered. In a way he might have been rationalizing. In another he wasn't. I'd like to know what was said in the conversation between Reeves and his wife before his outburst.


----------



## unregistered5595 (Mar 3, 2003)

wr said:


> Would it also be safe to assume that a retired LEO would know just the right words to use after the incident and during questioning to meet certain legal criteria? Hit with popcorn sounds kinda playground but hit in face with unknown object sound pretty serious. I felt it was in danger when big guy stood up and turned around sounds way better than, I was kicking the back of his seat repeatedly to get his attention.
> 
> Realistically, it's a no win situation and I'm sure if it could done over, the old boy would probably just want to change seats rather than make a minor thing into a major event.


Getting hit in the face with an unknown object if it was a cell phone or something else is believable, but, the popcorn was taken out of his hand and he knew it was his popcorn. I am not clear on what it was that hit him in the face. Did I miss something?

When the guy starts to censor his wife, he'd reached the point of realizing he needed a defense, anything said after that was with the idea in mind that he needed a defense and his remarks would be self censored. I'm not clear on the order of comments--shut your mouth, what have I done. In what order did the comments happen?


----------



## davel745 (Feb 2, 2009)

wr said:


> Would it also be safe to assume that a retired LEO would know just the right words to use after the incident and during questioning to meet certain legal criteria? Hit with popcorn sounds kinda playground but hit in face with unknown object sound pretty serious. I felt it was in danger when big guy stood up and turned around sounds way better than, I was kicking the back of his seat repeatedly to get his attention.
> 
> Realistically, it's a no win situation and I'm sure if it could done over, the old boy would probably just want to change seats rather than make a minor thing into a major event.


it doesn't look like the old boy was the one who was making something out of nothing.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Nevada said:


> While you didn't say what your belief was based on, we have a preliminary legal opinion (preliminary because we haven't see all the evidence yet) from the judge. But since the preliminary legal opinion takes the popcorn action into account, it seems to contradict your opinion that the popcorn throwing justified self defense.
> 
> ******
> _&#8220;The affadavit says that he was struck in the face by an unknown object, not that he was knocked around,&#8221; Tepper said in reply to defence lawyer Richard Escobar&#8217;s claim that Reeves was protecting himself._
> ...


My opinion goes back to the book I was reading when the incident happened. This is not the first time I've commented on it. Reading it answered questions I've wondered about for at least twenty years. I've known marketing was effective since I studied it in college. I always knew it was due to human nature. Statistics tells you what people will do. It doesn't tell you why.

The why is the key to all sorts of things including what happened in the incident if Reeves did not intentionally provoke Oulson to kill him. Psychologists have studied the "why" for a long time. It took luck for neuroscience to finally provide the answer.

My Eureka moment happened when I read the NYT article linked on HT by jtbrandt in a response on a thread started by FeralFemale, *So, am I being to tin foil hatty?* I bought the book that day off eBay.

http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/sp...so-am-i-being-tin-foil-hatty.html#post6906120


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Feather In The Breeze said:


> Getting hit in the face with an unknown object if it was a cell phone or something else is believable, but, the popcorn was taken out of his hand and he knew it was his popcorn. I am not clear on what it was that hit him in the face. Did I miss something?
> 
> When the guy starts to censor his wife, he'd reached the point of realizing he needed a defense, anything said after that was with the idea in mind that he needed a defense and his remarks would be self censored. I'm not clear on the order of comments--shut your mouth, what have I done. In what order did the comments happen?


The witness who was a retired Air Force officer said it was Oulson's popcorn. He was questioned over that repeatedly. He couldn't see Reeves but he could see Oulson clearly since he was standing in the next row down.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

davel745 said:


> it doesn't look like the old boy was the one who was making something out of nothing.



To have something escalate from a discussion over texting during previews vs taking someone's life seems to me to have a relatively minor thing turn into a very big thing.


----------



## unregistered5595 (Mar 3, 2003)

Darren said:


> The witness who was a retired Air Force officer said it was Oulson's popcorn. He was questioned over that repeatedly. He couldn't see Reeves but he could see Oulson clearly since he was standing in the next row down.


I thought it was Reeve's popcorn taken out of his hand......my mistake, I apologize for my misunderstanding.

So the witness was standing the the next row down, STANDING, and he wasn't shot by the people behind him? It doesn't appear to be the custom. (yes I am kidding and shouldn't be kidding)
It appears that STANDING, is aggressive, so is STANDING only aggressive if the guy behind you has a gun?


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

wr said:


> To have something escalate from a discussion over texting during previews vs taking someone's life seems to me to have a relatively minor thing turn into a very big thing.


Respect and being polite goes a long way. That day they were missing.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Darren said:


> I like certain seats to be able to see and hear. Hindsight would say the Reeves should have moved. People are funny after spending money and having expectations.



I'm quite short and I don't like being crowded so I can understand sitting in specific areas but I'd far rather move location than sit by someone who annoys me if at all possible and in this case, there was room to move.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Feather In The Breeze said:


> I thought it was Reeve's popcorn taken out of his hand......my mistake, I apologize for my misunderstanding.
> 
> So the witness was standing the the next row down, STANDING, and he wasn't shot by the people behind him? It doesn't appear to be the custom. (yes I am kidding and shouldn't be kidding)
> It appears that STANDING, is aggressive, so is STANDING only aggressive if the guy behind you has a gun?


Don't apologize. There's lot of things still unknown. One of the benefits of a thread like this is to cross check facts and sort things out. The witness was in the same row as Reeves because Reeves went by him and excused himself when he went back to his seat. I have no idea why Oulson was standing. We don't when he stood up or if he ever sat down when he first entered. I originally thought he had stood up when the popcorn was thrown. That was not the case.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

wr said:


> I'm quite short and I don't like being crowded so I can understand sitting in specific areas but I'd far rather move location than sit by someone who annoys me if at all possible and in this case, there was room to move.


There were plenty of seats in that theater. I'd like to hear why either party didn't move. Who expects to get involved in a gunfight before a movie? Sometimes we miss the signs that it's time to get out of Dodge. That's what I find intriguing about these incidents. There was no need for that to happen.


----------



## Ardie/WI (May 10, 2002)

wr said:


> I'm quite short and I don't like being crowded so I can understand sitting in specific areas but I'd far rather move location than sit by someone who annoys me if at all possible and in this case, there was room to move.


Exactly!

Now, a man is dead and his family is without him. The old guy will spend time behind bars and his DW will be without him and all over texting during the previews and popcorn!


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Darren said:


> Don't apologize. There's lot of things still unknown. One of the benefits of a thread like this is to cross check facts and sort things out. The witness was in the same row as Reeves because Reeves went by him and excused himself when he went back to his seat. I have no idea why Oulson was standing. We don't when he stood up or if he ever sat down when he first entered. I originally thought he had stood up when the popcorn was thrown. That was not the case.



It's a very good thing that the witness didn't engage him in a disagreement over him leaving the theater and interrupting his ability to view the previews. Being an off duty police officer, he could have reacted and shot the old boy.


----------



## Vash (Jan 19, 2014)

This is why I don't think the media should report on these types of cases until ALL (or as much as possible) of the information is gathered and presented. 

The sensationalism from the media coupled with the LACK of facts and large amounts of speculation have people picking sides just like with the Zimmerman/Martin case. 

It shouldn't matter what one person thinks is an overreaction or another person's self-defense, what ever happened to 'innocent until proven guilty'?

Just imagine the uproar if the "victim" were black...


----------



## joseph97297 (Nov 20, 2007)

Darren said:


> Respect and being polite goes a long way. That day they were missing.



So does common sense and reasonable action.....they were absent as well.....


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

wr said:


> It's a very good thing that the witness didn't engage him in a disagreement over him leaving the theater and interrupting his ability to view the previews. Being an off duty police officer, he could have reacted and shot the old boy.


The witness entered the theater sometime while Reeves was trying to talk to the manager. The witness never saw Reeves leave his seat. He was only there when Reeves returned.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Darren said:


> My opinion goes back to the book I was reading when the incident happened.


You read a book, so that makes you feel comfortable challenging a judge's legal opinion?


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Nevada said:


> You read a book, so that makes you feel comfortable challenging a judge's legal opinion?


The judge did not rule that Reeves was guilty. Unlike the Zimmerman case where the prosecution had a political motive, that's not the case with Reeve's situation. AFAIK, the charge of second degree murder was correct for Reeves. I'm not a lawyer. I'll give the judge the benefit of the doubt in his ruling to not allow bail. That is supposed to be appealed.

I don't know what the basis was for the judge's denial of bail. I also don't know if there were constraints on his decision. From my POV based on Reeve's history I think he should have been allowed bail with restrictions on travel.

Reeves needs to get his life in order. He may never be outside of a prison again.

All the book has done, if no other contrary information arises, is to help explain what caused the shooting.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Darren said:


> The witness entered the theater sometime while Reeves was trying to talk to the manager. The witness never saw Reeves leave his seat. He was only there when Reeves returned.



That was my point. If it is rude to text in a theater, it is just as rude to ask people to move so you can get back to your seat. By way of disturbing someone else, Reeves is fortunate that person (ultimately, a witness) didn't wish to get in a discussion about Reeves lack of respect for him. 

My point is simply that many people encounter situations that can end poorly every day and seldom is there a need to escalate to shooting. You have cited the police background as justification for the shooting but millions with police background encounter off duty conflicts every day without shooting someone in a public place.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

wr said:


> My point is simply that many people encounter situations that can end poorly every day and seldom is there a need to escalate to shooting. You have cited the police background as justification for the shooting but millions with police background encounter off duty conflicts every day without shooting someone in a public place.


Again it's the devil in the details. I see this as a learning experience. I don't plan on smacking anyone with popcorn. There have been times I've lessened the tension in situations like checkout lines. From experience I always expect the one I pick to end up being the slowest. I'd like to get a shirt that says on the back:

*Don't Follow Me. 
I Always Pick The Slowest Line.*

Sometime injecting a little humor gets the smile back on people's faces. It's too bad the deputy didn't intervene. He never anticipated the shooting. You can't blame him. All it would have taken was a little distraction to derail what was building. Someone close by could have asked if Oulson had pictures of his little girl. It wouldn't have taken much.​


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Darren said:


> Again it's the devil in the details. I see this as a learning experience. I don't plan on smacking anyone with popcorn. There have been times I've lessened the tension in situations like checkout lines. From experience I always expect the one I pick to end up being the slowest. I'd like to get a shirt that says on the back:
> 
> *Don't Follow Me.
> I Always Pick The Slowest Line.*
> ...



I would have thought that most police officers are trained to diffuse situations without firing a weapon in a public place.


----------



## haley1 (Aug 15, 2012)

Since old man was former cop was probably traned on how take down so should not have needed to shoot 1st


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Darren said:


> The judge did not rule that Reeves was guilty. Unlike the Zimmerman case where the prosecution had a political motive, that's not the case with Reeve's situation. AFAIK, the charge of second degree murder was correct for Reeves. I'm not a lawyer. I'll give the judge the benefit of the doubt in his ruling to not allow bail. That is supposed to be appealed.


We're not discussing Reeves' guilt or innocence, or even whether bail should be set. What we're talking about here is your opinion that throwing popcorn could constitute justification to use deadly force. You said it did, the judge said it did not.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Nevada said:


> We're not discussing Reeves' guilt or innocence, or even whether bail should be set. What we're talking about here is your opinion that throwing popcorn could constitute justification to use deadly force. You said it did, the judge said it did not.


In a close quarters situation like that, with no room to back away, while Reeves was sitting down, looking up at a standing 6' 4" much younger male, who was talking loud enough for people to hear in other areas of the theater, followed by an aggressive move that could have been a feint for an attack; I think deadly force was justified. 

I might not have shot him. But I haven't been trained in defense to the point it's become rote. In other activities where I have been trained to act quickly, I don't think, I just do.


----------



## Jokarva (Jan 17, 2010)

The video looks much more violent than the first reports of 'popcorn tossed in someone's face'. First a hit to the face with something...cell phone? Fist? Can't tell. Then popcorn snatched from his hands and thrown in his face by a large, much younger man. That looks like assault, and assault of a person over 65 in FL is a felony.

Terrible behavior on both their parts and it never should have gone that far, but I do believe Reeves was in fear for his safety. Who knows how it'll end up though.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

haley1 said:


> Since old man was former cop was probably traned on how take down so should not have needed to shoot 1st


With about the same strength, on level gropund and reasonable light, a trained police officer could do that. But he may also have been trained to know when deadly force is justified and when it is not. Seems he believed that threashold was met.
An 80 year old man has no chance of defending himself with strength alone, elevated 16 inches above a 6 foor 3 inch stronger, angry, man with a knee high seat back between them. I have stood in the back of a modern movie theatre, 
Shoulds he have moved? If he were a mind reader and would have known that the guy would challenge him when he returned to his seat, thrown something at him, sure, I think moving would have been better. But we have the benifit of knowing the outcome. Huge difference.


----------



## Wanda (Dec 19, 2002)

If this was such a dangerous position for the former police officer I wonder how many other people that he found dangerous were shot? There must be several because I find it hard to believe that this was the scariest situation he has ever been in. His fine honed instinct and lightning reflexes must have shot a few others. That is what I thought after reading a book on being scared.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Darren said:


> In a close quarters situation like that, with no room to back away, while Reeves was sitting down, looking up at a standing 6' 4" much younger male, who was talking loud enough for people to hear in other areas of the theater, followed by an aggressive move that could have been a feint for an attack; I think deadly force was justified.
> 
> I might not have shot him. But I haven't been trained in defense to the point it's become rote. In other activities where I have been trained to act quickly, I don't think, I just do.



I can understand your point but what I can't understand is why an elderly man would push a disagreement with a younger and more fit man. He had ample time to diffuse the situation or relocate to a different area. Would he have made different choices if he wasn't armed?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Darren said:


> In a close quarters situation like that, with no room to back away, while Reeves was sitting down, looking up at a standing 6' 4" much younger male, who was talking loud enough for people to hear in other areas of the theater, followed by an aggressive move that could have been a feint for an attack; I think deadly force was justified.


I'm not trying to put you on the spot here. I'm just trying to find out where you're coming from.

You believe that loud talking followed by an aggressive move constitutes justification to use deadly force. Is that based on your own opinion, training, written law, case law, or something else?


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

wr said:


> I can understand your point but what I can't understand is why an elderly man would push a disagreement with a younger and more fit man. He had ample time to diffuse the situation or relocate to a different area. Would he have made different choices if he wasn't armed?


I don't know about the being armed part. Some who have carried as long as he has may not be conscious of the gun. It's like a belt or watch for the rest of us.

He did attempt to resolve the issue by talking to management. He also grew up during an era when elders were respected. What were his expectations as compared to someone else that grew up in that era who was not in law enforcement? Did he expect the situation to escalate? Did he get a surprise? How long had he gone to that theater without having to resort to self defense? We know he supposedly gave someone else the stink eye over phone use. Any of many factors could have changed and the incident wouldn't have happened. Everything combined that day to bring the two men together.

We all have 20/20 hindsight. I'm sure he's replayed what happened in his mind countless times by now. I'd like to hear what his thoughts are now. What would he do different. Would have hung in there longer to talk to the manager? Would he have waited for his son to arrive who was a police officer? 

I don't believe Reeves went back with the intention of pushing the argument. At this point it looks like Oulson is the one who pushed the argument. We need to know what the two men said to each other after Reeves returned.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> I'm not trying to put you on the spot here. I'm just trying to find out where you're coming from.
> 
> You believe that loud talking followed by an aggressive move constitutes justification to use deadly force. Is that based on your own opinion, training, written law, case law, or something else?


It can be. Remember in every state I know of the justification for the use of deadly force is if a "reasonable man" in the same situation would feel he was in danger of being killed or being severely injured in an attack.

That means an 80 y.o. 90# female could have legal justification for using deadly force when a 20 y.o. 170# male would not.

Move it to a non-lethal situation, a traffic stop. A cop 'hits his lights' behind a car and it does not stop. Should the driver face charges?


----------



## Deeplines (Dec 7, 2013)

Maybe it was me but I thought I saw Reeves head snap back then he fired. I watched it 3 times, enough for me.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Nevada said:


> I'm not trying to put you on the spot here. I'm just trying to find out where you're coming from.
> 
> You believe that loud talking followed by an aggressive move constitutes justification to use deadly force. Is that based on your own opinion, training, written law, case law, or something else?


I doubt Reeves was expecting the escalation. If he was he would have waited to talk to the manager or alternatively he could have waited for his son who was a law enforcement officer on the way to see the movie with his parents. I do not accept that Reeves walked back to his seat planning to kill Oulson. That does not match his work history or his interactions with others for many decades.

The escalation, meaning the attack, caught Reeves off guard. You can't argue there wasn't a big difference in physical ability between the two men. I'm not a good judge of age. Looking at Oulson, I might guess forties but maybe thirties too. You have to admit at 6' 4" he would have towered over a sitting man.

I'm basing my opinion on as many factors as I can keeping in mind the incorrect things that were originally put out by the media about the Martin Zimmerman incident. In that one we read that Zimmerman's gun failed to chamber a round. In this case articles have said the deputies said the Reeves' gun had jammed. The only thing I know for sure is the deputy, singular not plural, who took Reeves' handgun immediately unloaded it. 

Many of the articles are written to "jazz" them up. The writer ends up making things up that did not happen. Here's some examples of misinformation. There's at least two incorrect things. Reeves did not sit down after the shooting. We can tell from the video he was sitting when he shot Oulson.

Only one deputy was involved in securing the firearm. How did the writer come up with deputies? Was the writer someone predisosped to think Reeves guuned Oulson down so they had to come up with a reason, the gun jammed, to explain in their own mind why an enraged (my word) Reeves didn't continue shooting Oulson more than once.

BTW how does an individual struggle to breathe when they're unconscious. Does that bit of hyperbole add anything or does it serve to anger those who feel Oulson was innocent and was shot by an old, over the hill, retired cop that felt his authority was challenged?

*"As the victim struggled to breathe and fell onto two other patrons, Reeves sat down. An off-duty deputy five seats over charged toward him and grabbed the gun, which had jammed."*

I base my opinion on all the facts. That's where I'm coming from.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/14/justice/florida-movie-theater-shooting/


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

The old man should have accepted getting the cell phone or whatever thrown in his face. He should have continued to sit calmly after the angry, younger, larger man grabbed his popcorn and threw it on him. He should have known that once the dude was done yelling, throwing stuff at him, maybe throwing a fake punch, taking his popcorn and throwing it on him, that the texting dude would turn around, sit down and enjoy the movie. If that old guy would have just waited, the abuse would have stopped and he could have brushed off the popcorn and enjoyed the movie.


----------



## bowdonkey (Oct 6, 2007)

haypoint said:


> The old man should have accepted getting the cell phone or whatever thrown in his face. He should have continued to sit calmly after the angry, younger, larger man grabbed his popcorn and threw it on him. He should have known that once the dude was done yelling, throwing stuff at him, maybe throwing a fake punch, taking his popcorn and throwing it on him, that the texting dude would turn around, sit down and enjoy the movie. If that old guy would have just waited, the abuse would have stopped and he could have brushed off the popcorn and enjoyed the movie.


Oh no, he got what was coming to him. He assualted the man. Sit calmly till he's done throwing his fit? How would I know it wasn't going to escalate more? The man denied a simple request to shut off his cell phone. Use some manners dude. Granted the ex cop could have got up again and got the law. But after that display, all bets are off. Looks to me two hotheads met and one walked away.


----------



## Ardie/WI (May 10, 2002)

wr said:


> I can understand your point but what I can't understand is why an elderly man would push a disagreement with a younger and more fit man. He had ample time to diffuse the situation or relocate to a different area. Would he have made different choices if he wasn't armed?


I agree! He could have backed off and shut up!


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

bowdonkey said:


> Oh no, he got what was coming to him. He assualted the man. Sit calmly till he's done throwing his fit? How would I know it wasn't going to escalate more? The man denied a simple request to shut off his cell phone. Use some manners dude. Granted the ex cop could have got up again and got the law. But after that display, all bets are off. Looks to me two hotheads met and one walked away.


Oulson did not get what he had coming. Just to clear that up. And yes, the possibility of sarcasim was noted. Oulson's luck ran out that day with tragic consequences. If he had picked on anyone other than someone with defensive law enforcement training, he might have been going through life as usual except for waiting for his court date for assault and battery.


----------



## bowdonkey (Oct 6, 2007)

Darren said:


> Oulson did not get what he had coming. Just to clear that up. And yes, the possibility of sarcasim was noted. Oulson's luck ran out that day with tragic consequences. If he had picked on anyone other than someone with defensive law enforcement training, he might have been going through life as usual except for waiting for his court date for assault and battery.


Oulson was a jerk and bully. To put on that display in a public theater, you got to be stupid, crazy or both. I rarely go to movies, but if I was sitting there with my family, I'd have done the same. I'll let the jury decide regardless. I know I'm being hard hearted, but he done society a favor.


----------



## unregistered5595 (Mar 3, 2003)

Darren said:


> Oulson did not get what he had coming. Just to clear that up. And yes, the possibility of sarcasim was noted. Oulson's luck ran out that day with tragic consequences. If he had picked on anyone other than someone with defensive law enforcement training, he might have been going through life as usual except for waiting for his court date for assault and battery.


I see throwing popcorn no different than throwing a snowball. If I throw a snowball at a person walking by and it is a retired cop, I get killed, if I throw a snowball at a non cop, I get charged with assault and battery. I don't think so. 99% of reasonable people, not looking for an escalation would not either kill them or try to have them charged for assault and battery.

The jury will not be composed of retired cops or people that have read this book or that book about training or habit. It will be composed of average reasonable people that have most likely thrown popcorn or snowballs. This retired law enforcement officer will have few peers.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Feather In The Breeze said:


> I see throwing popcorn no different than throwing a snowball. If I throw a snowball at a person walking by and it is a retired cop, I get killed, if I throw a snowball at a non cop, I get charged with assault and battery. I don't think so. 99% of reasonable people, not looking for an escalation would not either kill them or try to have them charged for assault and battery.
> 
> The jury will not be composed of retired cops or people that have read this book or that book about training or habit. It will be composed of average reasonable people that have most likely thrown popcorn or snowballs. This retired law enforcement officer will have few peers.


Reeves, based on what I've seen of his attorneys, will end his life in prison. Your attempt at an analogy leaves out the crucial details that, IMO, came together to cause the shooting.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

bowdonkey said:


> Oulson was a jerk and bully. To put on that display in a public theater, you got to be stupid, crazy or both. I rarely go to movies, but if I was sitting there with my family, I'd have done the same. I'll let the jury decide regardless. I know I'm being hard hearted, but he done society a favor.


We'll have to disagree on that. Being a jerk shouldn't be a reason for a death sentence. In Oulson's case along with the other factors it was reason for a justified killing.


----------



## MDKatie (Dec 13, 2010)

The first thing I noticed when I watched that video were rows and rows of empty seats. SOMEONE should have moved. The article clearly says Reeves continued the argument when he came back to his seat. The video isn't that clear, but it looked to me like Reeves had his hand already on his gun and he shot so quickly after the popcorn was thrown it leads me to believe he'd already thought of shooting before the popcorn was even thrown. 

I do agree that Oulson made an aggressive move by throwing the popcorn, but I also believe that Reeves was aggressive in continuing to argue about the cell phone use after he came back from *not* talking to the management. IMO, there was still no cause for use of deadly force in a crowded area. If they'd been alone in an alley, sure. Not in a movie theater, and he knew exactly what he'd done when he shot, and so did his wife. It's clearly wrong if your own wife says there was no need to shoot. And hearing how he responded to his wife makes me think he's not such a nice guy after all.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Darren said:


> I might not have shot him. But I haven't been trained in defense to the point it's become rote. In other activities where I have been trained to act quickly, I don't think, I just do.



Police are also trained to assess danger and use verbal skills to diffuse the situation. Given the number of members who have never drawn their weapons, let alone shoot somebody, I think those skills must be rote too. 

This belief that Reeves was doing what he was trained to do, suggests a strong need for deprogramming upon retirement and if his vision was impaired as some have suggested, he should have refrained from discharging his weapon.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

You can't deprogram habits. That was something scientists learned recently. You can learn a new habit. The old habit remains and can resurface under the right situation. That is one of the issues of addiction and sports performance. Each showing a different side of the coin. On one side you want to eliminate a behavior such as alcoholism. There's always a chance the person will slip years later. Sports show the other side of the coin where a coach wants specific responses in certain situations.

There's still more to be learned about the incident. Until I read something that adds new information, I still believe Reeves reacted in self defense without thought. His wife's comment is interesting from the point of someone who never lived through what her husband did during his police career. Hindsight may seem to indicate that Reeves should not have shot Oulson. the problem with that is we don;t known what was coming next in Oulson's mind other than his final words seem to indicate he had no further aggressive moves in mind.

This is an incident that requires empathy to understand. If you have preconceived notions, you may never understand why it happened. You can't start by blaming one or the other for the outcome. Innocent until proven guilty is still the standard.

I've seen nothing that proves to me that Reeves is guilty.


----------



## MDKatie (Dec 13, 2010)

Darren said:


> Innocent until proven guilty is still the standard.
> 
> I've seen nothing that proves to me that Reeves is guilty.


Yet most people who are defending Reeves seem positive that Oulson was going to beat up Reeves. Why is that fair?


----------



## unregistered5595 (Mar 3, 2003)

Darren said:


> This is an incident that requires empathy to understand. If you have preconceived notions, you may never understand why it happened. You can't start by blaming one or the other for the outcome. Innocent until proven guilty is still the standard.
> 
> I've seen nothing that proves to me that Reeves is guilty.


How is it you've seen nothing that proves to you that Reeves is guilty? Does a bullet through the woman's hand mean anything to you, the one that killed the man? It is a bullet, a clear action, stating how he felt or thought. He might have said "I feel the need to kill you because you irritate me so much". Having empathy for that, is too much, even I can't empathize with him.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Darren said:


> I've seen nothing that proves to me that Reeves is guilty.


I've yet to hear a defense theory.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Fairness has nothing to do with it. Fairness is part of the veneer of civilization when we all get along because it makes sense. In a combat situation, there is no fairness.

Reeves was speaking loudly enough for several of the witnesses to hear yet Reeve's speech was not loud enough to hear. Perhaps Reeves was trying to defuse the situation. He had already attempted to appeal to higher authority by trying to talk to the manager. The witness in Reeves' row that he passed in front testified that Reeves was polite when he returned. IIRC the witness did not see any anger on Reeves' part.

Oulson was standing when Reeves returned. Why was he standing? The combination of the louder voice, Oulson reacting to Reeves' attempt to speak to the manager, followed by the popcorn attack which partially unseated Reeves glasses and is a classic feint for a further attack would lead many to believe that Oulson was going to do more than just shove popcorn into Reeves' face.

If Oulson hadn't been standing, He might not have gotten shot. From what I've read Oulson was acting like a bully. That wasn't grounds for shooting him, but the attack was.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Darren said:


> In a combat situation, there is no fairness.


Combat situation? This was a movie theater where people go to relax and enjoy a film. This was anything but a combat situation.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Feather In The Breeze said:


> How is it you've seen nothing that proves to you that Reeves is guilty? Does a bullet through the woman's hand mean anything to you, the one that killed the man? It is a bullet, a clear action, stating how he felt or thought. He might have said "I feel the need to kill you because you irritate me so much". Having empathy for that, is too much, even I can't empathize with him.


I don't know how old you are and it's none of my business. Reeves' is 71. He's in no condition for a physical attack. The man is over the hill. If I put myself in his shoes, I can see why he would react after being attacked. Oulson may have irritated Reeves earlier when he left to talk to the manager. When he attacked Reeves, he crossed the line. 

With hindsight after looking at what happened after the attack, I don't think Reeves should have shot Oulson. That is only because I don't believe that Oulson was going to follow up after hitting Reeves with the popcorn. Oulson lost control. We know what happened later. Reeves had no way of seeing the future. He had to expect the initial attack was a preliminary to an attempted beating. On that basis the killing was justified.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Nevada said:


> Combat situation? This was a movie theater where people go to relax and enjoy a film. This was anything but a combat situation.


How was Reeves to know he wasn't in for the beating of his life and possibly facing death? The term combat has moved beyond the military usage. It now encompasses self defense, street fighting and martial arts along with home defense.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Darren said:


> The term combat has moved beyond the military usage. It now encompasses self defense, street fighting and martial arts along with home defense.


It's these artful interpretations that will be the end of our gun rights. If gun owners don't police themselves, they should expect to be policed.


----------



## unregistered5595 (Mar 3, 2003)

darren said:


> i don't know how old you are and it's none of my business.


you are right.


----------



## MDKatie (Dec 13, 2010)

Darren said:


> Fairness has nothing to do with it.


Are you referring to my asking how assuming Oulson was going to physically attack Reeves is fair? And fairness does have something to do with it, when we're talking about innocent until proven guilty.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Darren said:


> How was Reeves to know he wasn't in for the beating of his life and possibly facing death?


What about the risk to unarmed people? Don't I have a right to go to a movie unarmed without worrying about getting shot by the guy behind me?


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> What about the risk to unarmed people? Don't I have a right to go to a movie unarmed without worrying about getting shot by the guy behind me?


Right? Like in the Constitution? Nope. There are laws against random acts of violence, but no rights to be free of worry.:hammer:


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

MDKatie said:


> The first thing I noticed when I watched that video were rows and rows of empty seats. SOMEONE should have moved. The article clearly says Reeves continued the argument when he came back to his seat. The video isn't that clear, but it looked to me like Reeves had his hand already on his gun and he shot so quickly after the popcorn was thrown it leads me to believe he'd already thought of shooting before the popcorn was even thrown.
> 
> I do agree that Oulson made an aggressive move by throwing the popcorn, but I also believe that Reeves was aggressive in continuing to argue about the cell phone use after he came back from *not* talking to the management. IMO, there was still no cause for use of deadly force in a crowded area. If they'd been alone in an alley, sure. Not in a movie theater, and he knew exactly what he'd done when he shot, and so did his wife. It's clearly wrong if your own wife says there was no need to shoot. And hearing how he responded to his wife makes me think he's not such a nice guy after all.


Who do think should have moved? 
I don't know what news report you read, but from what I read, eye witnesses stated that the texting dude started the argument when the old guy returned. The witnesses reported that the texting guy questioned him about reporting him to Management. The old guy was seated, the texting guy was standing, turned around. Who started that argument?

In an average newer steeply terraced movie theatre, a shot towards the front of the theatre, aimed slightly up, will only hit the angry man standing directly in front of you. 
If it was the texting guy that started the argument when the old guy returned, would that change anything for you? If the texting guy threw something at the old guy, like a cell phone, just prior to throwing popcorn, would that change your feelings? If the texting dude faked a punch at the old guy, as some have said they saw, would that change anything for you?
Seems some people have had the luxury of weeks to evaluate this, with the huge advantage of hindsight, are willing to state the reasonable action as being to just sit there and take it. In the real world, "don't hit until you've been hit, don't stab until you've been stabbed and don't shoot until you have been shot." doesn't really work. The world is far more complex.
Shooting someone over having popcorn thrown on you is something we can all agree is an over reaction. But when you add up all the aggressive actions by the texting guy, a reasonable person can see that texting guy is escalating the situation, from initial defiance of the rules, repeated defiance of the rules, with verbal refusal, to loud confrontation upon the old guy's return, to tossing something at him, to grabbing the guy's popcorn, to tossing it on him.
Where in any of that do you see rational behavior?
How can you be so very sure that in any of this aggressive actions, that the old guy couldn't have felt that he was in eminent danger?
If the old guy would have pulled out a Tazer and the texting guy called out, "don't taze me bro!", it would have been funny and folks may have said the dude deserved t. But, the old guy didn't have a tazer to protect himself from the out of control man facing him.


----------



## Vash (Jan 19, 2014)

Nevada said:


> What about the risk to unarmed people? Don't I have a right to go to a movie unarmed without worrying about getting shot by the guy behind me?


Sit in the top row, no one behind you. :banana:


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

haypoint said:


> Right? Like in the Constitution? Nope. There are laws against random acts of violence, but no rights to be free of worry.:hammer:


As I said before, gun owners will either police themselves or they should expect to be policed. Too many questionable shootings will undoubtedly result in more restrictive gun laws. It's really up to gun owners.


----------



## Vash (Jan 19, 2014)

Nevada said:


> As I said before, gun owners will either police themselves or they should expect to be policed. Too many questionable shootings will undoubtedly result in more restrictive gun laws. It's really up to gun owners.


The only reason we hear about these "questionable" shootings is because the media makes it a point to air coverage of EVERY single "questionable" shooting, but fails to report (much) on what would be considered legitimate self-defense shootings.

No matter how reality is, the media will try to spin it for better ratings. "Never waste a good tragedy"


----------



## MDKatie (Dec 13, 2010)

haypoint said:


> Who do think should have moved?


I feel that either party could have moved. Who do I think *should* have moved? Probably Reeves since he's so sensitive to any thing going on in the theater...perhaps people munching on their popcorn would annoy him..who knows. (that was a joke)



> I don't know what news report you read, but from what I read, eye witnesses stated that the texting dude started the argument when the old guy returned. The witnesses reported that the texting guy questioned him about reporting him to Management. The old guy was seated, the texting guy was standing, turned around. Who started that argument?


I read the article that was with the video, in this thread. It stated when Reeves returned he asked Oulsen if he was done, or if his phone was away now, or something to that effect. THAT was continuing the argument. 



> In an average newer steeply terraced movie theatre,


It didn't look to me like the theater was a steeply terraced one.





> How can you be so very sure that in any of this aggressive actions, that the old guy couldn't have felt that he was in eminent danger?.


Nobody can be sure, but his wife who was seated right next to him even said he had no cause to shoot. That tells ya something, doesn't it?


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> As I said before, gun owners will either police themselves or they should expect to be policed. Too many questionable shootings will undoubtedly result in more restrictive gun laws. It's really up to gun owners.


Like I said, you have no rights to a worry free life. But, I think the gun owners do have some rights spelled out in one of those amendment things in our US Constitution.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

haypoint said:


> Like I said, you have no rights to a worry free life. But, I think the gun owners do have some rights spelled out in one of those amendment things in our US Constitution.


I don't recall demanding a worry-free life, but I still believe that unarmed people have rights.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Is it against any policy or rules to carry a gun in a theater or any other public building?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

wr said:


> Is it against any policy or rules to carry a gun in a theater or any other public building?


I know that there are casino/hotels in Las Vegas that do what they call "posting" about guns. Basically, they post a sign that says firearms aren't allowed to be carried at their property by anyone except a police officer. If you are caught with a firearm you are subject to arrest for trespassing, regardless of whether the gun is registered or you are licensed to carry it.

Of course firearms are forbidden at government buildings.

Starbucks has said that people carrying firearms aren't welcome in their stores, but I don't recall how they intend to enforce that policy.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

The article I read said that both texting and carrying a firearm were against theater rules.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> I don't recall demanding a worry-free life, but I still believe that unarmed people have rights.


"Don't I have a right to go to a movie unarmed without worrying about getting shot by the guy behind me?"

You have the rights as given in the Constitution. Laws can prevent or limit activities, but cannot assure a right to worry free anything. Worry is an emotion.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> I know that there are casino/hotels in Las Vegas that do what they call "posting" about guns. Basically, they post a sign that says firearms aren't allowed to be carried at their property by anyone except a police officer. If you are caught with a firearm you are subject to arrest for trespassing, regardless of whether the gun is registered or you are licensed to carry it.
> 
> Of course firearms are forbidden at government buildings.
> 
> Starbucks has said that people carrying firearms aren't welcome in their stores, but I don't recall how they intend to enforce that policy.


Maybe the employees can dump coffee on customers to "flush out" the ones with guns?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

haypoint said:


> "Don't I have a right to go to a movie unarmed without worrying about getting shot by the guy behind me?"
> 
> You have the rights as given in the Constitution. Laws can prevent or limit activities, but cannot assure a right to worry free anything. Worry is an emotion.


Feeling confident that I won't get shot if I go to a movie does not provide a worry-free life.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

haypoint said:


> If it was the texting guy that started the argument when the old guy returned, would that change anything for you? If the texting guy threw something at the old guy, like a cell phone, just prior to throwing popcorn, would that change your feelings? If the texting dude faked a punch at the old guy, as some have said they saw, would that change anything for you?


The one piece of testimony during the bail hearing the struck me was from the retired Air Force guy, Turner. He testified that mmediately after the shooting Reeves said, "Throw popcorn in my face."

That indicates to me that Reeves was aware that what was thrown was popcorn, not an unknown object. The remark also implies that the shooting was in response to the thrown popcorn. In fact that statement shows no confusion at all about what just happened. Moreover, the defense has not alleged that a fist or any other particular object was thrown by anyone. 

No, I don't know how else to interpret Turner's testimony except that it means that Reeves was outraged at the disrespect the victim showed by throwing popcorn, so he shot him. That doesn't constitute justification to use deadly force.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> I know that there are casino/hotels in Las Vegas that do what they call "posting" about guns. Basically, they post a sign that says firearms aren't allowed to be carried at their property by anyone except a police officer. If you are caught with a firearm you are subject to arrest for trespassing, regardless of whether the gun is registered or you are licensed to carry it.
> 
> Of course firearms are forbidden at government buildings.
> 
> Starbucks has said that people carrying firearms aren't welcome in their stores, but I don't recall how they intend to enforce that policy.


They don't!


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> The one piece of testimony during the bail hearing the struck me was from the retired Air Force guy, Turner. He testified that mmediately after the shooting Reeves said, "Throw popcorn in my face."
> 
> That indicates to me that Reeves was aware that what was thrown was popcorn, not an unknown object. The remark also implies that the shooting was in response to the thrown popcorn. In fact that statement shows no confusion at all about what just happened. Moreover, the defense has not alleged that a fist or any other particular object was thrown by anyone.
> 
> No, I don't know how else to interpret Turner's testimony except that it means that Reeves was outraged at the disrespect the victim showed by throwing popcorn, so he shot him. That doesn't constitute justification to use deadly force.


Factual errors and misstatements in that early news report. 
Popcorn is no reason to shoot someone. But we cannot segment that chain of events.
Let's say I saw you in a bar, you are 80 and I'm 40 and way over 6 feet tall, and I spilled beer on you. Grounds to shoot me? Hardly. But if we got into an argument, you reported me to the bartender for being drunk, but he was too busy to do anything, I started up the argument again, swearing loudly, grabbed your beer glass and poured it on you, then lunged towards you, would you feel threatened? 
Generally in a tavern situation, a few guys would see what is going on and escort me out of the bar before it gets out of hand. But in the movie theatre, everyone stayed out of it, ignored the trouble, allowing it to escalate, leaving the old man with no one to come to his aid.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

haypoint said:


> Factual errors and misstatements in that early news report.
> Popcorn is no reason to shoot someone. But we cannot segment that chain of events.
> Let's say I saw you in a bar, you are 80 and I'm 40 and way over 6 feet tall, and I spilled beer on you. Grounds to shoot me? Hardly. But if we got into an argument, you reported me to the bartender for being drunk, but he was too busy to do anything, I started up the argument again, swearing loudly, grabbed your beer glass and poured it on you, then lunged towards you, would you feel threatened?
> Generally in a tavern situation, a few guys would see what is going on and escort me out of the bar before it gets out of hand. But in the movie theatre, everyone stayed out of it, ignored the trouble, allowing it to escalate, leaving the old man with no one to come to his aid.


I still can't get past the fact that Reeves knew it was popcorn, and his statement sounded like the shooting was retribution for throwing it. His statement "throw popcorn in my face" after shooting sounds like he intended the shooting to be a lesson for showing disrespect. I really don't know how else to interpret it.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Nevada said:


> What about the risk to unarmed people? Don't I have a right to go to a movie unarmed without worrying about getting shot by the guy behind me?


Too bad someone in the theater in Colorado where a gunman killed twelve movie goers didn't have a concealed weapon. If you're concerned about your right not to be shot do you stay out of convenience stores late at night? That's one of the times that heightens my awareness.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Nevada said:


> I still can't get past the fact that Reeves knew it was popcorn, and his statement sounded like the shooting was retribution for throwing it. His statement "throw popcorn in my face" after shooting sounds like he intended the shooting to be a lesson for showing disrespect. I really don't know how else to interpret it.


If the following from your link is true, Turner got it wrong.

""And almost immediately," recalled Turner, who said Oulson threw the bag, "the gun comes out and* there are shots fired.""*

We know only one shot was fired. It's also been reported that the gun jammed. I don't recall Turner making that statement about the popcorn when I watched his testimony. I'll have to check that.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

haypoint said:


> But in the movie theatre, everyone stayed out of it, ignored the trouble, allowing it to escalate, leaving the old man with no one to come to his aid.


Come to Reeves' aid for what?


----------



## suzfromWi (Jun 1, 2002)

Heres what I saw on the video. Reeves came back to his seat, leaned forward for a second, The popcorn was grabbed and thrown, Reeves fired the gun. We don't know what he said to initiate the throw of the popcorn...We don't see the victim so don't know how long he was standing. Its a well known fact that witness testimony is very faulty. What I know for sure is that a husband and father is dead over texting his three year old daughters babysitter. Someone brought a gun to a disagreement. Scary stuff today....


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

suzfromWi said:


> Someone brought a gun to a disagreement. Scary stuff today....


I agree. If Reeves was unarmed I can't imagine any way of this situation ending in a fatality.


----------



## suzfromWi (Jun 1, 2002)

haypoint said:


> Factual errors and misstatements in that early news report.
> Popcorn is no reason to shoot someone. But we cannot segment that chain of events.
> Let's say I saw you in a bar, you are 80 and I'm 40 and way over 6 feet tall, and I spilled beer on you. Grounds to shoot me? Hardly. But if we got into an argument, you reported me to the bartender for being drunk, but he was too busy to do anything, I started up the argument again, swearing loudly, grabbed your beer glass and poured it on you, then lunged towards you, would you feel threatened?
> Generally in a tavern situation, a few guys would see what is going on and escort me out of the bar before it gets out of hand. But in the movie theatre, everyone stayed out of it, ignored the trouble, allowing it to escalate, leaving the old man with no one to come to his aid.


 This is your scenario.....Perhaps it was just about popcorn,
and a cop thinking he could prove his power.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

suzfromWi said:


> This is your scenario.....Perhaps it was just about popcorn,
> and a cop thinking he could prove his power.


I think there is no doubt that Reeves' emotions got the best of him.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

suzfromWi said:


> This is your scenario.....Perhaps it was just about popcorn,
> and a cop thinking he could prove his power.


If you are going to segment the event, why not just make it " Angry ex-Cop kills man for texting in theatre", as the news media did?
I do not understand how you can dismiss the texting dude's angry, aggressive actions prior to yanking away the old man's popcorn and throwing the popcorn box at his face. The old man stated, and it shows up on film, that something else was thrown, too.
In the old guy's situation, you might have felt threatened, you may have been upset. Without anyone offering to help quiet the texting dude down, you might have felt very alone and vulnerable. When the popcorn was yanked away and the box thrown in your face, you might have felt startled, surprised or alarmed. 
Most people trained to handle such situations would know that the progression from rude behavior, to verbal berating to swearing, to throwing objects is an escalation of events that generally continues to violence. 
The old guy was seated, facing the light of the screen. His view of the man directly facing him would be limited in that darkened theatre. The people sitting nearby didn't hear the words, just that the words were loud. They didn't see who threw the popcorn or who's popcorn it was.
I think I'd feel threatened and the violence would continue to escalate. You feel you'd sit there with popcorn on you and that the aggressive actions would stop.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Come to Reeves' aid for what?


It was reported that the texting went on for some time and witness's reports stated, "texting loudly" what ever that means. That is a good time for those around the texting guy to show their support of the rules and speak up. When texting dude got loud and used to "F" word loud enough to be heard by others over the sound of the movie, people could have told him to tone it down. But they sat. perhaps wishing the problem away, but unwilling to so much as look in that direction. 
Troubles me some that people want to live in a civilized society, but are unwilling to take the slightest step to maintain that civilized society. 
Not so different than walking past an accident victim or ignoring pleas for help in the apartment next to you.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

haypoint said:


> I do not understand how you can dismiss the texting dude's angry, aggressive actions prior to yanking away the old man's popcorn and throwing the popcorn box at his face.


I'm trying to take all of the evidence into account, but you seem to have forgotten the part about Reeves kicking the back of the victim's chair. That was the first physical aggression, not the popcorn.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> I'm trying to take all of the evidence into account, but you seem to have forgotten the part about Reeves kicking the back of the victim's chair. That was the first physical aggression, not the popcorn.


Kicking the chair is a non issue. If you want to believe the old guy was kicking the chair with his shoe to irritate the guy texting, you are free to imagine that. No facts that I've seen support that. 
If he tapped the back of the seat with his shoe to get the attention of the person seated directly ahead of him, I see that as a polite way to gain the attention of someone. Often preferable to putting your head next to them so you could be heard, putting your hand on their shoulder to gain their attention. 
Either way, it wasn't forceful enough to get the guy to stop texting or make him move. We will never know if it was a tap or a forceful kick.


----------



## suzfromWi (Jun 1, 2002)

It amounts to this. One man will go to prison, one man is dead. Over texting...I text, it is not loud unless someone responds, and your phone rings, or plays music when getting a reply. No, I don't do it in a theater or other places that say not to, but....it still should not result in death. I don't think the video proves anything. Its not clear enough.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Nevada said:


> I'm trying to take all of the evidence into account, but you seem to have forgotten the part about Reeves kicking the back of the victim's chair. That was the first physical aggression, not the popcorn.


Turner stated that due to his situational awareness based on his years of intelligence work in the Air Force he remained standing once he reached his seat and noticed that Oulson was also standing. I don't see where the seat back had anything to do with anything if Oulson was standing. It was the attack that triggered the self defense response.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

This is how fast a trained law enforcement officer can react to a threat. Chicago (Cook County) cop shoots and kills a robber at gas station while the robber is holding a gun.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...south-side-shootings-20140210,0,623345.story#


----------



## bowdonkey (Oct 6, 2007)

suzfromWi said:


> It amounts to this. One man will go to prison, one man is dead. Over texting...I text, it is not loud unless someone responds, and your phone rings, or plays music when getting a reply. No, I don't do it in a theater or other places that say not to, but....it still should not result in death. I don't think the video proves anything. Its not clear enough.


Assualting someone caused the shooting, not the texting.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

bowdonkey said:


> Assualting someone caused the shooting, not the texting.


But you can't deny that there wouldn't have been a fatality of there had been no gun.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Nevada said:


> But you can't deny that there wouldn't have been a fatality of there had been no gun.


How do we know that? If we're playing those games, you can't rule out Oulson not continuing to attack and possibly causing Reeves death even if by cardiac arrest.

If we're going to go there, what's the chance Reeve's saved someone in the future by killing Oulson in the theater. That's as ridiculous as your "if only" comment.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Darren said:


> How do we know that? If we're playing those games, you can't rule out Oulson not continuing to attack and possibly causing Reeves death even if by cardiac arrest.
> 
> If we're going to go there, what's the chance Reeve's saved someone in the future by killing Oulson in the theater. That's as ridiculous as your "if only" comment.


Gross speculation. It's highly unlikely that anyone would have died if no gun had been present.


----------



## Vash (Jan 19, 2014)

Nevada said:


> Gross speculation.


On your part as well.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Darren said:


> This is how fast a trained law enforcement officer can react to a threat. Chicago (Cook County) cop shoots and kills a robber at gas station while the robber is holding a gun.
> 
> http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...south-side-shootings-20140210,0,623345.story#


 You do know that cops are trained when NOT to shoot, also? Your depiction of them as superhuman killing machines on a hair trigger is ridiculous.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

greg273 said:


> You do know that cops are trained when NOT to shoot, also? Your depiction of them as superhuman killing machines on a hair trigger is ridiculous.


I agree with you. Cops are trained to know when to shoot and when to hold fire. They are also trained in the law, when is a shot justified and when not. The old guy had way more experience in this than the average 30 years on the job Cop would have. He got their tactical team going, trained proper gun use. Then, he headed the security team at Busch Gardens. Think he may have been in contact with a few aggressive/abusive drunks? But in all those years, nothing to indicate a hair trigger temper. In fact, quite the opposite.
So, I'm to believe the old guy lost his temper and shot the guy over texting? Should I believe that he shot the guy over popcorn? 

I am going to believe that the old guy returned to his seat and the texting dude stood and turned towards him, yelled about being reported to Management, yelled the "F" word, threw something at the old guy, maybe faked a punch at the old guy, grabbed the popcorn box from the old man and threw it at the old man's face. If you are assaulted, you do not have to sustain injury for it to be an assault. I believe the old guy expected the escalation of aggressive behavior of the texting dude to continue to rise and the elements of assault had been met.
I hate cell phones in theatres. Perhaps if the theatre would issue paintball guns to be used against anyone caught using a cell phone, this incident may not have happened.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

haypoint said:


> They are also trained in the law, when is a shot justified and when not. The old guy had way more experience in this than the average 30 years on the job Cop would have.


Good! But I'm wondering if the judge will be open to learning some law from this guy.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

If Reeves was in a position to put together a tactical team, he was likely a supervisor so likely wasn't working with the public and if he was head of security, I doubt if he came in contact with too many drunks because he was management. 

Both positions would lead me to wonder if he was a little cranky about someone not respecting his authority.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

wr said:


> If Reeves was in a position to put together a tactical team, he was likely a supervisor so likely wasn't working with the public and if he was head of security, I doubt if he came in contact with too many drunks because he was management.
> 
> Both positions would lead me to wonder if he was a little cranky about someone not respecting his authority.


Probably started out at the top and cranky people never get to see a Supervisor? We are talking Busch Gardens, not General Motors.:smack


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Good! But I'm wondering if the judge will be open to learning some law from this guy.


I doubt it. But I suspect the defense Lawyer will explain the Law to the Jury.


----------



## Wanda (Dec 19, 2002)

haypoint said:


> I agree with you. Cops are trained to know when to shoot and when to hold fire. They are also trained in the law, when is a shot justified and when not. The old guy had way more experience in this than the average 30 years on the job Cop would have. He got their tactical team going, trained proper gun use. Then, he headed the security team at Busch Gardens. Think he may have been in contact with a few aggressive/abusive drunks? But in all those years, nothing to indicate a hair trigger temper. In fact, quite the opposite.
> So, I'm to believe the old guy lost his temper and shot the guy over texting? Should I believe that he shot the guy over popcorn?
> 
> I am going to believe that the old guy returned to his seat and the texting dude stood and turned towards him, yelled about being reported to Management, yelled the "F" word, threw something at the old guy, maybe faked a punch at the old guy, grabbed the popcorn box from the old man and threw it at the old man's face. If you are assaulted, you do not have to sustain injury for it to be an assault. I believe the old guy expected the escalation of aggressive behavior of the texting dude to continue to rise and the elements of assault had been met.
> I hate cell phones in theatres. Perhaps if the theatre would issue paintball guns to be used against anyone caught using a cell phone, this incident may not have happened.




OK I will play your game and believe every thing you just wrote. I have one question for you to answer. What made the texting in the theater the most deadly thing that he has encountered in all of his law enforcement career. If he never felt the need to fire a weapon in self defense in all those years,what was the deadly fear that triggered the use of a gun?


----------



## bowdonkey (Oct 6, 2007)

Wanda said:


> OK I will play your game and believe every thing you just wrote. I have one question for you to answer. What made the texting in the theater the most deadly thing that he has encountered in all of his law enforcement career. If he never felt the need to fire a weapon in self defense in all those years,what was the deadly fear that triggered the use of a gun?


Oulson's behavior?


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Wanda said:


> OK I will play your game and believe every thing you just wrote. I have one question for you to answer. What made the texting in the theater the most deadly thing that he has encountered in all of his law enforcement career. If he never felt the need to fire a weapon in self defense in all those years,what was the deadly fear that triggered the use of a gun?


BINGO. I believe you've got it. It is clearly improbable that texting was the most dangerous situation he has ever encountered. Any reasonable person can clearly see that the shooting was not caused by someone texting.
It would be reasonable to assume that the retired cop had had strangers yell at him before. Correct? Even swear at him. Likely.
I contend that in that darkened theatre, with surround sound blasting away, that in those few inches between these two men, in under two seconds, a clear threat was perceived. A threat level that he had never encountered in 30 years of police work. 
We can speculate what the texting dude would do next. After yelling the "F" word, after throwing some black object, after grabbing the old guy's popcorn, after throwing the box in his face, would he have stopped there or was he continuing to escalate? 
Those that see it as murder must cling to the belief that after all that aggression, he was done and intended to turn around and sit down to enjoy the movie. You also must assume that with all the training he has had and all the training he has taught, the old guy just "whacked out" and needlessly shot a man to death.

Those that see the possibility that the texting guy wasn't done humiliating the old guy, see that the next step would be a physical assault. From that vulnerable location, there is no retreat. From that position, simply standing up would make it easy to be pulled over the knee high seat back and fall upon the seat backs in the next row. That seems likely to cause an injury that could result in death.

If the actions of the texting dude were hostile up to the point of tossing the popcorn box, the popcorn could be reasonably seen as a diversion to an assault.
We don't know what the texting guy's next move was. We don't know what subtle clues the retired Police Captain saw that spelled danger.

We do know that we have had weeks and dozens of news reports to sift through what happened in an instant. 20/20 hindsight.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Nevada said:


> Gross speculation. It's highly unlikely that anyone would have died if no gun had been present.


Most likely, an out of control younger man would have beat the sitting older man causing severe injury.
People need to learn they can't go around beating up old people to make themselves feel tough and hairy.
If Jerk #1 hadn't attacked Jerk #2, Jerk#1 would still be alive
Just my opinion, but I believe we all have the right to defend ourselves, not just submit to the bullies and bad guys in this world.
Jerk #1 probably deserved to have his teeth knocked out instead of shot, but he was coming at Jerk #2 throwing things and presumably ready to do more.
Instinct kicked in, Jerk #1 died.
These days, there's no easy victims, you don't know who is armed.
Hopefully some good will come out of it, and the manly men who enjoy beating up people weaker than them will stop and think before they start playing tough.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Cornhusker said:


> People need to learn they can't go around beating up old people to make themselves feel tough and hairy.


In the first place, Reeves didn't teach the victim anything. This wasn't a learning opportunity, since he's dead. Second, I haven't heard that the victim went around beating up old people. Third, if you kick the back of the chair in front of you in a movie theater, consider the possibility of getting popcorn thrown at you. Finally, if you shoot someone without justification to use deadly force, expect a long prison sentence. Reeves will spend the rest of his life in prison.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> In the first place, Reeves didn't teach the victim anything. This wasn't a learning opportunity, since he's dead. Second, I haven't heard that the victim went around beating up old people. Third, if you kick the back of the chair in front of you in a movie theater, consider the possibility of getting popcorn thrown at you. Finally, if you shoot someone without justification to use deadly force, expect a long prison sentence. Reeves will spend the rest of his life in prison.


The first mouse doesn't get taught anything, but the rest of them should learn from it. Any death is a tragedy, but if this event causes other rude people to pause before inflicting their texting addiction, then something positive has come of this. If a few bullies opt to not abuse an older person, out of the thought of this event, that's good, too.

If you insist on bring up the chair kicking event, at least get it in the proper chronological order. By all reports it happened while the texting dude was "loudly texting", early on. I contend, with nothing to contradict it, that the chair tap was done not to abuse or anger, but to gain the attention of the texting dude. A tap on the shoulder is unwanted physical contact. Putting your mug next to his is startling, too. A tap on the seat seems appropriate. Then after repeated request that he shut down the phone, the old guy left to get Management to do their job. 

When he returned, he sat down. As seen in the video, he bent forward as everyone else does as they seat themselves. But the texting dude wasn't done. Witnesses reported that texting dude started in on the old guy because the old guy reported him. Then the texting dude used the "F" word. I guess I've never heard someone yell that word in public that wasn't quite angry. The old guy just sat there. Then, something was thrown, then the popcorn was grabbed and thrown.

"What if" is a good way to understand your thinking. What if the old guy returned and sat down, then the texting dude stood facing the old man, swearing (so far this happened) and the old guy stood up and threw popcorn in the face of the texting dude. Care to speculate how long before the dude grabbed the old man and cast him over the seat back? Or do you see the old man as the angry one and the texting dude would have wiped the popcorn off and sat quietly? 

So the question becomes, why is it an over reaction for the old guy, but acceptable for the texting dude? An 80 year old getting pitched over a theatre seat has about the same chances of survival as a 40 year old with a single low caliber gunshot.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

haypoint said:


> The first mouse doesn't get taught anything, but the rest of them should learn from it.


Yes, that's true. But in this case I suspect that the lesson learned will be for gun owners, when they see Reeves taken to prison for the rest of his life.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Yes, that's true. But in this case I suspect that the lesson learned will be for gun owners, when they see Reeves taken to prison for the rest of his life.


An old retired cop shoots a guy that is being a jerk isn't going to effect gun owners. What next? A law against guns in theatres? 52 murders in Flint for 2013,made the news because it was so low. Between 200 and 300 in Detroit. No one calling for more gun laws.
The old guy may join the 101,930 incarcerated felons in Florida, but we shall have to wait on the verdict and sentence.
I do wish the old guy had a Tazer. I'd buy that security video!


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

haypoint said:


> The old guy may join the 101,930 incarcerated felons in Florida, but we shall have to wait on the verdict and sentence.


Maybe you know something I don't know, but Reeves has no defense. The only defense his lawyer proposed during the bail hearing was that the popcorn might have been an unknown object, but the judge rejected that argument as not justification to draw a gun and shoot.

Unless he changes his story to be some kind of mental lapse, I just don't know what he might do it stay out of prison.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Maybe you know something I don't know, but Reeves has no defense. The only defense his lawyer proposed during the bail hearing was that the popcorn might have been an unknown object, but the judge rejected that argument as not justification to draw a gun and shoot.
> 
> Unless he changes his story to be some kind of mental lapse, I just don't know what he might do it stay out of prison.


OJ walked.
The Judge based her bond decision on preliminary information. She isn't the jury, she hasn't heard all the facts. After the Zimmerman hubbub, I think most Florida Judges would want to jail unless there is nothing to hold him on.


----------



## Wanda (Dec 19, 2002)

haypoint said:


> BINGO. I believe you've got it. It is clearly improbable that texting was the most dangerous situation he has ever encountered. Any reasonable person can clearly see that the shooting was not caused by someone texting.
> It would be reasonable to assume that the retired cop had had strangers yell at him before. Correct? Even swear at him. Likely.
> I contend that in that darkened theatre, with surround sound blasting away, that in those few inches between these two men, in under two seconds, a clear threat was perceived. A threat level that he had never encountered in 30 years of police work.
> We can speculate what the texting dude would do next. After yelling the "F" word, after throwing some black object, after grabbing the old guy's popcorn, after throwing the box in his face, would he have stopped there or was he continuing to escalate?
> ...



If you think the actions in the theater were the most threatening situation he was ever in I would think otherwise. If his lawyer were to use this as his defense and that only, his supporters would call for a retrial,due to a lack of defense. If the prosecution brings up his police service and shows that he was in many very dangerous situations with people armed with more than cellphones and popcorn, without using a firearm,how will his defense attorney respond? I think the only thing he has in his favor is sympathy for his age and what it will do to his wife!


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

haypoint said:


> OJ walked.


He wouldn't have if they had a video of him doing the killings.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

In audiotapes played by prosecutors today, Reeves told detectives that Oulson had verbally threatened him, physically leaned over him and knocked his glasses sideways. 
"I was scared. I thought the guy was fixing to beat the s*** out of me. I was defending myself," Reeves said. "This guy scared me." 

In TV Interview, widow stated that her husband didn't throw popcorn. http://abcnews.go.com/US/bail-deadly-movie-theater-shooting/story?id=22419822


----------



## Oggie (May 29, 2003)

The judge watched the video last Friday and heard from the prosecution and defense.

Bail was denied and Reeves will be held until trial.


----------



## MDKatie (Dec 13, 2010)

haypoint said:


> In audiotapes played by prosecutors today, Reeves told detectives that Oulson had verbally threatened him, physically leaned over him and knocked his glasses sideways.
> "I was scared. I thought the guy was fixing to beat the s*** out of me. I was defending myself," Reeves said. "This guy scared me."
> 
> In TV Interview, widow stated that her husband didn't throw popcorn. http://abcnews.go.com/US/bail-deadly-movie-theater-shooting/story?id=22419822


Where in the video did Oulsen lean over him and knock his glasses sideways? And where does the wife say he didn't throw popcorn? I didn't see that in the link you posted. (Nevermind, it wasn't the first video shown)

Doesn't it tell you something when Reeves said himself that it was stupid, and if he had it to do over again he would move?


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

MDKatie said:


> Where in the video did Oulsen lean over him and knock his glasses sideways? And where does the wife say he didn't throw popcorn? I didn't see that in the link you posted. (Nevermind, it wasn't the first video shown)
> 
> Doesn't it tell you something when Reeves said himself that it was stupid, and if he had it to do over again he would move?


Ever have a regret? 
Swerve to miss a deer in the road and end up in the ditch? Avoiding the deer was a good choice in the split second that you had, but later, knowing the outcome, you think you might better have just hit the deer. 

Do you have glasses? If you were driving in heavy traffic and a passenger threw something in your face and knocked your glasses off, would you be frantic?

Clear to everyone that Texting Dude could whip the old guy's butt. Witnesses report the Texting Dude is loud and arguing, standing facing the old guy. Dude's wife says it wasn't an argument and no one threw popcorn. Witnesses state Texting Dude used the F word. 
In the video, such as it is, we do see Texting Dude grab the old guy's box of popcorn and throw it in his face, box and all. So, Texting Dude was close enough to grasp a box of popcorn off the old guy's lap and toss/shove it in the old guy's face. Would you think that is aggressive? Have you ever seen anyone in a theater grab someone's popcorn and shove/toss the box in someone's face?:umno:
A box of anything tossed/shoved in your face is likely to shove your glasses off. Can you, for just a moment picture yourself in this situation? The Texting Dude is yelling profanities, the theatre is fairly dark ( remember that is an infrared surveillance video, actual human vision would be lots less) Suddenly the guy grabs at you and then hits you in the face, stealing your vision. You must feel you are in the midst of an attack. Instinctively, you protect yourself with what you have available, a gun. 
But then the guy falls away, the lights come on, you adjust your glasses. The results of your defensive move is painfully obvious. You reassess your split second decision. Your intent at that moment was self preservation, but in the reflective moments afterwards you see the aftermath. I think every compassionate person feels sadness in the taking of a life, even when it was to save your own life.

I feel sorry for the widow, but since she lied about some parts of the event, I question everything she says. She says there was no argument, but then she says she put her hand up there to get him to sit down. She says there was no popcorn thrown. This all is contradicted by multiple witnesses and video.:shrug:

The most believable part I've heard is the old guy saying he felt threatened and he is remorseful that it happened.


----------



## Vash (Jan 19, 2014)

Nevada said:


> Yes, that's true. But in this case I suspect that the lesson learned will be for gun owners, when they see Reeves taken to prison for the rest of his life.


Right! Because this is typical behavior for gun owners...

:umno:


----------



## MDKatie (Dec 13, 2010)

haypoint said:


> Clear to everyone that Texting Dude could whip the old guy's butt.


So he shot him because Oulsen *might* have kicked his butt? And from your description, Oulsen was screaming at the guy...but that hasn't been my take from all the reports we've seen. He was aggitated, clearly, but I think others would have been able to hear him if he was truly yelling loudly. 

Reeves was being a jerk, repeatedly harassing Oulsen. Reeves
left but never even talked to the manager, came back, harassed Oulsen some more (even leaning IN to Oulsen), and at some point kicked his chair (before or after leaving, it doesn't matter). Oulsen was standing up to being bullied. Who knows what was said to make Oulsen grab and throw the popcorn. But from the video I'm guessing Reeves had his hand on his gun from the time he came back. 

So just curious, haypoint. If Oulsen hadn't thrown the popcorn and Reeves shot him, would Reeves have been in the wrong then, in your opinion? Is it just the popcorn that made it justifiable in your eyes? Would Oulsen "yelling" at Reeves have been enough of a threat to justify shooting?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Vash said:


> Right! Because this is typical behavior for gun owners...
> 
> :umno:


If gun owners don't condemn it, others will assume they are for it. But it goes even farther than that. Gun advocates are making excuses for this guy. The standard now isn't to shoot someone for what he did, but what he might do. Using that standard anyone is subject to be shot.

No, gun advocates who are making excuses for this guy are risking their own gun rights.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

MDKatie said:


> So he shot him because Oulsen *might* have kicked his butt? And from your description, Oulsen was screaming at the guy...but that hasn't been my take from all the reports we've seen. He was aggitated, clearly, but I think others would have been able to hear him if he was truly yelling loudly.
> 
> Reeves was being a jerk, repeatedly harassing Oulsen. Reeves
> left but never even talked to the manager, came back, harassed Oulsen some more (even leaning IN to Oulsen), and at some point kicked his chair (before or after leaving, it doesn't matter). Oulsen was standing up to being bullied. Who knows what was said to make Oulsen grab and throw the popcorn. But from the video I'm guessing Reeves had his hand on his gun from the time he came back.
> ...


Better yet, if Oulsen had been armed and felt threatened when Reeves kicked the back of his chair, would he have been justified in shooting Reeves instead of throwing popcorn?


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

MDKatie said:


> So he shot him because Oulsen *might* have kicked his butt? And from your description, Oulsen was screaming at the guy...but that hasn't been my take from all the reports we've seen. He was aggitated, clearly,* but I think others would have been able to hear him if he was truly yelling loudly. *


*You are 100% correct, Oulson was yelling. In fact the retired Air Force officer standing by his aisle seat in the same row did testify during the hearing he could hear Oulson from where he was but he could not hear what Reeves said. Oulson was clearly amped.

That was one of the factors that caused the outcome. Thanks for bringing it up.*


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

MDKatie said:


> So he shot him because Oulsen *might* have kicked his butt? And from your description, Oulsen was screaming at the guy...but that hasn't been my take from all the reports we've seen. He was aggitated, clearly, but I think others would have been able to hear him if he was truly yelling loudly.
> 
> Reeves was being a jerk, repeatedly harassing Oulsen. Reeves
> left but never even talked to the manager, came back, harassed Oulsen some more (even leaning IN to Oulsen), and at some point kicked his chair (before or after leaving, it doesn't matter). Oulsen was standing up to being bullied. Who knows what was said to make Oulsen grab and throw the popcorn. But from the video I'm guessing Reeves had his hand on his gun from the time he came back.
> ...


He was heard over the sound of the movie. Several people clearly heard the "F: word. Is that a sign of anger? To me it is.
He didn't shoot him because he was capable of kicking his butt, but a large angry person is more of a threat than a small angry person, don't you agree? What is your level of anger just before you grab an old man's popcorn and thrust it in his face? Ever been that mad? I haven't. That is crazy man action if you ask me.
You believe Reeves kicked the chair and don't care when or how. I believe it was initially to get his attention to ask him to shut off the phone. You believe it was Reeves that started the argument when he returned from his manager search. I read, initially and those reports could be wrong, that it was Oulsen that was starting the argument, angry about Reeves reporting him. Reeves just sat down. With all the sound of the movie, it is hard to tell if Reeves was leaning forward to reply or what was going on.
I don't see yelling as an excuse for shooting. If Oulsen hadn't hit Reeves in the face knocking his glasses askew, I don't see the threat. That in this setting Oulsen was threatening Reeves and then rendered Reeves helpless in the moment of what seemed an attack, is in my mind grounds for defending yourself from eminent danger.Anyone that has seen their share of bar fights, street fights, etc. knows that people throw stuff in someone's face just as they attack. Throw a beer in someone's face and then quickly follow that with a one two punch. In the streets, you pitch dirt in their face. In a shower, you toss a towel over their face, Flick a cigarette in their face. 
I am also troubled by the widow's statements that there was no loud arguing, they always shut off their phones, there was just the one text message, there was no popcorn thrown. Witnesses state differently. Seems odd.
If Reeves was bullying Oulsen, kicking the seat back, tattling on him, dumping popcorn on Oulsen and then Oulsen grabbed Reeves and pulled him over the seats, causing Reeves to go into cardiac arrest. Should Oulsen be charged with murder, or did he just die because he was old and had a bad heart?


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Glad the story made the news. Maybe the next jerk who gets the urge to act up in a theater will think twice. Makes for a polite society. Throwing popcorn and threatening a person in response to being asked to stop texting is not a proper response. A simple "F" you would have been adequate. The dude clearly had anger issues and no one can predict in advance how far those issues will take the guy. A retired cop has likely seen those with anger management issues explode many times before. He had a valid reason for being concerned for his well being. As for the "what if he'd accidentally shot someone else" argument, two words: "He didn't". It's called gun control. If the retired cop had been on duty and someone had come at him like that, he would have shot him out of fear for his life and it would have been a justified shooting. A private citizen should have the same rights as cops to self defense.


----------



## FeralFemale (Apr 10, 2006)

Nevada said:


> I gun owners don't condemn it, others will assume they are for it. But it goes even farther than that. Gun advocates are making excuses for this guy. The standard now isn't to shoot someone for what he did, but what he might do. Using that standard anyone is subject to be shot.
> 
> No, gun advocates who are making excuses for this guy are risking their own gun rights.


 
I'm not making excuses for Reeves. I don't think the altercation had come to a point where deadly force was necessary. I can't get past how quickly Reeves pulled a gun out and shot. 

However, I also can't get past Oulson's own actions that led to his death. A good point is made in previous posts that grabbing the popcorn and throwing it likely wasn't his last aggressive action. I don't believe anyone would have sat back down to watch a movie after that action. I believe a physical attack was coming next.

But where do we draw the line? My line, the one that puts Reeves in the wrong, is based off just personal feelings. Those same personal feelings of others say Reeves was right in preventing a physical attack against himself.

Many of the same people here whose personal feelings puts Reeves in the wrong also condemned Zimmerman. I understand that they would not see a justifiable shooting in this case when they did not see one where a man was in the actual process of getting wailed on and having his head repeatedly slammed into the concrete.

These are all just personal beliefs and feelings. None of us were there, and we are only going off of conflicting eyewitness reports, our own views on human nature, and a grainy video.

I say leave it to the jury who will hear all the relevant facts without the filter of the media and gun politics. I'm betting that Reeves will be spending most if not all the rest of his days in prison.


----------



## MDKatie (Dec 13, 2010)

haypoint said:


> I read, initially and those reports could be wrong, that it was Oulsen that was starting the argument, angry about Reeves reporting him. Reeves just sat down.


It's already been reported that Reeves continued the argument when he got back, saying something like, "Is it away now?" or "are you done now?" or something to that effect. 

We'll just have to disagree on this one. IMO, Reeves was a hothead tough-guy vigilante who was looking for trouble and picked a fight. Guess he didn't realize Oulsen was that tall (not that that should have anything to do with him being shot) and Oulsen fought back instead of letting the old guy being a bullying jerk. Too bad he got shot for it. I'm not excusing the popcorn throwing. Although I don't see popcorn as a weapon or how someone could fear for their life simply over thrown popcorn, Oulson shouldn't have done that.

I still maintain that some gun owners who carry intentionally put themselves in situations where they should walk away, simply because they know they have a gun.


----------



## Wanda (Dec 19, 2002)

Is there a difference between paranoid and fear? Do some people go thru life thinking, can this person harm me ,and will I have to kill them just in case? If this is the response from a well trained profesional with years of dealing with people,what about the average person. It would stand to reason they would be more fearful and blazing away at texters using the F word at a high rate. Should we use this shooting to base our decision of what is justified?


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

"Reeves exited the theater momentarily, then returned after a short time. Oulson apparently asked Reeves if he reported Oulson to the theater&#8217;s management and the argument escalated"

http://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/florida-man-shot-movie-theater-wouldnt-stop-texting/

With the noise and darkness of the movie theatre, all that witnesses heard was, " According to witnesses, all Oulson told Reeves was, &#8220;If it was any of your f***ing business, I was texting my daughter. Stay the hell out of my face.&#8221;

That was followed by Oulsen grabbing the box and throwing it against Reeves' face.

Clearly, ones own personal experiences plays into how you see this threat. I have witnessed many assaults in Bars, street fights but mostly in prison. The 2nd person to react generally gets his [email protected]@ beat. You learn to see the warning signs. 
But for some, even if Oulsen had Reeves on his back slugging his face, self defense isn't an excuse to use a gun (Zimmerman)

But for those addicted to texting, take it to the Lobby. I didn't buy a ticket to watch you satiate your addiction.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

MDKatie said:


> It's already been reported that Reeves continued the argument when he got back, saying something like, "Is it away now?" or "are you done now?" or something to that effect.
> 
> We'll just have to disagree on this one. IMO, Reeves was a hothead tough-guy vigilante who was looking for trouble and picked a fight. Guess he didn't realize Oulsen was that tall (not that that should have anything to do with him being shot) and Oulsen fought back instead of letting the old guy being a bullying jerk. Too bad he got shot for it. I'm not excusing the popcorn throwing. Although I don't see popcorn as a weapon or how someone could fear for their life simply over thrown popcorn, Oulson shouldn't have done that.
> 
> *I still maintain that some gun owners who carry intentionally put themselves in situations where they should walk away, simply because they know they have a gun.*


That is one of the first mandates for CCW. Just because you have a weapon doesn't mean you use it. No matter what the outcome, using a firearm for self defense of yourself or others may have an aftermath. Having a CCW by law imposes a higher standard on the individual. It is not a license that lessens responsibility. 

There are close to eight million CCW holders in this country. How many times do you read about irresponsible actions by them? If you believed the anti-Second Amendment folks, that many CCW holders would result in an ongoing blood bath of daily shoot outs.

Reeves is an example of the potential aftermath. In his case the prosecutor did not agree it was self defense. Here's an example of the five steps covering CCW that are found in various forms on the internet. This one is well fleshed out rather than a summary.

"3. Fight or Flight As a CHP holder I will assume that you will be armed a great majority of the time. However if you are a (Sheepdog) does this mean that you will always stand and fight when confronted? Just because you are armed does not mean you must confront the BG (Bad Guy) at gunpoint. You must develop your "situational awareness" skills. I would recommend my article on the "Combat Mind set" which can be found on the USCCA web site. You must be in condition Yellow at all times. *However your goal is to avoid conflict and only use force as a last resort.* You can "Tactically Relocate" that's a cool way to say RUN... or move to a position of cover and observe the situation. I teach that the BRAIN is our greatest weapon... we all need to use it. "Conflict is inevitable; Combat is an option"."

http://oklahomaconcealedcarry.com/5_Rules_for_CCW.html


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Perhaps Reeves should have tactically relocated and assessed the situation (as suggested in the article. 

Articles I have read stated that the theater had a rule forbidding weapons and it may be difficult to convince a jury those rules excluded Reeves.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

I'm sure in retrospect he would agree with you. Faced with the outrageous show of disrespect by a much younger man, I can see why he stayed. Do you allow yourself to be bullied by a jerk? Or do you allow them to run you off? Reeves paid for his ticket. The much younger man was violating the theaters rule in a sense being disrespectful to everyone in the theater. 

If Oulson had limited his activities to texting, we would not be having this discussion. When he escalated to assault and battery he crossed the line.


----------



## MDKatie (Dec 13, 2010)

And Reeves broke the theater rules by bringing in a weapon. Guess some people think rules don't apply to them.


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

MDKatie said:


> And Reeves broke the theater rules by bringing in a weapon. Guess some people think rules don't apply to them.


not according to this:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/926C

and this:
https://www.fdle.state.fl.us/Conten...9050-fc67d9c03c74/HR-218-Update-2012-(1).aspx


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

coolrunnin said:


> not according to this:
> http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/926C
> 
> and this:
> https://www.fdle.state.fl.us/Conten...9050-fc67d9c03c74/HR-218-Update-2012-(1).aspx


The first line says state laws can overrule that law, so it depends on Fla. law. Even of he is guilty of carrying illegally, that is not murder and may well just be a misdemeanor.


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

poppy said:


> The first line says state laws can overrule that law, so it depends on Fla. law. Even of he is guilty of carrying illegally, that is not murder and may well just be a misdemeanor.



second site is Florida law


----------



## unregistered41671 (Dec 29, 2009)

In the state of GA where I live, I can carry anywhere legally to do so. IF a business such as a retail store or theater has a "no guns allowed sign" and I enter with my concealed firearm and they find out I am carrying, they can ask me to leave. *I have broken no laws up to that point.* IF I *fail to leave*, after they ask, then I would be guilty of trespassing. FLA law may be similar.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

MDKatie said:


> And Reeves broke the theater rules by bringing in a weapon. Guess some people think rules don't apply to them.


Oulsen didn't think the rules applied to him, did he?:umno:


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

wr said:


> Perhaps Reeves should have tactically relocated and assessed the situation (as suggested in the article.
> 
> Articles I have read stated that the theater had a rule forbidding weapons and it may be difficult to convince a jury those rules excluded Reeves.


It seems to me that Reeves did not see the need to move. Until physical contact was made. At that point, with his glasses knocked askew and hit in the face with something, in that instance relocation was not an option.

So charge Reeves for breaking theater rules about guns and charge Oulsen for breaking theatre rules about cell phones. It is really a non issue.


----------



## Wanda (Dec 19, 2002)

If the argument stopped at the point of the trigger being pulled, what would have been the criminal charges that would apply to all the people involved? Do you see either person being sentenced to life in prison or the death penalty? If an on duty police officer were stationed in the theater isle, who would he have shot?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Possum Belly said:


> In the state of GA where I live, I can carry anywhere legally to do so. IF a business such as a retail store or theater has a "no guns allowed sign" and I enter with my concealed firearm and they find out I am carrying, they can ask me to leave. *I have broken no laws up to that point.* IF I *fail to leave*, after they ask, then I would be guilty of trespassing. FLA law may be similar.


That's not the way they play it here. Casinos consider the posted sign to be asking you not to carry at their property. If they catch you carrying you'll be thrown on the floor, handcuffed, and taken to jail with a trespassing charge.

You broke the law when you refused to comply with the posted trespassing sign.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Combat situation? This was a movie theater where people go to relax and enjoy a film. This was anything but a combat situation.


It became one the instant cell phone guy started becoming combative.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

watcher said:


> It became one the instant cell phone guy started becoming combative.


Reeves made the first combative move when he kicked the back of the victim's chair.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> What about the risk to unarmed people? Don't I have a right to go to a movie unarmed without worrying about getting shot by the guy behind me?


Hum. . .so you would rather have an old man beat rather than face the small chance of being shot by someone defending themselves? Can you point out cases where a CCW weapons fire hit a bystander? 

BTW, the last time I checked (its been a couple of years) you were much more likely to be accidentally shot by a well trained heavily regulated police officer than an armed citizen.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Feeling confident that I won't get shot if I go to a movie does not provide a worry-free life.


Then maybe you should go to a movie theater which has a policy of forbidding CCW. If you are up for a road trip you could the Century theater in Aurora, CO. After all you'd be really safe because after all it'd be against the rules to bring a firearm in there.


----------



## Wanda (Dec 19, 2002)

watcher said:


> Hum. . .so you would rather have an old man beat rather than face the small chance of being shot by someone defending themselves? Can you point out cases where a CCW weapons fire hit a bystander?
> 
> BTW, the last time I checked (its been a couple of years) you were much more likely to be accidentally shot by a well trained heavily regulated police officer than an armed citizen.



This shooter is that well trained police officer. If I remember correctly there was a bystander shot in this case and treated for a gunshot wound.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> I still can't get past the fact that Reeves knew it was popcorn, and his statement sounded like the shooting was retribution for throwing it. His statement "throw popcorn in my face" after shooting sounds like he intended the shooting to be a lesson for showing disrespect. I really don't know how else to interpret it.


Two things. One, how long after the shooting would it take to realize what was thrown? You are driving down the road and you see something run in front of you. In the instant it takes you to react you probably don't know what it is but it only takes a few seconds for your brain to recognize what it was.

Two, it doesn't matter if he knew it was popcorn or not. If he felt it was the first step in an attack which could lead to his injury being hit in the face with a handful of cotton balls.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> But you can't deny that there wouldn't have been a fatality of there had been no gun.


You can't say that. We can never know what might have happened. It could have escalated to a fight. At that point the old guy could have suffered a fatal injury or he might have even been able to deliver a fatal blow (depending on his training). As I have pointed out in this area there have been two fist fights which resulted in death, each IIRC from a single blow.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Yes, that's true. But in this case I suspect that the lesson learned will be for gun owners, when they see Reeves taken to prison for the rest of his life.


We'll have to wait and see. I'm thinking they have again over charged and the guy is going to walk. Remember all that is necessary is for one member of the jury to think if he were in the same circumstances he would fear for, as the old saying goes, his life and limbs.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Oggie said:


> The judge watched the video last Friday and heard from the prosecution and defense.
> 
> Bail was denied and Reeves will be held until trial.


Did they say WHY bail was denied? Was he considered a threat? Was he a flight risk? If he has any type of lawyer he should be out on bail.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

watcher said:


> We'll have to wait and see. I'm thinking they have again over charged and the guy is going to walk. Remember all that is necessary is for one member of the jury to think if he were in the same circumstances he would fear for, as the old saying goes, his life and limbs.


You haven't mentioned the fear unarmed people have because of armed idiots. Why not, and what do we do about it?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

MDKatie said:


> And Reeves broke the theater rules by bringing in a weapon. Guess some people think rules don't apply to them.


I don't know about there but in a lot of places retired LEOs are exempt from such rules just as active LEOs.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Wanda said:


> If the argument stopped at the point of the trigger being pulled, what would have been the criminal charges that would apply to all the people involved? Do you see either person being sentenced to life in prison or the death penalty? If an on duty police officer were stationed in the theater isle, who would he have shot?


If someone beats you to the point you are crippled for life they will not be given the death penalty nor life in prison. But you would be within your legal rights to use deadly force to prevent such an attack.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Reeves made the first combative move when he kicked the back of the victim's chair.


So you now agree that it WAS a combat zone?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> You haven't mentioned the fear unarmed people have because of armed idiots. Why not, and what do we do about it?


Want to live w/o fear? Build a bunker and live there. Once you go out into public you are faced with all kinds of idiots placing you in all kinds of danger. You stand a much better chance of being harmed by an idiot driving a car than you do with one carrying a firearm. Do a google news search on head on collision and see how many people have been killed just in the last month. Should we ban cars? Should we impose tighter driving regs? 

Also you have a much greater change of being killed by an idiot/crazy illegally carrying in a theater than of even seeing a CCW holder draw his weapon.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

watcher said:


> So you now agree that it WAS a combat zone?


I didn't say that. When I was a firefighter I dealt with a lot of combative patients, but I wouldn't call it a war zone.


----------



## Wanda (Dec 19, 2002)

watcher said:


> If someone beats you to the point you are crippled for life they will not be given the death penalty nor life in prison. But you would be within your legal rights to use deadly force to prevent such an attack.


 Who would the cop stationed in the theater have shot. Was there another person shot by the shooter. Can I issue some preemptive gun fire if you look mean? What if is a fun game until someone is dead.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Wanda said:


> Who would the cop stationed in the theater have shot. Was there another person shot by the shooter. Can I issue some preemptive gun fire if you look mean? What if is a fun game until someone is dead.


I suspect that it happened too fast for a cop or armed guard to react.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> I didn't say that. When I was a firefighter I dealt with a lot of combative patients, but I wouldn't call it a war zone.


Changing the wording are you? There are plenty of times where you can be in combat and not be in a war zone.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Wanda said:


> Who would the cop stationed in the theater have shot. Was there another person shot by the shooter. Can I issue some preemptive gun fire if you look mean? What if is a fun game until someone is dead.


Huh??


----------



## Wanda (Dec 19, 2002)

watcher said:


> Huh??



Read posts 172 and 178. Your post #185 quoted me but did not answer any question asked.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> You haven't mentioned the fear unarmed people have because of armed idiots. Why not, and what do we do about it?


The only way to fix the problem is to remove the idiots from the equation. And you know there's no way to do that.

A wise person looks at the threats and does what he feels is necessary to reduce the danger to him, he does not fear. It would be foolish to go into a situation if you are afraid if you can avoid it.

I used seat belts from the very first car I had which had them. I always wear a helmet when I ride a motorcycle (now its a full face one). Also I drive the wife nuts because there are only certain places I will sit in public places to make sure I can see threats. I have trained (don't tell her I said that) her when she says in a hotel to count and remember the number of doors between her room and the stairs. When we are forced to fly I make sure we wear clothing which would give us as much of a chance of surviving a crash as possible. Well I don't require Nomex suits but natural fibers, long sleeves, no shorts nor skirts and sensible shoes. 

If I were afraid I was going to be in a wreck I wouldn't drive/ride. If I was afraid there was going to be an attack on me I wouldn't go out to eat. If I were afraid of a fire I wouldn't stay in a hotel. If I was afraid the plane would crash I wouldn't get on it.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Wanda said:


> Read posts 172 and 178. Your post #185 quoted me but did not answer any question asked.


Sorry. Answers to follow.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Wanda said:


> If the argument stopped at the point of the trigger being pulled, what would have been the criminal charges that would apply to all the people involved?


Depends on at what point it had been stopped. If it was just before the shot I'd guess distributing the peace and felony assault charges on the young guy.




Wanda said:


> Do you see either person being sentenced to life in prison or the death penalty?


I'm guessing you mean if the situation was ended just before the shot so that's how I'll answer it. No, but as I pointed out you do not have to be a victim of a death penalty crime to be legally able to use deadly force to prevent it.




Wanda said:


> If an on duty police officer were stationed in the theater isle, who would he have shot?


Probably no one because he would have arrested the young guy before it reached the point deadly force was necessary.




Wanda said:


> This shooter is that well trained police officer. If I remember correctly there was a bystander shot in this case and treated for a gunshot wound.


According to what I have read the wife was NOT a bystander. She inserted herself into the confrontation.


----------



## Wanda (Dec 19, 2002)

If the wife was not a bystander will she or should she be charged with a crime? If the shooters life was threatened enough to shoot, shouldn't the texters charge have been attempted murder?


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Wanda said:


> If the wife was not a bystander will she or should she be charged with a crime? If the shooters life was threatened enough to shoot, shouldn't the texters charge have been attempted murder?


Someone does not have to attempt to murder you to feel threatened. If you are being assaulted, you can feel threatened, but that person would not likely be charged with attempted murder. 

I have sympathy for the widow, but it troubles me to hear her lie about the incident. I can understand, she'd like to protect her husband's memory by down playing the facts and denying things that happened that clearly did, right next to her. But, for justice to prevail, the Court needs the facts, not a grieving widow's fairy tale.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Oulson's wife knew he was out of control. That's why she had her hand on his chest to calm and restrain him. Her public statement before she lawyered up is interesting. It will be interesting to compare the two wive's testimony along with the other witnesses.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Darren said:


> Oulson's wife knew he was out of control. That's why she had her hand on his chest to calm and restrain him. Her public statement before she lawyered up is interesting. It will be interesting to compare the two wive's testimony along with the other witnesses.


Depending on how the criminal case goes, I suspect that the wife is in a pretty strong position for wrongful death lawsuit. She has to raise a family without a breadwinner, which is a serious reality. And that's not to mention that she got shot also.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Depending on how the criminal case goes, I suspect that the wife is in a pretty strong position for wrongful death lawsuit. She has to raise a family without a breadwinner, which is a serious reality. And that's not to mention that she got shot also.


 Yes, shot. In her ring finger, no less. Oh, the inhumanity. She gets 15 years of Social Security benefits for her child. Half the women in this country lose their husbands in divorce. Maybe she'll have to sell one of the racing motorcycles? 
Hate to quote the Simpson's, but after Homer explained to his son, Bart, that he was dying of cancer, Bart replied, " You mean I won't have a dad for awhile?" Yup, life goes on.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Darren said:


> Oulson's wife knew he was out of control. That's why she had her hand on his chest to calm and restrain him. Her public statement before she lawyered up is interesting. It will be interesting to compare the two wive's testimony along with the other witnesses.


That is one of the interesting things about this. Where is Mrs. Reeve's statement to the police or even her public statement in support of her husband? All we have, AFAIK, are witness statements saying she stated the shooting was unnecessary and that Reeve's told her not to speak. If she had compelling testimony that Oulsen was the out of control aggressor who struck her husband don't you think that would have come out in a police interview or testimony at the bail hearing? Or, in the tradition of throwing dirt on those we don't know, maybe she doesn't mind that her overbearing jerk of a husband is sitting in jail rather than in his recliner complaining about her overdone pot roast.


----------



## MDKatie (Dec 13, 2010)

haypoint said:


> I have sympathy for the widow, but it troubles me to hear her lie about the incident.


She just went through a very traumatic experience...are you surprised she is remembering things incorrectly? After all, we know witness testimony is NOT accurate, and you expect the wife of the dead man to remember everything exactly as it happened?


----------



## MDKatie (Dec 13, 2010)

haypoint said:


> Yes, shot. In her ring finger, no less. Oh, the inhumanity. She gets 15 years of Social Security benefits for her child. Half the women in this country lose their husbands in divorce. Maybe she'll have to sell one of the racing motorcycles?
> Hate to quote the Simpson's, but after Homer explained to his son, Bart, that he was dying of cancer, Bart replied, " You mean I won't have a dad for awhile?" Yup, life goes on.


How very heartless of you. Divorce is in NO way the same as having your husband killed in front of you.


----------



## unregistered5595 (Mar 3, 2003)

I can't find the article that says the widow said that there was no popcorn thrown. Anyone?


----------



## MDKatie (Dec 13, 2010)

Feather In The Breeze said:


> I can't find the article that says the widow said that there was no popcorn thrown. Anyone?


It was in the video that was linked a few pages back..but it wasn't the first video in the link.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

MDKatie said:


> How very heartless of you. Divorce is in NO way the same as having your husband killed in front of you.


Yes, very heartless of me. I have little use for liars. In this case the lies will not bring back her husband but might sway a jury to end another man's life. While sitting next to her husband, she says there was no loud argument, whiles others several seats away, heard it. Several witnesses report popcorn being thrown, yet she knows nothing about it, sitting right next to him? 

Yes, life will be hard for her. 

If you want to judge the old guy for shooting prematurely, how about some criticism for her that waiting too long to reign in her husband's behavior. Plenty of bad judgment to go around.
"I'm going to the Lobby to text the sitter, one last time"
"Honey, that guy is right, you should shut it off."
"Just ignore him, it doesn't matter if he snitched, it is over, leave him alone."
"You are ruining our special time together, turn around and sit down."

Naw, she waits until her husband pitched a box of popcorn in the guy's face, his hands inches from the man's head, then she puts a hand up? Too little, too late.

The old guy is sitting around in a suicide gown in jail, while she is doing stroll through the Park TV interviews.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

MDKatie said:


> She just went through a very traumatic experience...are you surprised she is remembering things incorrectly? After all, we know witness testimony is NOT accurate, and you expect the wife of the dead man to remember everything exactly as it happened?


Nope I'd expect a slight variation of events, incidental to the event.

If my husband, next to me, stood up, turned around, barked at the guy behind him loud enough that people several seats away heard the F word, then grabbed a box of popcorn and hit the guy in the face with it, would you think I was a liar or forgetful if I denied it happened? She is intentionally re-writing the event to insure a conviction of the man that her husband attacked, IMHO.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

haypoint said:


> Nope I'd expect a slight variation of events, incidental to the event.
> 
> If my husband, next to me, stood up, turned around, barked at the guy behind him loud enough that people several seats away heard the F word, then grabbed a box of popcorn and hit the guy in the face with it, would you think I was a liar or forgetful if I denied it happened? She is intentionally re-writing the event to insure a conviction of the man that her husband attacked, IMHO.


And I'll ask again. Where is Mrs. Reeve's statement of fact that her husband was struck, knocking his glasses askew? Where is any statement by her other than those reported by witnesses that the shooting was unnecessary? Why did her ex-cop husband who knows she cannot be compelled to testify against him tell her to be quiet in no uncertain terms.


----------



## MDKatie (Dec 13, 2010)

Well since haypoint is fabricating whole conversations I'd say there's really no use continuing any rational discussion.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

MDKatie said:


> Well since haypoint is fabricating whole conversations I'd say there's really no use continuing any rational discussion.


He's just much more insightful than the rest of us. I'm sure he'll have his take on Mrs. Reeves' silence any time now.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

It is my understanding from reading various articles as well as dealing with a child that witnesses a shocking death, that they remember bits and pieces and are unable to reveal parts as well. They are not liars, it is simply the brains way of protecting people from emotional trauma.


----------



## unregistered5595 (Mar 3, 2003)

Here is what really happened (all in jest but it is a sad situation).
Mr Reeves asks Mr Oulson to put away his cell phone.
Mrs Oulson whispers to her husband, to put the cell phone away.
Mr Reeves goes out to get some popcorn and on the way to his seat he stubs his toes on Mr Oulson's chair, yelling the f-word.
Mr Oulson is angry and in pain now, and replies with the f-word.
Since it is the custom of retired men to wear black socks and sandals, he's split his toe nail and it is bleeding through the sock from stubbing his toe.
He decides to go to the manager to get a first aid kit to fix up his toe nail.
He comes back and stubs his foot again. More grunts and words and the f-word.
Then Mrs Oulson and Mr. Oulson overhear a conversation by Mrs and Mr Reeves.
Mrs Reeves says, honey you know that the buttered popcorn is bad for your cardiac issues.
Mrs Oulson is a nurse and now is very concerned about Mr Reeves eating buttered popcorn because of his cardiac risk, and just last week a guy had a heart attack behind them and she had to perform cpr on him which ruined a free afternoon.
She tells her husband how very worried she is about Mr Reeves eating that buttery popcorn.
A text comes in for Mr Oulson and Mr Reeves asks again, how is your daughter? Mr Oulson ignores the question.
Mrs Oulson says, to Mr Oulson, please do something about it. (meaning put the phone away or answer the man) So Mr Oulson turns around (thinking it is about Mr Reeves eating the buttery popcorn health issue), and knocks the popcorn out of Mr Reeves hands for his own good.
Mr Reeves puts his hand in his pocket looking for his potassium medication but instead he finds his gun, the heart medication he was taking makes his potassium low, his hand starts to cramp, and his gun goes off.
Essentially, it was a miscommunication between the Oulsons, and a cramp in Mr Reeves caused by a low potassium level. Yes, your honor, that is the story. (none of this is true AFAIK)

Until we know what each person was thinking, by the witnesses testimony immediately after the event, we know nothing. The only thing witnesses can possibly know is what they heard or think they heard, what they saw for body language and how they interpreted it. We will never know what each participant actually was thinking at the time.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Wanda said:


> If the wife was not a bystander will she or should she be charged with a crime?


Say you and another person are walking along and suddenly two dogs appear and start fighting. You stand there and do nothing, you are a bystander. Your friend OTOH goes over and works to break the dogs apart. He is not a bystander. But neither of you were involved in the fight.




Wanda said:


> If the shooters life was threatened enough to shoot, shouldn't the texters charge have been attempted murder?


Sigh. . .Say you are in your bed and wake up with a large unarmed man standing over you saying that he plans to rape and beat you and enjoy the though of you living the rest of your life in fear he'll come back and do it again. Do you think you should just lay there and let him do that even though you have a firearm under you pillow because not only is he not threatening to kill you but has stated he is specifically going to allow you to live.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Watcher, you can sure come up with some wild, although usually only marginally relevant, allegories. 
How about this for a scenario, old man overreacts and shoots younger man?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

greg273 said:


> Watcher, you can sure come up with some wild, although usually only marginally relevant, allegories.


In my reply to Wanda that is exactly what I was trying to do, I did it to make a point. The point, which I had made before w/o the wildness, a person does not have being trying to kill you before you can legally use deadly force to stop an attack.




greg273 said:


> How about this for a scenario, old man overreacts and shoots younger man?


As I have stated that scenario could be what happened. But the few facts we know don't support it. If it had came out that the retired cop had a record of complaints for being overly aggressive or having been referred for anger management (and you KNOW if it were there it would come out) or anything else in his history (person or professional) showing he had a problem with over reacting it would be the most probable one. 

Again based on the facts we have it was the younger man who was the aggressive one. IIRC, none of the reports say the older man even raised his voice. Have I missed any?

The problem I think most people have is the fact they have NEVER been in a situation anywhere similar to this. They have never been in a place where they thought they were about to be physically attacked. They have never faced someone who is near the edge of uncontrollable rage where no amount of talking or other attempts to deescalate the situation will work.

IOW, they can't put themselves in the mind of the old guy. They can only see it from their POV where everything is beer and skittles.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

MDKatie said:


> Well since haypoint is fabricating whole conversations I'd say there's really no use continuing any rational discussion.


Maybe I didn't make my statement clear.
When I wrote:
"If you want to judge the old guy for shooting prematurely, how about some criticism for her that waiting too long to reign in her husband's behavior."

Seems some folks want to compartmentalize the chain of events and focus only on what some see as only an over reaction to getting something jammed into your face. There were events that led up to this tragedy. I am suggesting that Mrs. Oulsen could have spoken a few rational, normal, civilized comments that may have defused this. I offered a few comments that she could have spoken that could have stopped her husband's visit with destiny. Would you agree that the following statements made by her could have been helpful?

"I'm going to the Lobby to text the sitter, one last time"

"Honey, that guy is right, you should shut it off."

"Just ignore him, it doesn't matter if he snitched, it is over, leave him alone."

"You are ruining our special time together, turn around and sit down."

Instead, she's on the news, saying her husband did not throw anything at Reeves. But I guess she didn't know there was a camera that caught him.

When I wrote"Plenty of bad judgment to go around." I was referring to the entire incident, not just the moment Reeves pulled his gun and shot. I doubt many have been in many situations that required snap judgment, followed with lengthy review of the incident by people that had the luxury of knowing the outcome. With 27 years working in a prison, I understand that. I've made quick actions that seemed right at the time, but didn't turn out like I'd expected and if I had it to do over, knowing more about the incident, I would have made different choices and that, after the fact, was obvious. But in my experiences, no one died and those reviewing my actions were knowledgeable of most aspects of the situation, unlike the news media. 

When I started the original thread a few weeks ago, I noted how it may have gone down differently, if the "community" of movie goers had intervened at any point leading to this tragedy. I know there is no law that you have to get involved. In my post that you didn't seem to understand, I was expressing my thoughts that Mrs. Oulsen might have played a part in calming her husband down. Doesn't seem like she did. While she didn't want to get involved with the dispute that lead to her husbands death, until the situation boiled over, she seems intent on changing the truth to insure Reeves loses his life, too.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

watcher said:


> Again based on the facts we have it was the younger man who was the aggressive one. IIRC, none of the reports say the older man even raised his voice. Have I missed any?


 Would you consider kicking someones chair an aggressive move?


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

haypoint said:


> When I started the original thread a few weeks ago, I noted how it may have gone down differently, if the "community" of movie goers had intervened at any point leading to this tragedy. I know there is no law that you have to get involved. In my post that you didn't seem to understand, I was expressing my thoughts that Mrs. Oulsen might have played a part in calming her husband down. Doesn't seem like she did. While she didn't want to get involved with the dispute that lead to her husbands death, until the situation boiled over, she seems intent on changing the truth to insure Reeves loses his life, too.


 Sounds like you're saying everyone is at fault, except the guy that shot someone in a movie theater. In an earlier thread you were blaming 'society' because everyone is so rude. Unless I missed it, you layed the blame on everyone except the guy that pulled the trigger.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

greg273 said:


> Sounds like you're saying everyone is at fault, except the guy that shot someone in a movie theater. In an earlier thread you were blaming 'society' because everyone is so rude. Unless I missed it, you layed the blame on everyone except the guy that pulled the trigger.


You are sure the old guy pulled the trigger? The guy that is being held without bond? The guy they put on national TV naked except a quilted suicide blanket? The guy that many expect will spend the rest of his life in prison? Yea, I think we all know he is to blame for the death.:hammer:

But I think that if we stop expecting someone else to do something and start being a part of the society we live in, such events might be less common.:yuck:

It wasn't about a guy started texting in the movie theatre and an old guy drew his gun and shot him. There was a steady escalation. I think that if someone had intervened, earlier the better, the end result would have been different. Have we as a society detached ourselves so completely that we refuse to respond. Is it normal now that we can text while driving down the expressway, but won't call 911 when we hear screams next door? We get enraged if a cashier shorts us 25 cents, but look away if we see someone shoplifting. Civilization requires civilized actions. :thumb:

The only thing close to aggressive action, that we know about, by the old guy is kicking the seat. For some that is all they need to know. Doesn't matter if he did it as a tap, tap to get the guy's attention. For some, it is as if the old guy was banging away on the seat back repeatedly. If you want to get the attention of the person ahead of you in a movie theater, what are you going to do, put your mouth next to his ear? Tap his shoulder with a finger? I think kicking the seat back is wrong, but tapping it is appropriate. :kiss:


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

haypoint said:


> The only thing close to aggressive action, that we know about, by the old guy is kicking the seat. For some that is all they need to know. Doesn't matter if he did it as a tap, tap to get the guy's attention. For some, it is as if the old guy was banging away on the seat back repeatedly. If you want to get the attention of the person ahead of you in a movie theater, what are you going to do, put your mouth next to his ear? Tap his shoulder with a finger? I think kicking the seat back is wrong, but tapping it is appropriate. :kiss:


You think he should have thrown popcorn instead of kicking?


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> You think he should have thrown popcorn instead of kicking?


No, do you? Do you mean a popped kernel or the whole thing, box and all?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

I suppose everyone has seen that Michael Dunn will be spending the rest of his life in prison. He was convicted in Jacksonville, FL in the "loud music" shooting. He used the Stand-Your-Ground defense.

_His lawyer, Cory Strolla, told reporters later that his client was "in disbelief." "Even as he sat next to me, he asked, how is this happening," Strolla said._
http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/16/justice/florida-loud-music-trial/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Even in Florida, they aren't going to put up with it. Dunn is only 47, but many legal commentators believe it's unlikely he will ever leave prison alive.


----------



## Vash (Jan 19, 2014)

Nevada said:


> I suppose everyone has seen that Michael Dunn will be spending the rest of his life in prison. He was convicted in Jacksonville, FL in the "loud music" shooting. He used the Stand-Your-Ground defense.
> 
> _His lawyer, Cory Strolla, told reporters later that his client was "in disbelief." "Even as he sat next to me, he asked, how is this happening," Strolla said._
> http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/16/justice/florida-loud-music-trial/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
> ...


Irrelevant to the topic at hand.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> I suppose everyone has seen that Michael Dunn will be spending the rest of his life in prison. He was convicted in Jacksonville, FL in the "loud music" shooting. He used the Stand-Your-Ground defense.
> 
> _His lawyer, Cory Strolla, told reporters later that his client was "in disbelief." "Even as he sat next to me, he asked, how is this happening," Strolla said._
> http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/16/justice/florida-loud-music-trial/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
> ...


A gun in the hands of a white man. Any other commonality to the incident with the texting dude?
That wasn't very comment worthy. Seemed like a slam dunk. Shoot someone to death, drive away and report it the next day? Really, you can justify that how? But, even with all that, it took the jury days to reach a verdict. Was close to a hung jury. From what is known about the two cases, I'd say Reeves has a far better chance to walk than this other case.


----------



## unregistered5595 (Mar 3, 2003)

watcher said:


> Again based on the facts we have it was the younger man who was the aggressive one. IIRC, none of the reports say the older man even raised his voice. Have I missed any?
> 
> The problem I think most people have is the fact they have NEVER been in a situation anywhere similar to this. They have never been in a place where they thought they were about to be physically attacked. They have never faced someone who is near the edge of uncontrollable rage where no amount of talking or other attempts to deescalate the situation will work.
> 
> IOW, they can't put themselves in the mind of the old guy. They can only see it from their POV where everything is beer and skittles.


I have been the older, lighter, not as strong, not as tall, person in the conflict. You say most people haven't been in a similar situation and I have and I'm an average jill. It was a work situation and the idiot was the person I worked for.
He screamed at least a couple hundred times the f-word at the top of his lungs, most days. He THREW boxes, big and small, double insulated boxes used for electronics out his door, into the only way I had to get out of my office, so I either had to avoid getting hit by them or stumble over them, never knowing when they were coming. It sounded like a gun shot everyday when he slammed his door, 3 feet from my head. I felt attacked on a daily basis, demeaned and degraded by his words and his temper. I could not 'just leave my office' because his office door was adjacent to mine. I could not leave my job because I had kids to feed and a house. Twice he called me into a meeting, just me and the idiot and he had a knife between us and I had to diffuse the situation by asking him to put it away. He loved to intimidate people, smaller than him, older than him, not as strong as him. Been there done that. He is still alive. I'm average and I've been in that situation.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Vash said:


> Irrelevant to the topic at hand.


While every case is different, it's clear that the community and legal system are both losing their patience with shooting unarmed people.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> While every case is different, it's clear that the community and legal system are both losing their patience with shooting unarmed people.


Is that what that means? 
Tell me what it means that every store that sells ammunition in this country has to put a limit on sales because the supply cannot keep up with the demand? Does it mean that anti-gun zealots are thinking they can take our guns away and those with guns are arming themselves. Or is all that ammo just going into the guns old guys carry into movies?


----------



## unregistered5595 (Mar 3, 2003)

Nevada said:


> While every case is different, it's clear that the community and legal system are both losing their patience with shooting unarmed people.


That's for sure.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Feather In The Breeze said:


> I have been the older, lighter, not as strong, not as tall, person in the conflict. You say most people haven't been in a similar situation and I have and I'm an average jill. It was a work situation and the idiot was the person I worked for.
> He screamed at least a couple hundred times the f-word at the top of his lungs, most days. He THREW boxes, big and small, double insulated boxes used for electronics out his door, into the only way I had to get out of my office, so I either had to avoid getting hit by them or stumble over them, never knowing when they were coming. It sounded like a gun shot everyday when he slammed his door, 3 feet from my head. I felt attacked on a daily basis, demeaned and degraded by his words and his temper. I could not 'just leave my office' because his office door was adjacent to mine. I could not leave my job because I had kids to feed and a house. Twice he called me into a meeting, just me and the idiot and he had a knife between us and I had to diffuse the situation by asking him to put it away. He loved to intimidate people, smaller than him, older than him, not as strong as him. Been there done that. He is still alive. I'm average and I've been in that situation.



Since this discussion is mostly second guessing the old guy&#8217;s reaction to a perceived threat, let&#8217;s take the true and frightening nightmare you described to us. Obviously he didn&#8217;t threaten you with the knife and his violent outbursts were not directed at you, personally? Right? So, in this movie theatre situation, you&#8217;d be like those seated near Mr. Oulsen. The yelling as upsetting, the stuff being thrown around, but nothing exactly at you. I think you can clearly imagine the horror experienced by those seated nearby Oulsen. Asking someone to put away a knife laying on the desk isn&#8217;t so similar as being hit in the face with something in a dark theatre, is it? 

Let me share a few moments of my life.This prison has a population of 2400 prisoners, divided into 5 security levels. 1200 are Medium security, 800 are High Security, 300 are Close Custody, confined to their cells except meal and yard times. 80 are Maximum security. They are fed in their cells and only come out of their with belly chains with attached hand cuffs, put on and taken off through the cell door&#8217;s food slot. Then there is another housing area, for Detention. Instead of beds, they have a non-destructible, vinyl mattress on an elevated concrete slab. The sink and toilet is a single stainless steel unit secured to the wall. Two officers work in this small building. One stays behind the safety glass while the other makes 15 minute rounds to insure they are safe. Three times weekly, they take showers. One at a time, the belly chains are applied through the food slot, the electric cell door is remotely opened and the Officer, with nylon lead strap attached, walks the inmate to a shower. The heavy metal and glass shower door has an opening to allow the removal of the belly chain and attached hand cuffs. The inmate showers, is issued a fresh towel and a clean jump suit. They wear rubber flip-flops on their feet. The restraints are applied and the inmate returns to his cell. Then the next prisoner gets his shower. I was the supervisor of this unit as well as the Maximum Security Unit. 

One evening, as I was helping an officer complete some paperwork, the other officer was taking prisoners to the shower. After showering, the belly chains with handcuffs applied, shower door unlocked and opened. The inmate immediately spit in the face of the Officer. The officer responded by shoving the inmate back into the shower room and securing the door. I witnessed this from the secure area. I directed the Officer to get washed up, I directed the other officer to grab the video camera. Always best to video anything that might lead to trouble. I spoke with the inmate, he seemed calm, stated that he hates that Officer, he was done and ready to return to his cell. I had him back out of the shower, while I held the lead strap. He took a couple steps, turned and spit in my face. I walked him to his cell, shoved him into the cell and closed the door. I went to clean up and directed staff to contact the shift commander and give a full verbal report. Additional staff were brought in to get the belly chains and cuffs off the prisoner, that went smooth. Everyone filed their reports.

 A week later, the Warden decided that I should have used the radio, called out &#8220;Officer Assault in Detention&#8221; and had the other Officers walk him to his cell. Since I was a Supervisor, I shouldn&#8217;t have been the one to step in and take care of it. This same type of thing happens all the time and rarely results in further trouble. Calling an Officer Assault, after the fact, with the inmate secured in the shower is an overreaction and it is not uncommon for staff to injure themselves rushing to the aid of another officer. If I had suspected I would be spit upon, I would have done it differently. But I was judged on the events that were unforeseen at the moment of action. Radioing "Officer Assault" when the inmate was in restraints and locked in the secure shower area would have been an over reaction. If staff were injured racing to the non-event, that would have been wrong, too.

Another shower incident. This inmate had a broken arm, in a cast. He was taken to the shower and given some plastic to protect his cast. The cast was formed so he could easily have his wrists in handcuffs, attached to the belly chain. After the shower, the restraints were re-applied and he was walked to his cell. He refused to go in. Two nearby officers responded and the inmate was shoved into the cell. The lead strap was passed through the food slot and through that opening the padlock on the belly chain removed. It took two officers to pull the belly chain close enough to the food slot, while the third, keyed the padlock open. Staff continued to pull to get the hand cuffs close to the opening. Finally they got one off. The inmate&#8217;s &#8220;good&#8221; hand held onto the belly chain as officers pulled to get the casted arm close enough to get to the hand cuff. Suddenly, the inmate gave up. The 6 inch diameter cast was drug through the 5 inch high food slot. Plaster fragments filled the hallway. The cuff was removed and the remainder of the cast was shoved back into the cell opening. Well, looking back, knowing the outcome, it could have been handled differently. Security Staff are required to apply restraints on every prisoner, without exception, but The Health Services&#8217; Doctor stated that applying a handcuff to a casted arm is contraindicative. Staff were judged not on their intent and rules they were trained under, but by the unfortunate result. 

The point is snap choices must be made, more so in life and death situations. Far easier to dissect the situation with time and 20/20 hindsight on your side.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

haypoint said:


> The point is snap choices must be made, more so in life and death situations. Far easier to dissect the situation with time and 20/20 hindsight on your side.


Reeves isn't going to get the benefit of the doubt, if that's what you're suggesting. There's not way he'll be acquitted. In fact, I'll say right now that he might as well testify, since he's convicted either way. He might as well say his piece before they put him away for life.


----------



## unregistered5595 (Mar 3, 2003)

haypoint said:


> Since this discussion is mostly second guessing the old guy&#8217;s reaction to a perceived threat, let&#8217;s take the true and frightening nightmare you described to us. Obviously he didn&#8217;t threaten you with the knife and his violent outbursts were not directed at you, personally? Right? So, in this movie theatre situation, you&#8217;d be like those seated near Mr. Oulsen. The yelling as upsetting, the stuff being thrown around, but nothing exactly at you. I think you can clearly imagine the horror experienced by those seated nearby Oulsen. Asking someone to put away a knife laying on the desk isn&#8217;t so similar as being hit in the face with something in a dark theatre, is it?


It wasn't a nightmare, it was working conditions.
He put the knife between us, looked at me, then looked at the knife to set the tone of the meeting between us. His violent outbursts were directed exactly at me in person, by name, his throwing boxes affected only me as I was the only one having an exit perpendicular to his exit. So yes, it was directed at me.
I also recall burger king bags of garbage hitting people in the head at the fast food restaurant as 'all part and parcel to the horseplay'. I recall him throwing garbage and sports equipment inside a small office, hitting me. 
It might not be a dark theater but all the elements are there.

In a prison, you have procedure and backup people, that is how it goes. Are you going to always have a handle on every inmate, no probably not, yet, you aren't going to shoot them either, you have other methods.

Work conditions are not an optional situation--people have to work, going to a theater is a luxury, not a required activity to live.

ETA: it was just boxes, it was just spit, it was just popcorn, it was just garbage.....it wasn't lead.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

greg273 said:


> Would you consider kicking someones chair an aggressive move?


Depends. Kicking it so hard it knocks me forward, yes. Kicking it to get my attention, no. Kicking it to be a jerk, no.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> I suppose everyone has seen that Michael Dunn will be spending the rest of his life in prison. He was convicted in Jacksonville, FL in the "loud music" shooting. He used the Stand-Your-Ground defense.
> 
> _His lawyer, Cory Strolla, told reporters later that his client was "in disbelief." "Even as he sat next to me, he asked, how is this happening," Strolla said._
> http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/16/justice/florida-loud-music-trial/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
> ...


You left some very important points. He was convicted for shooting the three guys in the car with the one he claimed to be the aggressor. But they did not convict him of shooting the one guy he claimed to be in fear of.

IOW, if he had only shot the one he felt was a danger to him he'd be free today. 

This even after he left the scene and didn't turn himself in and the cops arrested him days later.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

And still no comments on why the one person with the best view of what was said and done by both parties hasn't made any statements on the record that come to the defense of her husband. How many of you if you had witnessed your husband not doing anything wrong and being forced to shoot someone in self defense(if we're to believe haypoint) would remain silent allowing your aged and infirm loved one to remain behind bars?


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> And still no comments on why the one person with the best view of what was said and done by both parties hasn't made any statements on the record that come to the defense of her husband. How many of you if you had witnessed your husband not doing anything wrong and being forced to shoot someone in self defense(if we're to believe haypoint) would remain silent allowing your aged and infirm loved one to remain behind bars?


Do you really think the news media wants to talk to her? Right from the beginning, the news media had it as an unprovoked murder. They are still beating that same drum. Maybe the widow isn't the only one who's had her life broken into a million pieces. We have no idea how much she saw or heard, she could be half deaf or blind for all we know. Maybe the lawyer advised her to avoid getting into a news media cross examination, get tricked into saying something that could later be twisted around,


----------



## Guest (Feb 17, 2014)

mmoetc said:


> And still no comments on why the one person with the best view of what was said and done by both parties hasn't made any statements on the record that come to the defense of her husband. How many of you if you had witnessed your husband not doing anything wrong and being forced to shoot someone in self defense(if we're to believe haypoint) would remain silent allowing your aged and infirm loved one to remain behind bars?


Any lawyer worth his salt would not allow or condone public dissemination prior to trial by a spouse, whom by the way is not required under law to testify against her spouse even if she MAY have witnessed a crime committed by her spouse.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

dlmcafee said:


> Any lawyer worth his salt would not allow or condone public dissemination prior to trial by a spouse, whom by the way is not required under law to testify against her spouse even if she MAY have witnessed a crime committed by her spouse.


You're absolutely right that she cannot be compelled to testify against her husband. What I'm asking is if the accounts put forth by some here that Mr. Reeves was polite, non aggressive and correct in all his actions until
he was forced to pull his weapon and shoot because he was threatened and struck by an out of control jerk she apparently made no statement to the police to that effect. It would seem that if she had witnessed all of this she would have, even under a lawyer's advice, given a statement to the police to back up her husband. It seems to me that such a statement would have, in the least, resulted in lesser charges and would have been influential in bail being granted. 

Now, the alternative theory is that she either witnessed her husband doing something that would put him in a bad light or that she didn't see him being struck in the face or that her statement might not paint Oulsen as the jerk and instigator that some here want to claim.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> You're absolutely right that she cannot be compelled to testify against her husband. What I'm asking is if the accounts put forth by some here that Mr. Reeves was polite, non aggressive and correct in all his actions until
> he was forced to pull his weapon and shoot because he was threatened and struck by an out of control jerk she apparently made no statement to the police to that effect. It would seem that if she had witnessed all of this she would have, even under a lawyer's advice, given a statement to the police to back up her husband. It seems to me that such a statement would have, in the least, resulted in lesser charges and would have been influential in bail being granted.
> 
> Now, the alternative theory is that she either witnessed her husband doing something that would put him in a bad light or that she didn't see him being struck in the face or that her statement might not paint Oulsen as the jerk and instigator that some here want to claim.


 It is unimportant that she did or did not see Oulsen hit Reeves in the face with something. I saw it, the Judge saw it. It is on the video. 
Mrs. Oulsen's statement of events is wrong, as the video proves and multiple witnesses state. Why would you want to hear from Mrs. Reeves? If she said things that paint Oulsen as a jerk, people would dismiss it as protecting her husband. 
So, we end up with two main witnesses that because of who they are married to are not credible. Then you have to go to those sitting nearby, in darkness, with movie sound going, apparently trying to ignore the situation. The parts leading up to all this are important, but the whole thing hangs on Oulsen threatening and assaulting Reeves and Reeves response to that assault. Perhaps the only one who heard and clearly saw Oulsen, was the shooter. Is he a credible witness? History of violent outbursts? History of lying? 
Seems that, for lack of evidence to the contrary, Reeves statements under oath provide reasonable doubt that this was murder.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0784/0784.html


784.03&#8195;Battery; felony battery.â
(1)(a)&#8195;The offense of battery occurs when a person: 1.&#8195;Actually and intentionally touches or strikes another person against the will of the other:catfight:


http://statelaws.findlaw.com/florida-law/florida-second-degree-murder-laws.html

Defenses to Second Degree Murder Charges Justifiable use of deadly force to defend against a felony committed against a person or property 

I'm not a lawyer, but it looks like all that needs to be proven that Oulsen struck Reeves, felony battery, then Reeves is justified, in Florida, to defend against said felony.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

And if Mrs. Reece's could have already offered that corroborating testimony in an official statement to the court her husband would likely not be in jail awaiting trial. The question is, what else would she be compelled to say that she saw her husband do or say that caused the alleged assault. If you goad a reasonable person into attacking you it puts quite a bit of doubt onto the reasonableness of your own reactions.


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

mmoetc said:


> You're absolutely right that she cannot be compelled to testify against her husband. What I'm asking is if the accounts put forth by some here that Mr. Reeves was polite, non aggressive and correct in all his actions until
> he was forced to pull his weapon and shoot because he was threatened and struck by an out of control jerk she apparently made no statement to the police to that effect. It would seem that if she had witnessed all of this she would have, even under a lawyer's advice, given a statement to the police to back up her husband. It seems to me that such a statement would have, in the least, resulted in lesser charges and would have been influential in bail being granted.
> 
> Now, the alternative theory is that she either witnessed her husband doing something that would put him in a bad light or that she didn't see him being struck in the face or that her statement might not paint Oulsen as the jerk and instigator that some here want to claim.


My wife would know to not say anything at all. I would suspect a retired officers wife would also know to stay quiet. Don't have to hold a law degree to know that I have the right to stay quiet and should! Let the lawyers handle the statements issued. Innocent statements can be twisted to put a taint to her husband's stance.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

And that's likely why Reeve's implored her to be quiet in those loving words he is said to have used. There is no proscription against a a witness having legal representation present when being questioned about events by police or prosecutors. I ask again, if her statements can only back up your version of events that Reeve's did nothing to provoke the angry words or attack that you claim provoked the shooting, and that he is indeed the harmless old codger in whose mouth butter wouldn't melt, why not tell the authorities all of this with counsel present? Would it not be better to have her husband home rather than sitting in jail for a indeterminate time? Could it be that all was not sweetness and light from Mr. Reeve's side and there are questions she would rather not answer?


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> And if Mrs. Reece's could have already offered that corroborating testimony in an official statement to the court her husband would likely not be in jail awaiting trial. The question is, what else would she be compelled to say that she saw her husband do or say that caused the alleged assault. If you goad a reasonable person into attacking you it puts quite a bit of doubt onto the reasonableness of your own reactions.


Are you a reasonable person? If I were sitting behind you in a movie theatre, what would I have to say to you to get you so angry that you'd stand up, turn around, yell that your texting was none of my F ing business and then grab my $6.00 box of popcorn and hit me with it? Is a reasonable person going to assault someone for reporting to Management a violation you knew you made. Could someone goad you into such an explosive reaction (assuming Reeves said anything to goad him, which we don't know)?

The Court had Reeves paraded out in front of the world naked with nothing but a thick, quilted suicide gown on, next to a classroom of female convicts. That is how you set public opinion. At that hearing it was assumed Reeves was struck by some popcorn kernels thrown by Oulsen. Reeves made a snap decision, the Judge made a snap decision. Reeves cannot change what resulted. The Judge refuses to change her decision even after more facts and the video came out.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

haypoint said:


> Are you a reasonable person? If I were sitting behind you in a movie theatre, what would I have to say to you to get you so angry that you'd stand up, turn around, yell that your texting was none of my F ing business and then grab my $6.00 box of popcorn and hit me with it? Is a reasonable person going to assault someone for reporting to Management a violation you knew you made. Could someone goad you into such an explosive reaction (assuming Reeves said anything to goad him, which we don't know)?
> 
> The Court had Reeves paraded out in front of the world naked with nothing but a thick, quilted suicide gown on, next to a classroom of female convicts. That is how you set public opinion. At that hearing it was assumed Reeves was struck by some popcorn kernels thrown by Oulsen. Reeves made a snap decision, the Judge made a snap decision. Reeves cannot change what resulted. The Judge refuses to change her decision even after more facts and the video came out.


I consider myself quite reasonable and I can think of many things someone might say to me to set me off, especially after the week I've been having. The judge can only rule on the evidence put in front of her. If Reeve's lawyers would like to sway public opinion what would work better than a grandmotherly woman telling the world what a nice guy her husband was and that he only acted with the utmost decorum and that Oulsen was an uncouth thug who attacked her husband with no provocation leaving him no recourse except to regretfully shoot him because he feared for his life. That is the story you prefer, right. Why not tell this story to police and prosecutors and the judge? Unless that's not the real story of what she saw and heard.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> And that's likely why Reeve's implored her to be quiet in those loving words he is said to have used. There is no proscription against a a witness having legal representation present when being questioned about events by police or prosecutors. I ask again, if her statements can only back up your version of events that Reeve's did nothing to provoke the angry words or attack that you claim provoked the shooting, and that he is indeed the harmless old codger in whose mouth butter wouldn't melt, why not tell the authorities all of this with counsel present? Would it not be better to have her husband home rather than sitting in jail for a indeterminate time? Could it be that all was not sweetness and light from Mr. Reeve's side and there are questions she would rather not answer?


We can second guess the Judge all day long. Would Mrs. Reeves testimony change anything? The decision made was a bond hearing. Reeves daughter stated her dad was no risk. But that made no difference. Has Mrs Oulsen been under oath? Sure, she's had her moments in the spot lights, holding court on the nightly news. 
If I were a judge for this case, I might error on the side of caution, after living through the Zimmerman/Martian debacle. 
THe authorities are not interested in what Mrs.Reeves has to say. Even if the Pope vouched for Reeves, the Judge would still be keeping him in jail until the trial.
Maybe Mr and Mrs Reeves don't get along. I'd hate for my freedom to hang on me ex-wife's testimony. Anyone ever put an ex-spouse's name as a reference on a job Resume'? It isn't to hide the truth, but to prevent an altered version of the truth, shaded by hatred.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> I consider myself quite reasonable and I can think of many things someone might say to me to set me off, especially after the week I've been having. The judge can only rule on the evidence put in front of her. If Reeve's lawyers would like to sway public opinion what would work better than a grandmotherly woman telling the world what a nice guy her husband was and that he only acted with the utmost decorum and that Oulsen was an uncouth thug who attacked her husband with no provocation leaving him no recourse except to regretfully shoot him because he feared for his life. That is the story you prefer, right. Why not tell this story to police and prosecutors and the judge? Unless that's not the real story of what she saw and heard.


Really? You can see yourself, after having a bad week, being goaded into attacking an old man seated behind you? Wow.
Reeves lawyers are not focused on swaying public opinion. Their job is to gather information that displays doubt in the prosecution's proof. The defense does not need to prove Reeves is innocent. It is up to the prosecution to prove guilt. When the jury returns from deliberations, they do not determine Guilty or Innocent. It is always Guilty or Not Guilty. How do you prove that Reeves was not assaulted? I saw it on the video.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

haypoint said:


> Really? You can see yourself, after having a bad week, being goaded into attacking an old man seated behind you? Wow.
> Reeves lawyers are not focused on swaying public opinion. Their job is to gather information that displays doubt in the prosecution's proof. The defense does not need to prove Reeves is innocent. It is up to the prosecution to prove guilt. When the jury returns from deliberations, they do not determine Guilty or Innocent. It is always Guilty or Not Guilty. How do you prove that Reeves was not assaulted? I saw it on the video.


And as I've stated before, you cannot goad someone into attacking you and then use self defense to justify it. The only way to prove that Reeve's did not instigate Oulsen's response is to rely on witness testimony. All lawyers are interested in swaying public opinion and putting their client in the best light. The best light for Reeve's would likely to be seen walking out of the jail to his supportive wife and family, not sitting in jail having people speculate on what he may or may not have said and done. I'm glad you not only know know with exactitude all of the facts of this case and also exactly how people like the judge would react to new evidence. I have little such certainty in anything in life.


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

mmoetc said:


> And that's likely why Reeve's implored her to be quiet in those loving words he is said to have used. There is no proscription against a a witness having legal representation present when being questioned about events by police or prosecutors. I ask again, if her statements can only back up your version of events that Reeve's did nothing to provoke the angry words or attack that you claim provoked the shooting, and that he is indeed the harmless old codger in whose mouth butter wouldn't melt, why not tell the authorities all of this with counsel present? Would it not be better to have her husband home rather than sitting in jail for a indeterminate time? Could it be that all was not sweetness and light from Mr. Reeve's side and there are questions she would rather not answer?


Whoa! Twice you have declared that I have a version of events. I have intentionally stayed out of this entire discussion because there is way to much speculation and lack of concrete evidence. I simply commented that I thought your declaration of guilt for the shooter based on the lack a statement by his wife is wrong. My point is simple, her lack of a statement means nothing because anything she says would be viewed as tainted. You guys can continue the conviction or acquittal without all the evidence just as you did for Zimmerman/Martin.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> And as I've stated before, you cannot goad someone into attacking you and then use self defense to justify it. The only way to prove that Reeve's did not instigate Oulsen's response is to rely on witness testimony. All lawyers are interested in swaying public opinion and putting their client in the best light. The best light for Reeve's would likely to be seen walking out of the jail to his supportive wife and family, not sitting in jail having people speculate on what he may or may not have said and done. I'm glad you not only know know with exactitude all of the facts of this case and also exactly how people like the judge would react to new evidence. I have little such certainty in anything in life.


Reread your post. You seem to display a lot of certainty in your speculation. You find it wrong for me to speculate on the judge, but you can tell what the lawyer wants to do? You can know how many ways Reeve can be found guilty? We have seen two so far, witness and video. Lots of other possibilities. You are certain of all lawyers interests and objectives? You claim to know what is best for Reeves. How can you be so certain?

So, in your mind, one has no right to provoke an attack and then defend themselves from the attack? I'm certain that is the typical chain of events in every bar fight, street fight, bleacher fight and prison fight. The only ones that I can think of that are different are the "Knock out" Game that is gaining popularity right now. But generally push comes to shove. 
So, if Reeves goaded Oulsen into a rage by saying that he reported the texting, Reeves deserved to be assaulted? If Oulsen goaded Reeves by yelling "I was F ing texting my daughter, if it is any of your F ing business", would Reeves be justified in assaulting Oylsen?
Often times in a Bar, Street, Bleacher, Prison, there is an escalation, but friends, passers by, authorities step in and extinguish the tension. 
Based on my life experiences, I will speculate that if Reeves next turn in the back and forth escalation had been to grab Oulsen's wrist, when the popcorn was thrown, I speculate Oulsen would have either punched Reeves in the face of snatched him over the seat. Then would it be alright for Reeves to shoot Oulsen? What do you think would happen next? What is your speculation, based on your life experiences and observations?


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

Well, I'll throw in my impressions.



Big guy, purely LOVES being a big guy and putting it to smaller, weaker people any way and anywhere he can. There are a million of them out there, and most of us have met some.



They love the fact that they can behave like jerks and nobody can do a thing about it, and exersize that hobby every chance they get.



If I had been behaving so badly in a public place that somebody had to go get management to bring me into one, I would have been so embarrased I would have left on my own, but no, he's a big guy, so he is always in the right........or in the words of one of them in my past......"I deserve anything I want".



Now, i don't know exactly what was in the old guy's mind, but if he had planned to legally shoot the guy, he could have provoked him a bit more and gotten a more violent reaction that would have gotten him off scott free without too much additional risk, so I have to assume it was truly because he felt he was being attacked. Did the guy grab the popcorn box to thow at him or did he grab for the old guy and come up with the box instead? Seems likely to be the latter, and he was primed for another grab.



I don't know if the old guy is going to prison or not, but it won't affect my resolve to go armed either way, nor will silly laws that might get passed in the backlash. Put simply bad guys are a bigger threat than the law, and failure to play the odds is bordering on stupidity.



Oh, yeah, if there had been no gun, nobody would have gotten shot, all right, but somebody may well have gotten beaten to death over the high crime of seeking order in a public place.



My headline;

AGGRESSIVE BULLY DIES STUPID DEATH



And by the way, if there were no cars there would be no traffic deaths, either. You might also take a look at this and understand that the big guy was most definately in knife range;



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1546085/The-vagaries-of-UK-knife-crime-statistics.html



let me know when you figure out how to eliminate all the knives. I'm looking forwards to eating my steak the way a cat does....Joe


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

nchobbyfarm said:


> Whoa! Twice you have declared that I have a version of events. I have intentionally stayed out of this entire discussion because there is way to much speculation and lack of concrete evidence. I simply commented that I thought your declaration of guilt for the shooter based on the lack a statement by his wife is wrong. My point is simple, her lack of a statement means nothing because anything she says would be viewed as tainted. You guys can continue the conviction or acquittal without all the evidence just as you did for Zimmerman/Martin.


I apologize for not always reading who responder is as closely as I should before responding myself. My point isn't that the wife's lack of statement proves guilt. In fact the jury will likely be instructed to not put any weight on the fact if she chooses not to testify at trial. Other than knowing who shot who there are still many questions to be answered about this situation. Oulsen may well have been the jerk deserving of what he got. Reeves may well be as guilty as the prosecution insists. I simply questioned why someone's wife and lawyer wouldn't do everything legally possible to get him out of jail at the earliest opportunity.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

haypoint said:


> Reread your post. You seem to display a lot of certainty in your speculation. You find it wrong for me to speculate on the judge, but you can tell what the lawyer wants to do? You can know how many ways Reeve can be found guilty? We have seen two so far, witness and video. Lots of other possibilities. You are certain of all lawyers interests and objectives? You claim to know what is best for Reeves. How can you be so certain?
> 
> So, in your mind, one has no right to provoke an attack and then defend themselves from the attack? I'm certain that is the typical chain of events in every bar fight, street fight, bleacher fight and prison fight. The only ones that I can think of that are different are the "Knock out" Game that is gaining popularity right now. But generally push comes to shove.
> So, if Reeves goaded Oulsen into a rage by saying that he reported the texting, Reeves deserved to be assaulted? If Oulsen goaded Reeves by yelling "I was F ing texting my daughter, if it is any of your F ing business", would Reeves be justified in assaulting Oylsen?
> ...


I speculate- you make statements of fact. The difference is hardly subtle. You state how the judge would act, I suggest she might act differently. I assume that lawyers act in their client's best interests. That would be why Reeve's lawyers petitioned the court to have him appear in street clothes rather than a jail jumpsuit at the bond hearing. I speculate that it had something to do with trying to sway public opinion. I speculate that having his client out of jail would be in his best interest and if someone could offer testimony that would accomplish that it would make sense to bring that testimony to light.

Go into a bar and throw a drink on someone. Shoot them when they try to throw a punch. Enjoy explaining your right to self defense to your cell mate. Everyone has the right to defend themselves from an attack. Everyone also has the right to suffer the legal consequences of that action.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> I speculate- you make statements of fact. The difference is hardly subtle. You state how the judge would act, I suggest she might act differently. I assume that lawyers act in their client's best interests. That would be why Reeve's lawyers petitioned the court to have him appear in street clothes rather than a jail jumpsuit at the bond hearing. I speculate that it had something to do with trying to sway public opinion. I speculate that having his client out of jail would be in his best interest and if someone could offer testimony that would accomplish that it would make sense to bring that testimony to light.
> 
> Go into a bar and throw a drink on someone. Shoot them when they try to throw a punch. Enjoy explaining your right to self defense to your cell mate. Everyone has the right to defend themselves from an attack. Everyone also has the right to suffer the legal consequences of that action.


I'll have to contemplate on that awhile. But the scenario would be a bit different in a bar than a theatre. An old guy is having a dinner in a booth at a local Sports Bar. The guy in the next booth lights up a cigar. The old guy asks him to put it out. The guy says he will when he's done with it. The old guy asks him again, again he refuses, tells him to mind his own business. The old guy goes to find the Bar Owner. The Bar Owner isn't around and the bartender is busy. The old guy returns to his booth. The smoker comes out of his booth and stands over the old guy and starts arguing loudly, obviously angry. The guy leans over him and grabs the beer glass out of the guy's hand and shoves it in the old guy's face. No one heard the old guy raise his voice, everyone heard the other guy yelling, over the juke box music. Instantly, the old guy in fear for his life, assaulted and in expectation of another round of assault, grabs a steak knife and jams it through the guys hand, pinning it to the table. Jail or self defense?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

haypoint said:


> I'll have to contemplate on that awhile. But the scenario would be a bit different in a bar than a theatre. An old guy is having a dinner in a booth at a local Sports Bar. The guy in the next booth lights up a cigar. The old guy asks him to put it out. The guy says he will when he's done with it. The old guy asks him again, again he refuses, tells him to mind his own business. The old guy goes to find the Bar Owner. The Bar Owner isn't around and the bartender is busy. The old guy returns to his booth. The smoker comes out of his booth and stands over the old guy and starts arguing loudly, obviously angry. The guy leans over him and grabs the beer glass out of the guy's hand and shoves it in the old guy's face. No one heard the old guy raise his voice, everyone heard the other guy yelling, over the juke box music. Instantly, the old guy in fear for his life, assaulted and in expectation of another round of assault, grabs a steak knife and jams it through the guys hand, pinning it to the table. Jail or self defense?


Without knowing the exact words and tone they were spoken in I cannot definitely say. I know you are certain that Reeves was just a doddering old fool who was always overly polite and couldn't possibly have said or done anything to antagonize any one. I'm not so sure and I'll await the trial.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Nevada said:


> Feeling confident that I won't get shot if I go to a movie does not provide a worry-free life.


Don't try to be a big toughie on an old man, you should be fine


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Nevada said:


> In the first place, Reeves didn't teach the victim anything. This wasn't a learning opportunity, since he's dead. Second, I haven't heard that the victim went around beating up old people. Third, if you kick the back of the chair in front of you in a movie theater, consider the possibility of getting popcorn thrown at you. Finally, if you shoot someone without justification to use deadly force, expect a long prison sentence. Reeves will spend the rest of his life in prison.


So it's ok with you if somebody slaps an old man around as long as the old man takes it qujietly?
You really are a good citizen of this messed up tyranny


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Nevada said:


> If gun owners don't condemn it, others will assume they are for it. But it goes even farther than that. Gun advocates are making excuses for this guy. The standard now isn't to shoot someone for what he did, but what he might do. Using that standard anyone is subject to be shot.
> 
> No, gun advocates who are making excuses for this guy are risking their own gun rights.


The idiots who voted for Obama are risking all our rights
The old guy shouldn't have shot the stupid guy, but the stupid guy should have kept his moronic temper in check
You go to beating on weaker people (like most bullies) you just might not make it out alive.
It's time the little guys didn't have to take it from you


----------



## MDKatie (Dec 13, 2010)

Oulsen did not "slap around" or "beat on" Reeves. He threw popcorn at him.


----------



## MDKatie (Dec 13, 2010)

So if a bully at school keeps picking on and pestering another kid, and that kid finally snaps and throws his notebook (or a punch) at the bully, is the kid at fault? Or should we say he'd heard enough pestering from the bully and he should stand up for himself?

So if Reeves keeps pestering and pestering Oulsen, kicks his chair, etc then comes back after leaving to tell management (but not telling them), and pesters him again, do you think Oulsen has the right to stand up and tell him to mind his own business and get angry from all the pestering?


----------



## FeralFemale (Apr 10, 2006)

MDKatie said:


> So if a bully at school keeps picking on and pestering another kid, and that kid finally snaps and throws his notebook (or a punch) at the bully, is the kid at fault? Or should we say he'd heard enough pestering from the bully and he should stand up for himself?
> 
> So if Reeves keeps pestering and pestering Oulsen, kicks his chair, etc then comes back after leaving to tell management (but not telling them), and pesters him again, do you think Oulsen has the right to stand up and tell him to mind his own business and get angry from all the pestering?


And this is where the two sides of this debate differ.

Your analogy in your first paragraph could easily be Reeves throwing the notebook after Oulson's bullying. You see it the other way around.

This is very interesting to read the different views on this thread. (and I say that without the least bit of sarcasm. it truly is interesting)


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

MDKatie said:


> Oulsen did not "slap around" or "beat on" Reeves. He threw popcorn at him.


Not to split hairs with you but Oulsen was reported by people seated in the dark movie theatre as " someone threw popcorn on someone" But the video, as poor quality as it is, clearly shows Oulsen leaning over the back of the seat, snatching Reeves' popcorn and thrusting the box into Reeves face. Reeves reported something hit him in the face, knocking his glasses off.
If you don't see the difference, try throwing a box of Uncle Ben's in the face of a groom after the wedding.


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

The guy who turned it into a phisical altercation is the one who got shot. Natural progression. 



Nothing I can say to you gives you the legal right to go phisical on me. If the old guy had been a young fighter in disguise and kicked the bigger guy's butt, It would have gone down as self defense, because he had not laid a hand on the big guy prior to the big guy attacking him.



What makes some folks uncomfortable about it is that the old guy was able to apply the force required to defend himself. Most everyone would be happy to see the big guy get arrested after roughing up the old guy, because he was obviously wrong in doing so. Most would probably have thought it just fine if the old guy had taken an asp out of his pocket and broke the big guy's elbow, and considered it justified. After all, he was being attacked.



It just requires a bit of thought and education to realize that one is NOT required to unsheath a slide rule or calculator and assess the odds that he is about to be endowed with a possible fatal or "grievous" injury to defend himself as best he can. He simply must believe it is so and draw that conclusion from reasonable facts.



Where a younger, bigger, stronger guy would be justified in breaking the big guy's nose, the older, smaller weaker guy is justified in shooting him.....The right to self defense is absolute, providing you only apply the force required to end an attack. Which he did. 



Fortunatly for me AND those who have threatened me, i carry a big enough gun that when I pull it, they can see it and run like hell, so I have never had to shoot anybody, but then I have never been threatened or assulted in a dark movie theater.



I CAN say, though, that as much as compact car drivers like to brag about how handy they are to drive in the city, NOTHING is better in traffic than a .45 auto. When the guy suffering road rage looks at you and determines he could ride down the barrel with his hat on and not get it dirty, nobody has to get hurt.....Joe


----------



## MDKatie (Dec 13, 2010)

joebill said:


> I CAN say, though, that as much as compact car drivers like to brag about how handy they are to drive in the city, NOTHING is better in traffic than a .45 auto. When the guy suffering road rage looks at you and determines he could ride down the barrel with his hat on and not get it dirty, nobody has to get hurt.....Joe


I'm not sure what you mean by this. Are you saying you've pulled out your gun to scare people in traffic?


----------



## Wanda (Dec 19, 2002)

Cornhusker said:


> So it's ok with you if somebody slaps an old man around as long as the old man takes it qujietly?
> You really are a good citizen of this messed up tyranny





Since they have part of this on tape , please tell me where the part is where the shooter is slapped around. I missed that part.


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

Twice.

In both cases, semis were in the process of running us off the road. They had a cute habbit in the late 80's of running up on a car's bumper within inches, then if the guy would not speed up, as soon as they could get in the passing lane, they would pull the cab up even with the car so they could see the driver through the little window down low in the passenger door of the semi, then simply angle to the right, edging the car off the road at hyway speeds.

Like some other types, some buys like big trucks because they can intimindate others with them. I put up with the tailgating, but running us off the road is a step too far. I didn't just point it at the first guy, I was fixing to shoot him if our vehicles touched, because I was NOT going in the ditch nor slamming on my brakes in the middle of the interstate. He saw me aiming and clicking off the safety and used up a lot of hyway and some median giving me all the room I wanted. I was getting off at the next exit, trying to buy a tire. I had ruined one and my spare was bouncing, which is why I could only go about 60 MPH, which is what made him mad in the first place..

He got off at the next exit ahead of me and saw me following him and thought I was after him. he drove all the way through the truckstop to the end of the parking lot and got out and ran into the desert. I was not after him. Just tire shopping.

Second guy wanted to run 75 through a miles-long construction area that was choked to one lane by barricades with a speed limit of 45MPH which I was exceeding by just a bit, so he firgued he could push me up to the 75 MPH he wanted to run, and if we ran across a cop, i'd be the one who got the ticket.

I slowed to 45MPH and he started the tailgating and lights flashing, backing off them making runds at out bumper, pulling back only inches away. I hung the pistol out the window and he backed off. I would have called to cops on that guy, but I was sceduled for surgery that day and did not have time for he said-she said conversations. It's been years since I have had semis behave like that, so hopefully they are a better breed of drivers nowadays. No regrets on my part.....Joe


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Wanda said:


> Since they have part of this on tape , please tell me where the part is where the shooter is slapped around. I missed that part.


I guess shoving a bag of popcorn in someone's face and knocking their glasses off isn't technically slapping them, but it aggression, and most likely would have led to more.
Jerk #2 was definitely out of control and on the attack. It will be interesting to hear if he was on something.

I'm not saying the shooting was justified, I'm saying that bullies need to realize people aren't helpless any more and maybe they should use their tiny little brains before they go showing off by beating up the elderly


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Wanda said:


> Since they have part of this on tape , please tell me where the part is where the shooter is slapped around. I missed that part.


I think the writer was asking a general question. Since it is my belief, that in the oft repeated escalation of events, Reeves was about to get slugged or at least slapped. But he was hit in the face with a solid object. Solid enough to knock off his glasses, rendering him somewhat sightless, unable to respond to the impending attack. 
Perhaps the writer is asking if you believe that if old men, when attacked should sit there and take the physical attack, because gun use is evil?
At what point can Reeves defend himself?


----------



## Wanda (Dec 19, 2002)

haypoint said:


> I think the writer was asking a general question. Since it is my belief, that in the oft repeated escalation of events, Reeves was about to get slugged or at least slapped. But he was hit in the face with a solid object. Solid enough to knock off his glasses, rendering him somewhat sightless, unable to respond to the impending attack.
> Perhaps the writer is asking if you believe that if old men, when attacked should sit there and take the physical attack, because gun use is evil?
> At what point can Reeves defend himself?




It is making up a scenario. Its hard enough to debate a subject without making up the facts. Would it be OK if I just stated that the shooter had been waiting all of his life to kill someone? Technically that could be considered a fact.:shrug:


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Wanda said:


> It is making up a scenario. Its hard enough to debate a subject without making up the facts. Would it be OK if I just stated that the shooter had been waiting all of his life to kill someone? Technically that could be considered a fact.:shrug:


You have to be joking! If that was his motive, he should have had opportunities to add notches to his gun while he was a cop. The fact he tried to get management to intercede disproves that.

From the video, the popcorn wasn't thrown it was jammed into Reeves' face. Reeves was punched by Oulson with the popcorn. Thrown popcorn won't dislodge glasses. Maybe if it was in a box. That popcorn was in a bag according to witnesses. It would have to be forceably jammed into Reeves' face to move his glasses.

There's a very recent incident where two men got into a fight in a Walmart check out line. One shot and killed the other. The police, following the investigation, say it was self defense. I hope they release the video.

Oulson's actions are not those of a considerate person. I'd like to know why he was standing up before Reeves returned. There's a couple things about his past which by themselves don't mean much. Everything taken together makes me wonder if the man wasn't self centered. His acting out because Reeves tried to talk to the manager was not adult behavior.

I'd like to know more about the family dog's attack on his daughter. How did that happen? Why did it happen? Who brought the dog into the family? When did that happen? We know Oulson finally gave up motocross when his daughter was born. What else was going on?


----------



## MDKatie (Dec 13, 2010)

Darren said:


> From the video, the popcorn wasn't thrown it was jammed into Reeves' face. Reeves was punched by Oulson with the popcorn. Thrown popcorn won't dislodge glasses. Maybe if it was in a box. That popcorn was in a bag according to witnesses. It would have to be forceably jammed into Reeves' face to move his glasses.


It was clearly thrown in the video.


----------



## unregistered5595 (Mar 3, 2003)

Darren said:


> You have to be joking! If that was his motive, he should have had opportunities to add notches to his gun while he was a cop. The fact he tried to get management to intercede disproves that.
> 
> From the video, the popcorn wasn't thrown it was jammed into Reeves' face. Reeves was punched by Oulson with the popcorn. Thrown popcorn won't dislodge glasses. Maybe if it was in a box. That popcorn was in a bag according to witnesses. It would have to be forceably jammed into Reeves' face to move his glasses.
> 
> ...


First, you don't actually know if Reeves went to talk to management or not, since he didn't talk to management. He could have gone to the restroom or was looking for a first aid kit for a broken nail.

Is Oulson's behavior in the past that important? If it was, then Reeve's behavior in the past should come into the conversation. 
How many people did Reeve's shoot in the past and it was brushed aside because he was an on-duty police officer? How many times did the newspaper reports bring up that he had problems with other texters in the theater previously? This was the 3rd time.
If you are going to look at the WHOLE picture, why are you only interested in Reeve's defense?

Reeves could have dislodged his own glasses with his hand when he put it up to deflect the popcorn. If his glasses were dislodged, should he be 'aiming at anyone' without them?


----------



## MDKatie (Dec 13, 2010)

At the :14 mark in the video when Reeves bends forward, I think that's when he got his gun. I think he had it in his hand and was just waiting for Oulsen to make any move toward him. The time that elapsed from when the popcorn hit Reeves to when he shot Oulsen was just too short, IMO.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

If Reeves carried the gun in a front pocket he would have had to lean back to draw it. AFAIK that's how he carried. That means when he reacted to being attacked he would have jerked backwards in his seat which would have made drawing the firearm easier. From his daughter's testimony, he had his .380 that day to her surprise. Normally he carried a .22. The .380 makes it more conducive to using a pocket holster which facilitates drawing the weapon. The .380s are pocket guns. Given Reeves' body size he could have concealed a .45 in a hip holster the way he wore his clothing and no one would have known. It looked like he was wearing something like sweat pants which means no holster on the hip since he probably wasn't wearing a belt.


----------



## unregistered5595 (Mar 3, 2003)

Since no one knows where he holstered his gun, then, if it was an ankle holster, then the whole ruse about him talking to management was just what he did to cover that he removed his gun to have it in hand when he went out to 'talk to management'.
Have there been any reports or testimony to where he holstered his gun?


----------



## Wanda (Dec 19, 2002)

Darren said:


> You have to be joking! If that was his motive, he should have had opportunities to add notches to his gun while he was a cop. The fact he tried to get management to intercede disproves that.
> 
> From the video, the popcorn wasn't thrown it was jammed into Reeves' face. Reeves was punched by Oulson with the popcorn. Thrown popcorn won't dislodge glasses. Maybe if it was in a box. That popcorn was in a bag according to witnesses. It would have to be forceably jammed into Reeves' face to move his glasses.
> 
> ...




I DID NOT say waiting was a motive. That's what I mean about people jumping into the discussion. If he had not killed anyone before that means he waited until that day to kill someone. We have had all of the potential beatings,slapping and other types of potential harm run up the flagpole but the worst that happened was thrown popcorn.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Wanda said:


> I DID NOT say waiting was a motive. That's what I mean about people jumping into the discussion.* If he had not killed anyone before that means he waited until that day to kill someone.* We have had all of the potential beatings,slapping and other types of potential harm run up the flagpole but the worst that happened was thrown popcorn.


To me that sounds like you are saying he was waiting for years for a chance to kill someone. Why not say in all his years, including those in law enforcement he never had to shoot anyone until that day in the theater, rather than portray the man as a would be killer biding his time? 

Nothing in the decades that people have known him has surfaced to show anger issues. I would think by now Oulson's lawyers would have already dug something up if it existed. Ms. Oulson didn't hire lawyers to explain what was going on in the court room. By now we should have seen something disclosed ala Zimmerman to attack Reeves' character.

Much has been made of how insignificant thrown popcorn is. Many simply ignore its potential use as a diversion or distraction. I've looked at the video. I see Oulson's arm outreached to the point of jamming the popcorn into Reeve's face.

Do you believe thrown popcorn transmits enough force to knock the man's glasses askew? As an analogy, throwing feathers at someone is harmless in itself if there's no malice involved using it as a diversion prior to something more lethal.. Throwing rocks is a different matter. Popcorn is more like the feathers. So I ask again, how did popcorn knock Reeve's glasses askew? Popcorn by itself can't do that unless the bag was attached to a fist which is attached to an arm which shows in the video.

I've worn glasses since the ninth grade. The only times they've been knocked off or knocked askew has been when I've taken a sharp blow to the face.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Darren said:


> To me that sounds like you are saying he was waiting for years for a chance to kill someone. Why not say in all his years, including those in law enforcement he never had to shoot anyone until that day in the theater, rather than portray the man as a would be killer biding his time?
> 
> Nothing in the decades that people have known him has surfaced to show anger issues. I would think by now Oulson's lawyers would have already dug something up if it existed. Ms. Oulson didn't hire lawyers to explain what was going on in the court room. By now we should have seen something disclosed ala Zimmerman to attack Reeves' character.
> 
> ...


The problem is that he has no defense, and unlike Zimmerman there are a number of witnesses to the event. Zimmerman got he benefit of the doubt because there was no one to dispute his version of the story.

I expect this one to end similar to the way the recent Dunn case ended, with the accused being completely taken by surprise by a guilty verdict.

http://wtvr.com/2014/02/15/michael-dunn-convicted-of-attempted-murder-hung-jury-on-murder/

Gun owners need to understand that if you screw-up a shooting you lose your right to own a gun, your right to vote, and even your freedom -- possibly for life.


----------



## gjensen (Feb 8, 2014)

I have not read all of the posts. I only watched the video and read the initial description.

That was all I need. 

This was a dispute that got out of hand, and neither was going to lose. This was struggle of wills and rooted in pride. 

This is not self defense. If he did not want to shoot the man, he would have presented the weapon in a defensive posture. If the other guy continued to move forward, he would have had the right to shoot him. 

Look folks, like it or not, we do what we want to do, unless we stop and way out the consequences. He did not have time to do that. 

If he wanted to prevent the aggressor from going any farther, he had the means to do it. Instead he won his battle, by shooting the man. Now he will pay for it. 

I do not believe the man thought about it, I believe he regretted it afterwards, and under the right circumstances some of us would have been guilty of the same. 

These two men, were both wrong and both (especially one) will pay dearly for it.


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

"Gun owners need to understand that if you screw-up a shooting you lose your right to own a gun, your right to vote, and even your freedom -- possibly for life." (QUOTE)

Nevada, just how many gun owners do you think do not understand that? Going armed is not a decision anybody that I know takes lightly, and yet the majority of folks I know do it anyway, and accept the resonsibility, the possibility that it might not be enough to save them from the bad guys, the possibility of being charged, rightly or wrongly, with a crime if they have to either shoot somebody or threaten to shoot somebody. WE ARE NOT CHILDREN. Most asuredly, we are not YOUR children.

We also understand the very same ramifications apply to driving a car through a bad neighborhood or carrying a knife or coming to the door with a louieville slugger in hand. Very nice to be assuming that gun owners are too stupid to understand the risks they take. You might note that the vast majority of gun owners are at least bright enough to have avoided serious trouble with the law, or they would not be gun owners.

Concealed carry permit holders, i can assure you, are clean as a whistle in terms of criminal records and well educated as to what they can and cannot legally do.

The concept that you need to educate us about gun ownership is mildly irritating the first time or two, then it gets insulting. Asserting ANY controversial right has it's risks, but failing to do so on a large scale is certain to lose those rights for you, which is worse than risky.

I could detail for you at least one occasion when without the gun my family probably would still be looking for my bones in the desert South of Tucson 38 years later, so I think I have a reasonable balance in mind as to the risks, thank you very much.....Joe


----------



## unregistered5595 (Mar 3, 2003)

joebill said:


> "Gun owners need to understand that if you screw-up a shooting you lose your right to own a gun, your right to vote, and even your freedom -- possibly for life."
> Nevada, just how many gun owners do you think do not understand that? Going armed is not a decision anybody that I know takes lightly, and yet the majority of folks I know do it anyway, and accept the resonsibility, the possibility that it might not be enough to save them from the bad guys, the possibility of being charged, rightly or wrongly, with a crime if they have to either shoot somebody or threaten to shoot somebody. WE ARE NOT CHILDREN. Most asuredly, we are not YOUR children.


really? Your outrage is ridiculous. YOU show your gun TWICE in a road rage case. 
You described it to a tee.

I hesitated to even comment but now I want to comment.Dear Reader: If you are young or a child, or a young 20 something year old, don't think you can act like Joebill. Showing your gun to gain power on the highway is the same as threatening someone on the highway. Joebill acts as though he might be a child, not Nevada's child, but a child. People showing guns on the highway are ticketed in Wisconsin.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

gjensen said:


> I have not read all of the posts. I only watched the video and read the initial description.
> 
> That was all I need.
> 
> ...


There is no pulling a gun out in a defensive posture allowed by law. I'm not sure where that thought came from. Maybe the movies?

Reeves had to comply with a law which forbids brandishment. You cannot pull a gun out until the threat exists. You can't pull a gun out to warn or scare someone in public meaning on property other than your own in many states. 

You must conceal the weapon at all times until you have to use it. That's why instructors tell those going through CCW training, you don't take a gun out until you have to use it. Literally unless you must shoot some one for legal reasons, the gun stays hidden. That's a fine line. You can't use it to intimidate someone either deliberately or accidentally. You can't warn someone by brandishing the weapon.

What I'm reading is a number of posts that indicate many don't understand the restrictions placed on a CCW holder. I think that's why each jurisdiction that gets drug kicking and screaming into compliance with the 2nd amendment predicts that it will initiate wild west shoot outs. To the contrary, the old axiom an armed society is a polite society is proved over and over again.

That is why with around eight million CCW holders in this country the incidents of firearms use are a small number compared to the number of licensees. Some here thought Zimmerman had his gun out looking for Trayvon. Sorry folks! That would have been illegal.


----------



## Wanda (Dec 19, 2002)

Darren said:


> To me that sounds like you are saying he was waiting for years for a chance to kill someone. Why not say in all his years, including those in law enforcement he never had to shoot anyone until that day in the theater, rather than portray the man as a would be killer biding his time?
> 
> Nothing in the decades that people have known him has surfaced to show anger issues. I would think by now Oulson's lawyers would have already dug something up if it existed. Ms. Oulson didn't hire lawyers to explain what was going on in the court room. By now we should have seen something disclosed ala Zimmerman to attack Reeves' character.
> 
> ...



As we all are guilty of, you see what best fits your needs. Just like in this thread I have herd the term ''old guy'' used over and over to make the shooter seem defenseless. Someone could very easily picture a little frail man that could barely navigate without the use of a walker. The deadly assult on the frail old man was compared to a thug jumping grandma in a dark alley. Were the glasses broken during the vicious attack on the little frail man. Was his vision so impaired that he was shooting wildly to thwart the impending slaughter of him and his wife. He was defending his wife during the lawless rampage!


----------



## unregistered5595 (Mar 3, 2003)

Apparently none of us should be on the jury. 
Yes, you, the one that believes all law enforcement officers retired or not should be free for any reason.
Yes you, the one that believes every young tall man is a threat to everyone else.
Yes you, the grandma that thinks he was protecting you.
Yes you, road rage participant, that thinks you can show your weapon any time you want.
Yes you, the anti gun owner.
Yes you, the gun owner.
Yes you. ........well the list goes on.


----------



## gjensen (Feb 8, 2014)

Darren said:


> There is no pulling a gun out in a defensive posture allowed by law. I'm not sure where that thought came from. Maybe the movies?
> 
> Reeves had to comply with a law which forbids brandishment. You can pull a gun out until the threat exists. You can't pull a gun out to warn or scare someone in public meaning on property other than your own in many states.
> 
> ...



I am familiar with the laws. As flawed as they are. But . . . .

I would like to know if the gentleman that is being charged with murder would have rather been charged with brandishing his weapon? And if you are really fearing for your life, is that a concern? Does the value of someone's life amount to anything when you were one of the idiots that just had to win.

None of these things were a concern of his. He did what he wanted to do. He made a choice, and I believe a poor choice. 

It was not his place to correct the behavior of the guy with the phone. He intended to assert his authority in the beginning. And he did. Authority he did not rightly have. 

This man did what he wanted to do.


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

Gun owners legally avoid or neutralize attack thousands of times every year by displaying a weapon, without firing. I don't know where it is you cannot do that but it is the most common use of a weapon in this country, and it works.

Guy comes at you with a club, you pull gun, he drops club, I guess you have to go ahead and shoot him to comply with the law........give me a break!

If your life is being threatened by any means, you have a right to defend it, and if that means is an automobile or semi-truck, it is no different.

Guns should never ber used to intimidate, only to protect from mortal threats, and I have never used one that I would not be happy to describe the incident to a LEO, nor would i have expected a LEO to act any different than I did, except he probably would have gone ahead and shot the guy.

I know aone guy who actually took a couple of shots at a guy who was trying to wreck him and did not get arrested, but the guy trying to wreck him did.

By the way, the business about having to keep weapons concealed CERTAINLY does not apply here or in Arizona. We are open carry pretty much anywhere with few exceptions....Joe


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

gjensen said:


> I am familiar with the laws. As flawed as they are. But . . . .
> 
> I would like to know if the gentleman that is being charged with murder would have rather been charged with brandishing his weapon? And if you are really fearing for your life, is that a concern? Does the value of someone's life amount to anything when you were one of the idiots that just had to win.
> 
> ...


If you are as familiar with CCW laws as you say, then you also know that by brandishing the weapon, Reeves would have lost his CCW and could no longer carry concealed. There's no way he could pull his gun out in the theater and get away with intimidating Oulson. The other issue is Reeves had no way of knowing whether Oulson had any martial arts training. Revealing the gun with that short of a distance between the two men could have resulted in it being taken away. Or an attempt to do so could have resulted in the gun being fired in a struggle and an innocent person being shot. That would have been extremely irresponsible on Reeves' part. I don't think that ever crossed his mind. That would have been inconceivable to him to do something that stupid.

As for whether he attempted to talk to management there may have been cameras elsewhere in the theater that will show whether he did. It would have been stupid of him to make that claim if he had not. As an ex-police officer he should have known cameras are used to prevent employee theft along with general surveillance. 

Taking that into consideration, I believe he did attempt to talk to management. During an interrogation police look for discrepancies. That's one of the reasons they repeatedly go over what happened. That would have been a big discrepancy if he hadn't tried to talk to management.

As for asserting his authority, asking for someone to be considerate in public isn't a show of authority. By getting up and leaving to talk to management he amply demonstrated he did not have any authority other than suasion.which is inherent in civilization. It is not an act of authority to ask someone to be polite nor is it an assumption of authority. 

If you knock on your neighbor's door in the early morning hours to ask them to decrease the level of music which is reverberating through the neighborhood are you assuming or demonstrating authority?


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

MDKatie said:


> At the :14 mark in the video when Reeves bends forward, I think that's when he got his gun. I think he had it in his hand and was just waiting for Oulsen to make any move toward him. The time that elapsed from when the popcorn hit Reeves to when he shot Oulsen was just too short, IMO.


So you think as Reeves sat safely in his seat, Oulsen's verbiage on the upswing, Reeves perceived danger and prepared to protect himself?

In hindsight, perhaps Reeves could have told Oulsen, " Turn around, sit down, I have a gun." Would you like that better? Sure, because then we can dream that Oulsen did, for the first time that afternoon, get his ego under control, and sit down. But without knowing what would transpire, without the 20/20 hindsight that is our luxury here, Oulsen could have started yelling, "Management, Management, this man has a gun and he just threatened me with it!" So, maybe, reveling he has a gun wouldn't be a smart move. 
You can't fault Reeves for preparing to defend himself, can you? I doubt Reeves had any idea that Oulsen would grab the container of popcorn and thrust it in his face, but I do believe he had serious concerns that he was about to be assaulted. You carry an umbrella in your car, even when it isn't raining? Ever put it in the front seat when dark clouds are rolling in? That doesn't mean you'll use it if it doesn't rain, but you have it close incase you need it. Make sense? Same for Reeves pistol.

Or maybe Reeves is fast on the draw.
Or maybe Reeves was leaning forward to ask Mrs. Oulsen to get her husband to calm down? We don't have any information on why he leaned forward. Maybe his Boxers were binding.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Feather In The Breeze said:


> Apparently none of us should be on the jury.
> Yes, you, the one that believes all law enforcement officers retired or not should be free for any reason.
> Yes you, the one that believes every young tall man is a threat to everyone else.
> Yes you, the grandma that thinks he was protecting you.
> ...


You'll also need to exclude the millions that watched TV and saw the loving husband and caring father opposed to a naked man wearing a mattress like gown, looking like a cross between a mental patient and a vagrant. Plus, the others that watched at least one of Mrs. Oulsen's Media Events.

Maybe they'll pick 12 retired cops to form a jury of his peers? They might have better insight to what happened.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Some thing that if Reeves had shown his weapon, this tragedy would have been averted. Let's think about that possibility. I want someone to tell me when Reeves should have produced the weapon?
When he returned from his attempt to snitch to the Manager? Too soon.
When Oulsen stood as he returned to his seat? Nope, that's no reason to pull a gun.
When Oulson used the F word and got louder? Nope, can't pull a gun on someone for swearing.
How about when Oulsen grabbed the popcorn box and hit Reeves in the face, knocking his glasses off? Nope, by this time, he is under attack and unable to defend himself. Waving a gun around when you can hardly see is reckless. I think he did what he felt he needed to do, pull his weapon, point center mass and fire. At that point he felt he was being attacked. He stopped that attack, so we will never know what the next step Oulsen would have been. There was no time in this chain of events where he should have displayed his gun.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

MDKatie said:


> It was clearly thrown in the video.


Standing in the next row, about 14 inches lower, how close does a tal man need to get to snatch a box of popcorn off a person's lap? If a person can snatch a box of popcorn from a person's lap, how much further away is their face? So, if a person grabs the box of popcorn from a person's lap wouldn't simply raising the box put it inches from their face? Oulsen didn't need to throw it, it was well within thrust range. 

While we attempt to dissect the minutiae, lets not overlook the obvious. It is crazy man behavior to grab some stranger's popcorn and hit them with it.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

haypoint said:


> Maybe they'll pick 12 retired cops to form a jury of his peers? They might have better insight to what happened.


I kind of doubt that a jury of cops would be a good choice for Reeves. This is a flaky shooting, and they hold themselves to a pretty high standard.


----------



## unregistered5595 (Mar 3, 2003)

Nevada said:


> I kind of doubt that a jury of cops would be a good choice for Reeves. This is a flaky shooting, and they hold themselves to a pretty high standard.


Definitely agree. Vagrant mentally ill retired cops being naked except for a mattress for covering them would be better for him.


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

"Defensive display of a firearm" means: 1 - Verbally telling someone that you have a firearm or can get one; 2 - Exposing or displaying a gun in a way that a reasonable person would understand means you can protect yourself against illegal physical or deadly physical force; and 3 - Placing your hand on a firearm while it is in your pocket, purse or other means of containment or transport.

Defensive display is justified when and to the extent a reasonable person would believe physical force is immediately necessary to protect yourself against another person's use or attempted use of unlawful physical or deadly physical force. A defensive display is not required before using or threatening physical force, in a situation where you would be justified in using or threatening physical force.

Defensive display is not justified if you intentionally provoke the other person, or if you use a firearm in the commission of a serious offense or violent crime (defined in Â§13-706 and Â§13-901.3).

This important new law clarifies that a proper defensive reach for or announcement of firearm possession is an acceptable element in the continuum of self defense, and should not be charged as a crime. Improper display of a firearm can be anything from a class 1 misdemeanor (e.g., disorderly conduct) to a class 3 felony (e.g., aggravated assault). It also helps balance out the problematic and arbitrary "threatening exhibition" of a gun allegation that prosecutors can make in charging a felony as a "dangerous offense" (Â§13-702 and 704). The threat of this extra charge can be used to coerce a plea agreement, and now this is balanced with a specified stipulation of proper display of a gun without firing at a potential assailant.

This law clarifies what has been practiced in the West for as long as I have been here. I backed off three guys who were going to club me with my own firewood and take my truck and water and leave me 4 miles from the nearest paved road when it was something like 110 in the shade. A death sentence. Had I been oblligated to shoot them to comply with the law, I guess I could have done so, but the law here is not that stupid, and as long as you are defending yourself with a gun, you are not obligated to kill anybody.

In point of fact, it is fairly common for people to hold illegals at gun point and call the trolls to come pick them up when they get up to mischief on private property, and I have been told by the trolls that I needn't worry too much about the private property stuff, although I have never considered it worthwhile to hold them, but I have displayed a weapon to move them along, when there were too many. 

On one occasion, I had a sherriff's deputy tell me I should have went ahead and shot a guy, which I found odd, since I certainly did not have to do so. Perhaps he was just trying to scare the guy as he hauled him away.

Here is a study, reflecting the amazing number of times that violence is avoided by the mere display of a gun, no shots fired;

http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/kleck1.html

And, lastly, a year or so ago, my youngest daughter aproached her car in Tucson pushing a shopping cart with purchases and a car seat containing her infant daughter ( my grandaughter) and holding the hand of her 2 year old son (my grandson). She got the stuff and the kids loaded through the back doors, went to the driver's door, and was about to unlock it when some big dude walked up to her and demanded the keys.

She dropped the keys on the ground, pulled her 9 mm pistol from her pocket, took a step back and pointed it at his chest. They guy took off running, passersby called the cops, but didn't want to get close to her because she still had the gun out. One lad pulled his cellphone and ran after the guy, reporting to the cops where the guy went.

The cops chased the guy down and cuffed him and hauled him away while another cop took her report. At the end of the report he asked her age, and she told him "22" and showed him her driver's license. He told her "good job!" and left.

I relate all of this to demonstrate that while some of you folks may be in situations where you are severely restricted in your right to self defense, that condition is not by any means universal.

ALSO, in the rush to defend our point of view, often any of us, very much including me, will defend it without regard to the circumstances that brought on the argument in the first place. Asking myself what I would have done in the theater, faced with an inconsiderate jerk, I would have stood up, taken my wife's arm, and suggested in a loud voice that we "get away from this inconsiderate jerk".......and moved......Joe


----------



## MDKatie (Dec 13, 2010)

haypoint said:


> How about when Oulsen grabbed the popcorn box and hit Reeves in the face, knocking his glasses off? Nope, by this time, he is under attack and unable to defend himself. Waving a gun around when you can hardly see is reckless..


1. Were his glasses really knocked off or just askew? 
2. Of course you don't want to wave a gun around when you can hardly see....instead you should _fire_ the weapon. Sounds totally legit. 


And perhaps when Reeves bent forward he was talking more smack to Oulsen...asking him if he turned his phone off yet, as was in the report.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

MDKatie said:


> 1. Were his glasses really knocked off or just askew?
> 2. Of course you don't want to wave a gun around when you can hardly see....instead you should _fire_ the weapon. Sounds totally legit.
> 
> 
> And perhaps when Reeves bent forward he was talking more smack to Oulsen...asking him if he turned his phone off yet, as was in the report.


1, Off or askew, if you've ever needed glasses, either way your sight is badly impaired. Remember the video was night vision, the actual view by human eyes was far less.
2. At close range with a hand gun, you shoot center mass.

We have no information on what, if anything, Reeves said when he leaned forward. I would have preferred to see a few seconds ahead of what the tape shows, when Reeves returned and sat down. If the video shown starts the moment Reeves sat down, perhaps he was just getting situated?


----------



## MDKatie (Dec 13, 2010)

haypoint said:


> We have no information on what, if anything, Reeves said when he leaned forward. I would have preferred to see a few seconds ahead of what the tape shows, when Reeves returned and sat down. If the video shown starts the moment Reeves sat down, perhaps he was just getting situated?


It's too bad the video didn't show the entire thing...from the moment Reeves first asked Oulsen to stop texting, and it'd be great if we could see more of Oulsen. Hard to tell what's going on when we can't really see him.


----------



## Wanda (Dec 19, 2002)

It is amazing what a mind sees when shown the same images. If the same thing were shown to a pastor,a police officer,a school teacher, a prison guard, and a random person off of the street would they report seeing the same thing after viewing the film. Then when you try to figure motive it gets even worse.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

I don't think there was a motive. As I've said before what happened was the result of conditioning to the point it was a habituated response. Reeves was regarded as extremely competent with firearms within the Tampa police department. As an aside, an employee kept a rifle (my guess is a .22) at Busch Gardens for predators. Reeves would not allow it in the park after he became the security director.

At 71 with bursitis in his shoulder, arthritis, respiratory issues and hypertension according to his attorney, Reeves was in no condition to fight a much younger man.

Any time someone looks at an incident, they can only apply what they know through experience and training to the problem. It's not a surprise that opinions differ. Reeves has been described as a godly man. He and his wife were regular church attendees.

The one single point that should grab anyone's attention is that immediately after the shooting, Reeves was surprised by what he had done. I don't think that was acting.

When I arrive late and enter a movie theater after the lights are turned off, I can't see anything other than the screen. I stand off to the side for as long as it takes for my vision to adjust so I can see the rows and the people who are seated before taking a seat. I'm not sure Reeves eyes had fully adjusted by the time he sat down and was attacked.

Oulson stood up and confronted Reeves which lead to Reeves leaving to talk to the manager according to the wife. Oulson was still standing when Reeves returned and sat down. The attack that followed had a tragic end.

Oulson didn't deserve to die because he was a jerk. Neither does Reeves deserve to go to prison because his training kicked in and resulted in Oulson being shot.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Darren said:


> I don't think there was a motive. As I've said before what happened was the result of conditioning to the point it was a habituated response. Reeves was regarded as extremely competent with firearms within the Tampa police department. As an aside, an employee kept a rifle (my guess is a .22) at Busch Gardens for predators. Reeves would not allow it in the park after he became the security director.
> 
> At 71 with bursitis in his shoulder, arthritis, respiratory issues and hypertension according to his attorney, Reeves was in no condition to fight a much younger man.
> 
> ...


Well put. I would add that even after Reeves eyes adjusted, us old guys don't have the night vision we once had. Lots of old folks give up night driving for that reason. When someone is standing between you and the light source, in this case, the movie screen, they are difficult to see. They are not much more than a shadowy outline. In this diminished visibility, Reeves had a loud angry man bearing down on him. It seems reasonable that he realized he was no match for Oulsen. Also reasonable to assume that with his police training, he was conscious or unconsciously preparing to be attacked. He sat as far back in his seat as he could. I doubt anyone would have expected an angry stranger would throw his cell phone at Reeves. Looks like he did. I doubt anyone expected that Oulsen would snatch and toss Reeves popcorn. I don't think Reeves expected that. He may have given some thought that the out of control angry man might slug him or attempt to toss him overboard. He had no other options but to protect himself with the only thing he had. Getting up at that moment, IMHO, would have both signaled an aggressive act while placing Reeves in a far more vulnerable position. Moving at that moment wasn't an option. He could have moved initially, before he sought out management. But this isn't the movie Groundhog Day, this is real life. There is no going back and living life with hindsight.

What kind of a person reacts to a request to shut off their cell phone like Oulsen did? What kind of person, stands up, turns around and starts swearing at the old guy when he returns? What kind of person gets so bent out of shape that they would grab something away from a seated old man and throw it in his face? In this case I'd have to say a person that is far different from you and me. 

Perhaps if Reeves had punched Oulsen in the nose, caught him by surprise, we'd see the video on youtube and we'd all be laughing about the jerk that messed with the wrong guy. Perhaps if Reeves had been carrying a tazer instead of a pistol, that video would go on America's Funniest Videos. We could laugh about the dude that got shocked for picking on an old guy. 

But, sadly, Oulsen was shot over a chain of events (that he created) that caused a reasonable old man to react to an object hitting him that turned out to be a box of popcorn. No one is laughing.


----------



## unregistered5595 (Mar 3, 2003)

haypoint said:


> No one is laughing.


No one is laughing at the death or the prison sentence. No one is laughing about how it may or may not change laws or how people act in a movie theater situation.

People are laughing though at some of the characterizations made and arguments made here.
Reeves already had shown a history of being irritated by previous texters in that particular movie theater. You left that out. He was irritated, in a bad mood, and ready to take it out on someone.

I'm paraphrasing:
"a texting addiction"--really, Oulson is an addict because he texted the baby sitter to his child?
"naked only wearing a mattress"--how would anyone know what he is wearing under his suicide suit?
These kinds of characterizations are dramatic to sway opinion based on feelings.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

What I read yesterday said Oulson stood up and confronted Reeves before Reeves got up and went to speak to the manager. That's a key point. I've always wondered why Oulson was standing when Reeves returned. He had never sat back down. That makes it appear that his anger was building. Which resulted in the attack after Reeves sat down. He didn't attack Reeves while the man was standing. By sitting down, Reeves placed himself at a positional disadvantage with regard to Oulsons who was standing

Oulson was clearly out of control as shown by not sitting down, confronting Reeves about talking to a manager, and the final attack. Not to mention Oulson's wife's attempt to calm him by placing her hand on his chest.

I saw a similar incident. We kept our test equipment in a locker that was amidships on the destroyer. There was only one passageway that went fore and aft. It got pretty crowded during heavy weather when sailors were not allowed on the weather decks. If someone was washed overboard, they were gone. There was little chance they could have been recovered fast enough for them to survive.

Mike, a first class (E-6) and I were looking for something. I was in the locker crouching beneath the shelf handing equipment out to Mike who was stacking it in the passageway. We were getting to the equipment in the back of the locker. The locker was the size of a large refrigerator with the longest dimension of the refrigerator being the depth of the locker.

A quartermaster started giving Mike grief because the passageway was blocked. Mike was one of the gentlest souls you'd ever want to meet. He'd reenlisted in the Navy when he had trouble finding work. As I watched the confrontation from inside the locker, I saw the quartermaster deliberately pour a cup of coke on Mike's shirt. No one bumped him as he later claimed. I was maybe 2' foot away and my eye's were level with the cup.

Mike immediate punched the quartermaster. There were no words. The reaction was immediate. I didn't see the punch because I couldn't see the upper bodes of the two men. It was another incident in an eye blink. The quartermaster instigated getting punched much like Oulson instigated getting shot.


----------



## MDKatie (Dec 13, 2010)

Darren said:


> The quartermaster instigated getting punched much like Oulson instigated getting shot.


And some say Reeves instigated getting popcorn thrown on him. 

I haven't seen any reports stating Oulson stood before Reeves left the theater. Do you remember where you saw that?


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

There's conflicting info in the various articles. As best I can decipher, The ex-Air Force officer is the key witness in that he noted Oulson was standing before Reeves returned from the attempt to contact management. Other articles seem to be out of sequence as if the writer didn't order the events properly or they're adding interpretations of their own. The word choice in some of the articles adds to the confusion.

Oulson's wife's hand on his chest was hit by the same bullet that killed her husband. The early articles had some amazing suposition on the part of the writer to explain that. The writers were trying to explain how with one shot, Reeves hit both the wife and husband.

When Oulson stood up is somewhat key. Whether Reeves's .380 jammed is another. Some writers seem to have used that to explain why an enraged (in their minds) Reeves didn't pump Oulson full of holes. I'm not certain if it was Reeves' popcorn or Oulson's that ended up in Reeves' face. We're still not certain how Reeves' carried in accordance with his CCW permit although being in his pocket is mentioned somewhere and makes sense technically.

Some of the news articles are either prejudiced or demonstrate ignorance. Sometimes it's obvious. Other times not, other than you can spot things that are questionable. Even the testimony of witnesses that I've watched have inconsistencies.

Take a look at the transcript of Vivian Reeves' police interview and the ex-Air Force officer's bail hearing testimony and figure out the sequence for yourself.


----------



## Wanda (Dec 19, 2002)

Darren said:


> I don't think there was a motive. As I've said before what happened was the result of conditioning to the point it was a habituated response. Reeves was regarded as extremely competent with firearms within the Tampa police department. As an aside, an employee kept a rifle (my guess is a .22) at Busch Gardens for predators. Reeves would not allow it in the park after he became the security director.
> 
> At 71 with bursitis in his shoulder, arthritis, respiratory issues and hypertension according to his attorney, Reeves was in no condition to fight a much younger man.
> 
> ...



The reflex theory has been brought up several times. There are many thousands of highly trained current and retired law officers in this country. How many of these cases do you think the defense in this case could bring forward. If the theory is correct it should be a common occurrence:shrug:.


----------



## po boy (Jul 12, 2010)

This video shows Reeves talking to someone about the texting.



[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2Rly-Qohu4"]This video shows what appears to be a shiny object thrown at Reeves.[/ame]


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Feather In The Breeze said:


> No one is laughing at the death or the prison sentence. No one is laughing about how it may or may not change laws or how people act in a movie theater situation.
> 
> People are laughing though at some of the characterizations made and arguments made here.
> Reeves already had shown a history of being irritated by previous texters in that particular movie theater. You left that out. He was irritated, in a bad mood, and ready to take it out on someone.
> ...


Texting addiction is a common term for people that can not bear to power down their phone. You see it while they drive, they walk into poles, they text on dinner dates. Oulsen was reported to text his daughter at least twice daily. Hey, she's not even 2 years old. Then to be upset when asked? It was reported "Oulsen was texting loudly" whatever that means.
If your daughter is ill, as is the story, wouldn't you check before you bought the tickets to the movie? If it was as critical to insure she was alright, couldn't you do it before the lights went down in the theatre?

I know about suicide gowns. I worked 27 years in several prisons, 6 in a unit for mentally ill prisoners. Suicide Gowns are issued to people believed to be a suicide risk. They are made so they cannot be ripped and used as a noose to hang yourself with. Since the whole purpose is to prevent hanging, undergarments would undermine its purpose. It is shameful for the Police Department to force Reeves to be seen like that. Wouldn't take a few minutes to issue some real clothes, with a tee shirt and underwear, while standing before the Judge and the world. Statistically, the rate of suicide is highest during the first week of incarceration. So it may be jail policy for new arrivals to be given the Bam Bam suit, not a reflection of Reeves mental state. Even if he was a suicide risk, they could have got him dressed for the hearing. Then the news media used that pathetic photo in 9 out of 10 photos of Reeves, while we got to see photos of Oulsen posed with his wife. I want a better look at that dragon tattoo across his shoulder,


----------



## Wanda (Dec 19, 2002)

Would you have been happy and showed the dead guy at the time the shooters picture was taken. A picture of him in a casket would have sold a lot of papers.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Wanda said:


> Would you have been happy and showed the dead guy at the time the shooters picture was taken. A picture of him in a casket would have sold a lot of papers.


:smack


The news media did it with Zimmerman/Martin. Use Zimmerman's mug shot and Martins 3 or 4 year old Middle School photo when a recent photo was available.


----------



## Wanda (Dec 19, 2002)

If they would have shown a dead person would it have been OK with you? That being the most current picture available.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Wanda said:


> If they would have shown a dead person would it have been OK with you? That being the most current picture available.


Oh, come on.....
I think you can see my concern is with the intentional depiction of Reeves in the most degrading photo possible.


----------



## unregistered5595 (Mar 3, 2003)

haypoint said:


> Texting addiction is a common term for people that can not bear to power down their phone.
> 
> I know about suicide gowns.


What I am saying is that characterizing someone with an ADDICTION is just dramatic and in no way factual. If you see one person texting, that does not mean they are addicted anymore than if someone sees you eating you are a food addict. YOU or maybe lawyers might like characterizations for drama, it still doesn't make it so.

Yes you know about suicide gowns, in your line of work, but to the average joe or jill, it is just prison garb. "naked" beneath the gown, really? We are all naked under our clothes.:shrug: Again, this is just an attempt at more dramatization.

Putting someone in a suicide gown is such a fashion faux pas it may bring people to suicide.


----------



## Wanda (Dec 19, 2002)

haypoint said:


> Oh, come on.....
> I think you can see my concern is with the intentional depiction of Reeves in the most degrading photo possible.


 My example is no more of a stretch than a lot of examples used in this thread. It would be the most current picture that was available and everyone wants facts and current info.


----------

