Retired Cop Kills Man for Texting (1 Viewer)

[pollardsvision]

Lots of people in here ripping the victim. Sounds to me like he threw the popcorn as a last resort after the old guy just wouldn't leave him alone.

Given everything I've read/seen, it seems Oulson acted fairly reasonably.

I don't know exactly what happened, and even if I did, I have no idea how I'd have reacted in a similar situation.

MMQ'ing this though, throwing popcorn is pretty large escalator. Last resort? Maybe, but there's a roughly zero percent chance that any confrontation will end when one man throws popcorn in another man's face.

You throw popcorn in an another man's face during a heated argument, it's no longer just an argument. It's now a physical confrontation.

Disclaimer that sucks to have to even be said, but probably does: No, that doesn't mean anyone deserved to get shot.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

The defense has nothing to lose by going to trial in this case because even a finding of guilt to a lesser included means a life sentence (even if it is a 10-12 year sentence) for the old man.

So they can throw everything at the wall and see what sticks.

It will be interesting to see what the shiny object is and that will be easy to determine because the police will have noted where the victim's cell phone was found.

Even if it was a cell phone I'm not sure how much that helps the defense. How much damage can a cell phone do?

Also, he's already thrown it. This is apparently going to be a self-defense case. There needs to be a showing not just that you were in danger of severe bodily harm or death, but also that that threat was still in existence when you used deadly force. Is he going to claim that the victim had a whole additional basket of cell phones that he was clearly readying to throw at him?

So Reeves wife throws a dish at her husband during a heated argument...does he then have the right to shoot her?

 

[DiStefano]

The defense has nothing to lose by going to trial in this case because even a finding of guilt to a lesser included means a life sentence (even if it is a 10-12 year sentence) for the old man.

So they can throw everything at the wall and see what sticks.

It will be interesting to see what the shiny object is and that will be easy to determine because the police will have noted where the victim's cell phone was found.

Even if it was a cell phone I'm not sure how much that helps the defense. How much damage can a cell phone do?

Also, he's already thrown it. This is apparently going to be a self-defense case. There needs to be a showing not just that you were in danger of severe bodily harm or death, but also that that threat was still in existence when you used deadly force. Is he going to claim that the victim had a whole additional basket of cell phones that he was clearly readying to throw at him?

Maybe it was an aussie boomerang phone.

 

[fatness]

I think the guy will end up pleading guilty, trying for some reduced charge or lighter sentence based on age, sympathy, record of public service, whatever. It'll just take awhile for him to accept he's probably going to lose. There are too many witnesses including his wife who saw and related too little to help him.

 

[DiStefano]

The defense has nothing to lose by going to trial in this case because even a finding of guilt to a lesser included means a life sentence (even if it is a 10-12 year sentence) for the old man.

So they can throw everything at the wall and see what sticks.

It will be interesting to see what the shiny object is and that will be easy to determine because the police will have noted where the victim's cell phone was found.

Even if it was a cell phone I'm not sure how much that helps the defense. How much damage can a cell phone do?

Also, he's already thrown it. This is apparently going to be a self-defense case. There needs to be a showing not just that you were in danger of severe bodily harm or death, but also that that threat was still in existence when you used deadly force. Is he going to claim that the victim had a whole additional basket of cell phones that he was clearly readying to throw at him?

So Reeves wife throws a dish at her husband during a heated argument...does he then have the right to shoot her?

Nobody, but nobody is arguing that he had a right to shoot.

 

[T Bell]

Lots of people in here ripping the victim. Sounds to me like he threw the popcorn as a last resort after the old guy just wouldn't leave him alone.

Think how silly that statement would sound in the absence of the shooting. That's the very point that's being made.

It still doesn't get within 100 miles of justifying the shooting, but it's certainly the case that Oulsen didn't defuse an escalating situation either.

To be fair, from what Oulsen's wife said he kept ignoring Reeves for quite awhile, so he did try to not let a situation develop.

Certainly that's better than shouting "FU" from the get-go, but it's also not as good as immediately calmly responding to the guy that you're just checking on your two-year old before the show starts rather than having the guy fulminating first because he also feels like he's being ignored.* I'm sure that this was falling into the category of "aggressively ignoring" someone, which we've all done as a way of dismissing someone.

In truth, I'd probably have done the same as this ####### ex-cop sounds like a really annoying piece of work, so I'm certainly not being holier-than-thou, just trying to break down the dynamic at work here.

To be clear, while we're talking about what Oulsen did wrong, that of course is miniscule when assigning responsibility for the result of this incident.

*Mind you, who's to say that this would have made a difference - it may well not have given how insistent/obsessive this shooter was about cell phone use in movie theaters.

 

[pollardsvision]

The defense has nothing to lose by going to trial in this case because even a finding of guilt to a lesser included means a life sentence (even if it is a 10-12 year sentence) for the old man.

So they can throw everything at the wall and see what sticks.

It will be interesting to see what the shiny object is and that will be easy to determine because the police will have noted where the victim's cell phone was found.

Even if it was a cell phone I'm not sure how much that helps the defense. How much damage can a cell phone do?

Also, he's already thrown it. This is apparently going to be a self-defense case. There needs to be a showing not just that you were in danger of severe bodily harm or death, but also that that threat was still in existence when you used deadly force. Is he going to claim that the victim had a whole additional basket of cell phones that he was clearly readying to throw at him?

So Reeves wife throws a dish at her husband during a heated argument...does he then have the right to shoot her?

I honestly wouldn't be shocked if the popcorn/shiny object defense worked.

Throwing popcorn in another man's face seems a reasonable indicator that the thrower expects and is ready to fight. Throwing a cell phone, even moreso.

If they can convince somebody that an old man felt a reasonable fear for his safety as a younger, healthier, stronger man had just initiated a physical confrontation, who knows.

It's crazy, but it's Florida.

 

[eurotrashman]

Lots of people in here ripping the victim. Sounds to me like he threw the popcorn as a last resort after the old guy just wouldn't leave him alone.

Think how silly that statement would sound in the absence of the shooting.

Absence of the shooting? This thread.....none of this happens if the shooting didn't happen.

 

[Courtjester]

The defense has nothing to lose by going to trial in this case because even a finding of guilt to a lesser included means a life sentence (even if it is a 10-12 year sentence) for the old man.

So they can throw everything at the wall and see what sticks.

It will be interesting to see what the shiny object is and that will be easy to determine because the police will have noted where the victim's cell phone was found.

Even if it was a cell phone I'm not sure how much that helps the defense. How much damage can a cell phone do?

Also, he's already thrown it. This is apparently going to be a self-defense case. There needs to be a showing not just that you were in danger of severe bodily harm or death, but also that that threat was still in existence when you used deadly force. Is he going to claim that the victim had a whole additional basket of cell phones that he was clearly readying to throw at him?

First of all I will just say that I do not know Florida law, but in Colorado there are a whole slew of laws that protect the elderly.

So for example if I go up and punch a guy my age, it is a simple assault--a level one misdemeanor, but I go up and punch a senior citizen (even if it is Chuck Norris who is 73) it is a Felony Assault on an At Risk Adult.

Now if Florida has protection laws like that in place, an argument could be made (and again I am not saying it will be successful) that the damage being struck by a cell phone could cause you and I versus an old man are different things. And this is assuming the cell phone was thrown at him--it could have just gone flying in the air when the bullet struck the victim. So that is why I said it will be interesting to see where it landed.

I think the real damning piece of evidence could be the comments the shooter's wife allegedly made after the shooting--that sort of short-circuits any idea that both of them were in some kind of imminent danger.

The Defense has a lot of ways they could go here. I will not be surprised if they don't try and pull out some competency/Alzheimer's/PTSD impairment defense.

 

[fatness]

Lots of people in here ripping the victim. Sounds to me like he threw the popcorn as a last resort after the old guy just wouldn't leave him alone.

Think how silly that statement would sound in the absence of the shooting. That's the very point that's being made.

It still doesn't get within 100 miles of justifying the shooting, but it's certainly the case that Oulsen didn't defuse an escalating situation either.

To be fair, from what Oulsen's wife said he kept ignoring Reeves for quite awhile, so he did try to not let a situation develop.

Certainly that's better than shouting "FU" from the get-go, but it's also not as good as immediately calmly responding to the guy that you're just checking on your two-year old before the show starts rather than having the guy fulminating first because he also feels like he's being ignored.* I'm sure that this was falling into the category of "aggressively ignoring" someone, which we've all done as a way of dismissing someone.

In truth, I'd probably have done the same as this ####### ex-cop sounds like a really annoying piece of work, so I'm certainly not being holier-than-thou, just trying to break down the dynamic at work here.

To be clear, while we're talking about what Oulsen did wrong, that of course is miniscule when assigning responsibility for the result of this incident.

*Mind you, who's to say that this would have made a difference - it may well not have given how insistent/obsessive this shooter was about cell phone use in movie theaters.

It's reasonable to think Oulsen was just trying to wrap up the conversation with the babysitter without reacting to Reeves, and that Reeves just wouldn't drop it. Oulsen did finally tell Reeves he was texting with the babysitter. Apparently that didn't do anything to get Reeves to stop either. From every account I've read Reeves pushed this whole situation from the beginning.

 

[pollardsvision]

Lots of people in here ripping the victim. Sounds to me like he threw the popcorn as a last resort after the old guy just wouldn't leave him alone.

Think how silly that statement would sound in the absence of the shooting.

Absence of the shooting? This thread.....none of this happens if the shooting didn't happen.

I think he's just referring to throwing popcorn as a last resort or an attempt to end a confrontation.

Throwing popcorn doesn't end a confrontation. It starts a more dangerous level of it, and almost always will end any chance of a peaceful ending.

 

[T Bell]

Lots of people in here ripping the victim. Sounds to me like he threw the popcorn as a last resort after the old guy just wouldn't leave him alone.

Think how silly that statement would sound in the absence of the shooting.

Absence of the shooting? This thread.....none of this happens if the shooting didn't happen.

Thinking is hard, huh?

 

[T Bell]

Lots of people in here ripping the victim. Sounds to me like he threw the popcorn as a last resort after the old guy just wouldn't leave him alone.

Think how silly that statement would sound in the absence of the shooting. That's the very point that's being made.

It still doesn't get within 100 miles of justifying the shooting, but it's certainly the case that Oulsen didn't defuse an escalating situation either.

To be fair, from what Oulsen's wife said he kept ignoring Reeves for quite awhile, so he did try to not let a situation develop.

Certainly that's better than shouting "FU" from the get-go, but it's also not as good as immediately calmly responding to the guy that you're just checking on your two-year old before the show starts rather than having the guy fulminating first because he also feels like he's being ignored.* I'm sure that this was falling into the category of "aggressively ignoring" someone, which we've all done as a way of dismissing someone.

In truth, I'd probably have done the same as this ####### ex-cop sounds like a really annoying piece of work, so I'm certainly not being holier-than-thou, just trying to break down the dynamic at work here.

To be clear, while we're talking about what Oulsen did wrong, that of course is miniscule when assigning responsibility for the result of this incident.

*Mind you, who's to say that this would have made a difference - it may well not have given how insistent/obsessive this shooter was about cell phone use in movie theaters.

It's reasonable to think Oulsen was just trying to wrap up the conversation with the babysitter without reacting to Reeves, and that Reeves just wouldn't drop it. Oulsen did finally tell Reeves he was texting with the babysitter. Apparently that didn't do anything to get Reeves to stop either. From every account I've read Reeves pushed this whole situation from the beginning.

I can't disagree with any of that.

 

[T Bell]

Lots of people in here ripping the victim. Sounds to me like he threw the popcorn as a last resort after the old guy just wouldn't leave him alone.

Think how silly that statement would sound in the absence of the shooting.

Absence of the shooting? This thread.....none of this happens if the shooting didn't happen.

I think he's just referring to throwing popcorn as a last resort or an attempt to end a confrontation.

Throwing popcorn doesn't end a confrontation. It starts a more dangerous level of it, and almost always will end any chance of a peaceful ending.

Correct. Throwing popcorn "as a last resort" is infantile.

Had we been witnessing that incident and it had died down immediately after the popcorn throw, we'd have come away with a negative impression of Oulsen.

 

[timschochet]

OK, I admit throwing the popcorn was probably not the smartest move even though, by all accounts, the guy was being clearly provoked.

But my question is, why are so many of you spending so much time emphasizing this aspect of it? This is a pretty clear cut case of murder. It's almost as if you guys feel the need to muddy up what happened, to pin at least a little bit of blame on the victim.

 

[Da Guru]

Lots of people in here ripping the victim. Sounds to me like he threw the popcorn as a last resort after the old guy just wouldn't leave him alone.

Think how silly that statement would sound in the absence of the shooting. That's the very point that's being made.

It still doesn't get within 100 miles of justifying the shooting, but it's certainly the case that Oulsen didn't defuse an escalating situation either.

To be fair, from what Oulsen's wife said he kept ignoring Reeves for quite awhile, so he did try to not let a situation develop.

Certainly that's better than shouting "FU" from the get-go, but it's also not as good as immediately calmly responding to the guy that you're just checking on your two-year old before the show starts rather than having the guy fulminating first because he also feels like he's being ignored.* I'm sure that this was falling into the category of "aggressively ignoring" someone, which we've all done as a way of dismissing someone.

In truth, I'd probably have done the same as this ####### ex-cop sounds like a really annoying piece of work, so I'm certainly not being holier-than-thou, just trying to break down the dynamic at work here.

To be clear, while we're talking about what Oulsen did wrong, that of course is miniscule when assigning responsibility for the result of this incident.

*Mind you, who's to say that this would have made a difference - it may well not have given how insistent/obsessive this shooter was about cell phone use in movie theaters.

It's reasonable to think Oulsen was just trying to wrap up the conversation with the babysitter without reacting to Reeves, and that Reeves just wouldn't drop it. Oulsen did finally tell Reeves he was texting with the babysitter. Apparently that didn't do anything to get Reeves to stop either. From every account I've read Reeves pushed this whole situation from the beginning.

I can't disagree with any of that.

If Oulsen had a hoodie on and threw skittles at Reeves the O/U would be 100 pages.

 

[DiStefano]

OK, I admit throwing the popcorn was probably not the smartest move even though, by all accounts, the guy was being clearly provoked.

But my question is, why are so many of you spending so much time emphasizing this aspect of it? This is a pretty clear cut case of murder. It's almost as if you guys feel the need to muddy up what happened, to pin at least a little bit of blame on the victim.

Because so many of you seem to indicate that the victim was totally blameless; as pure as the driven snow, as innocent as a lamb, as sweet as a new born babe.

 

[The Commish]

The video is interesting. Defense is claiming that the shiny object seen flying in after the popcorn was thrown, was the cell phone and the old man felt threatened. It is Florida, so it's very likely they will be able prove to at least one person that a cell phone can be used as a deadly projectile.

No chance, between the witnesses and everything else, this guy is a sitting duck... Even in some ### backwards place as Florida.

Recent history disagrees with you and so do some of the comments in this very thread. However, I hope you're right, but there's no ignoring there are plenty of ### backwards people in Florida.

 

[T Bell]

OK, I admit throwing the popcorn was probably not the smartest move even though, by all accounts, the guy was being clearly provoked.

But my question is, why are so many of you spending so much time emphasizing this aspect of it? This is a pretty clear cut case of murder. It's almost as if you guys feel the need to muddy up what happened, to pin at least a little bit of blame on the victim.

You, of all people - known for endlessly debating the minutest of points - are asking this?

 

[timschochet]

OK, I admit throwing the popcorn was probably not the smartest move even though, by all accounts, the guy was being clearly provoked.

But my question is, why are so many of you spending so much time emphasizing this aspect of it? This is a pretty clear cut case of murder. It's almost as if you guys feel the need to muddy up what happened, to pin at least a little bit of blame on the victim.

Because so many of you seem to indicate that the victim was totally blameless; as pure as the driven snow, as innocent as a lamb, as sweet as a new born babe.

In terms of being murdered, wasn't he?

 

[timschochet]

OK, I admit throwing the popcorn was probably not the smartest move even though, by all accounts, the guy was being clearly provoked.

But my question is, why are so many of you spending so much time emphasizing this aspect of it? This is a pretty clear cut case of murder. It's almost as if you guys feel the need to muddy up what happened, to pin at least a little bit of blame on the victim.

You, of all people - known for endlessly debating the minutest of points - are asking this?

I don't do that just for the hell of it though. Every time I engage in that sort of thing, there is a point I'm trying to make, and I always state exactly what that point is. What point are you trying to make here?

 

[DiStefano]

OK, I admit throwing the popcorn was probably not the smartest move even though, by all accounts, the guy was being clearly provoked.

But my question is, why are so many of you spending so much time emphasizing this aspect of it? This is a pretty clear cut case of murder. It's almost as if you guys feel the need to muddy up what happened, to pin at least a little bit of blame on the victim.

You, of all people - known for endlessly debating the minutest of points - are asking this?

I don't do that just for the hell of it though. Every time I engage in that sort of thing, there is a point I'm trying to make, and I always state exactly what that point is. What point are you trying to make here?

The hell you don't.

 

[T Bell]

OK, I admit throwing the popcorn was probably not the smartest move even though, by all accounts, the guy was being clearly provoked.

But my question is, why are so many of you spending so much time emphasizing this aspect of it? This is a pretty clear cut case of murder. It's almost as if you guys feel the need to muddy up what happened, to pin at least a little bit of blame on the victim.

You, of all people - known for endlessly debating the minutest of points - are asking this?

I don't do that just for the hell of it though. Every time I engage in that sort of thing, there is a point I'm trying to make, and I always state exactly what that point is. What point are you trying to make here?

The point being made here (as if you didn't know) is that people (like you) in their haste to politicize this over guns are short-cutting any critical analysis of the event, including in this case by analyzing anything that the victim did to contribute or at least not head off the confrontation. It's simply being dismissed, even though nobody here appears to be saying that anything the victim did justified, either legally or morally, getting shot.

 

[Courtjester]

OK, I admit throwing the popcorn was probably not the smartest move even though, by all accounts, the guy was being clearly provoked.

But my question is, why are so many of you spending so much time emphasizing this aspect of it? This is a pretty clear cut case of murder. It's almost as if you guys feel the need to muddy up what happened, to pin at least a little bit of blame on the victim.

Because some of us like to see this thing called evidence before rushing to judgment. If the story is what it is, the guy goes to jail, but let's see what the facts show before deciding this.

 

[pollardsvision]

OK, I admit throwing the popcorn was probably not the smartest move even though, by all accounts, the guy was being clearly provoked.

But my question is, why are so many of you spending so much time emphasizing this aspect of it? This is a pretty clear cut case of murder. It's almost as if you guys feel the need to muddy up what happened, to pin at least a little bit of blame on the victim.

I think it's definitely a clear case of murder.

I'm not trying to "blame" the victim. I'm just noting that throwing something at someone is almost always an escalator with potential to lead to someone getting hurt. It's a universal symbol for "I'm finished talking. Now, it's time for a round of fisticuffs"

I assume the defense will use that line of reasoning, but I hope it doesn't work.

Mainly, I bring it up because it's a behavior that I think we'd all be tempted to do in that situation, but when cooler heads prevailed, hope like hell we didn't because of the high likelihood it'd lead to something really bad.

Whether it's called "blame" or not, the victim made a pretty major error in judgement here. One we could all make, but still a mistake.

 

[TxBuckeye]

But my question is, why are so many of you spending so much time emphasizing this aspect of it? This is a pretty clear cut case of murder. It's almost as if you guys feel the need to muddy up what happened, to pin at least a little bit of blame on the victim.

Tim, I need to understand what you are trying to say here. Are you saying that if the guy doesn't throw the popcorn at the old man, that the murder occurs anyways? If the answer is no, then yes, the dead man is partially responsible. Does that mean he in any way deserves what he got? Of course not, and no one is claiming it does. But the fact is that his actions helped escalate the confrontation in which he was killed. And I think that is all anyone is saying.

 

[timschochet]

OK, I admit throwing the popcorn was probably not the smartest move even though, by all accounts, the guy was being clearly provoked.

But my question is, why are so many of you spending so much time emphasizing this aspect of it? This is a pretty clear cut case of murder. It's almost as if you guys feel the need to muddy up what happened, to pin at least a little bit of blame on the victim.

You, of all people - known for endlessly debating the minutest of points - are asking this?

I don't do that just for the hell of it though. Every time I engage in that sort of thing, there is a point I'm trying to make, and I always state exactly what that point is. What point are you trying to make here?

The point being made here (as if you didn't know) is that people (like you) in their haste to politicize this over guns are short-cutting any critical analysis of the event, including in this case by analyzing anything that the victim did to contribute or at least not head off the confrontation. It's simply being dismissed, even though nobody here appears to be saying that anything the victim did justified, either legally or morally, getting shot.

Thats what I figured, but I'm glad you stated it. You want to move this away from a discussion about concealed carry of guns, so you emphasize what the victim might have done wrong.

 

[T Bell]

OK, I admit throwing the popcorn was probably not the smartest move even though, by all accounts, the guy was being clearly provoked.

But my question is, why are so many of you spending so much time emphasizing this aspect of it? This is a pretty clear cut case of murder. It's almost as if you guys feel the need to muddy up what happened, to pin at least a little bit of blame on the victim.

You, of all people - known for endlessly debating the minutest of points - are asking this?

I don't do that just for the hell of it though. Every time I engage in that sort of thing, there is a point I'm trying to make, and I always state exactly what that point is. What point are you trying to make here?

The point being made here (as if you didn't know) is that people (like you) in their haste to politicize this over guns are short-cutting any critical analysis of the event, including in this case by analyzing anything that the victim did to contribute or at least not head off the confrontation. It's simply being dismissed, even though nobody here appears to be saying that anything the victim did justified, either legally or morally, getting shot.

Thats what I figured, but I'm glad you stated it. You want to move this away from a discussion about concealed carry of guns, so you emphasize what the victim might have done wrong.

Discussed concealed carry all you want, just don't shortcut analysis of the victim's actions too. That's not too hard, is it Socrates?

 

[pollardsvision]

And tim, personally, I don't care about the gun politics involved. I'm not a huge fan of other citizens carrying handguns around. I don't trust them. But we have people walking around with guns, and I don't see that changing any time soon.

In addition to Oulson's family somehow finding peace and Reeves getting his proper sentence, I care about how the hell good meaning folks (like myself) can avoid similar situations. I avoid escalating confrontations because I don't know what the crazy ******* might be capable of.

If I had children and was discussing this case with them, I'd make damn sure to point out that should they get into a verbal altercation, they find ways to get out of it and absolutely don't do anything to turn it into a physical altercation (like throwing something).

 

[timschochet]

But my question is, why are so many of you spending so much time emphasizing this aspect of it? This is a pretty clear cut case of murder. It's almost as if you guys feel the need to muddy up what happened, to pin at least a little bit of blame on the victim.

Tim, I need to understand what you are trying to say here. Are you saying that if the guy doesn't throw the popcorn at the old man, that the murder occurs anyways? If the answer is no, then yes, the dead man is partially responsible. Does that mean he in any way deserves what he got? Of course not, and no one is claiming it does. But the fact is that his actions helped escalate the confrontation in which he was killed. And I think that is all anyone is saying.

What I am saying is that from the very beginning of this thread people have spent an inordinate amount of time discussing what the victim did wrong. First there was a discussion about texting. Then it was about him talking back to the guy. Then it was about throwing popcorn. And IMO the reason so many people are bringing all this up is because otherwise we might blame guns .

 

[DiStefano]

OK, I admit throwing the popcorn was probably not the smartest move even though, by all accounts, the guy was being clearly provoked.

But my question is, why are so many of you spending so much time emphasizing this aspect of it? This is a pretty clear cut case of murder. It's almost as if you guys feel the need to muddy up what happened, to pin at least a little bit of blame on the victim.

You, of all people - known for endlessly debating the minutest of points - are asking this?

I don't do that just for the hell of it though. Every time I engage in that sort of thing, there is a point I'm trying to make, and I always state exactly what that point is. What point are you trying to make here?

The point being made here (as if you didn't know) is that people (like you) in their haste to politicize this over guns are short-cutting any critical analysis of the event, including in this case by analyzing anything that the victim did to contribute or at least not head off the confrontation. It's simply being dismissed, even though nobody here appears to be saying that anything the victim did justified, either legally or morally, getting shot.

Thats what I figured, but I'm glad you stated it. You want to move this away from a discussion about concealed carry of guns, so you emphasize what the victim might have done wrong.

Discussed concealed carry all you want, just don't shortcut analysis of the victim's actions too. That's not too hard, is it Socrates?

Tim's getting concerned that he might not be able to go on and on ad nauseam on one of his typical rants.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

This could be anyone of us in a movie house...maybe we are checking our phone for whatever reason...then some guy starts ordering you to stop..NOW. ...Any man will get defensive and and basically tell that guy to mind his own business...that you are not the boss of me...and if you dont like it MOVE.

Point is as a man pride will enter into this and thats when it takes a bigger person to swallow the pride and avoid the impending escalation thats surely coming ...this event shows what happens when you dont.

Just sad all the way around.

It takes two to tango but you will always be blind to this when you can't win with your fists.

what the #### are you talking about???? Isnt that what i just said???? It takes a bigger man to NOT let this escalate....sheesh

 

[T Bell]

But my question is, why are so many of you spending so much time emphasizing this aspect of it? This is a pretty clear cut case of murder. It's almost as if you guys feel the need to muddy up what happened, to pin at least a little bit of blame on the victim.

Tim, I need to understand what you are trying to say here. Are you saying that if the guy doesn't throw the popcorn at the old man, that the murder occurs anyways? If the answer is no, then yes, the dead man is partially responsible. Does that mean he in any way deserves what he got? Of course not, and no one is claiming it does. But the fact is that his actions helped escalate the confrontation in which he was killed. And I think that is all anyone is saying.

What I am saying is that from the very beginning of this thread people have spent an inordinate amount of time discussing what the victim did wrong. First there was a discussion about texting. Then it was about him talking back to the guy. Then it was about throwing popcorn. And IMO the reason so many people are bringing all this up is because otherwise we might blame guns .

This sweeping, absolute conclusion that you draw here is laughably colored by your own views on the subject.

To be clear, I'm sure that some people here have taken that tack (though I think this has been heavily contributed to by trolling), however most people are just discussing this and trying to get to the bottom of what happened.

I think you're missing this level of detail from that high up in your ivory gun tower.

 

[timschochet]

OK, I admit throwing the popcorn was probably not the smartest move even though, by all accounts, the guy was being clearly provoked.

But my question is, why are so many of you spending so much time emphasizing this aspect of it? This is a pretty clear cut case of murder. It's almost as if you guys feel the need to muddy up what happened, to pin at least a little bit of blame on the victim.

You, of all people - known for endlessly debating the minutest of points - are asking this?

I don't do that just for the hell of it though. Every time I engage in that sort of thing, there is a point I'm trying to make, and I always state exactly what that point is. What point are you trying to make here?

The point being made here (as if you didn't know) is that people (like you) in their haste to politicize this over guns are short-cutting any critical analysis of the event, including in this case by analyzing anything that the victim did to contribute or at least not head off the confrontation. It's simply being dismissed, even though nobody here appears to be saying that anything the victim did justified, either legally or morally, getting shot.

Thats what I figured, but I'm glad you stated it. You want to move this away from a discussion about concealed carry of guns, so you emphasize what the victim might have done wrong.

Discussed concealed carry all you want, just don't shortcut analysis of the victim's actions too. That's not too hard, is it Socrates?

Tim's getting concerned that he might not be able to go on and on ad nauseam on one of his typical rants.

No worries. I said my piece. Im done.

 

[Da Guru]

But my question is, why are so many of you spending so much time emphasizing this aspect of it? This is a pretty clear cut case of murder. It's almost as if you guys feel the need to muddy up what happened, to pin at least a little bit of blame on the victim.

Tim, I need to understand what you are trying to say here. Are you saying that if the guy doesn't throw the popcorn at the old man, that the murder occurs anyways? If the answer is no, then yes, the dead man is partially responsible. Does that mean he in any way deserves what he got? Of course not, and no one is claiming it does. But the fact is that his actions helped escalate the confrontation in which he was killed. And I think that is all anyone is saying.

What I am saying is that from the very beginning of this thread people have spent an inordinate amount of time discussing what the victim did wrong. First there was a discussion about texting. Then it was about him talking back to the guy. Then it was about throwing popcorn. And IMO the reason so many people are bringing all this up is because otherwise we might blame guns .

If the victim did none of the above and just moved he would be having lunch with his wife and daughter right now. Both were in the wrong but one guy had a gun. Guns prevail.

That being said Reeves deserves to go to jail for his act.

 

[cstu]

But my question is, why are so many of you spending so much time emphasizing this aspect of it? This is a pretty clear cut case of murder. It's almost as if you guys feel the need to muddy up what happened, to pin at least a little bit of blame on the victim.

Tim, I need to understand what you are trying to say here. Are you saying that if the guy doesn't throw the popcorn at the old man, that the murder occurs anyways? If the answer is no, then yes, the dead man is partially responsible. Does that mean he in any way deserves what he got? Of course not, and no one is claiming it does. But the fact is that his actions helped escalate the confrontation in which he was killed. And I think that is all anyone is saying.

What I am saying is that from the very beginning of this thread people have spent an inordinate amount of time discussing what the victim did wrong. First there was a discussion about texting. Then it was about him talking back to the guy. Then it was about throwing popcorn. And IMO the reason so many people are bringing all this up is because otherwise we might blame guns .

This is pretty dull thread if all we do is sit around and agree that concealed carry can lead to some terrible results in the wrong hand.

However, this is truly a case of "When keepin' it real goes wrong", that shouldn't be difficult to understand.

 

[fatness]

Because so many of you seem to indicate that the victim was totally blameless; as pure as the driven snow, as innocent as a lamb, as sweet as a new born babe.

And DiStefano sets up his straw man.............................

 

[fatness]

Assistant State Attorney Manny Garcia used Reeves' own words against him in arguing that he should be held without bail. "Pointing the gun, firing the gun and his statements constitute second-degree murder," Garcia said. "From his own mouth, judge." Garcia went through Reeves' statements made in a recorded interview in the hours after the shooting, including: "Good heavens, I didn't mean to do that."

Garcia also brought up how Reeves told detectives Oulson lunged at him and hit him. "Where in that video do you see Mr. Reeves holding Chad Oulson back like he was describing?" Garcia said. "It's not in there, judge."

It was after the gunshot and before he knew there was video surveillance, Garcia said, that Reeves made up a story about self-defense. "He knew that he shot that man in cold blood with no justification," Garcia said.

Prosecutors also played a recording of Nicole Oulson's statement to detectives. She said a gray-haired man sitting behind them "got rude" with her husband during previews. "He was just nasty," she said. The man left for a minute and came back. By then, she said, Chad Oulson's phone was off. "We thought that was end of it," she said. But the man taunted Oulson, she said.

"He said, 'Now you put it away, are you scared?' " she said. " 'Oh so now you put the phone away.' And my husband turned around and stood up and said, 'Dude, what is your problem?' "

http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/bail-hearing-resumes-this-morning-in-movie-theater-shooting/2164575

 

[msommer]

Lots of people in here ripping the victim. Sounds to me like he threw the popcorn as a last resort after the old guy just wouldn't leave him alone.

Violence is never a last resort to words.

But popcorn, that is a different matter entirely...

 

[msommer]

OK, I admit throwing the popcorn was probably not the smartest move even though, by all accounts, the guy was being clearly provoked.

But my question is, why are so many of you spending so much time emphasizing this aspect of it? This is a pretty clear cut case of murder. It's almost as if you guys feel the need to muddy up what happened, to pin at least a little bit of blame on the victim.

I think it's definitely a clear case of murder.

I'm not trying to "blame" the victim. I'm just noting that throwing something at someone is almost always an escalator with potential to lead to someone getting hurt. It's a universal symbol for "I'm finished talking. Now, it's time for a round of fisticuffs"

I assume the defense will use that line of reasoning, but I hope it doesn't work.

Mainly, I bring it up because it's a behavior that I think we'd all be tempted to do in that situation, but when cooler heads prevailed, hope like hell we didn't because of the high likelihood it'd lead to something really bad.

Whether it's called "blame" or not, the victim made a pretty major error in judgement here. One we could all make, but still a mistake.

So from fear of some lunatic drawing a gun we all just have to endure whatever the agressor decides to subject us to?

Is that the American way now?

 

[BigSteelThrill]

OK, I admit throwing the popcorn was probably not the smartest move even though, by all accounts, the guy was being clearly provoked.

But my question is, why are so many of you spending so much time emphasizing this aspect of it? This is a pretty clear cut case of murder. It's almost as if you guys feel the need to muddy up what happened, to pin at least a little bit of blame on the victim.

I think it's definitely a clear case of murder.

I'm not trying to "blame" the victim. I'm just noting that throwing something at someone is almost always an escalator with potential to lead to someone getting hurt. It's a universal symbol for "I'm finished talking. Now, it's time for a round of fisticuffs"

I assume the defense will use that line of reasoning, but I hope it doesn't work.

Mainly, I bring it up because it's a behavior that I think we'd all be tempted to do in that situation, but when cooler heads prevailed, hope like hell we didn't because of the high likelihood it'd lead to something really bad.

Whether it's called "blame" or not, the victim made a pretty major error in judgement here. One we could all make, but still a mistake.

So from fear of some lunatic drawing a gun we all just have to endure whatever the agressor decides to subject us to?

Is that the American way now?

That's how some indeed want it.

 

[The Commish]

I for one am shocked....SHOCKED!!!!

Oh...and "in" before the "yeah, his wife is a credible witness" completely ignoring the video shtick.

 

[pollardsvision]

OK, I admit throwing the popcorn was probably not the smartest move even though, by all accounts, the guy was being clearly provoked.

But my question is, why are so many of you spending so much time emphasizing this aspect of it? This is a pretty clear cut case of murder. It's almost as if you guys feel the need to muddy up what happened, to pin at least a little bit of blame on the victim.

I think it's definitely a clear case of murder.

I'm not trying to "blame" the victim. I'm just noting that throwing something at someone is almost always an escalator with potential to lead to someone getting hurt. It's a universal symbol for "I'm finished talking. Now, it's time for a round of fisticuffs"

I assume the defense will use that line of reasoning, but I hope it doesn't work.

Mainly, I bring it up because it's a behavior that I think we'd all be tempted to do in that situation, but when cooler heads prevailed, hope like hell we didn't because of the high likelihood it'd lead to something really bad.

Whether it's called "blame" or not, the victim made a pretty major error in judgement here. One we could all make, but still a mistake.

So from fear of some lunatic drawing a gun we all just have to endure whatever the agressor decides to subject us to?

Is that the American way now?

I didn't say it was an ideal situation. It's just the reality.

This wasn't too different from a road rage incident. You cut a guy off on accident, he gets pissed and follows you to a parking lot. He's wrong and going overboard yelling, screaming, harrassing.

I think most understand that, in that situation, throwing something at the man is a bad idea.

It's wrong to be put in that sort of situation, but it's still always the smart thing to do to "endure" it and try to remove yourself from the situation without escalating it.

It hurts the pride, but it's smart.

If the guy is obviously too crazy to listen to reason, then you have to consider that starting a physical altercation by throwing something can go very badly (he sure as hell won't say, "wow, thank you for throwing that popcorn/phone in my face, now I see that I'm being irrational").

 

[cstu]

So from fear of some lunatic drawing a gun we all just have to endure whatever the agressor decides to subject us to?

Is that the American way now?

If the aggressor is right, #### and turn off your phone (or whatever thing you were doing that you shouldn't have been).

 

[BustedKnuckles]

I for one am shocked....SHOCKED!!!!

Oh...and "in" before the "yeah, his wife is a credible witness" completely ignoring the video shtick.

The only person i see implying that the victim was anything but a victim is JOJO the circus clown....but thats no surprise

i stand corrected...it appears maybe a few others may feel that way...like cstu for example

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

Just jumping in to this thread, but just saw the video for the first time. This man needs to spend the rest of his life in prison with out a doubt. And it is a shame someone had to die, and both family's lives be thrown in to chaos and ruin over something so trivial and stupid. But I have to say, the guy with the popcorn was an idiot in his own right. Should not have died over it, but he definitely instigated the confrontation. Like someone said up above, in this day and age, better watch out with the macho man crap. It can get you dead.

Is there a video of the actual incident?

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/retired-cop-florida-cinema-shooting-staying-jail-n24646

Why did Oulsen make two motions at Reeves? Was the first one an attempted swing (and miss) and the second one was him just throwing his popcorn at him?

 

[BustedKnuckles]

Just jumping in to this thread, but just saw the video for the first time. This man needs to spend the rest of his life in prison with out a doubt. And it is a shame someone had to die, and both family's lives be thrown in to chaos and ruin over something so trivial and stupid. But I have to say, the guy with the popcorn was an idiot in his own right. Should not have died over it, but he definitely instigated the confrontation. Like someone said up above, in this day and age, better watch out with the macho man crap. It can get you dead.

Is there a video of the actual incident?

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/retired-cop-florida-cinema-shooting-staying-jail-n24646

Why did Oulsen make two motions at Reeves? Was the first one an attempted swing (and miss) and the second one was him just throwing his popcorn at him?

Maybe he was flashing gangs signs...im sure if we try hard enough we can blame the dead guy...maybe stir up some stories from his past...drug use or maybe he was in a fight club somewhere...i`ll leave that to the experts like you

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

If I had children and was discussing this case with them, I'd make damn sure to point out that should they get into a verbal altercation, they find ways to get out of it and absolutely don't do anything to turn it into a physical altercation (like throwing something).

For some reason I don't think Tim had this conversation with his children if he has any...

 

[DiStefano]

If I had children and was discussing this case with them, I'd make damn sure to point out that should they get into a verbal altercation, they find ways to get out of it and absolutely don't do anything to turn it into a physical altercation (like throwing something).

For some reason I don't think Tim had this conversation with his children if he has any...

Well, he says he has two girls, but if they're anything like him he'd better warn them because they'll be arguing all the time.

 

[The Commish]

Just jumping in to this thread, but just saw the video for the first time. This man needs to spend the rest of his life in prison with out a doubt. And it is a shame someone had to die, and both family's lives be thrown in to chaos and ruin over something so trivial and stupid. But I have to say, the guy with the popcorn was an idiot in his own right. Should not have died over it, but he definitely instigated the confrontation. Like someone said up above, in this day and age, better watch out with the macho man crap. It can get you dead.

Is there a video of the actual incident?

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/retired-cop-florida-cinema-shooting-staying-jail-n24646

Why did Oulsen make two motions at Reeves? Was the first one an attempted swing (and miss) and the second one was him just throwing his popcorn at him?

Maybe he was flashing gangs signs...im sure if we try hard enough we can blame the dead guy...maybe stir up some stories from his past...drug use or maybe he was in a fight club somewhere...i`ll leave that to the experts like you

I think it's pretty clear that Outsen had arsenic ladened popcorn that he crushed up into dust and blew it and Reeves' face.