Posted on 07/13/2014 10:21:09 AM PDT by Albion Wilde
Do you think this was some kind of boxing match gone wrong?
How do you rule out the likelihood of a serious physical attack when somebody throws popcorn at you, perhaps in an attempt to blind you temporarily to aid in their attack?
I use copious amounts of salt on my popcorn. How would you like it if I threw salt in your eyes under similar circumstances? How would you determine that the throwing of popcorn would be the end of the attack?
What would a rattle snake do if you approached it and threw popcorn on it? Would it instinctively fight back and possibly cause the death of the attacker? How much more thought is a person required to give to their reaction than a rattle snake?
Does the fact that the person attacking the rattle snake doesn't know that the snake is deadly in any way change the expected outcome?
If this retired cop had been on duty and had been attacked in such a way, what would the cop expect to have happen next? What action should the cop take?
I have grown to distrust the police perhaps as much as anybody I know. That doesn't mean that I expect cops to have to submit to an attack.
Waiting for the badge polishers to show up in force.
Good thing you were not on the original threads; you would have needed a flame-retardant suit. Let me see if I can summarize:
• The texting was during the previews, not the feature• The texter was texting his babysitter, not making noise with a game
• The theater was a "no guns" zone
• The alleged shooter got up to complain to management; it is believed that at this point, he went to his car to retrieve his gun
• Seating is not assigned; so he and his wife could have moved seats at any time; instead he returned and forced a confrontation
• It was not his place to try to enforce a "no texting" policy
• Texting is not a lethal or dangerous activity; it is merely an annoyance that could have been solved any number of other ways, even assuming the victim would have continued during the feature, which was not an issue as the shooting took place during the previews
• Witnesses did not hear any loud threats or witness any aggression by the victim other than thrown popcorn; but none of them actually claimed to see the moment it was thrown, or that the victim was the one who threw it
• A married woman came forward to say that she had been intimidated by the alleged shooter in the same theater in the previous month when she tried to mind her own business going to the ladies' room
There are no 100 witnesses. In other words as long as he is out on bail his attorneys will drag this thing out for as many years as necessary hoping that he dies of old age before he goes back to jail.
If he had stayed in jail then this would go to trial sooner than later.
And of course he will take the plea deal at the very last minute.
They also show Nicole Oulson’s badly injured hand after she was shot trying to deflect the bullet that killed her husband.
Video from the scene appears to show Oulson snatching Reeves’ popcorn off his lap and throwing it at him. Reeves responds instantaneously with a single, fatal gunshot.
I do believe you may be wrong.
Since this claim is by the defense, they are probably "character" witnesses from the force and his church. Feh.
The theater was a “no guns” zone
They also show Nicole Oulson’s badly injured hand after she was shot trying to deflect the bullet that killed her husband.
Video from the scene appears to show Oulson snatching Reeves’ popcorn off his lap and throwing it at him. Reeves responds instantaneously with a single, fatal gunshot.
I believe you may be wrong.
You’re insane!
You think like Nancy Pelousey and Cindy Sheehan.
.
2. Escalation of force was initiated by the EX cop.
Reeves went out front and complained to the manager, then RETURNED to the theater, and reengaged in the confrontation with Oulson. You don't get to claim fear for your life, after reinserting yourself into harms way. Well, Reeves can try this defense, but if there's any justice left at all in our two tiered “justice”system, the jury will convict Reeves of murder, or at the very least, manslaughter.
So, you are saying that he feared that an unarmed man with both hands in view who had been seated with his petite wife and who was, by the way, a clean-cut former millitary guy of the same race as the alleged shooter (only less physically pumped, judging by the early pictures), was so terrifying that he shot instead of preparing to counter a punch?
Look at post 23. Reeves is a scumbag murder who started the confrontation, sought a gun, and continued the confrontation. And it wasn’t his first dance either. The fact that he irritated the victim enough to get it physical doesn’t excuse cold blooded murder.
The theater was a “no guns” zone..And the second amendment says.....?
The purpose of bail is to insure the accused’s appearance at trial; and rarely, (supposedly, but more and more often not) denial to protect the public from a particular and imminent menace.
I see a very disturbing trend in wanting to use it as pretrial punishment, as well as a steady escalation of what constitutes the Constitutionally mandated “reasonable bail”.
It reinforces the erosion of the “innocent until proven guilty in a court of law” mandated presumption of innocence within the legal system: not to be confused with personal opinions of members of the public, which carry no legal weight or obligation.
Yep. Somebody on here has a tagline “ Don’t F’ with an old dude. If he can’t beat you, he’ll kill you. Enough said.
that you have the right to forbid guns on your own property and the theatre did that but the retired cop thought he was special.
A peasant who conceal-carries is required to bravely run away like Sir Robin in Monty Python's Holy Grail.
If said peasant stays and "confronts", like this retired King's Man did, peasant goes to jail, goes directly to jail, does not pass GO.
Take a concealed carry class. Tell us how many times this is DRILLED into your head.
Peasants who concealed carry are required to retreat, unless they want to go to jail.
Yeah, women, children, Innocent bystanders, whatever, they're all fair game in your book, eh? Nice frame of mind.
It's a pretty sad state of affairs in this country, when everyone around an ex cop who “fears for his life” is considered just collateral damage. The guy's a frigging coward, I don't care how old he is.
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/01/23/article-2544568-1AE792EA00000578-531_634x374.jpg
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.