Posted on 03/11/2017 9:33:51 AM PST by BenLurkin
The case dates to January 2014 when Reeves, then 71, confronted a man in a suburban Tampa movie theater about texting during the previews before a showing of "Lone Survivor." The two argued, and then Reeves walked out of the theater to complain to an employee. When Reeves returned, he and the man, Chad Oulson, began arguing again.
Oulson threw a bag of popcorn at Reeves, according to a criminal complaint, and Reeves then took out his handgun and fired at Oulson, killing him.
Defense attorneys asked the judge to dismiss the murder charge under the "stand your ground" law that allows residents to use deadly force when they fear death or great bodily harm.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
We know the important part:
he
killed
a
man
armed
only
with
popcorn
It’s murder. Pretending that it isn’t is stupid. This thing is more open and shut than OJ.
[[I agree that he overreacted. The question is why he reacted as he did.]]
And that in a nutshell is the bottom line
you bring up a good point about him reacting the way he did immediately after the shooting=-
It’s also a possibility that the other fella did escalate the issue to the point where the cop reacted like he did automatically- but as you state- it remains to be seen when the facts are presented-
I didn’t insult you. I said it makes you look stupid. Which is does. That’s not an insult, that’s the truth. Much like it’s the truth that Reeves is a murderer.
You’re worse than rude, you’re ginning up idiotic excuses for a damned murdered.
Not Guilty.. and the deceased should pay twice for the popcorn he threw and wasted.
goodby fella! obviously you aren’t capable of having a civil discussion-
I can have civil discussions just fine. But you are not taking a civil position, and you’re badgering in your pathetic excuses for the murderer. I got tired of your BS and gave you the respect you deserve. And if you don’t like it you’ve got two solid options: stop badgering people with stupid positions that deny basic and obvious facts; or bugger off.
goodby fella! obviously you aren’t capable of having a civil discussion-
i remember this story... and i agree... i think the shooter over-reacted... i’m glad he can’t use Stand Your Ground... he was upset because the other guy was checking on his child via his phone before the movie started... imo, the shooter gives the Second Amendment a bad rap...
[[How do you know he was a bully?]]
The reverse needs to be asked in order to objectively determine guilt- how do you know he wasn’t? Could he have threatened the cop’s life? Was he the one who re engaged when the cop came back? Is it possible that the text guy was stewing about the first encounter and let his emotions get out of control to the point where it was he who crossed the line and violated the rights of the cop? IF so- then this is the issue that hte man was killed over- not the initial texting point- (Again, I’m not stating it happened this way- just that these things, in an effort to be fair and objective, needs to be answered-)
[[But I cannot find any compelling reason to justify the deadly use of force for the crime of texting. ]]
It wasn’t simply about that- If yo or i confront someone about something stupid- and they are the type of person to not take it well- and we leave, and come back and get confronted by an irate person threatening us- it’s no longer about the initial stupid issue but is now about defending yourself against someone who seems unhinged and could do damage
Please note I’m not saying this is how it went down- but it’s a possibility- and needs to be determined in court in a fair trial- because the issue ‘could have’ turned from texting to having to defend himself against an irate person- Now granted- IF that’s what happened- the cop was dumb to make an issue out of the textign to begin with- but IF the texter was getting violent- then it’ no longer just about the testing, but now about a new issue- potential violence-
So deeply addicted to saying the same thing over and over you now go to the clipboard. And also addicted to the last word. Thus proving me right. You don’t deserve respect, so you don’t get any respect.
[[If I were a juror or judge I wouldn’t believe he was coerced. He was a police officer after all.]]
Well it would depend on what the evidence showed- like a fella above stated- there is also a possibility he was provoked into reacting automatically- that i think is a slim argument- but it can’t be ruled out pretrial when justice is concerned
likely the man is guilty- however, even hotheads deserve a fair trial because as mentioned being a hothead does not automatically mean that a death is a murder- the evidence may just prove he did infact feel threatened- (I doubt it- but it needs to be considered until proven otherwise)
The case is much like the Trayvon Martin case. There was so much released to the internet, I don’t know of anything that wasn’t revealed. Oulson’s wife placed her hand on his chest to restrain him. The bullet that killed him went through her hand first.
Reeves was apparently as surprised as everyone else. To this day, I doubt he knows why he responded the way he did.
See- i didn’t know that about the wife doing that- That carries a little weight too then- it goes towards possibly showing that he was ‘moving aggressively’ towards the cop- it would be nice to know what was being shouted at this point too- by both parties- it’s also a possibility that she was trying to restrain him from simply moving to stop an aggressive advance by the cop- that’s precisely why more facts are needed before we can just declare hte cop guilty or innocent- Even hotheads deserve fair trials without being predetermined that they are guilty
based upon the information the response was disportioncate and did not justify lethal force when under attack by popcorn. if you have additional information post it.
The cop was sitting. Oulson jumped up and turned around. That was an aggressive move. If you recall, Reeves had just returned from trying to speak with the manager. Do you think his old man eyes had time to acclimate to the dark?
I am sure i will die in a theatre when I ask people to be quiet. usually an older couple who either one can’t hear or think they are at home and can talk through a movie. If you leave the auditorium you miss part of the movie and he employees stand with their thumb up their mass while the people engage in quiet behavior till the employee leaves. need a button to call the lobby and get employees attention totting and talking and throwing popcorn.
No point arguing about it. This shooter is going to the pokey. He had no justifiable reason to shoot the man. Seems he has a hair trigger temper.
[[That was an aggressive move. If you recall, Reeves had just returned from trying to speak with the manager. ]]
That fact is what gives me the whole pause in this- (and the fact that you brought out about him being shocked that he just reacted the way he did)- It —Appears that— the cop tried to handle the situation properly once he cooled down after over-reactign about the cell phone- by going to the manager, he was possibly or likely showing that the issue was over with and now management would handle the situation
[[Do you think his old man eyes had time to acclimate to the dark?]]
That is another great point- it would depend on how long before the fella turned to confront him again- but at any rate- the place was likely still darkish even if he had his ‘night vision’ by then
[[Oulson jumped up and turned around.]]
This fact gives a bit more weight to the fact that the wife tried to restrain him- possibly because she knew he was a hothead too and would likely cross the line- maybe she even feared that he already had crossed it- but that probably won’t be known what she was thinking- it’s likely going to come down to enough circumstantial evidence for a ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ decision one way or the other- There is some actual evidence to bolster both arguments- but who has the most?
Done.
Reeves told the wife to shut her mouth and not say another f****ng word when she chastised him.
Just your normal ordinary "chill guy"...
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.