Posted on 01/17/2014 6:10:16 AM PST by Anton.Rutter
Guns don’t kill people, popcorn kills people. Or maybe it’s texting. Or just being in the wrong place at the wrong time with some fool who thinks he needs to take a gun to the movies.
(Excerpt) Read more at touch.latimes.com ...
Did I use the word "retreating"? I can't find it. I did suggest that it might not be practical to "flee" given that there might have been other people in the way.
I'm still wondering where your certainty comes from regarding the defendant's knowledge of what was thrown, what other weapons the attacker might have, and what the attacker's intentions were. It's pretty obvious that the attacker's wife had sufficient concern to physically intervene. Why didn't she just stay in her seat and let the episode play out? What consequences was she anticipating? Was she behaving as if her husband was going to suffer great bodily harm or was she concerned about somebody else?
Did the attacker say something to her?
If we found out that the victim had been armed, legally or not, would that change things?
If the attacker had said to his wife, prior to the attack, "I'm gonna punch that M---- F-----'s lights out", would that make a difference?
Not following you.
Jan. 17, 2014 77°.Close Ad x 1 of ADVERTISEMENTRelated Content Recent Columns .Related Content ADVERTISEMENTAccount Sign in Register Sign Out Connect Like us on Facebook Follow us on Twitter Send Feedback Send Feedback Terms of Service Privacy Policy Terms of Service Privacy Policy 202 West 1st Street, Los Angeles, California, 90012 Copyright 2013
Not following you.
If you have an issue with me, speak plainly. Are you a moderator on this site?
What I posted was exactly what I saw when I went to your link........
The only link I supplied is the link to the article. It still links to the article.
Any chance you’re alert enough to explain your problem a little more clearly, so you can quit wasting my time?
THE LINK IS NOT WORKING FOR ME. There, did you understand this time?
The link works for me.
It takes me right to the L.A. Times.
It must be your computer.
ok, thanks
Whoops
I must’ve been pretty thankful ;)
If he truly felt that popcorn in his face was an assault then he could have done what as an officer he probably advised hundreds of people to do — get his name, go tell management, get his license number, file a police report, sue him in a court of law — and get laughed out of court.
If he truly felt that the guy was about to lose it and punch him or pull out a gun and shoot him, then he should have quit throwing gasoline on the fire stoking the flames. He should have put his big fat ass back down in his seat or moved to another seat.
100 empty seats and he chooses to sit right behind the 6’4” guy who was texting. Since when do you sit in the seat right behind the the tall guy blocking the screen — unless you did it because you saw him texting and wanted to pick a fight with him to exert your “authority”.
If quickdraw was really paranoid and felt threatened, he could have, as a last resort, sat his ass down and shut up and taken his gun out and put it on his lap just in case.
There were a whole lot of steps he could have taken between popcorn and deadly force.
Since you are unable to see that, I would suggest that if you carry that you put your gun away for awhile in a drawer and leave it there until you can come to grips with where Curtis Reeves was wrong.
(((hiccups))) are no fun —
I’m sure we will eventually. However one possible explanation for “who does that?” could depend on what sort of words were exchanged between the two after Curtis Reeves returned to his seat after not finding a manager to complain to; I’m guessing Reeves was expecting a manager to eject Chad Oulson from the theater or taze him into submission, snatch his cell phone away from him and stomp it into pieces on the theater floor (like some cops are known to do)?
Allegedly Oulson asked Reeves when he returned if he had found a manager to complain to, seeing perhaps that Reeves came back alone, possibly even more pissed that he was when he left, then offered Reeves his explanation for why he was texting (and again this was not during the movie but during the previews) perhaps to diffuse the situation, “I was just texting my daughter’s daycare” or something to that effect. So what did Reeves say to Oulson just before Oulson threw the bag of popcorn at Reeves?
Did Reeves say something really out of line; something really foul and vulgar regarding Oulson’s daughter or wife? What some would call “fighting words”? One could imagine what could cause an otherwise peaceful and coolheaded guy to lose his temper in that situation. If and “If” is the operative word here, and we will eventually learn more from the witnesses in the theater once this goes to trial, but if Reeves said something like…. well any of you husbands and dads here can fill in the blanks…what might a man say about your kid or your wife or your manhood that might make you do something completely out of character such as to throw a bag of popcorn or even a throw a punch at some other guy? And would the guy deserve it?
Now if Oulson was a young or even older “punk”, a gang banger or a near do well, someone with a history of criminal activity and assaults, domestic abuse, etc. someone who was acting in a most uncivilized and rude manner, was drunk or high on something, perhaps along with a group of his friends who were also disruptive to the extent that all the other theater patrons would have cheered on and joined Reeves to complain to the management, I can understand why this might have escalated to the point that Reeves might have felt his life was threatened or in danger. But everything at least so far points to Reeves being the aggressor and instigator up until the point the “assault” popcorn was thrown. But again, what was said, what made Oulson so angry? And FWIW Oulson remained calmly in his seat and did not follow Reeves when he left and was from what I gather, not even texting anymore when Reeves returned.
Unless some deep dark secrets regarding Oulson’s past come to light, he to me, just doesn’t seem like a person who had history of anger management and control issues unlike perhaps Reeves who some people liked and respected but a lot of other people also said had issues with control and anger and demanded to be “obeyed” and found intimidating.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/14/us/texting-movie-theater-victim-profile/
Oulson served in the U.S. Navy from 1990 to 1997 and was an aviation maintenance administration petty officer 2nd class, according to Navy news desk Lt. Richlyn Neal. He served during Operation Desert Storm.
I don’t go to the movies all that often but I do a couple of time a year. The last time was when I took my 19 year old great niece to see the latest Star Trek movie for her birthday. While the previews were playing we were very quietly talking to each other; things like “oh that looks good” or “boy that looks really stupid”. During the previews and well before the movie started, my great niece used her cell phone to post to her FB: “Getting ready to Star Trek Into Darkness in 3D 4 my BD thanks to the best Aunt Evar!” OK, I like my smart phone and I occasionally text and post to my FB, but I don’t necessarily get the need among the younger crowd to constantly and incessantly use it to txt, FB and Tweet and take “selfies”. But even my great niece, as did I, had the good common sense to turn our cell phones off before the movie started.
Now if someone sitting next to or behind us was annoyed because we were disrupting their enjoyment of the “coming attractions” and politely asked us to turn them off or reminded us to turn them off before the actual movie started; no problem what so ever. But OTOH, if some a hole started cursing at us, threatened to have us thrown out for texting or quietly talking during the previews, I might have told that person to go get bent.
Let’s also keep in mind that the previews, the “coming attractions” along with actual commercials advertisements can run for some 20 minutes or more before the movie starts. During this time a lot of people knowing that the actual movie doesn’t start until some 20 minutes after the “show time”, will take their seats but then one of the party will get up and go the lobby to get snacks and drinks or go to the rest room so they don’t have to once the movie starts. Is it rude to the point of having to make a scene, complain to the management, if someone seated next to or in front of you is quietly conversing or gets up from their seat during the previews? The crummy commercials? Conversely is sending quick text message during this time, say to your child’s daycare, perhaps to let them know in case of an emergency that you will not be in reach except by text, not at work, or let them know you will be picking her up early, any different than getting up during the previews or asking your companion what she wants from the snack bar during the previews?
<>Did Reeves say something really out of line<>
The row might have gone something like this:
“I’m trying to find out how sick my daughter is.”
“I don’t give a sh@t about your daughter or how sick she is — put it away.”
EXCLUSIVE - His daughter was SICK: Father shot dead in movie theater by ex-cop for texting was messaging toddler’s babysitter because he thought he’d have to skip film
Initial reports have suggested Oulson challenged Reeves, demanding to know if he had reported him, but lawyers for the Oulson family have said Reeves started the row on both occasions.
Reeves leaving, finding no joy with a manager, and then returning to escalate the arghment to the point of a gun, doesn’t pass the smell test for the frightened senior citizen. It fits the profile for a defunct SWAT team captain with past performance evaluations warning of his anger issues, becoming somewhat defunct and set in his ways in his elder years, and somewhat territorial in his habits. It’s starting to sound like he appointed himself textfinder general for that particular theater. His need to remain relevant was forever tied with his lifelong ability to force his will on another. His anger took him to a place where if he could not force someone to obey his will, then he was no longer relevant.
And as a police officer, the ultimate enforcement of another to your will, is to kill them. It’s allowed. There’s a procedure. And he followed procedure, giving the answers a cop would.
One final note. This is just me. But as a half assed martial artist since 1976, when I’m surprised by something I might jump back like a cat. But to pull a gun out, advance, pissed off enough to shoot through the wife to put a bullet in his heart...
Curtis Reeves is not the victim.
No, he is not a victim. I, personally believe that your assessment of him to Uncle Chip hits the nail squarely on the head. However, this is not the case for those that are defending him and his action[s]. To them, he is/was a cop and that is all that matters to them. They worship authority and cops represent authority. And they defend the actions of him and those like him, no matter how repugnant those actions are, to their last breath. In fact, it is my opinion that they would defend the actions of the Einsatgruppen in Eastern Europe during 1940-42.
Good point. Very few are aware of what the Einsatgruppen were.
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.