Posted on 01/15/2014 5:09:04 AM PST by Anton.Rutter
Edited on 01/15/2014 6:21:09 AM PST by Sidebar Moderator. [history]
The elderly man accused of shooting a movie theater patron in Florida after an argument over text messaging told police that he fired because he "was in fear of being attacked."
Pasco County Sheriff Chris Nocco said at a news conference today that the victim, Chad Oulson, 43, was texting his young daughter's babysitter when an argument erupted with Reeves over texting during previews before the movie "Lone Survivor."
(Excerpt) Read more at gma.yahoo.com ...
fool is right. Fool is not talking about computer-generated sounds for each key press, that could be turned off, but simply sounds emitted from the tactile interaction with the keys. I hear it all the time, and it is annoying. The light? Unless Reeves was sitting directly behind the victim, the light would be directly noticeable and constantly on and off for each texting session—an annoying distraction.
Especially since he left his seat -- why the heck didn't he just come back to another seat? But noooo -- this seat behind the texter is MINE! It's MY TERRITORY!
If I were his prosecutor, I'd subpoena his medical records to find out if he was taking Viagra or testosterone.
The (mainstream) media have a pretty good track record at distorting, misreporting, lying, and hyping their pet stories. I think you are wise.
<>It is not abnormal to keep looking at someone that is openly flaunting the rules and being distracting while attempting to watch a movie.<>
So then this isn’t abnormal to you:
Like Oulson, Jamira and Michael had been texting in the dim confines of the Grove Theater December 28.
Jamira told WEWS she had her phone on silent as she sat beside Reeves and his wife during the film The Hobbit.
But the light the came from it immediately enraged the ex-cop, who went running to grab an usher.
‘When the staff left, he became more irate, he became just upset about the whole situation.
He kept staring, kept giving us dirty looks,’ she said.
Jamira said Reeves even followed her as she stood to go to the bathroom before turning his attention to other texting moviegoers and screaming at them.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2539694/It-Young-couple-recall-threatened-texting-cinema-three-weeks-ago-SAME-ex-cop-preparing-argue-shot-couple-self-defense.html#ixzz2qUN0N9oe
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
and select a couple tickets to buy, then go to map. You can see the seating layout in the theatre. Note this is the one for the same movie in the same complex, not sure if the same exact size. However they are all larger than 25 seats.
Let’s see how what she told to the media stands up to a cross examination shall we? What she told the reported could be a very different story she gives as sworn testimony.
It makes one wonder why his wife didn’t move over a few seats when he went out of the auditorium to see managemen.
or what his wife was doing during the argument and why she didn’t intervene as the other wife was trying to do???
Was this a surprise to her or was he building up to this???
As I understand local reports, Reeves and his wife were seated in the last row of the auditorium. Their son was expected to join them at the theater. The son was running late to meet them.
Conjecture: Perhaps they had told the son they would be in the last row? Perhaps they chose the last row to avoid disturbing other patrons because their son would be arriving late?
Ironic isn’t it seeing how a troll typically goes around making uninvited criticisms and name-calling?
On a more serious note it’s gonna be real hard convincing people that a bag of popcorn warrants deadly force or that the victim went to the movie theater with the intent to threaten or harm others. Likewise he’ll be equally hard-pressed proving that he didn’t go in there, armed with a gun but did not intend to harm others. The fact he struggled with the deputy and the gun jammed on subsequent trigger pull(s) just adds more to his culpability.
If he clears his physical he’s going away for a long time.
Here is more of her story, with large photos. Her husband was with her and is former military. Doesn't sound hysterical:
Here is more of her story, with large photos. Her husband was with her and is former military. Doesn't sound hysterical:
This actually helps the defense.
Cite your source for this statement.
Thanks, that makes total sense.
How do you see this as helping the defense?
“Rat? We aren’t 12 or part of some gangster culture (if there is a difference) where “ratting” is immoral. Your premise that ignoring bad behavior is the moral high ground is deeply flawed and historically futile. “This could have been easily avoided if either one would have been reasonable”.
I disagree. Running to report someone to the “authorities” for a minor rule infraction is a childish attempt to force someone to do what you want. IMO its a punk move, thats the way I was raised, YMMV. If you see someone ooze through a stop sign do you run to the cops or send them a video? If I see some driving drunk I will report it.
Some rules are more important than others.
“It is reasonable to ask someone to stop texting in a theater.”
True, but in many places you will be told to f’off.
“It is also reasonable to speak to management if they fail to stop.”
True, depending on how loudly and distracting the action is. IMO texting is fairly common and un-obtrusive in my experience.
At that point, knowing he was packing, he made a choice and a decision to sit behind the texter again and escalate hostilities.
I don’t know what state you are in nor what you are a Sgt. of, but in NC and I would suspect in almost any state that proving the chain of events would be so complex, difficult and suspect that the shooter would be doomed.
For instance, in NC they teach with a video that one can start a fight and at that point would be the aggressor.
But then the other guy pulls a knife, which changes it from a fist fight to a fight for life. They teach that at this point the aggressor has to back off and protest that he gives up and is out of the fight. If the guy with the knife does not quit, then the guy who was the aggressor originally can shoot.
That all sounds wonderful on paper, but in fact who is to say since most fights either occur between two with no witnesses or in front of witnesses who are prejudiced to one side or another.
Throw into the mix a prosecutor like the jerk in the Trevon case or a Nyfong and the defendant’s protestation that it escalated beyond his intentions will not save him.
It is a lot smarter to never appear as the aggressor, even in a non threatening way.
yes every bullet has a lawyer attached to it. we were also taught DO NOT FAIL THE A$$HOLE TEST.
It’s hysteria to think that because someone shot someone during an argument that he was going to shoot anyone because you looked at him funny.
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.