Understood.
In the final analysis of this even it is logically observed that Justice Bunny is displeased.
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 ...
Yes and No -- This from CNN:
"The two men began to argue and Reeves walked out of the auditorium. Police said Reeves was going to complain to a theater employee.
"But Pasco County Sheriff Chris Nocco told CNN Tuesday night that the manager was busy with another customer and Reeves never addressed his complaint with a supervisor."
http://edition.cnn.com/2014/01/15/justice/florida-movie-theater-shooting/
Two issues with your post.
1) He’s not a Cop. He’s retired. Observe the difference.
2) Very dubious that a bag of popcorn thrown within 5 feet = “assault”.
Most glraingly you’re overlooking the fact that the murder perp initiated the confrontation. It’s hard to assert that the deceased was the “attacker” in your words -with what, a bag of popcorn from 3 feet?
Re: lose-lose. This guy had lost it before even entering the theater see: prior outbursts at cell phone users.
This irresponsible, hot-tempered a-hole needs to be put down and put down hard to preserve our rights versus an over-reaching socialist nanny-state eploying militarized police forces against unsuspecting citizens.
Okay. You wrote that Reeves politely asked Oulson to stop texting.
Do you have a source for this?
Everything I've read says Reeves was the one who was a jerk.
"It could have been us," Jamira Dixon told ABC News affiliate WFTS.
Dixon was referring to the shooting Monday in which Curtis Reeves, 71, allegedly shot and killed Chad Oulson in the Wesley Chapel movie theater.
Oulson was texting his daughter's babysitter when Reeves got angry, according to police. The two men argued and then Reeves shot him, police said.
Dixon, 34, and her husband say they shared a chilling encounter with Reeves at the same theater on Dec. 28 when he objected to her texting during the movie previews.
"He gets up, he's like 'can you do me a favor? Can you please just stop texting,'" Dixon told ABC News affiliate WFTS.
She says Reeves went to find the theater managers to complain.
To placate Reeves, Dixon says she turned off her phone, but that Reeves harassed another moviegoer for texting before focusing his attention again on the Dixon family.
"He followed me to the bathroom, and I felt uncomfortable," Dixon told WFTS.
She also said the Reeves' anger appeared to keep escalating. "With every situation you could just his level going more and more," she said.
Dixon said Reeves wife, who was with him at the theater on Dec. 28 and again on Monday, appeared to encourage her husband.
"She was egging him on, telling him to look at me," Dixon said.
After the movie, she said that Reeves was visibly upset and drove from the theater parking lot erratically.
The woman said Reeves made such an impression on her that she could not forget his face.
The Dixon family recently met with police in connection with the Oulson shooting and say they will do whatever it takes to keep Reeves in jail, including testifying at a potential criminal trial, WFTS reported.
Sounds like you're going to get your wish.
I doubt Hamilton was armed. If he was why would he grab Reeves’ gun as opposed to drawing his own? Hamilton was likely observing the theater’s ‘no guns’ rule.
IMO Hamilton is very lucky Reeves’ gun jammed after the first round.
"She was egging him on, telling him to look at me," Dixon said.
Ahhh -- the Good Wife
That explains her mocking look in court and why while the victim's wife was trying to defuse the situation she just sat there and watched the show.
She knew he was armed and did and said nothing to stop it.
Charge her as an instigator.
So he talked with a manager, not a supervisor. Who cares? Since when is deadly force used in theaters to enforce cell phone restrictions? The fact he initiated the confrontation, could walk away and returned rather than move to another seat (only 25 ppl) indicates he was the instigator and aggressor. And if the management chose not to evict the patron what business is it of his to pursue the matter?
Discretion? Decency? Maturity? Wisdom? In 71 years he has less of these than a 43 year old?
FAIL.
So are a lot of people, I’ll bet.
‘In Fear of Being Attacked’
The classic line a cop uses as the free get-out-of-jail card!
Yup. A couple of wags here at FR called that response on the intial threads about this. Cops know it's a get-out-of jail-free card, so they play it every time.
Yup. His prior cell phone rage in December went initially from a woman who was texting to everyone with a cell phone in the theater -supposedly screaming at them. This time he shot his initial subject. It’s very plausible he’d have shot all other cell phone users based on his prior behavior.
The guy was shot because he did not bow down to what Reeves considered to be his authority. he was used to talking down to people and the victim, in his mind, had the gall to resist his authority. For that, he died. Message sent. Message received.
You have a point about people who are potential witnesses going to the press, Facebook and Twitter instead of holding their fire for the trial. The prosecutors should try to rein them in. With today’s instantaneous communications, that’s getting harder all the time.
My main beef with this thread are the many posts that seem to imply that annoying texting justifies homicide. Now THAT’s annoying.
It has been growing steadily for a long time, and is, imo quite well earned. Ten years ago, this thread would have had a very different character.
Understood.
In the final analysis of this even it is logically observed that Justice Bunny is displeased.
<>So he talked with a manager, not a supervisor. Who cares?<>
Relax —
Manager and supervisor are the same thing and same person.
One detective says he spoke with manager/supervisor, the other one says he didn’t but spoke to somebody.
Odds are he spoke to an employee who was going to pass it on to his boss — the supervisor/manager.
Not making anything out of this except to demonstrate how one statement had two sides to it depending upon which detective you quote.
The question is when he walked back from there did he feel dissed and what was he determined to do.
His gun was not holstered but in his pants pocket.
Was his hand in that pocket at the same time as he returned to the auditorium???
If so then what was his intent at that time.
Any odds that at least 6 of the 7 in strips to the right of the ex cop in that photo are there on drug charges?
Is it a crime to throw popcorn on someone against their will? Is it an assault or isn't it? How much popcorn would you allow to be thrown at you before taking action? What action would you take?
What is the legal definition of "assault". Does it require contact with a victim or only the threat of contact? I'll give you a hint; people commonly refer to "assault and battery" together.
It will be the totality of the circumstances which are considered by a jury.
Evidence demonstrated that Trayvon Martin had an interest in guns, had an interest in fighting, and was found to be in possession of jewelry and a screwdriver at school. He was not the innocent little 13-year-old that the media attempted to portray.
There's a possibility that we may learn a lot more about the dead man's past behavior in this case.
Are you sure? When I carry, my gun is HOLSTERED IN MY PANTS POCKET.
What are you implying by questioning whether the gun was holstered and whether the gun was in a pants pocket?
If the old guy hadn’t been a cop, these people wouldn’t be singing praises of St. Travon with Popcorn.
Setting aside the guy’s previous job, the younger, more powerful thug clearly threatened it after he assaulted the guy with popcorn. The question is: whether or not the older guy truly felt he was in danger.
Shoot those who threaten or assault you, only then you will have polite and respectful society.
I don't get how they think they could possibly win with this. This guy isn't random Joe Blow, he's a retired cop. You know, the only class of people who can handle carrying guns at any/all times? The ones who we're supposed to call to protect us since guns are so dangerous to mere mortals?
Isn't holding this guy up as a reason to despite gun ownership merely destroying their own argument?
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.