Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm pretty confused as to why people are still defending the vet. Do they think its acceptable to kill someone over an argument?
An argument? No. But arguments often escalate from verbal to physical, it's hardly beyond the realm of possibility that the texter got physical with the old man who then defended himself. That isn't going to be decided here, it will be by a jury because there's little chance this won't end up in court.
it's hardly beyond the realm of possibility that the texter got physical with the old man who then defended himself. That isn't going to be decided here, it will be by a jury because there's little chance this won't end up in court.
It is beyond the realm of possibilities. According to witnesses and the police they stayed in their own aisles and at most popcorn was thrown.
An argument? No. But arguments often escalate from verbal to physical, it's hardly beyond the realm of possibility that the texter got physical with the old man who then defended himself. That isn't going to be decided here, it will be by a jury because there's little chance this won't end up in court.
There is not a single witness that says the texter touched or attempted to touch Mr Reeves, who was standing in the tier above Mr Oulson, separated by a row of theater seats. I point that out, because if Mr Oulson would have reached upward and across that row of seats, others, and particularly the vet seated next to Mr Oulson, could not have failed to notice such an action. Throwing popcorn is generally not considered a menacing action that merits a deadly response. The witnesses with law enforcement or military backgrounds have made statements that Mr Reeves responded to tossed popcorn with an unjustified deadly response. The police report, the charges, and the judge's denial of bond, all point to unjustified deadly response.
It just boggles my mind that anyone would not recognize him for the jerk that he was.
Well, gee!
Maybe the jury will decide Mr. Reeves is innocent of murder because Mr. Oulson was a jerk!
"Your Honor, Mr. Oulson was acting like a jerk. That's why I killed him. If he had not acted like a jerk and obeyed my command to stop texting he would be alive today! Furthermore, if he hadn't gone to the movies that afternoon, he would be alive today. So, Your Honor, Mr. Oulson is partially, if not primarily, responsible for his own death."
Judge: "Not Guilty!"
Ya, in your dreams.
The fact is, it doesn't matter if he was being a jerk or not. Even mass murderers and other evil people sometimes don't get the death penalty. There is just no comparison between being a jerk and being a murderer.
It's thinking like yours that makes me wonder about conservatives wanting 'less government'. I think what they really want is to have the ability to take the law into their own hands. They must feel they are so much better than anyone else that they should be able to make life or death decisions without government interference.
Welcome to my increasingly longer ignore list. I don't have time for people like you. "Freudian"! Do you even know what that means? Never mind. Bye.
Welcome to my world. It's like a breath of fresh air. Calling other members trolls was the last straw for me.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
