Wesley chapel Grove movies shooting (Spring Hill: date, community, history)

[bannedontherun]

Originally Posted by Spring Hillian

First of all you are wrong about throwing an object at another person. It is illegal. It is a crime.
The law does not specify what needs to be thrown to make it a crime.

That is apparently what Oulsen told Reeves. Go *********rself and continued with the unacceptable action of texting in the theater. Oulsen also committed a crime against the elderly when he
confronted Reeves when Reeves came back to his seat from reporting the matter.

Mr. Oulsen's numerous uncivil actions caused him to die.

It does matter what was thrown, it's a hard concept for you to grasp but intent is the key word in statute language. Popcorn by and in itself cannot provide intent to do bodily harm. By your logic the law needs to get busy and start rounding up rice throwers at weddings and prosecute them.

[Spring Hillian]

Originally Posted by ChuteTheMall

I'm not sure that I agree with you that he was already under threat of imminent danger before the popcorn was thrown. But if that is true, then the shooting was in self-defense.

If Reeves remained seated as you said, it's obvious that he was not escalating the situation until he was under the threat of imminent danger.

Reeves must hope the jury agrees with your statement. I'm not so sure.

It would be a normal reaction to prepare for further attack when you are under attack.

Its akin to picking up a rock at a school yard fight.

[Blondy]

Originally Posted by Spring Hillian

Thank you for your input. i am glad someone out there looks at the issue with a clear mind and not going off on how bad a person mr. reeves is.

Don't get too excited lol. I am also clear minded enough to realize its basically his only defense and he could be making it up after the fact. Time and more testimony will hopefully tell the real story.

His wifes statement does not appear at first blush to help him. Will be interesting to see what else she has to say if anything as Mrs. Oulson has apparently gone on tv to say her husband wasn't making any kind of threat.

It may boil down to the credibility of these three players if it goes before a jury.

I also think its entirely possible Reeves flight or fight mechanism could be shot due to age combined with too many years as LEO possibly causing him to overreact.

I find Mr. Oulson's behavior appalling. Unfortunately, he already paid the ultimate price for that so understandably most people don't want to hold him accountable in any way for what happened to him.

There is no excuse for throwing something at an older person who is verbally annoying you in my world. So, I tend to agree that with someone like that who knows what is coming next. Its a little bizarre how many people seem to think that behavior is appropriate or somehow to be shrugged off.

[Spring Hillian]

Ah, but they do feel Mr. Oulsen was not at fault at all. Others would tell you that Reeves should have gotten up and went to sit somewhere else. Mr. Oulsen is a saint in most minds on this thread.
Some have mistakenly stated it is due to the stand your ground law.
Some claim Reeves was wrong from the get go and they too would have told him off if he had approached them while they were texting.

There are many opinions on what happened and how it happened in this thread that it will make heads spin.

Originally Posted by Blondy

Don't get too excited lol. I am also clear minded enough to realize its basically his only defense and he could be making it up after the fact. Time and more testimony will hopefully tell the real story.

His wifes statement does not appear at first blush to help him. Will be interesting to see what else she has to say if anything as Mrs. Oulson has apparently gone on tv to say her husband wasn't making any kind of threat.

It may boil down to the credibility of these three players if it goes before a jury.

I also think its entirely possible Reeves flight or fight mechanism could be shot due to age combined with too many years as LEO possibly causing him to overreact.

I find Mr. Oulson's behavior appalling. Unfortunately, he already paid the ultimate price for that so understandably most people don't want to hold him accountable in any way for what happened to him.

There is no excuse for throwing something at an older person who is verbally annoying you in my world. So, I tend to agree that with someone like that who knows what is coming next. Its a little bizarre how many people seem to think that behavior is appropriate or somehow to be shrugged off.

[Soup Not See]

Originally Posted by Spring Hillian

First of all you are wrong about throwing an object at another person. It is illegal. It is a crime.
The law does not specify what needs to be thrown to make it a crime.

Really ? Baseball pitchers throw at batters all the time ... do they get charged with a crime ?

In your scenario, a security officer at a school who gets hit by a spitball in the lunchroom is entitled to pull his weapon and start shooting ...

[D-R-B]

I certainly don't think he was a "saint"......

I just absolutely will never believe his actions were worthy of getting shot and/or killed....

I and absolutely believe that perceiving being under "attack" because of an argument in which popcorn was thrown and heated words were exchanged is flat out ridiculous.

And I will always believe that the more people there are carrying around guns in public, the more of these type of incidents will occur.

[Not_liking_FL]

Originally Posted by Spring Hillian

Ah, but they do feel Mr. Oulsen was not at fault at all. Others would tell you that Reeves should have gotten up and went to sit somewhere else. Mr. Oulsen is a saint in most minds on this thread.
Some have mistakenly stated it is due to the stand your ground law.
Some claim Reeves was wrong from the get go and they too would have told him off if he had approached them while they were texting.

There are many opinions on what happened and how it happened in this thread that it will make heads spin.

I believe I read that Mrs. Reeves had already moved down a few seats. Maybe her husband should have followed. I don't hear anyone claiming Oulsen is a saint. They're saying he didn't deserve to be killed for texting and throwing popcorn.

[D-R-B]

Originally Posted by Not_liking_FL

I believe I read that Mrs. Reeves had already moved down a few seats. Maybe her husband should have followed. I don't hear anyone claiming Oulsen is a saint. They're saying he didn't deserve to be killed for texting and throwing popcorn.

Yep....

Even Mr. Reeves said that he should have moved to a different seat...

As much as I don't like people texting all of the damn time in public because they're never looking where they are going and they negatively affect those of us who still know how to behave in public....

Mr. Reeves is not an authority figure over ANYONE BUT HIMSELF....

I might have been annoyed also by the texting....

But he should have just ignored it....

BECAUSE HE'S NOT A FREAKING AUTHORITY FIGURE OVER WHAT SOMEONE ELSE IS DOING.

[Blondy]

Originally Posted by Spring Hillian

Ah, but they do feel Mr. Oulsen was not at fault at all. Others would tell you that Reeves should have gotten up and went to sit somewhere else. Mr. Oulsen is a saint in most minds on this thread.
Some have mistakenly stated it is due to the stand your ground law.
Some claim Reeves was wrong from the get go and they too would have told him off if he had approached them while they were texting.

There are many opinions on what happened and how it happened in this thread that it will make heads spin.

I don't think much of that will matter to a jury in the end. Both men in hindsight could have made choices that would have resulted in a different outcome. So what. They didn't. And a jury will have to deal with what both of them did rather than what they could have done.

Wrong and illegal/criminal are two different things. Just like Zimmerman should have stayed in his car imo and was wrong to keep following Martin, it didn't matter once he was being assaulted. I think some of the jurors actually said that as well if I recall.

Staying in the seat you chose is not stand your ground and I doubt it will be claimed. Especially, if he was seated and trapped no where to retreat with Oulson coming over the seat and/or threatening. That will be straight up self defense claimed.

[Not_liking_FL]

No bond for Reeves.

Recording of accused movie theater gunman played in court