U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Florida > Tampa Bay
 [Register]
Tampa Bay Tampa - St. Petersburg - Clearwater
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 07-15-2014, 02:34 PM
 
Location: Spring Hill Florida
12,135 posts, read 11,590,903 times
Reputation: 5988

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by bannedontherun View Post
Uh... Shut my mouth, mind my own business, move seats, let management handle it, call the cops, maybe at worst thrown something back at him.
He was trying to mind his own business. Oulson started up after Reeves returned from attempting to alert management. Throwing something back at him would have been further escalation which would have further enraged Oulsen. Move seats? Why not Ouslen moving instead of turning around, yelling at the man and then throwing objects at him?

All Reeves was doing is protecting himself from attack and bodily harm. No more, no less.


You are OK with being a victim. That is your choice.

 
Old 07-15-2014, 02:36 PM
 
Location: Spring Hill Florida
12,135 posts, read 11,590,903 times
Reputation: 5988
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaba View Post
LOL, I've dealt with aggressive idiots more times than I can count.

The difference is, I'm not an ego driven turd who would kill a man over such nonsense.

I would happily convict one if I were ever on that jury, though, and I bet his jury agrees

You do not know Reeves. Therefore you cannot judge him or his personality. You want to be a victim, that is your choice. Reeves acted within the law. Simple as that.
 
Old 07-15-2014, 02:38 PM
 
741 posts, read 608,925 times
Reputation: 1356
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spring Hillian View Post
You do not know Reeves. Therefore you cannot judge him or his personality. You want to be a victim, that is your choice. Reeves acted within the law. Simple as that.
According to the actual law (per State v Dunn and State v. Juratovac) and not just 'internet argument law', you are completely incorrect.

I would dutifully shoot anyone who acted in such a way that threatened myself or my family, but I wouldn't shoot someone who 'dissed' me or 'sassed' me and threatened my ego, then made up pathetic excuses for how I 'felt in fear for my life'.

This is where the fringe of law abiding gun rights types find common ground with street corner thugs.
 
Old 07-15-2014, 02:40 PM
 
741 posts, read 608,925 times
Reputation: 1356
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spring Hillian View Post
He was trying to mind his own business. Oulson started up after Reeves returned from attempting to alert management. Throwing something back at him would have been further escalation which would have further enraged Oulsen. Move seats? Why not Ouslen moving instead of turning around, yelling at the man and then throwing objects at him?

All Reeves was doing is protecting himself from attack and bodily harm. No more, no less.


You are OK with being a victim. That is your choice.
The best part is, all the very obvious stuff that discredits his story, well, they write it off to 'ya never know' or 'innocent until proven guilty!' or "HOW CAN YOU JUDGE WHEN YOU DON'T KNOW ALL THE FACTS!" yet they're perfectly willing to propose elaborate hypothetical scenarios based on facts they've made up that bear no relationship whatsoever to the actual facts as we know them.
 
Old 07-15-2014, 02:45 PM
 
Location: Spring Hill Florida
12,135 posts, read 11,590,903 times
Reputation: 5988
I did ask questions. "How many of these incidents can you tell me about? How often does this happen? What causes such a situation? You're referring to incidents that are very rare. "

If somone was committing forcible sodomy against you and you were armed you wouldnt shoot?


You and many others here are inventing your own scenarios. There is one scenario. The way it happene

You state that you would decide on conviction when you havent heard a word of testimony.

Isnt standxing up, turning around and yelling at someone, then throwing more than one object at them (oh, keep in mind that was Reeves' popcorn that was snatched from him by his assailant) is NOT morally repugnant behavior?



Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaba View Post
You didn't ask a question, yet I've already cited two very, very recent cases where idiots misusing carry permits under flimsy pretexts in the state of Florida are now in prison.

Again, equating this to the 'knockout game' shows how totally desperate you are. Why not equate it to forcible sodomy? Maybe the guy was gonna sodomize him and THAT is why he used his carry permit! And... he saw something shiny! And the guy said he was gunna kill him! YEAH! THAT'S THE TICKET! HE SAID HE SAID "I'M GONNA KILL YOU!" AND THEN THREW SOMETHING AND *THAT* IS WHY HE SHOT!

Its amusing how lame 'ideologues' look when they try to make lame excuses for morally repugnant behavior.
 
Old 07-15-2014, 02:51 PM
 
Location: Spring Hill Florida
12,135 posts, read 11,590,903 times
Reputation: 5988
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaba View Post
The best part is, all the very obvious stuff that discredits his story, well, they write it off to 'ya never know' or 'innocent until proven guilty!' or "HOW CAN YOU JUDGE WHEN YOU DON'T KNOW ALL THE FACTS!" yet they're perfectly willing to propose elaborate hypothetical scenarios based on facts they've made up that bear no relationship whatsoever to the actual facts as we know them.
I dont have all the facts. All I have is Reeves' statements and a run down of the events that lead to the shooting. I dont see where Reeves made any mistakes.

I am not proposing any hypotheical scenarios. "Facts they've made up"? Why would anyone need to make up anything when it is crystal clear.

Oulsen was asked to stop texting as it was bothering a fellow patron.

Oulsen blows off the request from Reeves.

Reeves gets up to seek management.

Reeves returns to his seat.

Oulsen stands up, turns around and begins to verbally assault Reeves.

Oulsen grabs Reeves' popcorn from him and throws it at him.

Oulsen throws some other object at Reeves causing Reeves' glasses to be knocked off.

Oulsen is still ranting and raving.

Reeves draws a legal weapon and shots Oulsen.

Who caused that action to be necessary?
 
Old 07-15-2014, 02:53 PM
 
Location: Spring Hill Florida
12,135 posts, read 11,590,903 times
Reputation: 5988
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaba View Post
According to the actual law (per State v Dunn and State v. Juratovac) and not just 'internet argument law', you are completely incorrect.

I would dutifully shoot anyone who acted in such a way that threatened myself or my family, but I wouldn't shoot someone who 'dissed' me or 'sassed' me and threatened my ego, then made up pathetic excuses for how I 'felt in fear for my life'.

This is where the fringe of law abiding gun rights types find common ground with street corner thugs.

There you go. Leaving out the key events. The grabbing of Reeves' popcorn by Oulsen, the throwing of the popcorn followed by the throwing of another item.
 
Old 07-15-2014, 02:54 PM
 
Location: Spring Hill Florida
12,135 posts, read 11,590,903 times
Reputation: 5988
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaba View Post
The best part is, all the very obvious stuff that discredits his story, well, they write it off to 'ya never know' or 'innocent until proven guilty!' or "HOW CAN YOU JUDGE WHEN YOU DON'T KNOW ALL THE FACTS!" yet they're perfectly willing to propose elaborate hypothetical scenarios based on facts they've made up that bear no relationship whatsoever to the actual facts as we know them.
What discredits Reeves' position?
 
Old 07-15-2014, 02:57 PM
 
741 posts, read 608,925 times
Reputation: 1356
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spring Hillian View Post
There you go. Leaving out the key events. The grabbing of Reeves' popcorn by Oulsen, the throwing of the popcorn followed by the throwing of another item.
There you go, demonstrating what an enormous kook you are by claiming that grabbing popcorn and throwing a cel phone is justification for deadly force.
 
Old 07-15-2014, 02:59 PM
 
741 posts, read 608,925 times
Reputation: 1356
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spring Hillian View Post
What discredits Reeves' position?
Just like the Dunn case, its inherently non-credible; the desperate narrative of a man about to face the music for doing something horrible and trying to justify it.

That's just with the eye-witness statements.

Add the video to the mix, that cat is screwed.
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.


Closed Thread


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2013 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Florida > Tampa Bay

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2017, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 - Top