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 07-16-2014, 03:03 PM
 
Location: Spring Hill Florida
12,135 posts, read 11,616,575 times
Reputation: 5988

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by bannedontherun View Post
Reeves was incredibly angry...a witness said Reeves stated "I'll teach you to throw popcorn at me". Reeves turned to his wife after the murder and said "shut your f'ing mouth and don't say another word". Can you imagine talking to your spouse like that? Lol, what a depraved hothead.
I would be angry too if some punk was yelling at me and throwing objects at me. I'd be angry for him grabbing my stuff. Oulsen had no right to get physical with the man.

 
Old 07-16-2014, 03:03 PM
 
1,024 posts, read 1,318,268 times
Reputation: 962
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spring Hillian View Post
That is the best take of the situation I have yet to read.
Why, thank you. Too bad you don't ever like what I have to say about Spring Hill! LOL! (Just kidding, of course!)
 
Old 07-16-2014, 03:06 PM
 
Location: Spring Hill Florida
12,135 posts, read 11,616,575 times
Reputation: 5988
I think it is a felony since Reeves is over 65.



Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuteTheMall View Post
I would have changed seats, because I don't like to sit behind obnoxious tall people who text.
But if I am attacked, I might have to defend myself in order to stop the attack before I am killed or seriously injured. I don't get attacked because I am lovably scary.



At that time in Florida, warning shots were illegal. And if someone is not in fear for their life, they are not justified in shooting to maim or wound. That's illegal. Carry OC spray for those non-lethal situations if you wish.



One never shoots unless it is to stop.

Killing is one possible result (bonus, benefit), because killing always stops, but stopping doesn't always kill.

The intention to kill is not protected by law, unlike the intention to merely stop.

A burst to the chest followed if necessary by a burst to the head is a pretty good stopper.





But since Reaves did not as yet actually suffer great bodily harm or a permanent disability, this section did not apply.

So we might not yet have felony 3.

And we don't have intent to commit a felony for aggravated assault IF Ouslen merely intended to commit simple assault, a misdemeanor of the 3rd degree due to Reaves' age.

Gotta try harder to show the felony.




Oulsen's basic assault upon Reaves wasn't a with deadly weapon, so intent to commit a felony must be proven instead of intent to commit a misdemeanor. (A dangerous weapon is legally different from a deadly weapon).

Other than fighting about the facts of what did or did not happen, or possible statements about who said what, I think the case will depend on whether the jury can be led to believe that Oulsen's assault was more than basic (misdemeanor) assault.

I'm not yet convinced of the felony by Oulsen, beyond reasonable doubt, but I'm still looking at it.
 
Old 07-16-2014, 03:09 PM
 
Location: USA's #1 MSA 4 Years Running
8,569 posts, read 7,469,192 times
Reputation: 4894
Quote:
Originally Posted by floridagirl777 View Post
OK, so now it's:

1. Oulson swore and used angry words at Reeves.
2. Threw and object at Reeves, which struck him in the face.
3. Grabbed Reeves' bag of popcorn and threw it at him.

I'm really not sure I'd say this was aggravated assault based on the definitions given here. Basic assault, maybe, but I don't see how anyone could call it aggravated.

I also found this in a CNN article that shows what happened after the shooting:

Before more authorities arrived, Reeves' wife told her husband "that was no cause to shoot anyone," according to Hamilton, the law enforcement officer who was then off-duty.
Reeves responded by pointing his finger at her and saying, according to Hamilton, "You shut your f**king mouth and don't say another word."
The off-duty corporal said that at one point, Reeves pushed back his glasses and said out loud, "Holy f**k, what have I done?"

So, here's what I think. I think Reeves was irritated by Oulson's cell phone use. I think Oulson lost his temper with Reeves. Oulson is obviously confrontational and quick-tempered, but so is Reeves. Both men could have chosen to move away, but that didn't happen. Oulson reacted to Reeves with his words, cell phone, and Reeves' bag of popcorn. Reeves reacted with his gun.

I have to wonder, if Oulson had a gun too, would he have fired it at Reeves? I think he probably would have since he seemed just as hot natured as Reeves.

Do I think Reeves meant to kill Oulson? No. I think he allowed his temper to get the better of him. I agree with Reeves' wife what Oulson did was certainly no cause to kill someone. I also think that Reeves realized he'd screwed up big-time.

I do think it would be difficult to argue self-defense in this case now that I've looked over everything. I will be surprised if the verdict goes in that direction. I think the verdict will point in the direction of a man losing his temper and allowing someone to provoke him to the point of pulling a gun and shooting.
Plea deal?
 
Old 07-16-2014, 03:10 PM
 
Location: Sinkholeville
1,478 posts, read 1,215,898 times
Reputation: 2261
Boldly butting in in blue......

Quote:
Originally Posted by floridagirl777 View Post

I also found this in a CNN article that shows what happened after the shooting:

Before more authorities arrived, Reeves' wife told her husband "that was no cause to shoot anyone," according to Hamilton, the law enforcement officer who was then off-duty.


I'm not sure whether or not she is trained and competent to make that judgment, especially in the heat of the moment. We do know that her husband was trained to make that judgment, not only because of his Florida CHP but also based upon his decades of experience. His competence to make that judgment may be debatable.

Reeves responded by pointing his finger at her and saying, according to Hamilton, "You shut your f**king mouth and don't say another word."

That's excellent legal advice, isn't it? I hope I can refrain from making statements without counsel.

The off-duty corporal said that at one point, Reeves pushed back his glasses and said out loud, "Holy f**k, what have I done?"

Sounds like a perfectly natural reaction to such a loud and stressful event. It would have been better not to say anything at all.
 
Old 07-16-2014, 03:12 PM
 
Location: Spring Hill, Florida
2,501 posts, read 3,795,699 times
Reputation: 2643
I just got caught up on this thread... I'm glad the facts are starting to come out.

I thought Reeves left the theater to complain to management and then was accosted (verbally, at least initially) by Oulson for doing so when he returned to his seat. But apparently, I was mistaken and the reason Reeves left the theater was to go retrieve a gun.

Well, I'm sure the security camera footage of him doing so will be a high point at the trial...
 
Old 07-16-2014, 03:13 PM
 
Location: Spring Hill Florida
12,135 posts, read 11,616,575 times
Reputation: 5988
Quote:
Originally Posted by The b8nk View Post
Bottom line: it all depends on if deadly force was WARRANTED. From the video, it doesnt appear so, but with eyewitness testimony and expert opinions, we will have to see how it plays out.

Edit: Does anyone know what kind of gun he used? Its crazy that the speaker surround sound couldnt dislodge dust from the camera fixing but a gun shot could.
Agree with your bottom line. Was it or was it not warranted. If Reeves was in fear of his life, well being and fear of bodily harm it is warranted.

I am pretty sure it was a .380 that Reeves had.
 
Old 07-16-2014, 03:24 PM
 
1,024 posts, read 1,318,268 times
Reputation: 962
Quote:
Originally Posted by PriusH8r View Post
Plea deal?
Perhaps. I'm not sure which direction it will go, really. There are so many variables. I'd hate to be on the jury because it really doesn't seem like a cut-and-dry sort of case. Loads of gray areas, in my opinion.

I think there are some great lessons to be learned in all of this, though - an unchecked temper can lead to really, really bad consequences, and it's better to remove oneself from a volatile situation than to throw fuel on the fire.
 
Old 07-16-2014, 03:25 PM
 
Location: Sinkholeville
1,478 posts, read 1,215,898 times
Reputation: 2261
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spring Hillian View Post
According to Section 825.102 of the Florida Statutes, when a senior citizen is knowingly abused, leading him to suffer great bodily harm or a permanent disability, the person responsible is charged with a third-degree felony punishable by law. ................

Aggravated Assault: Is an assault which is committed with a deadly weapon or which is committed or with the intent to commit a felony...........................

Basic Assault:

Intentionally threatening someone (by word or action) with physical harm. Whether or not you follow through on the threat, it must be possible and put the victim in fear that it is about to happen.......... .


784.08 Assault or battery on persons 65 years of age or older; reclassification of offenses; minimum sentence.
(d) In the case of assault, from a misdemeanor of the second degree to a misdemeanor of the first degree.
(3) Notwithstanding the provisions of s. 948.01, adjudication of guilt or imposition of sentence shall not be suspended, deferred, or withheld.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spring Hillian View Post
I think it is a felony since Reeves is over 65.
Not unless it is aggravated assault, which requires either a deadly weapon, or intent to commit a felony.

A cell phone is not legally a deadly weapon, because it is not designed to cause death or great bodily harm. Ditto with popcorn, even if heavily salted.

If it is merely assault upon person 65+, it's upgraded but still a misdemeanor. 784.08(d)

That would mean that it's not a forcible felony, and that might mean that deadly force to defend against it is not justified. So it's pretty important to determine the level of Oulsen's assault upon Reeves.

I'm still undecided, so put me on the jury. I'm retired, I have the time.
 
Old 07-16-2014, 03:26 PM
 
Location: Spring Hill Florida
12,135 posts, read 11,616,575 times
Reputation: 5988
Quote:
Originally Posted by floridagirl777 View Post
snip........ - an unchecked temper can lead to really, really bad consequences, and it's better to remove oneself from a volatile situation than to throw fuel on the fire.
You've got that right.
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