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 am piecing the story together through some news articles. Someone please correct me if I have the wrong information, but from my understanding, Oulson did the following to Reeves:
1. Swore and used angry words at Reeves.
2. Threw an object at Reeves, which struck him in the face.
I am piecing the story together through some news articles. Someone please correct me if I have the wrong information, but from my understanding, Oulson did the following to Reeves:
1. Swore and used angry words at Reeves.
2. Threw an object at Reeves, which struck him in the face.
3. Threw popcorn at Reeves.
Yes, you have it. Except it was Reeves' popcorn that Oulsen threw at him. Oulsen grabbed it from Reeves and then threw it at him.
I am piecing the story together through some news articles. Someone please correct me if I have the wrong information, but from my understanding, Oulson did the following to Reeves:
1. Swore and used angry words at Reeves.
2. Threw an object at Reeves, which struck him in the face.
3. Threw popcorn at Reeves.
-
1. Incorrect- no threats or angry words were heard by witnesses. Oulson did say he would shut the phone off, Oulson did say he wished to be left alone, Oulson did ask Reeves "what's your problem".
2. This is whAt Reeves is claiming..of course he also claimed Oulson was virtually on top of him and no witnesses, even Reeves wife said they saw nothing strike him in the face. Reeves was immediately photographed after the shooting... There are no marks or indications he was struck in the face.
3. Oulson did grab Reeves popcorn and tossed it back at him.
In 1920, New York Yankees pitcher Carl Mays, a sidearming spitballer, threw a pitch that hit Cleveland Indians shortstop Ray Chapman in the head. Chapman died several days later.
Anger issue: When phone goes from mobile to aerial - Los Angeles Times
"but attack by cellphone can result in cuts, chipped teeth or an eye injury. James E. Baker, an emergency physician at Kaiser Permanente Baldwin Park Medical Center, recently stitched up a mom who was hit by her daughter's cellphone. "In this case, our patient's upper lip was smashed against her teeth, causing the laceration," says Dr. Baker, adding that when thrown with force, a cellphone can indeed become a weapon."
Zero percent??
Naomi Campbell pleaded guilty to misdemeanor assault Tuesday for hitting her maid with a cell phone over a pair of missing jeans.
"I threw a cell phone. . . . The cell phone hit Ana," Campbell told Manhattan Criminal Court Judge Robert Mandelbaum. "This was an accident because I did not intend to hit her."
If convicted at trial, Campbell, who originally had been charged with second-degree felony assault, could have been sentenced to two to seven years in prison.
Campbell, 36, hit Ana Scolavino in the back of the head with the phone in the supermodel's apartment last March. Scolavino was treated for a head injury.
"Blunt trauma injuries can range from the fracture of bones to internal bleeding to brain damage and even stopping the heart. For many of these injuries there are different theories as to causal criteria. Essentially, for brusing and contusion it's a function of applied stress to soft tissues, and for head injuries acceleration (both linear and rotational) are important"
If I have to explain to you why being hit in the head by a baseball thrown by a professional pitcher, or by being hit by something thrown from a car going highway speeds is a tad different then having a cellphone tossed at you from a few feet away, there's really nothing else we have to discuss.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jambo101
If it were my call i wouldnt shoot to kill, i'm sure a shot in the air or a non lethal part of the body would have stopped any supposed aggression from Polsen.
..
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spring Hillian
One never shoots unless it is to kill.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spring Hillian
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spring Hillian
Thus, Oulsen had committed a felony when the snatched Reeve' popcorn, a 2nd felony when the threw an object at Reeves that struck him. Therefore the charge is aggravated assault.
Aggravated Assault: Is an assault which is committed with a deadly weapon or which is committed or with the intent to commit a felony. Oulsen committed the felony by assaulting Reeves in the first place. An aggravated assault can result from throwing an object likely to cause great bodily harm at someone, even if the object doesn't hit that person.
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. .
The statute indicates that Oulsen committed felony aggravated assault.
784.08 Assault or battery on persons 65 years of age or older; reclassification of offenses; minimum sentence.—
....
(2) Whenever a person is charged with committing an assault or aggravated assault or a battery or aggravated battery upon a person 65 years of age or older, regardless of whether he or she knows or has reason to know the age of the victim, the offense for which the person is charged shall be reclassified as follows:....
(d) In the case of assault, from a misdemeanor of the second degree to a misdemeanor of the first degree.
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.
Yes, you have it. Except it was Reeves' popcorn that Oulsen threw at him. Oulsen grabbed it from Reeves and then threw it at him.
Oulsen was totallu enraged and out of control.
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.
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.
1. Incorrect- no threats or angry words were heard by witnesses. Oulson did say he would shut the phone off, Oulson did say he wished to be left alone, Oulson did ask Reeves "what's your problem".
Why did Oulson ask that? Hadn't Reeves already stated what the problem was? So was this an innocent hypothetical question, or a deliberate provocation?
What's your problem?
2. This is whAt Reeves is claiming..of course he also claimed Oulson was virtually on top of him and no witnesses, even Reeves wife said they saw nothing strike him in the face. Reeves was immediately photographed after the shooting... There are no marks or indications he was struck in the face.
No marks does not prove that nothing was thrown; he could have missed, Reaves could have ducked, bad aim, weak throw, tough skin, lots of reasons for no marks. Not seeing something doesn't refute that it happened.
3. Oulson did grab Reeves popcorn and tossed it back at him.
And after that, didn't Oulson knock off Reeves' eyeglasses, obscuring his image in a partially darkened theater, and then, didn't Oulson throw his cellphone at Reeves, and give no indication that he was now ending his assault? How would Reeves know when Oulsen was finished assaulting him?
That is the best take of the situation I have yet to read.
Quote:
Originally Posted by floridagirl777
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.
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.
Its amazing that these witnesses heard and saw everything but never did anything to defuse the situation, not even dialing 911.
What transpired AFTER the shooting is irrelevant.
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.
