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 01-16-2016, 11:32 AM
 
Location: Spring Hill Florida
12,135 posts, read 13,257,827 times
Reputation: 6010

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cryptic View Post
Though I dont think that it was all because of that (Oulson chose to escalate things after he ignored Reeve's orders), I think you are right- Reeves clearly expects to be obeyed and respected.

Disobey or disrepect Reeves, espescially in front of his "chick", and things can escalate very quickly. Though I dont think Reeves was predisposed to automatically shoot everyone who " 'dissed him" in anyway, he did not need much of a reason to use the weapon. Oulson gave him a "reason".


Unless Escobar is giving him a discount to build his name recognition as a defense attorney? Then again, even Escobar's discounted rate is going to be steep. Likewise, the high end mercenary experts that the defense is bringing need to be paid seperately.

All the more reason to just have changed seats. But.... guys like Reeves and Oulson dont think along those lines.
Being "disssed" and concerned that someone was about to lunge at you are 2 different things. One would not support the use of deadly force and the other would.

I read in one article, perhaps the one you linked, that Oulson's wife put her hand in front of him "to block the bullet". The things journalists write to make the story sell.


I think that was the same writer who wrote of the "gasps" in the courtroom. What do "gasps" sound like?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-16-2016, 11:34 AM
 
Location: North of South, South of North
8,706 posts, read 8,822,220 times
Reputation: 5073
Quote:
Originally Posted by KPB View Post
I don't see a problem w/ discussing this topic as long as we continue to do so in a respectful manner.

I know the last thread on this matter got closed and I'm happy this one is still open.

Although I may disagree w/ Springhillian's viewpoints, I still respect his opinion.
Being civil is what it is all about. Disagreeing, but being respectful is the best way to ensure the discussion continues.

The outcome of this case may be incredibly important on the interpretation of the law going forward.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-16-2016, 11:50 AM
 
Location: Spring Hill Florida
12,135 posts, read 13,257,827 times
Reputation: 6010
Overall, I agree with your comment, but you skipped a step.

The "dissed" part took place before Reeves went to seek management assistance. He did speak with a theater employee who apparently ignored Reeves report. Reeves returned to his seat and sat down. It was at that point Oulson rose from his seat, turned to face Reeves and asked if Reeves reported him to management and when Reeves answered to the affirmative the verbal, turned physical assault by Oulson began. Reeves never stood to rebutt Oulson but apparently sat there through the phone being thrown, his property (the popcorn bag) snatched from him while Oulson continued his attack which probably was going to further escalate to Oulson advancing forward on Reeves. That would be That would have been when Oulson's wife moved to hold him back realizing he was ready to move forward on Reeves. That is when Reeves shot him.

It wasnt the popcorn snatch/throw, it wasnt Oulson's disrespect, but his body language that got him shot.

Follow the escalation step by step. Self defense permissible under common sense and the law.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Cryptic View Post
Yes, I think the person can defend himself, and Texas law allows him to do so.

Texas law, however, also allows a jury to examine the totality of the circumstances that led to the battery. That could mean that they could find the attacker (the one who got called the name) guilty of no crime (fighting words), guilty of a reduced charge, or guilty of a full charge if the attack was totally out of proportion to the insult.

I am also pretty sure that Texas law would also allow charges to be placed against the "defender" if they felt his actions warranted it. Basically, Texas law allows people to stand their ground, but does not permit "set ups" where a person deliberately provokes another person, then shoots him.


My views are a little fuzzy. I could go for an acquittal based on the reasonable doubt, but only if I thought that this incident was out of character for Reeves. If I got the impression that Reeves was walking around with a "chip on his shoulder" and that something like this was going to happen sooner or later, I would convict him. This line of thought might not be fully "Kosher", but am not a computer either.

My understanding is that some people, including a teenage movie goer are going to testify that Reeves did have a "chip on his shoulder" about texting (so surprise that Reeves excuses himself from his own "no texting rules"). Therefore I would convict him of Manslaughter. He did try to go to the manager, so he was not fully pre-disposed to kill anybody who simply disrespected him in anyway. Reeves was provoked and had some fear. As such, I think Second Degree Murder is too much.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-16-2016, 11:55 AM
 
Location: Spring Hill Florida
12,135 posts, read 13,257,827 times
Reputation: 6010
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuteTheMall View Post
She was trying to restrain her husband, to hold him back from physically assaulting the old man.
That's how the back of her hand took the bullet.
Exactly!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-16-2016, 11:57 AM
 
Location: Spring Hill Florida
12,135 posts, read 13,257,827 times
Reputation: 6010
Quote:
Originally Posted by North_Pinellas_Guy View Post
Being civil is what it is all about. Disagreeing, but being respectful is the best way to ensure the discussion continues.

The outcome of this case may be incredibly important on the interpretation of the law going forward.
Yes. Agree on all points. I dont see any ambiguity in the way the Statute reads. Its clear as day.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-16-2016, 12:03 PM
 
Location: Spring Hill Florida
12,135 posts, read 13,257,827 times
Reputation: 6010
Quote:
Originally Posted by KPB View Post
In all the years of experience Reeve's had training on combat/swat, and de-escalating situations I would think that he'd be able to tell/sense if the confrontation was about to get physical (body language, squared up, raising fists, etc).
I honestly believe as Reeves himself stated that he wanted to teach Oulson a lesson by Reeves quote "I'll teach you to throw popcorn at me".

I just dont believe Oulson was going to do anything further than throwing the pocorn, I believe he was done after that.
Oulsons character doesn't seem like the type of man who would beat up an old man IMO.

Reeves character on the other hand, based on coworker's statement's, the neighborhood kid playing his stereo too loud statement, and the way he talks to his wife, well most people would seem to agree he's just an old ass hole.
Ah............. but apparently he was not done. Oulson's wife put her hand out in an attempt to restrain him from going forward toward Reeves. That is how the shot hit her. She realized what was about to take place and so did Reeves. Reeves was in fear of bodily harm. He wasnt acting because of earlier events. He was acting to protect himself since he knew he was unable to prevent the forthcoming attack.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-16-2016, 12:07 PM
 
Location: Spring Hill Florida
12,135 posts, read 13,257,827 times
Reputation: 6010
I can agree with your line of thought. Nothing in law or common sense says if harm is eminent you must endure harm.

At the moment of Oulson's action Reeves had no chance to move out of the way or do anything else.


Quote:
Originally Posted by miami_winter_breeze View Post
As for provoking an individual, I think this needs to be adjusted during jury deliberation, and not emphasized in the law itself. Take two people, both in a heated argument, one guy calls the other a name, the other proceeds to commit violent battery. Doesn't that first person have recourse to defend himself?

I think so.

Obviously leaving was the right thing to do. Don't get me wrong, I think Reeves shot him out of rage, not genuine fear. But I have 'reasonable doubt' he shot him, afraid this man will continue to escalate the situation. So I'd acquit, Reeves doesn't win any man of the year awards.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-16-2016, 12:12 PM
 
Location: tampa bay
6,587 posts, read 6,827,055 times
Reputation: 9856
It will be important how the jury views how Nicole got shot in the hand...because if they believe she was shot while trying to fend off the bullet then Reeves should at least go down for battery (which I believe he is charged with)...if she was attempting to hold her husband back and just got in the way...then no...will be interesting verdict...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-16-2016, 12:14 PM
 
Location: Spring Hill Florida
12,135 posts, read 13,257,827 times
Reputation: 6010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cryptic View Post
Though I can accept some SYG laws, I think Florida's rejects an awful lot of common law / common sense principals. For example, the Texas version clearly and unequivocably states that one cannot:
- provoke the other individual
- be engaged in any criminal activity at the time.

Though I would not consider asking or even uhmmm..... "asking" (I have a suspiscion that Reeves is an "asker" who likes to be obeyed) somebody to stop texting to be a provocation, I think Reeves actions reinforce the core concept of "Don't try to SYG, leave when ever possible" that some fire arms instructors teach .

Had Reeves just left, he would not be "sweating bullets" (get it, get it) that the jurors buy his spin of the events. Instead, he jumped into a rapidly escalating respect / disrespect contest with win, or lose a bad outcome for himself.
How does the assumption that someone was about to lunge at you relate to respect/disrespect?
Oulson had 3-5 seconds (according to witnesses) after throwing the popcorn to display body language expressing his intent and Oulson's wife read the body language a split second or so before the shot was fired.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-16-2016, 12:18 PM
 
Location: Spring Hill Florida
12,135 posts, read 13,257,827 times
Reputation: 6010
Quote:
Originally Posted by DUNNDFRNT View Post
The caveat being that the jury has to buy that snatching his popcorn was assault which is an stretch for most people. I agree with you that Reeves could have believed that he was in danger and did not intent to kill Olsen over a bag of popcorn but rather sought to stop a future attack that no one other than oulsen can say if it was coming or it was imaginary.
May be a stretch for some but pursuant to FL law it is called "sudden snatching" which is a felony.

Imaginary or real it seems Oulson's wife and Reeves saw the same thing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 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
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

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, 33, 34, 35 - Top