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.
Unless shooter had a mental condition, Legally, what else is there to consider ? The guy used a gun, deadly force. I suppose the texter could have muttered, 'I'm going to kill you,' or moved to attack.' Sure, we'll know more over time, but it'd take much more than popcorn to turn this into a justifiable homicide.
His mindset as a career police officer - the mindset that he had to have to survive for many years spent in that career. A good lawyer will explore that at length. That, and things like mentioned in the post above yours.
The fact that this case is one involving a career cop makes it different. That said, not he nor anyone else has any business carrying a gun to a theater.
Demanding (see the difference there?) someone desist from texting during the previews then having management tell you they will not address the issue BECAUSE the guy isn't breaking any rules then returning to pick up where you left off AFTER the management has given you that explanation to hear the guy explain he was simply texting his daughter and saying something so as to result in an this man throwing his bag of popcorn at you to then gun him down in cold blood is not only picking the fight but finishing it as well.
That's quite a sentence. Where exactly did you get this information about the management telling Reeves this? Have a link?
How did he know what was being tossed at him? It might have been something extremely dangerous. Something like acid. It's not up to the person being physically assaulted to determine the composition of the stuff.
Not only will the shooter probably get off, but depending on the proximity of his wife, he might even claim to be protecting her from the unknown substance.
It's obvious who the hot head was. It wasn't the shooter. He tried to resolve the problem in a civilized manner. When that didn't work, he sought help from management. But the dead guy showed absolutely zero control and zero consideration.
Nonsense! Every witness knew what was thrown and they were sitting down.
You'd have to be incredibly stupid to float the idea that two people faced off in a 'still lit' theater with one of them holding a bag of popcorn (while not texting, it can now be presumed) then having popcorn hit you which you can certaionly tell instantly it's not buckshot and having already seen the popcorn in the guys hand (things you're trained to notice as a cop) would logically conclude was the same popcorn and not some magical weapon that does neither hurt or leave a mark after hitting you.
C'mon now, you've gone to Star Trek 'reaching for the stars' to give this authoritarian ex cop all the lee-way you can possibly manufacture and it still comes down to the azzhat getting into someone's face over a non-infraction then carrying it to it's tragic conclusion.
Demanding (see the difference there?) someone desist from texting during the previews then having management tell you they will not address the issue BECAUSE the guy isn't breaking any rules then returning to pick up where you left off AFTER the management has given you that explanation to hear the guy explain he was simply texting his daughter and saying something so as to result in an this man throwing his bag of popcorn at you to then gun him down in cold blood is not only picking the fight but finishing it as well. He started it according to witnesses and he finished it as his behaviour and charges laid against him verify.
Don't you feel silly now?
Apparently you missed the little but important fact that phones are not to be used in the auditorium. Period. And who said anything about DEMANDING? Demanding? Talk about silly...........Keep adding silly words to the story. It turns the whole thing into a comedy when people make up stuff as they go along.
Carries no weight of law in Florida. The only prohibition in taking guns anywhere is where it's statutorily prohibited, that does not include movie theaters.
However that said because of the type of movie theater it is, it is not inconceivable it could be considered a place that serves alcoholic drinks, that said, the statute is that the location must be primarily in business to serve drinks, and a movie auditorium isn't that, although the bar would be.
Look this isn't your local Regal Cinema, it's more upscale waiting staffed reserved seating only section of the cinema (admittedly in a balcony above the general unwashed for a $5 premium). People shouldn't be milling around and moving seats with reserved seating. The recommendation is that you arrive 30 minutes before showtime, so you can take advantage of seated dining and the waiting staff.
That's not to say that what happened is acceptable behavior, but, if someone is paying a premium for better service and more comfort, then it's not unexpected they have higher expectations on standards of behavior.
My overall opinion is that stupid stupidly shot stupid for being stupid.
Look you have some crazy old guy who is giving you stinkeye and complaining at you for texting, and you're going to argue back and be an idiot, you kind of deserve to removed from the gene pool. Crazy old guys have two common issues, they try to injure you, and they tend to die really easily, neither of which is worth the $15 entry fee for the movie, in the former you may be paying $15 as the entry fee for your own funeral (as is this case), in the latter you're paying $15 as the entry fee for at least a civil suit for hospital costs. Some things just aren't worth fighting about.
Now the crazy old guy, well he's likely either got a neurological degenerative condition, or is undergoing some form of mental duress because everyone is ignoring his "You will respect my Authoritah!" which he'd had as a cop, and probably for a number of years since until he began to reflect his age. That's complete speculation, but may not be far from the truth.
Now that out of the way, I hope that people understand that retired police officers are not put through the same system as civilians (including ex-military with the exception of certain MP's and Coast Guard), but apply under the provisions of HR218 LEOSA, this exempts active, off duty and retired police officers from the same regulations as civilians undergo, they're issued photo ID from their former Police Agency, and must be certified annually to local standards as being able to operate a firearm to police standards. This exempts them from both Background check requirements, and preempts concealed carry restriction is all 50 states except where state law permits concealed carry restrictions on private property that are enforced by law (not Florida), the GFZA, and Federal Restrictions in Federal buildings and properties. So to illustrate states with state or local prohibition of possessing firearms in bars, it will not apply to retired LEO's unless that state also permits private property owners from posting signs that prohibit firearm possession, that permission carries weight of law, and that the establishment has such signs.
So we're not necessarily talking about some old codger who was a civilian gun owner, and trying to use that as an example as to why we need to increase regulation, because you could be barking up the wrong tree.
I am a gun owner, so I'm not trying to restrict anything. But those on here DEFENDING this guy are ridiculous. He gives all CCW permit holders a bad name, and those defending him are making it worse.
Those who would restrict our rights see these people defending this idiot and might think that is the way we all think.
He looks like a senior citizen to me. Do you pick physical fights with someone thirty years older? Early 40s vs. 70, that is a generations difference. I can't believe people are defending being threatening to a senior. See how you feel at 70 vs 40, even if you don't look frail.
I notice people of a certain age sometimes tend to get ornery, and it's not expecting too much for a Gen Xer in the prime of life to give a little leeway to an obviously older man without making a big deal.
Just saying, that would have been proper. Reeves is off his nut obviously and clearly hates texting, I wonder if he has a cell phone himself or is anti-tech.
Proper, according to whom?
People are on their cell phones BEFORE the movie starts.
70-year-olds who get miffed when others use their cell phones don't get to order people around. And, yes, it is too much to EXPECT someone to stop a normal activity that's important to them, for no good reason. The last time I went to the movie, the girl in front of me had just had her hair done, and the gels and hairspray odor was overwhelming. Guess what, I MOVED.
Just because someone is 70-years old, (and I really don't think he looks that old, probably didn't look that old to the 43-year-old in the dim lights of the theater) does not mean that they get to cut me off in traffic, or cut in line at the grocery store, or order me to do anything.
And if the 70-year-old finds altercations with younger people so "threatening", perhaps he should stop instigating those altercations.
Because complaining about cell phone use BEFORE the movie is incredibly petty. And, frankly, Mr Reeves didn't get infuriated because someone was texting on their phone. He was infuriated because he tried to exert authority, he was a man accustomed to being an authority figure, and when the younger man didn't respect that authority, he sought out management to back up his authority. That didn't work out for him, which is why when he returned to the theater, the other people in the theater noted that he was visibly agitated. VISIBLY infuriated. When the younger man mocked him, that pushed his fury into overdrive. But blaming the younger man is exactly like blaming a rape victim. The younger man is not at fault. So he was rude. He had no obligation to obey Mr Reeves. And Mr Reeves pettiness, and tattling, didn't earn anyone's respect. That's why NONE of the other people in the theater have defended him. He may be a stand-up guy, a good neighbor, a wonderful husband. But he didn't behave well at any point at that theater. His behavior didn't merit anyone's respect. He was trained to defuse situations, to contain his anger. And instead, he let his anger control him.
The texter was checking on his 3-year-old daughter. That's all. BEFORE the movie started. And Mr Reeves didn't like it.
How did he know what was being tossed at him? It might have been something extremely dangerous. Something like acid. It's not up to the person being physically assaulted to determine the composition of the stuff.
Not only will the shooter probably get off, but depending on the proximity of his wife, he might even claim to be protecting her from the unknown substance.
It's obvious who the hot head was. It wasn't the shooter. He tried to resolve the problem in a civilized manner. When that didn't work, he sought help from management. But the dead guy showed absolutely zero control and zero consideration.
There are some stories that I hear about and think, surely no one in their right mind would defend this guy! Then I come here...
Asking someone to not text is not picking a fight. Throwing popcorn into someone's face is.
Don't you feel silly now?
Demanding someone to stop texting certainly can be starting a fight. When you don't have the right to make that demand, and when their texting is hurting NO ONE. Mr Reeves wasn't the BOSS of everyone else. He only thought he was.
And obtuse is arguing that the appropriate response to having popcorn thrown at you is to pull your gun from your pocket and shoot the other person DEAD.
I am a gun owner, so I'm not trying to restrict anything. But those on here DEFENDING this guy are ridiculous. He gives all CCW permit holders a bad name, and those defending him are making it worse.
At the very least, the witness says "front row" guy - Oulson, stood up first in the confrontation. When people are arguing and one stands up, that is the one who is putting forth the challenge. He also says the couples started arguing, the women got into it too?
If other people threw popcorn at them, please. You get the manager don't throw stuff. This all sounds nuts.
With all due respect, the article does not say that the victim stood first, it says that he stood. Since the shooter was just returning from complaining to the manager, it is quite probable that he was already standing.
Quote:
But he came back after a few minutes, without a manager and appearing upset. Moments later, the argument between the two men resumed, and the man in the front row stood up.
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.
