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.
Someone has to teach these thugs a lesson. The retired cop was being attacked by that thug. The retired cop was just protecting himself from that thug who was probably high on drugs. Oulsen should have learned to keep his hands to himself.
Nope; not at first, and neither did Reeves, along with his wife consider just moving to another seat in a theater with only 25 patrons in attendance.
Witnesses have stated Oulson was sitting eating from the bag of dangerous popcorn upon Reeves return from his safari to the lobby. I don't know about y'all, but any 'almost noiseless' texting I've ever done (minimal) required both hands or at least one very nimble single thumb. I know I could not perform this while holding a bag with one hand and stuffing popcorn into my yap with the other......I'm thinking his cel-phone was in his pocket at this point...no?
Cel-phone off, case closed. Sit down mister cop and now begin to apply the "I'm satisfied with the outcome and will remain silent as long as your cel-phone does." thereby defusing of ticking time bomb you've pulled the pin on in the first place.
You chose to confront someone rather than simply move to another seat. The issue is no longer there so when asked by Oulson if he'd been tattled on simply say "yes, they're aware of it and now that you've stopped there will be no more problems from them or I."
Wholeheartedly agree with the last two paragraphs. This adds the second dimension to what I was referencing in their behavior. Neither one backed down, as easily as Oulson could have stepped out to text, Reeves could have moved seats. It was a matter of ego. Neither wanted to lose face. Unfortunately, Reeves used his equalizer to enforce his law and life was lost needlessly. There was no need for violence, and I do think having the gun charged up Reeves much more.
If we remove the weapon from the picture, I think the whole altercation would have looked different, from beginning to end.
Last edited by GoldenZephyr; 01-16-2014 at 10:16 AM..
High probability you're right on the first two. Details yet needed for number three.
Get back to us when you have a single witness who says that Oulsen reached up, over the intervening row of theater seats, to touch Mr Reeves in any manner, never mind threatening.
Welcome to my increasingly longer ignore list. I don't have time for people like you. "Freudian"! Do you even know what that means? Never mind. Bye.
Whew; thanks be to the gods!
One word of caution however, the statement "don't have time for people like me" would by it's nature mean you don't have time to peruse and respond on these boards; can I take from that statement we can all look forward to your absence?
and that is exactly why I used the word in this context.
C'mon now Bideshi, handing it out is licensed only by a capability to take it. Your viewpoint is merely but one of many offered on this issue. We're good.
Wholeheartedly agree with the last two paragraphs. This adds the second dimension to what I was referencing in their behavior. Neither one backed down, as easily as Oulson could have stepped out to text, Reeves could have moved seats. It was a matter of ego. Neither wanted to lose face. Unfortunately, Reeves used his equalizer to enforce his law and life was lost needlessly. There was no need for violence, and I do think having the gun charged up Reeves much more.
If we remove the weapon from the picture, I think the whole altercation would have looked different, from beginning to end.
I agree with the whole content of this one. I just now had the light go on in my head (minor epiphany) that while focusing on Reeves being annoyed but defaulting to confronting rather than moving that Mr. Oulson could have also moved to another seat after the confrontation started if he had any desire to avoid further confrontational stress.
This terrible event need not have happened if just one of the protagonists had used even a scintilla of acquiescence.
OK, first off, the ex-cop killed the texter. He was wrong! Nothing
can excuse his actions. He is in jail, will be prosecuted, and he will
probably be found guilty. I will not defend him, I never have.
The victim was texting, he was asked to stop, more than once. He
confronted the ex-cop when he came back into the theater. Also,
he continued to escalate (along with the ex-cop) the confrontation.
Again, the ex-cop was wrong, no doubt about it. But, the victim did
start it, and helped escalate it. To say he was totally innocent is just
not possible.
Again, the ex-cop was wrong, no doubt about it. But, the victim did
start it, and helped escalate it. To say he was totally innocent is just
not possible.
By that logic, since the texter was shot to death for texting, what punishment should the shooter get?
Something really gruesome, I suppose.
To be fair, and all.
It just boggles my mind that anyone would think Oulson is partly guilty!
Get back to us when you have a single witness who says that Oulsen reached up, over the intervening row of theater seats, to touch Mr Reeves in any manner, never mind threatening.
OK, first off, the ex-cop killed the texter. He was wrong! Nothing
can excuse his actions. He is in jail, will be prosecuted, and he will
probably be found guilty. I will not defend him, I never have.
The victim was texting, he was asked to stop, more than once. He
confronted the ex-cop when he came back into the theater. Also,
he continued to escalate (along with the ex-cop) the confrontation.
Again, the ex-cop was wrong, no doubt about it. But, the victim did
start it, and helped escalate it. To say he was totally innocent is just
not possible.
That would be true, if it weren't for the fact that it is generally and widely considered acceptable for people to use their cell phones, IN THE THEATER AUDITORIUM, prior to the movie. Which is why theaters run the message asking people to turn their phones off just prior to screening the movie. Theater management, and theater goers know that people will take the opportunity to check their messages, to send last-minute messages, and even to play games to pass the time, while others are taking the opportunity to go to the bathroom, got to the concession stand, and just generally do whatever to make themselves comfortable for the upcoming movie. Mr Reeves choice to act as the cell-phone cop started the altercation. Not Mr Oulson's text to his daughter's babysitter to check on her before he expected to be out of reach for the next two hours.
To say he was totally innocent is possible. Because no rational person can possibly justify Mr Reeves' response. Whether Mr Oulson was provocative or not, none of his actions rose to the level to merit a deadly response. And if NONE of his action merited a deadly response, then yes, totally innocent.
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.
''Just the facts, Ma'am.''
