Wesley chapel Grove movies shooting (Spring Hill: good, team, target)

[Spring Hillian]

Originally Posted by DUNNDFRNT

He shot/killed a guy for flinging popcorn at him, oh yeah then told his wife to shut the f up. If I go by your narrative then he shot a guy because he thought he might get punched, and we all you know you get punched you die so clearly the guy flinched and he shot him, that sounds stable to me. To the original update, so the guy lied about why he was using his phone that doesn't change anything, is not like he testified in court, he told the old guy who was giving him crap about using the phone, that seems like pretty normal behavior my phone rings when I am in the middle of a conversation often, sometimes I say "I got to take this" you know what often I dont have to take the call at all.

Flinging the popcorn,which he suddenly snatched (sudden snatching is illegal) from Reeves, is only one facet of the assault.

A 70 year old man who takes a punch to the face could easily sustain live ending injuries. He certainly would sustain serious injuries.

I agree, it makes no difference what he was doing on his phone. That is irrelevant. What is relevant is
that Mr. Oulsen launched a physical attack on Mr. Reeves. That is all that matters. Reeves was under physical attack and sustained a thrown cell phone (which may or may not have hit him) as well as the sudden snatching. A competent person would not wait for the 3rd physical attack.

It is not illegal to ask someone to cease something that annoys you. Such as "would you mind putting that cigarette out?" However, it is illegal to say "I am going to punch your lights out if you don't put that cigarette out".

Let me refer you to Florida Statute 784.048 

(c) “Credible threat” means a verbal or nonverbal threat, or a combination of the two, including threats delivered by electronic communication or implied by a pattern of conduct, which places the person who is the target of the threat in reasonable fear for his or her safety or the safety of his or her family members or individuals closely associated with the person, and which is made with the apparent ability to carry out the threat to cause such harm. It is not necessary to prove that the person making the threat had the intent to actually carry out the threat. The present incarceration of the person making the threat is not a bar to prosecution under this section.

Please review 784.08 Assault or battery on persons 65 years of age or older; reclassification of offenses; minimum sentence.—

812.13 Robbery. - I could see this charge put upon Oulson due to taking the popcorn.


Here is what constitutes battery........
Battery

A battery is an intentional physical contact with a person without his or her consent that results in bodily harm or is offensive to a reasonable sense of dignity. An act is a battery if it causes physical pain or injury to a person's body. It may also be an act that is offensive to a reasonable person. Ordinary bumping that occurs while walking through a crowd is generally not offensive to a reasonable person; however, intentionally pushing people in a crowd out of the way may be offensive to a reasonable person. In addition, a defendant may be liable if he or she commits an act that would not be offensive to a reasonable person but that offends a sensitive plaintiff, whom the defendant knew to be a sensitive person. The defendant need not actually touch the plaintiff using his or her body; the contact may be caused indirectly. Also, the plaintiff need not be aware that the contact actually occurred, unlike the requirement in assault cases that the plaintiff must be aware and be placed in apprehension of a contact.

Intent

A defendant must intend to make contact with a plaintiff to constitute a battery. The defendant may be liable for a battery even if he or she did not intend to harm the plaintiff. The defendant may also be liable for a battery even if he or she intended only to commit an assault if he or she acts with such intent and accidentally causes the offensive contact.

[Spring Hillian]

The bottom line:

Oulson was asked to cease an annoying action.

Oulson refuse to cease the annoying action.

Reeves went to report the annoying action to the management of the theater (Evidenced by surveillance video)

Reeves returned to his seat (Evidenced by surveillance video)

Oulson stands up, turns to face Reeves (Evidenced by surveillance video)

Oulson threw an object at Reeves (Evidenced by surveillance video)

Oulson reached out and physically took a bag of popcorn from Reeves (Evidenced by surveillance video)

Oulson threw the popcorn at Reeves (Evidenced by surveillance video)

Oulson again raised his arm (Evidenced by surveillance video)

Reeves shot Oulson to prevent further attack while in fear of his life and/or being subjected to bodily harm

Does anyone disagree with this chain of events?

[EngGirl]

Originally Posted by Spring Hillian

It is apparent that you do not know how the U.S. Court system works and have no respect for it.

What evidence do you have that Mr. Reeves was "unstable mentally" ??

Killing a men for absolutely no reason.

[EngGirl]

Originally Posted by Spring Hillian

The bottom line:

Oulson was asked to cease an annoying action.

Oulson refuse to cease the annoying action.

Reeves went to report the annoying action to the management of the theater (Evidenced by surveillance video)

Reeves returned to his seat (Evidenced by surveillance video)

Oulson stands up, turns to face Reeves (Evidenced by surveillance video)

Oulson threw an object at Reeves (Evidenced by surveillance video)

Oulson reached out and physically took a bag of popcorn from Reeves (Evidenced by surveillance video)

Oulson threw the popcorn at Reeves (Evidenced by surveillance video)

Oulson again raised his arm (Evidenced by surveillance video)

Reeves shot Oulson to prevent further attack while in fear of his life and/or being subjected to bodily harm

Does anyone disagree with this chain of events?

So, why this retired cop couldn't move away when there were plenty of other seats???
No matter what you say any person with common sense will see no real life danger situation here... You friend overstepped therefore he is a killer and belongs in jail.

[EngGirl]

Apparently we now have a right to shoot anyone who we don't like. For no reason. It might be nice....

[Spring Hillian]

Originally Posted by EngGirl

Apparently we now have a right to shoot anyone who we don't like. For no reason. It might be nice....

Not true. However we do have the right to defend ourselves against an attacker.

[Spring Hillian]

Originally Posted by EngGirl

So, why this retired cop couldn't move away when there were plenty of other seats???
No matter what you say any person with common sense will see no real life danger situation here... You friend overstepped therefore he is a killer and belongs in jail.

Why should he do so? How would he do so in the middle of an assault?

He killed someone. Yep indeed. Killed someone in self defense.

[Spring Hillian]

Originally Posted by EngGirl

Killing a men for absolutely no reason.

the reason was the was being assaulted and feared further bodily harm or loss of life.

[EngGirl]

Originally Posted by Spring Hillian

Why should he do so? How would he do so in the middle of an assault?

He killed someone. Yep indeed. Killed someone in self defense.

He provoke this assault from minute 1. He was the one who was bothered (and not the first time by the way as we know). He could move Mod edit, but instead he decided to escalate the conflict and kill the man over nothing. Mentally unstable person who has no respect even for his own wife...

[EngGirl]

Originally Posted by Spring Hillian

the reason was the was being assaulted and feared further bodily harm or loss of life.

LOL
popcorn can cause bodily hard.
I will be laughing if defense team will hire a professional who would testify about bodily harm caused by popcorn LOL