Movie theatre shooting SYG trial (Tampa, Spring Hill: neighborhood, to buy, school)

[EngGirl]

Originally Posted by DUNNDFRNT

Civil lawsuits involve monetary settlements not criminal charges.
Cobb is a chain so it wouldnt just affect WC residents, I am sure they are insured, I would imagine she needs money being that her husband can no longer provide his share of the household income. You are more likely to see metal detectors since I am sure the suit revolves around Cobb not enforcing their no weapons policy, anyway the lawyers will argue their side the judge will figure it out.

That's silly and because of this stupid lawsuits we soon will see metal detectors everywhere - schools, stores, homes....

[EngGirl]

Originally Posted by DUNNDFRNT

http://archive.wtsp.com/assetpool/do...0112131735.pdf


Not so much, whoever said that needs to brush up on reading comprehension. The suit stated that Reeves notified a representative of the movie theater that her husband was the aggressor and the employee failed to take action, the categorization of Oulson was made by Reeves to the representative of the movie theater not his wife.

Oh God... I just read it... hopefully she will lose. And she will. She cannot win on both cases. Her attorneys went after big $$$ and made claims that will not be helping this criminal case.... Reeves will be going free... Looks like for Nicole Oulsen money went above putting the shooter behind bars... you cannot seat on two chairs at once... Very stupid on her part, but I guess money more important now...


No, really.... what a human nature to blame anyone!!!!! She now blames theater and its employee for losing her husband... Unfrickingbelivable..... Only in America...

[Cryptic]

Originally Posted by EngGirl

Oh God... I just read it... hopefully she will lose. And she will. She cannot win on both cases. Her attorneys went after big $$$ and made claims that will not be helping this criminal case.... Reeves will be going free... Looks like for Nicole Oulsen money went above putting the shooter behind bars... you cannot seat on two chairs at once... Very stupid on her part...

Though I doubt Reeves is going free (her stating that Oulson was the aggressor, does not automatically mean that deadly force was justified), I am in full agreement with everything else.

As a side note, Reeves also has a comment that he needs to explain: "I"ll teach you to throw popcorn on me- bang". My bet is that Reeves is going to prison. He is in a deep hole, and even in the best circumstances, the shooting was quesionable.

The good people of Tampa Florida just dont want questionable "self defense" shootings in theaters where middle class people congregate and could get caught in the cross fire. Such shootings in trailer parks, hoods and barrios may get more leeway.

Of course, the good people on the jury may not say that, but I bet they think it....

[jambo101]

Originally Posted by EngGirl

Oh God... I just read it... hopefully she will lose. And she will. She cannot win on both cases. Her attorneys went after big $$$ and made claims that will not be helping this criminal case.... Reeves will be going free... Looks like for Nicole Oulsen money went above putting the shooter behind bars... you cannot seat on two chairs at once... Very stupid on her part, but I guess money more important now...


No, really.... what a human nature to blame anyone!!!!! She now blames theater and its employee for losing her husband... Unfrickingbelivable..... Only in America...

I'd imagine this claim for mega money and suing every one in sight is probably more to do with her lawyers course of action than hers.
As an aside i guarantee i could sit down behind some one in a movie theatre and speak to them in such a belligerent manner that they would eventually throw their popcorn at me, i then have the right to shoot em dead?

[EngGirl]

Originally Posted by jambo101

I'd imagine this claim for mega money and suing every one in sight is probably more to do with her lawyers course of action than hers.
As an aside i guarantee i could sit down behind some one in a movie theatre and speak to them in such a belligerent manner that they would eventually throw their popcorn at me, i then have the right to shoot em dead?

hey, you missed the point. I have ZERO sympathy to Reeves. This retired cop knew better... but knowing this system he might very well walk free. If statements from civil case will be used in criminal court, jury might buy it...
And Nicole's lawyers cannot act without her approval, so she was sold as soon as $$$ got in front of her... how sad. Her attorneys most likely are getting 1/3-1/2 of the deal. It just drives me nuts they have a nerve to blame theater for allowing/ not checking guns claiming the killed one being aggressive. At least she is not going after gun manufacturer and blaming them... she is benefiting/ cashing out at her husband's death. And if she is so poor she
To make it clear I do not justify this shooting. Reeves is the only person at fault, there were no reasonable reasons to use gun no matter what, but I found it pretty low to Oulsen widow to blame anybody else (and the only reason - money). I supported her and respected her but no more... she is benefiting on her husband's death now.


As a side note, people, please buy life insurance so your loved one will be covered in case something happens to you...

[HWTechGuy]

Originally Posted by EngGirl

As a side note, people, please buy life insurance so your loved one will be covered in case something happens to you...

If Oulson had life insurance, her admission may fuel the fire in terms of the insurance company not wanting to pay. Food for thought...

[The Villages Guy]

Originally Posted by jambo101

I'd imagine this claim for mega money and suing every one in sight is probably more to do with her lawyers course of action than hers.
As an aside i guarantee i could sit down behind some one in a movie theatre and speak to them in such a belligerent manner that they would eventually throw their popcorn at me, i then have the right to shoot em dead?

That is TBD. That is why I am interested in the OUTCOME of this trial. It may set a precedent.

[Spring Hillian]

I am not going to continue discussion on the matter as I have clearly stated my perspective on the matter.

You know nothing about Reeves' background so let me advise you.

In 1966, he joined the Tampa Police Department.

Reeves' supervisors thought he was good at his job, and he quickly rose up the ranks. In the mid '70s, he and a co-worker started a SWAT team. They got FBI training, gathered World War II supplies from the nearby Army Navy Surplus store and named it the "tactical response team" to differentiate it from the then-popular television show S.W.A.T.

Reeves briefly worked as one of the department's first hostage negotiators and trained at the U.S. Army's sniper school, finishing No. 2 out of 20.

Reeves received training in firearms of all types. He was part of the competitive Pistol Club and became the agency's firearms coordinator in the '80s.

In the tactical unit, Reeves was well-liked. After work, SWAT and bomb team guys would hunt and fish together. Retired Senior Sgt. Jim Diamond worked closely with Reeves for about 15 years and considered him "very personable."


"Under Florida law, the actions of the accused made in lawful self-defense justify an act that is otherwise criminal. Self-defense can be asserted for any violence crime such as Assault or Battery, Aggravated Battery, Aggravated Assault, Manslaughter, Attempted Murder, or Murder."

"Basic “self-defense” law in Florida (Section 776.012(2), Florida Statutes) states that a “person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony”. In Section 776.08, Florida Statutes, a “forcible felony” is defined as “treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; carjacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual."

Reeves therefore was justified in using deadly force.

Originally Posted by Cryptic

I doubt the defense attorney is going to spend alot of time pointing out the purported differences between "silouette" and "kernals flying"- espescially when both witnesses could easily be telling the truth as they might have seen it from different angles in varying amounts of light.


I once worked in law enforcement. I also have combat training- though it was limited and was a long time ago (National Guard).

I dont think the shooting has alot to do with reeve's Swat training. If anything, Swat officers would be less likely to react the way Reeves did. My guess is that his Swat experience was an orientation class. I would also not be surprised if Reeves main role with the police was paper work adminstrative, not street enforcement.

Reeves stated why he shot Oulson for throwing popcorn (disprespecting him in front of his woman). Reeves then ordered his wife to "shut the **** up". I doubt that attitude was only due to stress. Rather, it is a part of who Reeves is.

This is simply a respect / disrepect shooting. These shootings happen in Chicago and LA daily. In this case, it involved two white guys who also valued being "repected". Oulson saw Reeve's repeated orders to be disprespectful- espescially when Reeves was giving him orders and Oulson's chick was present. In fact, there is a chance that neither Oulson nor Reeves would have behaved like they did had their respective "chicks" not been present.


No struggle occurred in this case. If a struggle had occured and Reeves died, Oulson would be guilty of a criminal offense. What degree of offense could vary on the totality of the circumstances.

[miami_winter_breeze]

I'm a big proponent of SYG, I think it protects citizens in using their self judgement to protect themselves. I never want Florida to turn into those other states where people are afraid to do what they need to protect their lives and bodies from death or injury.

That being said, this is a very murky case. I can see in equal parts, maybe even in favor of the prosecutors contention it was rage based, not fear based. Yes, Reeves was facing an angry man, who threw popcorn/popcorn bag at him. Did he shoot him out of rage or did he shoot him out of fear that it would escalate further? Afterall, he has a gun, if this man grapples with him, he could get access to the gun. Anyways, I actually lean to the idea he shot him out of rage, and not genuine fear.

And that being said, if I was a juror I'd still acquit him (based on what I know now) out of the well-known principle: 'reasonable doubt.' I didn't hear anyone mention 'reasonable doubt' in this exchange, but I can say I have a 'reasonable doubt' that he was acting in fear even though I lean to him acting out of rage.

Moral of this story, if you want to act like a D-bag, at least have a gun

[DUNNDFRNT]

Originally Posted by EngGirl

Oh God... I just read it... hopefully she will lose. And she will. She cannot win on both cases. Her attorneys went after big $$$ and made claims that will not be helping this criminal case.... Reeves will be going free... Looks like for Nicole Oulsen money went above putting the shooter behind bars... you cannot seat on two chairs at once... Very stupid on her part, but I guess money more important now...


No, really.... what a human nature to blame anyone!!!!! She now blames theater and its employee for losing her husband... Unfrickingbelivable..... Only in America...

I don't know that she doesn't have a point, when Reeves went to report Oulson, the representative of the theatre should have walked back with Reeves, it was his duty to provide a safe environment for their patrons, the employee was negligent in not escorting Reeves back to his seat confronting oulson and diffusing the situation. Again the description of Oulson as violent was made by Reeves to the employee, the reason it's mentioned is because the employee was not there so if Reeves walked up to him and said we have a violent aggressive patron back in the theatre the employee should have taken Reeves at his word and done something, but he didn't therefore he was negligent.
In no way shape or form does it mean that Oulsen wife is saying that her husband was the aggressor.