<p>There seems again to be an overabundance of speculation, overgeneralization, making assumptions and opining about things not yet in evidence, but presented as if they were fact. Do we know how the conversation between the two began? Is it possible (even if unlikely) that Reeves initially asked Oulson politely to stop texting/turn off his phone and Oulson smarted back at him in a snotty tone when he said he was checking on his daughter? At one point it was stated, IIRC, that Oulson said he was “texting his f<em>**king daughter” and “stay the h</em>*l outta my face” . I believe that was from the interview after the shooting". If they had spoken to each other poilitely the whole situation could have been avoided.</p>
<p>The smart thing to do would have been to AVOID conflict, not to engage in it. So, regardless of whether Reeves was overly annoyed by someone texting during previews, whether or not we think it was reasonable, or Oulson was overly confrontational in his refusal to stop texting or unwillingness to offer to step outside, or unwillingness to apologize with an explanation of why he was texting, they are both to blame for allowing the situation to escalate. Gee, since both are navy vets, should we assume or generalize that navy vets have temper problems or are jerks? Um, no. And not everyone with a temper issue is some overbearing, busybody, bully with an authoritarian complex. That is geting stale.</p>
<p>Perhaps the point of all this is that not only should people learn to be a little more considerate of each other and respond in a respectful manner, but also that one shouldnt make assumptions. Not sure it matters a lot whether the guy was texting is ill daughter or ordering something on Amazon, if Reeves was that terribly bothered, even excessively bothered by the texting (even if we all think its ridiculous), Oulson could have stepped outside or even to the aisle of the theater to complete his text. Equally, Reeves could have perhaps tolerated the text until it was completed in light of the fact that it was to check on Oulson’s ill daughter. Regardless, instead of either being conciliatory and considerate of the other’s request, they engaged in an escalating confrontation. BOTH were wrong, and it seems, at least from the information currently available, that after Reeves went out to find a manager (which was the RIGHT thing to do), that Oulson continued the challenge by what sounds like taunting Reeves with “gee did you tell on me” or words to that effect and then confronting each other in an escalating fashion with verbal and physical interchanges that remind me of a bar room brawl. They were both picking a fight, or so it seems to me. Either of them could have stopped, especially after Reeves left and returned, and if it was Oulson who re-engaged in the interchange by saying something rather than letting it go, then he was in the wrong too. No, he shouln’t have been shot. But it sounds like they were both acting like jerks.</p>
<p>Dont know if either were the type who tended to look for a good fight. And Reeves apparently had one previous occasion of acting inappropriately in a movie theater, but in that case the others were smart enough to avoid the confrontation and not feed into an escalating situation. Had Oulson responded like the other couple did, he would probably still be alive. Not blaming him for his death, but IMO, he is not completely innocent either.</p>
<p>If something person A does bothered person B and they said something to person A, the smart thing to do is apologize, even if they thought person B was ridiculous and out of line. To be be defensive and tell them where to go is asking for trouble, and inviting a fight. It’s just stupid. One should avoid conflict, not engage in it.</p>
<p>While the previous interchange with the couple in the theater in December could seem like Mr Reeves has a “history” of being a jerk about phones in movie theaters, it could also be pointed out that when the person with the cellphone responds in an appropriate rather than confrontational fashion, that the situation resolves without incident. Oulson is not blameless in this scenario. Again, he shouldnt have been shot, but given that he continued to engage Mr. Reeves, grabbed and threw Reeve’s popcorn (and possibly his own cellphone) and his wife tried to reach out and stop him form escalating, its reasonable to think he might have a temper problem himself. Had there been no gun, this more likely could hav escalated into a physical fight and they would probably have been ejected from the theater. So, ill tempered people and guns don’t mix.</p>
<p>sigh-- typo</p>