<p>Most very early reports of this in the media said that their 3-year old had not been feeling well when they left the house (we don’t know how long they’d been gone), and he was checking in with the babysitter before the movie started. If I’d left my 3-year old at home, who I knew wasn’t feeling well, I, too, would probably check in with the sitter just prior to the movie starting to minimize the likelihood of being interrupted during the movie. We don’t know who the sitter was… likely not a teenager since this was the middle of a school day, so likely more of an adult, someone they felt confident in leaving a child with if the child were feeling under the weather. But yes, I think it is very appropriate to check in with the child with a, “Hi honey, I’m at the theater. What are you doing?” kind of text given the circumstances they left her in. </p>
<p>Well, I never said it was inappropriate although he probably should have gone into the lobby. But, no big deal. If he threw his cellphone at the guy that could be a bigger problem. None of it justifies shooting. </p>
<p>And this factor would make Chad Oulson’s reaction more understandable considering there’s added stress due to concern for his child and from his perspective, an overbearing stranger trying to interject himself in the midst of him trying to address the babysitter’s questions and putting his sick child at ease. </p>
<p>Also, considering the previous incident involving the shooter, I’m doubtful the shooter was polite and reasonable in his tone when he made his “request” to Chad on that fateful day. </p>
<p>In the previous incident, the shooter did call in an usher who did order the other party to put away their cell phone and they complied. Yet, the shooter continued to grouse and stare at them for the rest of the movie and later, stalked one of them to the bathroom which seriously unnerved the other party. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not only that. It prompts the following questions:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Did the thrown phone incident actually happen? At this point, we don’t know as the only source for this is an assertion by the defense whose interest is painting their client in the best possible light.</p></li>
<li><p>If it did happen, did the shooter know about it right before/during the shooting? If not or worse, the sequence of events is such it could plausibly be explained as an attempt by Oulson to defend himself from someone pulling out a gun, it probably won’t be helpful and may even worsen his case. </p></li>
<li><p>Can a thrown cell phone against someone be considered a threat to someone’s life…especially considering the size/weight of phone involved and distance? I don’t know…but I’m pretty skeptical of that considering what I’ve known from using/examining cell phones. That is…unless you’re talking one of those brick sized ones from 20+ years ago…</p></li>
</ol>
<p>“We simply cannot and should not make assumptions about the intentions of others. We dont know the purpose of a call or a text, and you know what they say about assumptions”</p>
<p>Right…that’s why I would have guessed that the text between parent and child or parent and babysitter was important. and, that’s why I would have felt foolish if I had said something to you and you had said that you were reminding your H to take his heart medicine.</p>
<p>it’s best to just to give the benefit of the doubt unless the person is doing something really nutty or dangerous. </p>
<p>Cobrat - Naomi Campbell has quite a problem with cellphone hurling and criminal charges. Fortunately, no-one ever shot her but she did spend a lot of time in court.</p>
<h1>"I think the defense has to tread lightly with that. Otherwise it’s like a defense in a rape case bringing forth info that the victim had a history of being “loose”.</h1>
<p>And thats exactly what some defense attorneys do. They will look for mitigating circumstances. Thats their job, whether we like it or not. I remember an attorney saying once " my job is not to do what is fair. My job is to win my case within the guidielines of the law"."</p>
<p>Absolutely true. But, the victim is an attractive young husband and father. He’s going to have the sympathy of the jury. The jury could really turn on the defense if they feel that the defense is trying to say that their client was “right” to give the victim “the death penalty” over texting, popcorn, and maybe a cell phone. </p>
<p>And, frankly, the prosecution should use those words, “the death penalty”. Because not even in DP-friendly FL do they give the DP to people over such matters.</p>
<p>The defense will probably not try to paint the victim as a tatooed guy who was into motorcycles and off road vehicles and whose wife called in sick (as is reported) to go to the movies even though they are true, as it is not usually a good idea to disparage a decedent and it could look desparate and backfire. But an argument similar to what is written below might be something the defense would consider . Not saying I agree with it at all (and it is a bit overly dramatic), but it is an argument from the other perspective
<p>First, we don’t even know if the cell phone tossing happened as the video the defense said they have proving it hasn’t been released as far as I know.</p>
<p>Second, if it is shown the cell phone toss was during the shooting, it’s very possible the prosecution could plausibly claim it was a futile attempt at self-defense against someone pulling out a gun and shooting him. If that is the case, bringing up the cell phone toss may actually add to the defense’s woes rather than help them. </p>
<p>Third, there’s the question of whether the shooter knew a cell phone was tossed at him before/during the shooting when it was happening and his state of mind at that point. If he didn’t know about it until afterwards or he knew it was a cell phone, I doubt this would help his defense much. </p>
<p>That natural response is not very smart and in these days and times of concealed carry laws does get people killed. It doesn’t excuse the shooters, but I wouldn’t be teaching my kids to stand up to irrational people in public places… not in the world we now live in.</p>
<p>From current accounts, the cellphone toss, if it occurred, was either the phone falling out of Oulson’s hand when he went to grab Reeves popcorn and throw it at him, or it (the phone) was thrown (if it was) before the popcorn . There is no indication that it was “in self defense” and no one has yet to say they even saw Reeves pull his gun, so theres no way it could be explained as such.</p>
<p>Honestly, I can’t see throwing a phone to ward off a gunshot. That makes no sense. I can see a slightly unhinged older guy firing after being hit in the face with a flying phone while a big, angry man is towering over him in a threatening fashion in the midst of an argument…</p>
<p>I wasn’t saying that was necessarily the case, but depending on the sequence of events if the video did show a cell phone toss, if it happened during the shooting…it’s a claim the prosecution could plausibly make to turn the tables on the defense regarding the cell phone issue. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It may not be smart, but it’s a natural justifiable reaction many possible jurors could relate to and sympathize with…especially if they were males socialized as Chad, I, or many other males who happen to be Gen X and older. </p>
<p>“If you watch carefully at about second 16, it looks like he moves his snack (popcorn, ostensibly) from his right to his left hand, and possibly puts his gun in his lap at that time. His wife seems to be on his right. When the popcorn flies he fires almost immediately, almost reflexively. He did not reach into his pocket at that time.”</p>
<p>You may be right. I hope the enhance version will show more and be in “slo-mo”. </p>
<p>I agree that it doesn’t appear that he reaches for a gun out of his pocket after popcorn. It looks like he was “ready” to use his gun at any moment. Don’t know if that makes a difference to the prosecution. </p>
<p>I don’t really give a flip how it plays out at trial. Look what his “natural reaction” got him. He has lost his life, over what? Male posturing? I would not be teaching my young sons to stand up to other men behaving irrationally by engaging them with profanity, belligerence or physical acting out. Saving face in that kind of situation is meaningless if it’s just going to get you killed and make widows of your wives and fatherless toddlers of your children. We are not emasculating our sons to teach them not to escalate confrontations with strangers acting peculiarly. We can teach them to be the better person and not provide angry, unreasonable people with additional engagement. Remaining calm and unflappable in the face of someone else’s tantrum makes more of a “man” imo than trying to prove to someone else that you’re not submissive when they don’t care anyway and are not going to respond to those kinds of cues in the way you would want.</p>
<p>Since the video’s mostly silent, it could be interpreted as either his attempt to give Oulson “more chances” and/or reinforces his overbearing attitude because he continued to engage when he would have been better off disengaging or better yet, going to theater management first as he did in the previous incident. </p>
<p>I don’t think that really changes perceptions or strengths of each side’s argument at this point. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If he already took the gun out after the popcorn or looked like he already had the gun out and was ready to use it, the prosecution could argue that shows premeditation, he can’t claim he didn’t know the tossed object was popcorn, along with adding to the unjustifiable escalation by having the gun out. If one has the gun out, there’s a plausible intention to use it to threaten or harm someone. </p>
<p>Not to mention the mere act of pulling out a gun and pointing it at or close to the victim would in itself, be considered an act of assault in most jurisdictions along with possible reckless endangerment considering 25 other people could have also been threatened. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Agreed. However, that could include indignantly voicing disagreement when someone is acting in an overbearing manner. </p>
<p>One concern I have with that line of reasoning is how it’s possible merely indignantly saying “Excuse me, but I am checking in on my sick child. Do you mind?!!” would be considered a blameworthy escalation when I and many others would feel that’s being a bit restrained under the circumstances. Especially considering he may have been stressed due to his concern over his sick child at that very moment. </p>
<p>Especially considering the shooter’s past history from the previous incident. </p>
<p>I am not a person who lives in fear in any way. I think being afraid to go to a mall or theater is ridiculous (especially in a low-crime area like this was). The odds of becoming a random shooting victim are microscopically tiny unless you’re somewhere like Flint. </p>
<p>With that said, in general, I will never confront a stranger about something they’re doing unless they’re hurting someone (even then- I will not confront even though I’m trained in de-escalation but I don’t now and will never carry a firearm- I will call the cops). It’s really just easier to walk away. If someone is annoying/bothering me, why should I make them change what they’re doing? If they’re doing something against the rules, get someone that enforces the rules. It’s not my job to do that. </p>
<p>(Side note: this is why I don’t like the whole stand-up-to-bullies thing that we’re teaching kids nowadays. I don’t think it works and I think you’re putting yourself in unnecessary danger.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>OMG. Seriously, cobrat, ■■■ are you talking about?! </p>
<p>You said it so much better than I did nrdsb4. Thank you. In our school system today, anyone engaged in a fight, whether they started it or defended themselves, will face the consequences. As it should be.</p>
<p>An enhanced version of the film will be helpful. Taking this clip and enlarging it to full screen, it appears that when Reeves returned to his seat (starting at about second 17-18 of the clip) there is something white on the very far right which appears to be Oulson, probably an arm or a hand or something (since the seats are black). At about second 25 or so something appears to be thrown, but again it appears to be closer to Reeves wife. It is not until Oulson grabs the popcorn (at sec 31) and throws it at Reeves (sec 34) that it appears to hit Reeves who then shoots.</p>