<p>Well, she’s a witness. It’s a little hard to believe she didn’t notice if he did or didn’t hurl a telephone at the guy. I’m not saying he did but yes or no would be better imho.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If this happened to me, my first reaction is to go to theater management and ask them to deal with it if it was just about cell phone use. If they don’t handle it in a timely manner, I’d demand a refund/exchange my tickets for another day/time. </p>
<p>I don’t believe there’s any good from involving one’s own self in directly confronting individuals yourself in such settings…especially in theaters. Not only could that provoke a confrontation, it is likely to disturb other patrons and drag them into a brewing drama we could all do without. Let the theater management/authorities handle it and/or as you’ve said…get out of dodge. </p>
<p>And things are much more likely to go south if you feel the proper solution is to go in ordering others around or to correct them in a public setting when you don’t have any greater legal standing than they do. </p>
<p>That, my friends, is a very great way to start and rapidly escalate hostilities between yourself and the now put upon individual being ordered around. Very unwise…and a bit presumptuous IMO. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>True, but considering the chaos/confusion of that shooting, it’s understandable if a witness is unsure about a detail…especially considering how fast it happened and her proximity. </p>
<p>It’s a reason why I find it disturbing some on this thread expect idealized behavior or reactions to provocations…especially if said individuals are already under stress because of family concerns and was imposed upon* while trying to address them. </p>
<ul>
<li>And likely in a rude belligerent manner judging by a previous incident and witness statements of the incident.<br></li>
</ul>
<p>"Well, she’s a witness. "</p>
<p>Yes, she is. But if she has an atty-advisor, he’s not part of the prosecution team. Witnesses can have their own attys if they want, but they’re not part of the state’s team. </p>
<p>And, she may not have seen the phone being hurled if the phone wasn’t hurled. We don’t know if she was watching the whole thing word for word or not. The phone may have been dropped. We also don’t know how good her view was. Her H’s body may have been blocking her view. </p>
<p>Her atty isn’t going to say either way because he doesn’t need to and his opinion is irrelevant. And, without her permission, he can’t say what she has told him anyway. </p>
<p>Looks like he’s not getting bail and will remain in custody until trial:</p>
<p><a href=“http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/bail-hearing-continues-movie-theater-shooting-22404543”>http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/bail-hearing-continues-movie-theater-shooting-22404543</a></p>
<p>Apparently Reeves did report the transgression. Sometimes the theater won’t do anything or all they do is repeat the request and remind the transgressor of the rules, then leave, and then there could be retaliation. Not much you can do when there is a jerk who is emboldened to get into your face. Reeves should have just moved seats, but let him self get pushed to his blow up point. Which is where the problem was. No one’s blow up point should include deadly force for something like this. If that’s the case, you are not safe enough to be out and about. Your own family may not be safe. Even if he had never shown such temper, clearly something has happened to put him at that place now and so he’s too off and dangerous to be allowed to be loose. </p>
<p>“Looks like he’s not getting bail and will remain in custody until trial:”</p>
<p>Good. In florida, they usually take a lot of time to take murder cases to trial. He may feel motivated to plea if he can get a good deal. </p>
<p>"Apparently Reeves did report the transgression. "</p>
<p>Cpt…where are you seeing that?</p>
<p>The decision not to grant bond was made more than 24 hrs ago and reported earlier in this thread. </p>
<p>Maybe, I’m not being clear. Throwing the phone is a big part of Reeve’s self defense argument. If it didn’t happen I would expect the wife to say either outright or through her attorney or the state that it didn’t happen. Since that has very carefully not been said I will not be at all surprised to find out that it did happen that way. Of course, he’s still guilty but the whole episode makes more sense. </p>
<p>You are spot on, Flossy. Wonder too when she reached out in an attempt to stop her husband by putting her hand across chest? Was it before ro after the popcorn throwing incident? Am guessing it was after as that when the shot was fired and she was hit, but again we don’t know. Suspect that her attorney is telling her to keep quiet.</p>
<p>Thank-you. I was beginning to think I was crazy. lol</p>
<p>To the contrary, flossy. You are the voice of reason! While it is truly horrible that the shooting occurred and a man is dead, and it never ever should have escalated to this point and resulted in such a senseless death, I suspect the prosecution will do what it can to help maintain the image that he was an innocent victim in this scenario. In reality, its likely that they were both rude, beliggerent hotheads who challenged each other rather than letting it go – with unfortunate deadly consequences</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You were being clear. </p>
<p>I was just describing how depending on the shooter’s state of mind in the shooting and if the video shows the cell phone tossing during/after the shooting, the prosecution can turn the tables on the defense by plausibly arguing that was Chad’s attempt at defending himself once he saw the gun/was shot. </p>
<p>If the phone toss could be shown to be in response to the shooter pulling out the gun or while being shot, the shooter’s self-defense claim will then be undermined. </p>
<p>Has the defense released the video definitively showing the phone toss, yet?</p>
<p>Flossy, the widow apparently acknowledged her husband said something to Reeves when Reeves returned, and that she put her had up to try to diffuse the argument:
In a situation like this, neither is blameless. They were both wrong. Unfortuntately one was wrong with a gun. </p>
<p>Reeves acknowledged he screwed up.
Unfortunately, its too late and he should pay the consequence for his bad judgment. <a href=“No Bail in Deadly Movie Theater Shooting - ABC News”>http://abcnews.go.com/US/bail-deadly-movie-theater-shooting/story?id=22419822</a>
[quote]
“As soon as I pulled the trigger, I said, ‘Oh, this is stupid,’” he said in the tape. “There’s no justification for what happened in there. If I had to do it over again, it would have never happened. We would have moved.”
[quote]
</p>
<p>I agree jym626. Neither is blameless, but one dead. It’s very sad.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m sorry, but I’m going to have to respectfully disagree. </p>
<p>It isn’t right to blame someone for verbally respond angrily to an overbearing and possibly rude verbal provocation. </p>
<p>In my book, the one who started the whole mess by starting the initial confrontation has at least the lion’s share if not total culpability for this situation. </p>
<p>That’s only reinforced by his over-the-top escalation with his gun and the fact he hypocritically felt entitled to lecture others on rules when he was himself, in violation by having that gun with him in the first place. </p>
<p>Especially considering he confronted them first in a manner which he’s correcting or bossing around someone else in a public space. </p>
<p>You may feel this is fine because you have exhibited some of those very tendencies on this very thread by dictating to others how to respond on this very thread when scolding others for “speculating”. Pretty odd considering this entire thread will have a fair amount of it considering we don’t have all the details and developments are upcoming. Interesting…very interesting. </p>
<p>Flossy,</p>
<p>It’s very likely that the prosecution has told the widow and maybe her atty not to make any statements. </p>
<p>If your husband was dead, and the prosecution told you not to say anything, you wouldn’t say anything. And, again, her attorney is not part of the team. But he is “working” for the widow and he can’t say anything that the widow hasn’t given permission for him to say. </p>
<p>I imagine that the prosecution wants to look at enhanced video to see what happened. Once that’s done, it won’t matter whether the widow saw or didn’t see a phone being thrown. If it got thrown, the video will show it. If she didn’t see the phone being thrown, and says so…and the video shows it being thrown…then the defense could cut down her credibility for being wrong about that. </p>
<p>also…I don’t know if you’ve ever been asked to recall “blow by blow” a series of events. Sometimes you can get things in the wrong order. It’s best to wait for the video to get enhanced and then see, so that she doesn’t lose credibility for saying something out of order.</p>
<p>There is no point in discussing it with you cobrat since you have apparently decided that Reeves requests were hostile and confrontational and oulson’s responses were polite and respectful. You must have access to some audio and video that no one else does, because there is no evidence of any of this. speculate all you want, but its likely that both were rude and confrontational. No reeves should not have shot oulson. but you are convinced of facts not in evidence. And kindly stop trying to tell me what I think or how I feel since its sadly obvious that you do no know or understand. You seem to view the world though a myopic, distorted personal lens. That is your issue. Please do not respond to my posts any more. </p>
<p>"It isn’t right to blame someone for verbally respond angrily to an overbearing and possibly rude verbal provocation.</p>
<p>In my book, the one who started the whole mess by starting the initial confrontation has at least the lion’s share if not total culpability for this situation."</p>
<p>I agree with this.</p>
<p>Although many women would not over-react in a situation like this, there are a number of men who would. Men and women, as a whole, are different in this regard. There’s a reason why the same men who would think NOTHING of confronting women about various things, would never confront another man about the same issue. Men often do NOT confront other men because there is this concern about physical confrontation. </p>
<p>Women have often been raised to be more compliant, to get along, to be peacemakers. Men have often been raised to “stand their ground” and “not give in” and “don’t get pushed around.” I know that my H, who would never tell some guy what to do (other than a work subordinate or his own young child), would be very insulted if some guy told him what to do.</p>
<p>m2ck,</p>
<p>Snce we have no recording nor have I seen a transcript of what reeves initially said or how he said it, and exactly how oulson responded, we really dont know who was initially confrontational in their interaction. The assumption that reeves was overbearing, rude or provocating is just that. Just because someone uses hyperbole in their description doesn’t make it so. Once again, it would IMO, be prudent to wait until more information is released. I am not saying reeves was polite and demure. Just that we simply dont know. Nor do we know if oulson was polite and demure in is response. And even if his dau was ill, that doesnt justify a rude response. If either of these guys were able o engage in an appropriate, diplomatic interchange, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.</p>
<p>“Once again, it would IMO, be prudent to wait until more information is released.”</p>
<p>I agree. But, from the tape it doesn’t appear that anyone other than the wives were close to the situation. What I mean is this: If there were any “mild words” said at first from either party, if others weren’t close enough to hear, then only the wives are witnesses and that may end up being a “she said, she said”. </p>
<p>From what the other witnesses have said, they seem to have “picked up on the issue” once voices became louder…which may have been from the get-go, or may have been after a few “back and forth” statements were made. </p>
<p>Unless there was someone very close to the situation and out of view of the camera, I’m not sure we’re going to get to the bottom of this in that regard. </p>
<p>I believe that there was a man and son who were sitting kind of near the victim, but not sure how close they were. It sounds like there were in the row in front of the victim???</p>