<p>As an aside, I doubt that even if your husband felt someone was “telling im what to do” (such as please follow the rules and turn off the phone), its hopefully doubtful, even if he felt insulted, that he would end up in a brawl with the person. I suspect regardless of how much he might like to tell this person where to stick it, he would use restraint and diplomacy. It isnt just a male/female thing.</p>
<p>exactly right, m2ck. without witnesses, we cant know who was the initial “aggressor”. We only know who started the conversation.</p>
<p>That is precisely why the cellphone hitting Reeves in the face matters, imho. But, it still doesn’t change much. Second degree murder to manslaughter, maybe. </p>
<p>There are degrees of inappropriateness, and degrees of overreaction. No one is perfect, and, even two generally reasonable and well intentioned individuals will disagree on a variety of issues - like, for instance,whether or not using a cell phone during movie previews is rude, or what constitutes being excessively authoritarian. If people flew off the handle every time they perceived someone - right or wrongly, - to be inflexible, officious, arrogant, sneering, etc, we’d be in trouble. </p>
<p>Of course, we’d be in much worse trouble if people shot each other to death every time an exchange got heated, even if there were popcorn or a cell phone - or, for that matter, a shove or even a punch - into the mix.</p>
<p>As jym says, we don’t know exactly what happened, but if the victim did indeed swear, throw a box of popcorn at, and/or throw his phone at Reeves, that was an overreaction, not a laudable and understandable assertion of masculinity. That in no way minimizes what Reeves did, or suggests that Oulson remotely deserves what happened to him. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I never said it was laudable. </p>
<p>However, speaking as a male who was socialized among fellow males growing up, I know many males including those who may be part of the potential jury pool are likely to feel they’re able to relate and even feel his reaction was understandable and possibly even justified, however imprudent and ill-advised it may be. At worst, they are likely to regard it as an understandable mistake made in the midst of a stressful family situation made worse by someone who interrupted him while he was in the middle of addressing that situation. </p>
<p>The fact he was in the midst of addressing a situation with a sick daughter will only reinforce that among potential jurors…especially family men. </p>
<p>As for my feeling the shooter was being overbearing, I’m getting that impression from witnesses who experienced how he reacted in the previous incident. Despite his getting theater management to successfully order them to put away their cell and them doing so, he wasn’t satisfied and continued to grouse angrily, stare at them, and later stalked(her words) one to the bathroom. He was said to be very agitated and really creeped her out to the point she made it a point to remember his face which was how she was able to recall him so clearly when she heard about the shooting. </p>
<p>That impression is reinforced by witness testimony during/after the incident…especially the deputy’s testimony of his hearing him telling his wife to “shut the F up” after she said there was no reason to shoot the victim. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Please kindly follow your own advice above…especially considering your attempts to put words in my mouth here</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Every version of the video I’ve seen is missing five second just before the fatal altercation. The video counter jumps from 30 to 35. I cannot believe that the court was stupid enough to redact something that would raise questions and possibly change the nature of the charges that the prosecutor would pursue. I also find it incredible that not one news source has bothered to notice this. If I were a defense attorney, this would be a mighty help to me, as it gives me a window to assert whatever I like, without fearing contradictory evidence. If there was a malfunction in the original taping system, that is indeed fortunate for the defense.</p>
<p>As far as what the tape shows, it seems to me that the shooter was read to fire. The gun was either in his hand or at hand, as his response to being hit with the bag of popcorn was very quick. </p>
<p>So what is the responsibility of the theatre? What should it be?</p>
<p>The last time I went to the movies most of the employees I saw were high school age girls and boys. </p>
<p>I would not want my teenager to have to get anywhere near angry adults who are arguing over anything. </p>
<p>Some of these posts are uncomfortably feeling like bullying. I like to read everyone’s posts whether I agree or not. It helps me understand others viewpoints. I would hate to start having to use the ignore feature. </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>Nope, doesn’t work that way. You blow someone away with your gun like Reeves did, you are going to be getting a lot of culpability for the situation. Of course the guy you blow away, like Oulson has gotten the lion’s share of the blame since he has been given the death sentence in this case without trial, judge or jury. </p>
<p>If some idiot stands in front of your car and refuses to move, and you mow him down, see who gets culpability. I spit in your face, and you have a gun and shoot me, you will be paying as well as your family for the rest of your life. </p>
<p>The issue here is not who and what started the argument, but how it was ended. That trumps it all Even if Reeves gets off, which I doubt he will, it will have cost him and his family plenty for his loss of temper. He just majorly ruined his life and his loved ones’. And I don’t use the words
“ruin life” lightly. Yes, if a loved one, a family member did this, it would ruin my life. It would hurt forever. </p>
<p>"like, for instance,whether or not using a cell phone during movie previews is rude, or what constitutes being excessively authoritarian. "</p>
<p>and there are degrees of “use”. If someone just glances at a cell phone to check the time or to see if a text came in, that’s hardly on the same level as “nose to the cellphone texting back and forth for 10 minutes straight”. I don’t expect anyone to disrupt everyone in the row in order to exit the theater to check the time or see if an important text came in. </p>
<p>Many of us don’t wear watches anymore so our cell phones are our watches. </p>
<p>That said, there’s a watch that syncs with your cell phone. Wonder what theaters are going to say about those. </p>
<p>Cobrat, I’m not sure how relevant the jury’s opinion on Oulson’s actions are going to be anyway. Obviously, the defense will make much of them, because that’s all they have to work with, but even if Oulson behaved inappropriately, shooting the man is such a gross overreaction. Unless the jury believes Reeves had reasonable cause to fear for his life - which sounds like a really, really hard sell to me - I don’t know if it is going to matter in court. </p>
<p>The ticket takers and concession stand employees are frequently HS kids, sax, but the manager is likely to be an older adult. And dealing with unruly customers is most likely the responsibility of the manager, not the HS kids.</p>
<p>dadx: Which video are you watching that seems to be missing a portion? Am not seeing that. They do indicate that the camera is motion activated. So its possible that there may be what looks like some time missing when no one was movine (ie between when Reeves left to find management and when he returned). There has been no indication that I’ve seen that any of the film was redacted.</p>
<p>And the likelihood that this case is going to go to trial is so extraordinarily slim, discussion of what any jury might think i essentially moot.</p>
<p>In reality, there is nothing any theater manager could have done to stop this. They will probably be sued and they may settle but that’s another issue. Even if they were planning to intervene after the complaint there was no time. </p>
<p>Time for metal detectors at movie theaters…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>LOL. No, when one is remaining calm and unflappable, by definition they are not “indignantly voicing disagreement.” Indignation is the first crack in that calm and unflappable bearing. Challenging someone “indignantly” is neither calm nor unflappable; it is an escalation of the interaction.</p>
<p>From Meriam Webster:
</p>
<p>“And the likelihood that this case is going to go to trial is so extraordinarily slim, discussion of what any jury might think i essentially moot.”</p>
<p>So, your feeling is that he’ll take a plea deal? I think that’s possible if the sentence allows him “out” before he’s too old to enjoy life. But, if it’s longer, he may take his chances and go to trial…nothing to lose then.</p>
<p>“Remaining calm and unflappable in the face of someone else’s tantrum makes more of a “man””</p>
<p>While that is very true, many men today haven’t been raised to be “gentlemen.” many have been raised to “not let anyone push them around.”</p>
<p>Personally, I don’t think that Reeves was the only nasty one. I think Reeves went too far (even if he didn’t use a tone), and the victim was like many guys who isn’t going to “back down” when another man “goes too far” with him.</p>
<p>A plea deal would likely involve a number of years served with possible opportunity to get out earlier for good behavior. And it won’t wipe out the family finances to go this route. Might also suspect they could try to negotiate his serving in jail rather than prison, if thats possible, as former police officers are , shall we say, not treated well in prison. He would probably have to be kept in solitary for his own safety.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If I understand what happened correctly, not only did the victim not “back down,” he specifically re-ignited the explosive confrontation when the shooter re-entered the theater after going to find management with his baiting question “did you go and tell on me?” That was unnecessary and to me shows he might also have been a borderline bully himself. It doesn’t justify the shooter’s actions one iota, but he did mess with the wrong guy, because the weaker, older, and obviously more unstable individual had re-entered that theater with a gun.</p>
<p>To come back to a question you asked yesterday, m2ck, Reeves apparently used a.380 semiautomatic pistol. Don’t know about guns so don’t know if it has a safety, but would think it would be prudent, if someone was carrying a loaded pistol in their pants pocket, that they keep the safety on if it has one.</p>
<p>thanks for the update on the gun type. that probably does have a safety. however, I don’t know if a retired cop would be so practiced that flipping the safety would be done swiftly. </p>
<p>I’m looking forward to finding out whether that gun really was in his pocket. If it was in his lap, then that may make things worse for Reeves.</p>
<p>As for a plea deal…I think Reeves is going to want “house arrest”. i don’t think he’s going to agree to any jail time other than maybe a year. But, that’s just my gut. I agree that putting him in prison would be too dangerous unless he was in solitary 24/7.</p>
<p>Remember when the D said that when she separated from her H, she expected her dad to “take over things” (or something like that)? that reveals that her dad has a history of being kind of bossy. </p>