<p>I watched the closing arguments for the Bail Hearing. The defense attorney was very aggressive, saying it was a clear case of self-defense … that Oulsen assaulted Reeves with a “lethal weapon” (i.e., the phone). The Judge saw the hole in this claim, and asked the Prosecutor “I’m not saying I believe the Defense’s assertion that a phone was thrown at the Defendant, but if that turns out to be true, how does it affect the Prosecution’s case?” The Prosecutor responded that it would strengthen his case, because the fatal shot occurred thirteen seconds after the “thrown phone” disappeared from view. </p>
<p>What does that mean? If the phone hit Reeves in the head and he reacted by shooting and then the phone disappeared from view I’m not seeing a big problem with 13 seconds.</p>
<p>I may be mistaken, but if there’s that much time before shooting, the prosecution could argue that was enough time for the shooter to realize it was a cell phone and thus, should have known responding with a gun is an over-the-top disproportionate escalation of force. </p>
<p>And that’s assuming a cell phone was actually thrown. As far as I know, that still hasn’t been definitively established yet. Only sources I’ve seen are derived from the shooter and defense team. </p>
<p>And seeing as how Oulson (who it appears was the one to fuel the fire when Reeves returned- he shoulda sat down and shut up) grabbed Reeves’ own popcorn and threw it at him, Reeves would be hard pressed to claim he didn’t know what it was.</p>
<p>Again, the elements of FL law are that an attack is made against the person, not that an attack was responded to by the person. The shooter has to get over the first hurdle, which I doubt he can, because it appears in every sense - video and testimony, both his and by others - that he initiated the confrontation. You can’t initiate a confrontation and then claim self-defense under FL law. You certainly can’t escalate the use of force when you’ve initiated the confrontation. Again, that was the Martin case: Zimmerman claimed Martin turned on him and attacked him, that Martin initiated the confrontation. </p>
<p>The FL law has 2 other parts. The first is no duty to retreat IF you haven’t initiated the confrontation, which I don’t see here. (And as Zimmerman’s lawyer has noted, that also isn’t the case with the guy who murdered a kid at a gas station; he initiated the confrontation because he didn’t like the loud music. BTW, his entire actual defense is that a gun was pointed at him, not that he had a right to self defense otherwise. Most of the coverage is just noise.)</p>
<p>The second part is that you have to be in reasonable fear of great bodily harm or worse. As I noted, we have the testimony of the shooter about that: he was hit with popcorn and maybe a cellphone. No claim of a gun. No claim the victim even tried to hit him with his hand or anything else. </p>
<p>People are jumping over the first elements of the law to talk about “reasonable fear”. You can’t view that in isolation: a claim of self-defense requires you be attacked, that you didn’t initiate the confrontation. If we conclude the shooter initiated the confrontation, then he had a duty to retreat. See? If he wasn’t attacked, he has no statutory right to “stand his ground” but must instead retreat from confrontation. He then loses the statutory protection of “reasonable fear” of GBH or worse - whether he could get close to that or not on its own. </p>
<p>While it was imprudent, I don’t feel one can condemn someone for what is a natural reaction to someone who is likely to have been overbearing and belligerent at the very start of the interaction. </p>
<p>Especially considering how he acted in the previous incident:</p>
<p>His continuing to grouse and stare AFTER the usher had the Dixons put away their cell phones, agitated demeanor, his following Jamira to the bathroom(Stalking was the word she used in many reports), and snarling/yelling at another person for having his cell phone go off doesn’t seem to show someone who was “a sweet mild-mannered” person able to deal with everyday annoyances of life or to let them go after they were properly resolved. </p>
<p>Their account also seems to show the possibility the shooter’s widow may have egged on the shooter’s staring and grousing at the Dixons after they put the phone away. If this is the case, it may undermine the shooter’s wife as a sympathetic figure. </p>
<p>Yes, it’s what cobrat said. Thirteen seconds between the time the “lighted object” appeared near Reeves, and the gunshot … time enough to think through a course of action.</p>
<p>Sorry, Niquil, didn’t mean to come off so harsh. I have three brothers, and lots of sons and nephews , very active jock types. It’s been a big part of my life trying to explain to them that it the better person, who can back off in such situation. To be able to judge when it’s necessary to step it up, which is truly rare And the media, the movies, the shows, the books, don’t make it any easier. The tough guy response, the Clint Eastwood lines, just don’t work in real life. I was often worried that there would be issues because of the pure ego. </p>
<p>What a waste of lives, injuries, time and money for a lot of Floridians over this loss of temper. </p>
<p>Indeed. If anything, 13 seconds is an eternity in a hostile situation where one may need to assess a fight or flight response. Especially if we’re talking about a retired law enforcement officer who was trained and possibly trained others in dealing with such situations. </p>
<p>“I’m surprised no one has commented on how fast “Quick Draw” Reeves was able to reach into his pants, find his piece, pull it out, switch the safety off, aim for deadly effect, and shoot”</p>
<p>That’s what he was doing in the 13 seconds. </p>
<p>You keep harping on this “natural reaction” to an overbearing person. Are you referring to Oulson’s using profanity, re-igniting the interaction after the shooter came back into the theater, and throwing popcorn and perhaps cell phone as a “natural reaction” that is completely understandable? If so, I completely disagree that his reaction is something the average person does “naturally.” I think both people in this incident were “overbearing and belligerent,” both immature, unreasonable hotheads. Once the gun enters the equation, however, the shooter gets the remainder of the condemnation. The victim’s behavior (in my opinion) should have no bearing on the legal consequences of the shooter, but if the victim actually behaved as reported, he most certainly acted inappropriately and his behavior cannot really be defended as okay. Two wrongs don’t make a right.</p>
<p>I am referring to condemning him for his use of profanity and angry tone at the beginning of the interaction. </p>
<p>That’s IMO…having excess expectations for the victim to be perfect in his etiquette and manners…which IMO shouldn’t be demanded if it was in response to someone acting in an overbearing and possibly belligerent attitude. Especially considering Oulson may have been stressed due to concern for his sick daughter and trying to address that concern when he was put upon by the shooter’s overbearing request. </p>
<p>Not to mention Oulson’s right…the purpose of his text was none of the shooter’s business and it wasn’t his place to act as theater police. </p>
<p>Shooter should have gone to management and let them handle the issue at the outset and not gotten himself involved. </p>
<p>I also feel it’s highly hypocritical for the shooter to lecture others about theater rules considering he actually violated two:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Theater had a clear no weapons sign outside.</p></li>
<li><p>Turns out there’s a law barring carrying of firearms into businesses which serve alcohol…which that theater does. </p></li>
</ol>
<p>And since he’s not an active serving cop, he’s not exempted from those laws/regulations. </p>
<p>How do we know what his initial tone was? Tone is highly subjective.</p>
<p>I doubt he asked the purpose of the text which is irrelevant anyway. Also, he did go to management. When he came back Oulson is the one who initiated the continued confrontation, stood up, cussed him out, grabbed his popcorn and threw it in his face, and possibly whacked him with a cellphone. Thirteen seconds later he was shot. Unless I’m misunderstanding something, there is at least a weak self defense argument in there.</p>
<p>Yes, AFTER Chad Oulson refused to obey the shooter’s command to put the cell phone away considering he was in the middle of addressing the situation with his sick daughter. </p>
<p>My point was the shooter could have avoided the entire drama if he had quietly left and notified management without putting himself into the situation in the first place. </p>
<p>However, judging by his involvement in a previous incident with the Dixons and exhibited his behavior even after the usher came and they put away their cellphones, it’s unlikely the shooter was a paragon of polite etiquette. </p>
<p>And then there’s previous accounts from professional assessments and former colleagues criticizing him for his “inflexibility” and being overbearing during his tenure as a law enforcement officer and later, as head of security at Busch Gardens. </p>
<p>No one thinks Oulson should have been “perfect.” But there is a whole lot of ground between “perfect” and acting the way he did. Your repetitive use of the words “overbearing” and “belligerent” could equally be used to describe the victim. His behavior was completely inappropriate and not “understandable” to me. Did his behavior warrant gunfire? NO. Does it warrant criticism? I think so.</p>
<p>None of this would have amounted to a hill of beans if the end result wasn’t that shooting. They could have sued each other in civil court, maybe brought assault and other charges against each other, enriched a few lawyers and been the butt of some funny cocktail party jokes that the lawyers could tell, and barely make local news. </p>
<p>i could not care less who started this with the wrong tone, overbearing attitude, touching, throwing popcorn, cursing, telling.; that was all trumped with the shooting. I think that the case is going to be decided by whether some the DA thinks there might be enough yahoos out there that may end up on the jury who with think of Reeves as a Clint Eastwood, so he works out a deal, and if it does go to trial such yahoos might be who decide the case. Then again, maybe not. Florida justice worked the way it should with the focus on the evidence on two recent cases that were high pressure with national media attention. Jurors were able to overcome popular sentiment and pressure and even come up with a verdict rather than being hung. So, my hat does go off to Floridians for that. </p>
<p>^^^^^It’s hard for me to imagine anyone being able to justify the shooter’s actions even based on the reports of the victim’s behavior, but I guess stranger things have happened.</p>
<p>If the shooter had gone to theater management without confronting Chad Oulson first, the entire drama could have been avoided and Chad Oulson wouldn’t have reacted to what was very likely an overbearing provocation. </p>
<p>I don’t know about you, but most people out in public do not react kindly to being ordered around in public by those who don’t have the legal/situational status to do so. And ordering someone around or correcting others is often regarded as a provocation. </p>
<p>It’s one reason why even local cops in my old neighborhood have stated correcting others or telling others what to do in public venues is ill-advised from a personal safety standpoint. </p>
<p>Best get the relevant authorities management involved from the outset and avoid initiating what could be a confrontation which could backfire on you. And in the case of the shooter, it certainly has backfired on him. </p>
<p>Not as bad as puffing up like an enraged rooster backfired on Oulson. You seem to have trouble admitting that both men were in the wrong. If either one had calmed down and not acted like idiots, this would never have happened. </p>
<p>I believe everyone weighing in on this thread thinks the shooter was 100% in the wrong and should be punished accordingly. </p>
<p>The one who initiated the unnecessary confrontation is in the greater wrong in the first place…and then greatly compounded it by adding a firearm in the equation and using it. The latter factor underscores at a very minimum, the lion’s share of the blame the shooter has for this situation…legally and IMO…morally. </p>
<p>The shooter would have been much better off had he gone to management, had them handle the situation, and stayed out of it so no reaction would have occurred in the first place. </p>
<p>However, that wouldn’t have been as satisfying as ordering others about as he did in the previous Dixon incident where he snarled/yelled(depending on report) at another person when his cell phone went off. </p>