<p>The shooter most definitely committed the greater wrong. The victim’s actions (reacting to a trigger happy abnormal person) got himself killed. His reaction to what happened was definitely over the top. He was wrong to re-initiate the confrontation when the shooter came back from looking for management. Like the shooter, he over-reacted. </p>
<p>You seem to be maintaining that a person should be able to react however they want if someone else is “wrong.” That’s not how the world actually works. You can be “right” all the way to the grave, and in this instance, that’s exactly what happened.</p>
<p>And I bet those same cops would tell you that acting in an angry, physically intimidating manner towards someone acting very crazy and bizarre would also be ill-advised from a personal safety standpoint.</p>
<p>Reacting by being verbally testy and telling someone to effectively MYOB because one’s dealing with a family situation does not constitute acting in an angry physically intimidating manner. </p>
<p>It’s actually a natural reaction to being rudely interrupted or being ordered around in public by someone without any legal/situational status standing to do so. </p>
<p>Only way that could be construed as such is if you believe one should always act like a weak doormat in such situations. </p>
<p>Have a college friend whose parents socialized him in such a manner…and he’s had nothing but serious problems with in the workplace, social interactions, and being taken seriously by others because he’s known for allowing others to walk all over him. </p>
<p>I’m talking about the victim’s behavior after the shooter left the theater and came back.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m not talking about being a weak doormat, I’m talking about being calm and rational in the face of someone who is clearly acting in a bizarre manner. Calm and rational does not include re-initiating contact with someone when they’ve left the room and have returned, throwing the bizarre person’s popcorn at them, using profanity, or throwing cell phones. I’m not sure the latter even happened, but take it out of the equation, and the victim was still clearly not behaving in a calm manner.</p>
<p>Are you a right fighter, Cobrat? You’d rather be right and dead than ignore an old busy body getting into your chili? I’m betting the victim’s wife really wishes her husband had either ignored the shooter entirely or at least not lost his temper. The victim could not control the shooter’s actions, but he certainly had control of his own. What would have happened if the victim had not re-engaged the shooter when he came back into the theater? Reeves would have “groused” and “harrumphed?” Did the Dixons end up dead? By not further engaging Reeves, are they spineless, worthless and begging to become daily victims?</p>
<p>Sometimes rather than being “right,” you have to step up and be the better person even though the other person is in the wrong. Not everything has to be resolved to everyone’s satisfaction. Men who are secure in their masculinity don’t always feel the need to prove it. </p>
<p>If could come into play if the defense decides to use Chad’s lack of impeccable etiquette and imprudent actions which could reasonably be argued is a natural reaction to the shooter’s initial overbearing bossy manner to effectively put the dead victim on trial. </p>
<p>And if a critical mass of jurors chosen happen to be from demographics who may be inclined to sympathize with the shooter…whether they are SYG supporters, elderly with hostile “Get off my lawn” inclinations against younger folks/technology, and or those inclined to feel commands from a “take charge” man/elderly like the shooter to another should be obeyed unquestioningly, the prosecution will have an uphill battle to overcome those biases. </p>
<p>It’s ironic I’m vehemently arguing for Chad Oulson considering I personally detest folks who use cell phones to text in movie theaters as the bright screens can be distracting to those sitting further back and if the ringer goes off, can be highly disruptive. </p>
<p>However, that’s an irritation only during the main feature, not during the previews. In the theaters I’ve attended, the request to put away/turn off cell phones is done towards the end of the previews not before/at the beginning. And if others do disturb me with their cell phones during the feature, I notify theater management and let them handle it. </p>
<p>I also find it highly hypocritical and outrageous for the shooter to feel he had the right to lecture others about violating theater rules when his violations were actually more numerous and far graver in their implications in the greater scheme of things. </p>
<p>Being polite and civil is not the same thing as being a weak doormat. There seems to be a constant theme that people are divided into 2 groups: the entitled, self absorbed, authoritarian control freak bully and the passive doormat underdog. This comes up over and over. I totally agree with nrdsb4. Both were jerks- both puffed up their chests and pushed each other’s buttons and unfortunately one got shot. </p>
<p>There is also the assumption that Reeves ordered Oulson around and told him what to do. While it may be, its also possible that the first attempt to ask Oulson to turn off his phone was just that- a request. Maybe it was even polite. Who knows. Maybe OUlson groused back at him then, maybe after the second request. But if the conversation went something like:’<br>
(R) Sir, would you mind shutting off your phone? The movie is about to start and its distracting to me"
(O) Sure, in a moment. I am just finishing a text to my daughter who is home sick
(R) Appreciate it- thanks.
– a few moments later–
(R) “Have you had a chance to finish? Its really hard for me to focus”
(O) Almost-- one more second. Almost done. Sorry to disturb you.</p>
<p>etc, etc, things would be very different. Its perfectly reasonable for a person to ask someone to stop talking or to turn off their phone in a theater. They don’t have to run to management at that point. Thats silly. Most people are civilized human beings and can address these courtesies without need for outside intervention. In contrast, if they start the interchange with a hostile confrontation (eg " Hey buddy, cant you read?? Turn off your GD phone!!") Things would probably be different. There seems to be an assumption by some here that Reeves must have started the first request in a manner similar to that last example. There is simply no evidence of that.</p>
<p>Okay Cobrat, they can try to spin killing time on the phone with a toddler before the movie starts into dealing with an urgent family matter. Good luck. </p>
<p>I think the shooter has cooked his own goose with his own statements on record. There is no doubt who the shooter was. Based on those statements and witness accounts I doubt the defense gets a jury to buy a not guilty by virtue of self defense verdict. The victim’s behavior might come into play with regard to punishment. I think the shooter’s age will factor in to punishment, and I wouldn’t be surprised if the defense tries to offer up some kind of “dementia” as mitigating circumstance rather than putting the victim on trial. I think it would be far less risky to do that. JMHO.</p>
<p>Would that be the case if there is a minimum mandatory sentence of 25 years for being convicted of second degree murder as some have stated earlier in this thread? </p>
<p>Would the jury be allowed discretion if mandatory minimums are in play? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Out of curiosity, how would they go about doing that if they’re going with a not guilty pleading without adding the insanity/diminished mental capacity part? </p>
<p>And how much would it cost the shooter’s family/defense to hire professionals to testify to that on his behalf? </p>
<p>I don’t know anything about minimums or punishment phase in Florida. I’m just talking out of my you know what like most everyone else here.</p>
<p>If the self defense thing doesn’t fly (I don’t think it will just based on his own recorded statements), why wouldn’t his lawyers use a diminished capacity argument to try to get a reduced punishment if there is any discretion whatsoever here with regard to the charges or punishments?</p>
<p>I agree fully with Jym. Both jerks. But Reese killed a guy, and that the guy was being a jerk is not justification.I also think a dementia, in pain, going down hill plea would be the way to go. I’d want Reese put away somewhere if he were a family member. Not safe to be around people. Lots of jerks in this world, even in the family. Can’t have someone who might plug them that way.</p>
<p>Agreed. Who hasn’t had or known of an elderly relative who acts bizarrely, perhaps even violently? If I were the lawyer, I’d try to appeal to that sensitivity rather than trying to put the victim on trial. Sometimes that works, but I bet just as often it backfires. He’s elderly, demented, physically ailing-that would probably reverberate inside most folks and you wouldn’t need to look specifically for people sympathetic to authoritarian types. </p>
<p>Would the defense first need to establish this to the court by hiring an expert to examine him and testify to that on his behalf? </p>
<p>I just can’t see how a judge would allow the defense to make claims in areas which requires assessment by a qualified medical professional and for him/her to testify on behalf of the defense. It is also likely that he/she will need to defend against arguments from the medical professional hired by the prosecution to rebut and weaken the defense’s arguments here. </p>
<p>And wouldn’t that be an additional possibly burdensome expense for the defense? </p>
<p>“If either one had calmed down and not acted like idiots, this would never have happened.”</p>
<p>Translation: This is what can happen when one assaults a gunfighter with snackfood. (Or in Clint’s venacular “Well he should have armed himself if he’s going to decorate [my face with popcorn].”)</p>
<p>We are coming back to the same discussions we had weeks ago. There has been no suggestion, and no evidence, that he has any form of dementia. He might, and a thorough evaluation (neurological, neuropsychological, radiological, complete lab workup, etc) would be necessary to even consider dementia or diminished capacity. </p>
<p>Don’t want to get into a gun control discussion, but IMO, its too bad, if ex cops feel the need to carry a weapon for protection after retirement, that they don’t just carry a taser . Oulson would have been zapped, but he’d be alive</p>
<p>Is there an appropriate poultry reference for that?. </p>
<p>However, it still means lock up for Reese. I want to make it clear, that I do not advocate his going free. Just not prison for him, if indeed he is entering a stage of dementia.</p>
<p>My MIL started striking out and getting enraged before we saw the more tell tale signs of dementia. We blamed it on her pain, and yes, some of that was the case as she had to have some surgeries and had some severe arthritis issues. But she was a mild tempered person that took quite a turn in temperment and actually to get physical was highly unusual for her. . Clawed some people, including some of us pretty badly without any provocation, when we were just trying to help her. Now we know to approach her carefully, and it’s very clear to anyone she is in late stages of dementia but for a while there she would swing back into normalcy. When the day comes that it’s too dangerous to handle her, she goes into the nursing home. Right now she’s too disoriented and frail to pose too much of a threat and isn’t too much work. But had she crossed a certain danger to others line, she would have been out of here. </p>
<p>And my DH has been a bear lately as he is in tremendous pain over torn meniscus, both knees, with surgery imminent. He has a tremendous pain threshhold, but this is putting him over at times where he just has to sit down and cannot walk another step. Throw in some dementia, a gun and jerk to confront, well, I’m confident, he would not do as Reese does, but if he did, that’ would be it for him. Just can’t have people that pose that kind of danger to us. </p>
<p>And if ever I reach a point where I’d shoot or strike out physically at someone for taunting me, being nasty, doing something he shouldn’t, like talking on the phone, or texting at movie, it’s time for me to find a safe place for me and all others from me.</p>
<p>Add me to the “diminished capacity” crowd. I think the strongest argument for this came from Reeve’s wife immediately after the shooting: “There was no call for that.”</p>