Florida Man Is Shot to Death for Texting During Movie Previews

[Exophase]

Crazies will have guns, legal or not. All you and your ilk want to do is ban law abiding citizens from protecting themselves. It's not gonna happen in this country, not anytime soon.

I take it you're still going to be insisting this is a law-abiding citizen after he's given a lengthy sentence for murder..

 

[Nebor]

Had it been you in the theater, running on the assumption that you're not insane, the old dude would have shot you dead before you could have drawn.

I don't mind people with guns as a principle. I mind stupid, irrational or misanthropic people with guns. A fair number of people in the world (and on these forums) are stupid, irrational, and or misanthropic and I'd have the piss scared out of me if they are running around carrying guns. If I bumped into them and had my own handgun by my side, round chambered and safety off, I'd still be a dead man because I'd consider using my gun the LAST option and not the first.

No, I would have sat there quietly while the pair of idiots yelled at each other, then detained the shooter after he shot the guy. Oh wait, that's exactly what the off-duty sheriff's deputy in the theater did.

I don't get into pointless conflicts with random people. I'm trained to de-escalate conflicts, not aggravate them.

 

[sandorski]

Crazies will have guns, legal or not. All you and your ilk want to do is ban law abiding citizens from protecting themselves. It's not gonna happen in this country, not anytime soon.

Negative.

 

[Nebor]

I take it you're still going to be insisting this is a law-abiding citizen after he's given a lengthy sentence for murder..

He was a retired police captain. He could have carried his gun into the Empire State building or around Washington D.C. legally. But he wasn't just a citizen, he was a police officer. And he chose not to abide by the law when he shot a guy over a petty verbal argument. He should spend the rest of his life in prison.

 

[Vic]

He wasn't shot for texting. As far as we currently know as fact, he flipped out over management getting called in for texting during a movie and attacked someone over it. Don't want to get shot? Don't assault random law-abiding people.

Hmm.. I'm going to have to disagree with this.
The fact that Oulsons wife's hand was shot with the same bullet that struck Oulson in the chest indicates that she was standing between the two. This is the most damning evidence against Reeves IMO and does not make his actions appear law abiding. It certainly will not look good to a jury.

 

[Nebor]

Right now, I'm waiting to make a decision on this topic until more details are released.

I don't know what was said by either man during the arguments. It has been stated at least that the guy shot, Oulson, did "attack" first by throwing popcorn at Reeves. If Reeves can clearly see it's a bag of popcorn that was being thrown at him, then he has no defense. If he fired after being hit by a bag of popcorn, he has no defense. A bag of popcorn is not a credible threat to cause grave bodily harm or death. It just isn't.

However, if Reeves shot while Oulson was in the middle of throwing the bag and he was unable to ascertain the action made by Oulson was to throw a bag of popcorn, then he could at that moment in time be justified. Which is what the law hinges on at the moment the action is taken. If Reeves shoots after being hit with popcorn, then the shooting is certainly not justified at all.

Also, it can depends upon what was said between the two men. More specifically what Oulson may have said before, during, and or right after throwing the popcorn. If he said something like, "I'm going to kick the shit out of you old man" and reach to throw his popcorn at Reeves and Reeves pull his gun and shot while Oulson was throwing it is justified shooting. Sucks, but justified.

What does my intuition tell me though? I do not believe this to be a justified shooting. I think Reeves shot after the popcorn was thrown and impacted. Which by that point anyone would be able to tell a bag of thrown popcorn is not a credible threat that can cause grave bodily harm. Which if that is the case may Reeves rot in prison.

You're giving way too much benefit of the doubt here. As a retired police captain, he wouldn't have been arrested on the spot and charged the next day if there was any real doubt involved. He was a crotchety old man that lost his temper, and he had better aim than sense.

 

[Daverino]

No, I would have sat there quietly while the pair of idiots yelled at each other, then detained the shooter after he shot the guy. Oh wait, that's exactly what the off-duty sheriff's deputy in the theater did.

I don't get into pointless conflicts with random people. I'm trained to de-escalate conflicts, not aggravate them.

Exactly my point.

If you had minced words with someone like this old guy, I wonder whether your ability to de-escelate or your sidearm could have saved your life. The shooter could have turned around and left at any point. However, it seems, his 'value-of-life' meter was somewhere between Iraq and Somalia.

 

[BUnit1701]

Had it been you in the theater, running on the assumption that you're not insane, the old dude would have shot you dead before you could have drawn.

I don't mind people with guns as a principle. I mind stupid, irrational or misanthropic people with guns. A fair number of people in the world (and on these forums) are stupid, irrational, and or misanthropic and I'd have the piss scared out of me if they are running around carrying guns. If I bumped into them and had my own handgun by my side, round chambered and safety off, I'd still be a dead man because I'd consider using my gun the LAST option and not the first.

Not likely, it seems to me he would only be shot after being rude and potentially threatening the old man. If the old man had opened fire as soon as the phone screen lit up, you might have a point. The facts are not on your side however.

 

[HomerJS]

And it starts....


""The defendant advised that the victim turned and stood up striking him in the face with an unknown object," the complaint says, according to WTSP-TV. "The defendant advised that he removed the .380 semiauto handgun from his pants pocket, firing one round striking the victim and that he was in fear of being attacked.""

http://www.freep.com/article/201401...ged-with-killing-man-for-texting-during-movie

This statements is saying two things. I was attacked and I was in fear of being attacked. Which is it? One can't be true.

Also witness who saw argument did not confirm. One said popcorn was thrown but didn't know who threw it.

 

[Nebor]

Exactly my point.

If you had minced words with someone like this old guy, I wonder whether your ability to de-escelate or your sidearm could have saved your life. The shooter could have turned around and left at any point. However, it seems, his 'value-of-life' meter was somewhere between Iraq and Somalia.

It's hard to say. That's why I'm the type of guy who apologizes when someone steps on my foot. Every potential conflict should have it's potential effort & outcomes weighed as objectively as possible.

Frankly I'm looking forward to reading the off-duty sheriff deputy's account of the incident. I imagine after the shots were fired, he drew his weapon and it became a shouting match between "sheriff's department" and "tampa PD." Clearly the old man came to his senses and dropped his weapon, but I'm interested in hearing exactly how it all went down.

 

[Vic]

You're giving way too much benefit of the doubt here. As a retired police captain, he wouldn't have been arrested on the spot and charged the next day if there was any real doubt involved. He was a crotchety old man that lost his temper, and he had better aim than sense.

I agree. I think some of the posters here are reenacting the Zimmerman case when there's really no similarities except that someone in Florida got shot.

 

[chimaxi83]

It's dark. For all he knew it was a chemical or weapon.

Is this buffoon serious, or just purposely trolling? Is this train of thought actually possible?

You sound like a piece of shit lawyer trying to get his piece of shit client off.

 

[dabuddha]

A super bright phone screen is hugely distracting, noise or no noise.


It's a friggin movie theater. I fail to understand how the dreggs of our society seem to think it's acceptable to be using their phone - period. Text before you enter a dark theater. Can you really not figure your life out straight enough before sitting down for a movie?


I miss the days of theaters using cell jammers.

The movie hadn't started. But I hope your not justifying the shooter. Don't like someone texting, move to another part of the theater or complain to management. Shooting the guy? That's just fucking stupid. If you can't see that, god help you and your children.

 

[ch33zw1z]

This made me remember going to the latest Hobbit movie. The theatre we went to has the back row reserved for phone users

 

[Daverino]

I agree. I think some of the posters here are reenacting the Zimmerman case when there's really no similarities except that someone in Florida got shot.

Well in both cases, the person who got shot was also unarmed, not doing anything criminal, and didn't NEED to get shot if the shooter had just de-escelated.

So there are more similarities than you think.

I didn't look at the Zimmerman case as racial, so much as societal. America is a place where things like this movie shooting and the Zimmerman shooting can occur, which is exactly why it will occur from time to time.

 

[Nebor]

Well in both cases, the person who got shot was also unarmed, not doing anything criminal, and didn't NEED to get shot if the shooter had just de-escelated.

So there are more similarities than you think.

I didn't look at the Zimmerman case as racial, so much as societal. America is a place where things like this movie shooting and the Zimmerman shooting can occur, which is exactly why it will occur from time to time.

I can understand Zimmerman's position a lot better than Reeves'. Zimmerman was performing the duties of a neighborhood watchman, and approached someone who quite plainly did not belong in his neighborhood. That individual then attacked him fiercely. IMO if not for Zimmerman, Trayvon would have been shot by someone else or in prison within 5 years anyway.

So while Trayvon didn't NEED to get shot initially, his own actions eventually created that need.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Is this buffoon serious, or just purposely trolling? Is this train of thought actually possible?

You sound like a piece of shit lawyer trying to get his piece of shit client off.

I think he's just getting himself off.

I hope the shooter spend the rest of his life rotting in jail. He deserves nothing more than that. How ANYONE can defend his actions is pathetic and sociopathic.

 

[TerryMathews]

Well in both cases, the person who got shot was also unarmed, not doing anything criminal, and didn't NEED to get shot if the shooter had just de-escelated.

So there are more similarities than you think.

I didn't look at the Zimmerman case as racial, so much as societal. America is a place where things like this movie shooting and the Zimmerman shooting can occur, which is exactly why it will occur from time to time.

The difference is that in the Zimmermann case, we have direct physical evidence that he was assaulted by Martin. Which is a criminal act and one that legally justified Zimmerman's actions under state law.

Please stop trying to transform every gun case into Zimmerman.

I still say this case is more mental illness than anything.

 

[cubby1223]

The movie hadn't started. But I hope your not justifying the shooter. Don't like someone texting, move to another part of the theater or complain to management. Shooting the guy? That's just fucking stupid. If you can't see that, god help you and your children.

Naw, but it is a twofer. Don't shoot people over disagreements. Put the damn cellphone away during movies.

This guy will be found guilty of murder and no one on this forum will find that wrong. Relax and breathe. The world isn't as bat-shit insane as you for some reason think it is?

 

[StinkyPinky]

Nuts with guns. Same old, same old.

Kinda spooky that some people are defending him here. Even if you're some gun nut, I'm pretty sure you're not going to help yourself by stating it's ok to shoot some guy because he's annoying.

Next time you do something annoying (and we all do at some point), I wonder what you will think when some nut pulls out a gun and murders your ass.

 

[cubby1223]

I'm sorry, but threads like these are always amusing

Many of you make up your own separate version of reality then get angry and pissed off at that, instead of keeping your mind focused on reality's version of reality.

 

[ElMonoDelMar]

In many states that's legal, if it was intentional.

Moral of the story is the same... Don't attack random people and cause them to fear for their life and you won't have to worry about getting shot.

What state is that? Also, describe a hypothetical situation where you would be legally justified in shooting someone that intentionally cut you off in that state.

 

[DominionSeraph]

A couple updates on this situation for you:
The Pasco county sheriff has determined that stand your ground rule doesn't apply to this incident because Reeves initiated the altercation.
At the arraignment this morning, the judge denied bail and ruled the prosecution has "more than sufficient probable cause" to proceed with the murder charge.

Dang, interesting what happens when the victim is white.

 

[Pray To Jesus]

Presumed innocent until trial ends.

 

[Jaskalas]

Dang, interesting what happens when the victim is white.

Or isn't beating the shooter to death.