Sometimes we're our own worst enemy

Status
Not open for further replies.
or do you guys still not see the part where somebody assaulted a 71yr old man sitting down?
Click to expand...
(note: can't open video here)

Throwing popcorn at someone does not rise to the level of self defense utilized.
I'm not sure a court would even consider it an actionable assault.
 
this is exactly the media perception that many are agreeing with here. But this is not what happened.
Click to expand...
You're correct. I'll amend.

Throwing popcorn and a cellphone is not grounds to kill someone.

File charges: yes
Sue them: yes.
Shoot them: its the slammer for you.

You'll need more than that to prove to a jury that he was in reasonable fear of his life or harm sufficient to meet the Florida statutes.
 
Last edited:
this is exactly the media perception that many are agreeing with here. But this is not what happened.
Click to expand...

While it's good to be skeptical of what the media reports, just because it's reported doesn't necessarily make it false either. I can find nothing so inherently false or misleading about the report which would give me the "AH HA, SO THAT'S WHY HE SHOT HIM..." feeling about this.

Koda, so based on the facts reported and if you were 72 years old, do you think you would have shot the man?
 
At what ponit then does a 71 year old man have to wait until YOU think it's reasonable for HIM to fire in self defense? Wait til the 43 year old agressuve man is on top of him pummeling or stabbing him? Wait til he's shot?

Consider this. You're in a dark parking lot with your wife and confronted by a verbally aggressive man who strikes at you twice. His end motives are unknown but he is physically superior. Anyone here gonna wait and see what happens, what weapons he draws or how crummy it feels to be knocked out?

I too am quite disappointed in the pro carry crowd here
 
Well, equally ridiculous is the notion that I must go around the world in fear and yielding to every bully that wants my lunch money or wants to humiliate me in front of my wife by kicking sand in my face. Every time someone tells me to move my car from a public spot, I must go move it? When the bully comes and tells me and my wife to move from the booth at Denny's because that's "his seat" I must move? When the bully threatens me with immediate severe bodily harm for my wallet, I must yield and give it to him? I don't think so. At some point for human dignity and safety we get to stand our ground against bullies.
Click to expand...
So you think if you get into a disagreement with somewone its ok to just shoot them. I thought firearms were carried in America for self defence as a last resort, not so you stand up to bullies. :confused:
 
Consider this. You're in a dark parking lot with your wife and confronted by a verbally aggressive man who strikes at you twice. His end motives are unknown but he is physically superior. Anyone here gonna wait and see what happens, what weapons he draws or how crummy it feels to be knocked out?
Click to expand...

Being confronted by a verbally aggressive man in a parking lot who strikes at me twice (without me ever saying "boo" to him) is a far cry different than me telling someone to shut off their phone in a movie theater and a man throwing a cell phone and popcorn in anger at me because of my complaints directed toward him. So, in the scenario you present, it is possible that I would unholster my gun and loudly demand that the man back off (time permitting), or possibly shoot if he is on top of me and another strike is imminent.

Now that I've answered your question, please answer mine:

Based on the facts reported and if you were 72 years old, do you think you would have shot the man in the theater?
 
At what ponit then does a 71 year old man have to wait until YOU think it's reasonable for HIM to fire in self defense?
Click to expand...
When there is sufficient evidence to support he had a reasonable fear of immediate death or harm (not sure what level of harm is required under the Florida statute). If there is sufficient evidence that the shootee was threatening to do so. If he had a knife/gun that would be helpful. If he had physically touched the shooter or clearly loked to be about to commit such a battery. This evidence is contravened by the shooter's statements as reported by other witnesses.

Wait til the 43 year old agressuve man is on top of him pummeling or stabbing him?
Click to expand...
**That would work

Wait til he's shot?
Click to expand...
**That would work even better
Consider this. You're in a dark parking lot with your wife and confronted by a verbally aggressive man who strikes at you twice.
Click to expand...
1. He wouldn't get that close. I'm not being tacticool ninja here I would have stepped back with said wife to keep distance while doing #2 below.
2. I would have already warned him in extremely loud voice to STOP GO BACK and I AM ARMED.
(while I am doing that the wife would have hit him with a bat when he wasn't looking. She's from Chicago after all. :eek:)

Note your scenario has nothing to do with what occurred in the theater. The shootee did not strike at the shooter.

So you think if you get into a disagreement with somewone its ok to just shoot them. I thought firearms were carried in America for self defence as a last resort, not so you stand up to bullies.
Click to expand...
In Texas they're also for putting down husbands that go astray. You'll find it under the cattle thief statutes. Its also known as the "he needed killin your honor" marital defense.
 
Based on the facts reported and if you were 72 years old, do you think you would have shot the man in the theater?
Click to expand...

I would have attempted to diffuse and move. But that doesn't mean it wasn't justifiable self defense. Apparently he didn't move bc he believed it had been resolved by his complaint to management and the issue had passed.

The shootee did not strike at the shooter.
Click to expand...
I disagree. Did you watch the video???

In the real world that behavior is accompanied with threats, intimidation, and often further more serious assault.
 
The shootee did not strike at the shooter.
I disagree. Did you watch the video???
Click to expand...
Can't watch the video here. Thought I said that, sorry. Did the shootee physically punch or hit the defendant? Not throw popcorn at him. Not throw a cellphone at him.

In the real world that behavior is accompanied with threats, intimidation, and often further more serious assault.
Click to expand...
Unless there is evidence this occurred this is in-admissible supposition. You know that. There has to be admissible testimony and evidence of such. Until then its a crotchety guy with a gun blasting a dad.
 
Based on the facts reported and if you were 72 years old, do you think you would have shot the man in the theater?
Click to expand...
I doint think i know i would not of shot him, i would have done anything i could to avoid shooting him. Only if i thought my life was in danger would i have considered shooting. I would then have to justify my actions to the police or a jury. I doint know how i would have justified hitting his wife, he should not have shot if their was a chance of hitting here or somewone else. Do you want to live in a country where its ok to shoot somewone that throws popcorn etc at a persion. ? I know i wouldn't.
 
Last edited:
but clearly the cop did try to deescalate the situation by reporting the rude cell phone user to management for them to deal with it.... they didnt.
Click to expand...

How silly are you going to be in trying to defend this shooting? You leave. You get your wife and move away. Now the bluster boys here may say it is your right to stay in a dangerous situation. It is. It is stupid.

Get it now?

And calling folks anti because they don't agree with foolish actions is also silly.
 
AGain, I am not aware of what occurs in the video.
Coming back, if nothing is happening, then I'd view it as semi settled. Move away from the uncomfortable situation or leave (and wait for the PoPo).

What started the shoot then?
 
The video shows a dark theatre focused on the center seats with the screen to the right off camera. It's infra red. Reeves (the 71 yo) is on the far right. Off screen in front of him is Olsen. We only really see Reeves seated center right and his wife next to him. We see Reeves in some verbal discussion with presumably Olsen. Thereafter Reeves exits and witnesses say he left to complain to management about Olsens behavior and phone use. Reeves returns. Reeves returns and sits down. More verbal altercation and then a thrown object (presumably a cell phone) hits Reeves. This is immediately following by a grab of Reeves box of popcorn from his lap and then Olson throws it right back hitting Reeves in the facial chest area. Olson barely enters the frame except to grab and throw the popcorn box. 1 second after being struck again Reeves leans forward and fires a pistol one shot. He apparently had it drawn and ready. The shot went through the hand of Mrs Olson (offscreen who was trying to restain Olson according to evidence) and struck Olson in the chest killing him.

Keep in mind the theater is dark and Reeves is basically looking into car headlights with Olson a dark figure standing over him.
 
I would have attempted to diffuse and move.
Click to expand...

Leadcounsel, That's because you know that the threat is not yet imminent, immediate, or is one that would pose serious bodily harm or death. That is the reasonable thing to do.

I dont think i know i would not of shot him, i would have done anything i could to avoid shooting him.
Click to expand...

Manta, the second part of your statement tells me that you would not have shot him; certainly not at the point the 70+ year old man did.

I don't think there is one person who regularly posts in this forum who would have even unholstered his/her weapon in this situation. What a legal nightmare; what a moral nightmare; what a horrible way to sail off into your golden years. I really think that if we weren't under constant attack from the various anti-groups, politicians and the media some folks would be less concerned about how this event might be used to take away our rights than about the life that was needlessly lost.
 
He apparently had it drawn and ready. The shot went through the hand of Mrs Olson (offscreen who was trying to restain Olson according to evidence)
Click to expand...
Where is the evedance of that. ?

Pasco Sheriff Chris Nocco said. The argument began after Oulson asked Reeves if he had reported him to theater staff for using his phone, he said.

Oulson was shot in the chest, and Nichole Oulson, 33, was injured in the hand while trying to protect her husband as the shot was fired,
Click to expand...

Oulson was fatally wounded. His wife was hit, too, through the hand as she raised her hand in front of her husband as the shooter drew a handgun.
Click to expand...

On the theaters' website is a list of prohibited items and actions. Among them: No cell phone use, including texting, in the theater auditorium. And no weapons allowed.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
The video shows a dark theatre focused on the center seats with the screen to the right off camera. It's infra red. Reeves (the 71 yo) is on the far right. Off screen in front of him is Olsen. We only really see Reeves seated center right and his wife next to him. We see Reeves in some verbal discussion with presumably Olsen. Thereafter Reeves exits and witnesses say he left to complain to management about Olsens behavior and phone use. Reeves returns. Reeves returns and sits down. More verbal altercation and then a thrown object (presumably a cell phone) hits Reeves. This is immediately following by a grab of Reeves box of popcorn from his lap and then Olson throws it right back hitting Reeves in the facial chest area. Olson barely enters the frame except to grab and throw the popcorn box. 1 second after being struck again Reeves leans forward and fires a pistol one shot. He apparently had it drawn and ready. The shot went through the hand of Mrs Olson (offscreen who was trying to restain Olson according to evidence) and struck Olson in the chest killing him.

Keep in mind the theater is dark and Reeves is basically looking into car headlights with Olson a dark figure standing over him.
Click to expand...

Yargh. Definite bad day
 
I hope he's fully acquitted of the homicide.
A conviction on the agg assault to Mrs Olson would be appropriate. That demonstrates knowing your target.

I predict a conviction on at least transfered intend agg assault, and probably a lesser included type homicide.

I genuinely feel bad forvthe guy.

The lesson I've said here before is that draw your gun only as an absolute last resrt to avoid immediate deadly or serious harm.

An incident like this did allow for some warning as it boiled for a few minutes. He should have just moved seats further back. Tough to swallow pride but sometimes thats a requirement in life.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top