Posted on 01/19/2014 2:31:52 PM PST by Uncle Chip
You assume wrong... HL is a celebrity gossip site.
I also don’t think you can conclude that statements regarding thrown popcorn and a thrown bag of popcorn refers to separate events.
Mr. Cummings statement that popcorn was thrown but he didn’t know by whom is very generic.
I still have yet to see any sourced witness statement that Reeves threw popcorn, only that he initiated confrontations both times (and that from the lawyers with a vested interest in a civil suit).
This needlessly flogging the shooter who is being held and tried for 2nd murder doesn’t change the fact that Oulsen should have put the phone away or left the theater to continue using it.
Petty insistence that the rules (and good manners) are for other people meets anal retentive rules enforcer had tragic consequences.
I really hope Reeves takes a plea deal and saves Oulsen’s wife the trauma of testifying at trial.
What evidence do you have that he still had the phone out when Reeves returned from the lobby???
And since when is texting during Previews a crime worthy of a tattletale.
And isn't using your cellphone to check on your 3 year old daughter's health an acceptable use of cellphone under any circumstances???
I still have yet to see any sourced witness statement that Reeves threw popcorn
Do you really need a sourced document for that???
Do you really think that did not happen -- witness or not???
Do you really think that after returning "irritated" from being dissed by management, he just sat down and behaved himself and didn't throw a few pieces of popcorn at the back of Oulson's head along with some words just to get the reaction he wanted from the guy who had been previously ignoring him.
(and that from the lawyers with a vested interest in a civil suit)
and Reeve's attorney has no vested interest???
I really hope Reeves takes a plea deal and saves Oulsen’s wife the trauma of testifying at trial.
I'm sure he will but not for her sake. She deserves her day in court to counter all of this BS coming from the Reeves camp.
It is never okay to disturb others with your phone activities. Once the previews start you should be turning it off or take it out to the lobby. Good manners is how we avoid the dreaded tattler or lethal altercations with nuts.
Yes, I need a source for witnesses alleging Reeves threw the popcorn, or it is mere speculation. Note that the prosecution did not dispute that Oulsen threw his popcorn at the arraignment, nor did they state that Reeves also threw popcorn.
And isn't using your cellphone to check on your 3 year old daughter's health an acceptable use of cellphone under any circumstances???
Uh, no. If she's that sick, you shouldn't be at the movies, and if she's well enough for you to be at the movies, then you are an overconcerned parent that needs to take a chill pill and not visit your parental vapors on the rest of the theater goers. (I'm a full time mother of four, I recognize the symptoms of an over proud late life father, it's cute at first, then tiresome). Take it to the lobby.
Do you really think that after returning "irritated" from being dissed by management, he just sat down and behaved himself and didn't throw a few pieces of popcorn at the back of Oulson's head along with some words just to get the reaction he wanted from the guy who had been previously ignoring him.
Yeah, I really think you are speculating needlessly just to thrash on the shooter, apparently because it makes you feel better for some reason. You have no credible source for your statements, while I have the actual arraignment and police report.
and Reeve's attorney has no vested interest???
Obviously, both sides have vested interests, which is why it is best to stick to facts uncontested by both sides as discerned from what has so far been presented to the judge. Which is that Oulsen threw the popcorn. Note that the judge was unimpressed with that as a reason for the use of lethal force.
What is this Reeves' camp you speak of? The Reeves' family are keeping their mouths shut (as directed by the attorneys), there is nothing coming from their side except the self defense spin at the arraignment.
I seriously doubt that Mrs. Oulsen wants to relive that afternoon in court. What she wants is her husband back and justice in court is no substitute. There is no fixing this.
That's why it's a tragedy.
Bond reduction hearing set for Pasco movie theater shooting suspect
Reeves’ hearing is now set for February 5th.
My granny was right. Nobody ever died from good manners.
It seems apparent to me that two men behaved badly in public. As a result one will get a trial and the other will get a funeral.
This will be the learning topic discussion at dinner tonight. Those repressive Victorians appear to have right about manners and morality.
It' the next best thing in a case like this, isn't it.
That's why it's a tragedy criminal.
There fixed it.
Your granny was right. I can remember when the taking of a life was a serious matter. Now it seems like it is like swatting a fly.
Post66 was supposed to be your granny, not mine. How I did that, I don’t know because I said your granny in my mind as I was typing.
In a case like this, there is no next best thing. They many not get the desired outcome in court. If the defense switches to diminished capacity because Reeves actually is sliding into dementia, they will not get justice.
Even if he is found guilty of some level of homicide, he may do very little jail time, especially if he has Alzheimer's, because prison is no place for the demented elderly and the additional stress will rapidly make his condition worse.
Oulsen could have saved his own life with the practical application of good manners, instead he doubled down on bad manners which intersected with a demented old crank or a control freak retired cop with deadly effect (depending on your opinion)
Both men are completely responsible for their own bad behavior and both will pay a heavy price. Nobody needed or deserved to have what happened happen, both could have avoided it and yet neither did, for as yet, no apparent reason other than unreasonable expectations and bad manners.
That's why it's a tragedy.
I watched his attorney present his medical issues but dementia or anything to do with psychological problems was not one of them.
If he had Alzheimers then he would have forgotten where his gun was and what he went to the lobby for and all would have been well.
It's more like manic depression or bipolar -- and a psych workup should be in his future shortly after Feb 5th -- unless they find that UFO.
Mr. Reeves helped start Tampa's tactical response team in the 1990s, so his attempts to portray himself as some kind of scaredy cat added an element of absurdity....
My Dear Author: That is exactly the kind of chicken sh!t who has to surround himself with "SWAT" frills. He IS a “scaredy cat”.
Inappropriate anger and aggression is a dementia symptom. It’s possible that he is as yet undiagnosed. His family may have been ignoring symptoms because they weren’t extreme enough yet. This event most certainly is going to trigger a new medical evaluation.
And the lawyer could hardly introduce an undiagnosed medical condition. Legal strategies can change with new information and evidence.
As for the UFO, Oulsen and his popcorn were backlit by the screen in a darkened theater so they would have appeared dark. Once the houselights go down, it’s quite difficult to see anything but the screen when you are facing it, but if you have your back to it, the screen light things up quite a bit. It won’t be long before the defense figures this explanation out.
Explanation or prefabricated rationalization.
They'll get laughed out of court.
No one else referred to the bag of popcorn as a dark colored UFO.
They have a better chance with his claim of a UFO.
Afterall it's his pathway to an insanity defense.
I wasn’t trying to suggest that it should be but it might.
I would say that it was blind rage because the victim did not bow, scrape, and not acknowledge his authority, or specifically, his perceived authority.
Not if he were in the early stages which is when irrational anger manifests. My mother is in the later stages now and she can still remember a lot of things. In fact she remembers most things of the nature of where her belongings are with occasional slips.
Everyone else was looking up and away from the screen so they could see, only those in the very back row where Reeves was would be seeing from the same backlit conditions.
That is just a possible rationalization.
Honestly, I think Reeves has the beginning of dementia, it’s just sad that the breakout symptoms resulted in the tragic loss of life.
(Which doesn’t excuse Oulsen’s own failure to control himself and exercise consideration, just goes to show how important good manners are, they may just prevent or defuse the crazy killer from losing it on you).
So that explains why they may not have seen Reeves flicking popcorn at the back of Oulson's head.
Uh no, if they were turned and looking away from the screen and toward the disturbance, they would be able to see much better than Reeves who was seated in the rear most row because the light of the screen would provide light. Reeves would not be back lit like Oulsen was from Reeves perspective. It’s only when the area or object is between the person and the screen that backlighting obscures visual perception.
This is why theater staff will go all the way to the front and watch the crowd for miscreants. The reflected screen light lets you see quite well. In the theater I worked at we could stand behind the screen (yes, a secret access) and view the audience through the screen like a giant one way mirror. The screens are not solid, but a screen like fabric with millions of pin holes.
Your scenario is completely unsubstantiated. Otherwise the prosecutor would have brought this up at the arraignment because it completely destroys the claim of self defense because he would have been provoking the very act he claimed to be defending himself from. You can bet the prosecutor would have used it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.