Disagree.
Popcorn assault did not justify death.
Also noted that each of them wanted the ‘best seat in the theatre’
Whomever gets there first gets the back row, center.
Dead guy was second to arrive and had to settle for one row in front of the back row.
You need to find better details. It wasn’t popcorn.
“Popcorn assault did not justify death.”
You bought that fairy tale?
Well, then don’t go to Florida. If old people don’t shoot you in a theater, they run you down with their full size sedans.
No way that was self defense. sickening verdict.
If a d-bag is going that nuts over a disagreement, no one should be surprised when stuff like this happens.
I had no idea about this case until I read the article. If he was shot for just throwing popcorn then this is a miscarriage of justice, he is absolutely guilty of murder. This sounds more like he became infuriated over cellphone use and lost control rather than feeling threatened by popcorn.
I remember 20 years ago I was at a restaurant in the leftist sewerhole of New York city with my elderly parents who were in their 80s at the time. We were talking about the Clintons and this punk sitting at the table next to us didn’t like what we said and he knocked over our drinks and food and said something about Bush killed retarded people and I basically tried to knock the guy out. My mother had a panic attack and we had to call an ambulance and meanwhile he ran out and took off.
Well every night for weeks I went back to that restaurant looking to kill the guy but I couldn’t find him, I was ticked off to the point of insanity until I finally got a hold of myself and realized what I was doing. My point being is I was out of control, and to me that sounds exactly what was going on here. Getting pissed off is not an excuse to kill.
I’ve followed this story rather closely. Reeves said he shot the younger man because he, Reeves, felt that he was about to be attacked. If we are to buy that, then we must accept preventative shootings of unarmed people.
Yes, I get that there was a disparity of force. The younger man was angry, and stronger. But he was only one man. This was not a mob scene. And Reeves was only hit with popcorn and maybe a cell phone. Not a hunk of concrete, or anything like that. Bottom line: I would have voted Reeves guilty.
if you think he shot Oulson because of popcorn, you’ve been lied to and haven’t done your homework.
Here’s the cliff notes since you’re too lazy
—
Reeves was sitting behind Oulson in the theater.
Reeves went to the manager to complain.
When he came back, Oulson was still mouthing off.
Reeves sits and Oulson continues... standing in front of Reeves... eventually throwing the popcorn.
note:
when the popcorn hit the 71 yr old Reeves, knocking his glasses, that was a felony due to Reeves being over 65
Oulson continued to rage... then moved to step over the rail between them.
As the 6’4” 43 yr old was halfway over the rail... Reeves shot him
Was deadly forced needed? yes.
I can tell you as someone that is 6’2” / 220 ...
if i were to be enraged and hit an elderly person
it would definitely be life threatening.
—
BTW, here at FR you’re EXPECTED to be better than the liberal rabble that floats by.
DO YOUR HOMEWORK
You go with your feelings over the law. Got it.
This old guy was a cop for decades, started a SWAT organization and founded the security apparatus at Busch Gardens. He said he never had to pull his weapon and shoot anyone during that very long career.
Chad was 6’4 and pissed. The old man said he had never seen anyone that aggressive in all his years.
I don’t believe it was just popcorn either, but it could have been the popcorn AND the cell phone AND the move over the seats towards the old man AND Chad’s shear size that got him shot.