Well, I would give him the chair if I could. Dude deserves to die.

^ You seem to like the idea of killing people. I hope you seek help.

And you have no witnesses that claimed she tried to catch the bullet, do you? Seriously?
I would also be interested in seeing those seats where men over 6 foot tall could not hit each other but small women could see the screen...and see bullets coming well enough in the dark to catch them...must have had windows in them.

And here we still are.... :eek:

Words to live by.

My standard is just a little higher than the letter of the law. I could go outside every day and get myself into car accidents that wouldn't legally be my fault, but would be totally avoidable. The consequences for gunplay are far more serious, so it needs to be totally unavoidable when you commit to gunplay. This was 100% avoidable.

No question about that. Apparently in the heat of the moment, the old man thought it was unavoidable. Hindsight is 20/20.

Ok. Thanks for your input. It is appreciated. Dude still deserves to die.

[QUOTE=fintstone;7861346 Apparently in the heat of the moment, the old man thought it was unavoidable. Hindsight is 20/20.[/QUOTE]

No, he was angry and was going to show this punk who he was messing with. He was a SWAT team guy. Popcorn flying at him wouldn't scare this guy.

But letting the prison population rape him for the rest of his life would be good enough too.

Old man can't pull the gun and say 'stop right there'?

There will be a trial to decide that. Not you.

It is stadium seating - they are stepped very steeply to be able to see over each other easily - even very, very short people can easily see over the very tallest person because of the levels - have you been to a movie in the last 20 years?

I don't believe the theater was to full dark - I believe it was still in seating lighting (not sure on that).

What witness said she was trying to catch the bullet - again - source?

Just saying...It takes two to tango.


Just like the movie texter guy and the old man. The only reason it went in circles is because you both kept it going in circles.

He wouldn't have been justified in even pulling he gun. But, if it was truly a dark theatre where Reeves couldn't see what had hit him, then Oulsen wouldn't have been able to see the gun and thus be deterred by it.

I doubt a former cop will ever see general population in prison. He'll not get beaten or raped. But he will go away.

From the Florida Stand Your Ground Law:

(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

I'd like to see this thread stop circling itself and get away from the "coulda, shoulda, woulda" and focus on what will determine guilt or innocence of the shooter.

The law in Florda (above, emphasis mine) is what we need to focus on and if the evidence known, so far, fits into the parameters set by law. Clearly, the shooter had no requirement to relocate or move his seat. What is needed is proof he was being attacked (see my other posts which define the legal requirement for assault or Google Florida statutes) and if his claim of fear of imminent bodily harm was reasonable.

Let's drop speculation and assumptions as to what either man was thinking--we don't know. The largest missing piece is the dialogue between the two, which has not been released. That information will help determine if an actual criminal attack (assault) occurred and whether or not a jury can see if deadly force was reasonable.

I miss Billy Preston and this thread reminds me of PARF :D

"Will it go 'round in circles...."

Never seen a seat that a six footer could not punch over. Are you claiming the argument went on and the man was shot through a seat and neither could see each other?

Yes...I think if you expect me to produce a witness that said the woman was restraining her husband, I expect you to produce a witness that says she was trying to block the bullet. Especially since she could likely see neither gun nor bullet through the giant sized seats you have described.

never understood the fine line in premeditation

the guy went to see a manager
was unsuccessful
and returned

how is one to truly know his thoughts
he could have thought ''well I tryed now I have to shoot the guy''
or ''if he said a peep BANG''
or ''I can be a jerk and make him do something so I can shoot him''

WHEN HE PULLED THE GUN HE INTENDED TO SHOOT
why is that not premeditated ?
he didnot have the gun in his hand and fire when the popcorn was thrown

As you are now. Give it a rest.

I was an NRA and FBI-certified firearms instructor 20-plus years ago when I was a kid (early 20's). We trained with the FBI, SWAT, the military, and all types of law enforcement personnel. Hitting the bulls eye was part of the training but countless hours were always spent on when it was appropriate to use deadly force. This was beat into our heads. Believe it or not, back then, for most circumstances, it was shoot only when shot at, or when a gun was aimed at your direction in a confrontation. That's right. This is why those here defending this shooter who was a SWAT member and former police captain have absolutely no clue. No way would this guy fear for his life over popcorn or react in this manner via his training. This guy appears to have reacted in this manner because he was angry.

Why do you keep misdirecting as if the man was shot because the shooter did not like popcorn. The shooter claimed he did not know what he was struck with.

I have wondered if the shooter was standing or seated when he fired. I had assumed he was standing but if the theater did have stadium seating, he would be at a level that was high enough to be directly in line with the torso of a man standing below him while he remained seated. That would allow him to draw his weapon while seated, hold it down by his waist and fire in a relatively horizontal plane into the victim. I have not heard any information about this, but I believe it will play an important role during the trial.

Of course he didn't know what he was struck with. Is he to admit that he shot someone over being hit by popcorn? Please. No "unidentified" object was found.

I can't get over those that feel throwing popcorn qualifies as a felony assault, senior or no.

I don't feel it meets the criteria. If it does, at what age should we start prosecuting? 10, 16, 18???

Felonious handling of dangerous foodstuffs. :rolleyes::rolleyes: I remember a lot of incidents of angry words and food throwing while growing up...

I never said she was trying to block a bullet - got that quote....

I also never said the seats were extraordinary high - again - have you been in a theater in the last 20 years which had high back seats and stadium seating? If you have you know that if you have looked at someone behind you thinking you could hit that person and inflict great bodily harm is somewhat of a stretch. But, this is all speculation sir.

You can see over the seats, you could certainly shoot over them (the shooter was on 'high ground') it doesn't mean you could easily punch someone to the point where they feared great bodily harm over them from the lower position.

What if the texter threw the cell phone instead? Still not heavy, but wouldn't want to get hit with one thrown in anger.

Well stated...

Fox, you didn't address my post from 3 pages ago.

Spitting at someone qualifies as assault...What's your point?

Some may not feel that it qualifies, but it is what it is.

Your statement to me was that Foxy kicked my arse in every exchange she had with me. You didn't say it was your opinion that she had, you declared it as fact.

I challenged you on it because I knew you could not back it up. Likewise on your new claim re: "fool" and "attacking."

You still can't back up how she kicked my arse.

So now you're trying to weasel out another way... by saying it was merely your opinion.

But you embarrass yourself even more by not realizing that any person's opinion is worthless if he/she can't show why they hold that the opinion.

So, you got nothing.

Your opinion is worth nothing.

It's apparently worth nothing to you also, because you won't even attempt to defend it.

The thread was circling... very repetitive arguments following on faulty premises and/or people forgetting ground that had already been covered and people's points were rehatching themselves over and over and over.

I was also trying to bring some much-needed comic relief into the thread at the same time. Duck Season. A Bentley doing doughnuts. Reprehensible behavior, huh?

If you or a couple of others didn't get or enjoy the humor, maybe you were offended that it showed that there are those here who can't seem to accept the fact that much of the responsibility for what happened in that theatre rests with texter dude.

Personal responsibility. A simple, yet elusive concept to some of you.

I'm guessing that's your opinion (The only one who should be embarrassed... haven't a clue), so I'll regard it as such. Worthless and just another way for you to attack me. That's fine... it shows your desperation to claim something here as you continue to find ways to look bad.

You would do well to learn a few basics on debating and what logic actually is, because you're operating by winging it and it's not working for you.

And of course it's a horrible incident. If you'd take a few minutes to peruse this thread, you'll see that I fully realize that and have made plenty of serious and substantive posts that you seem to forget while you focus on those you've cherry picked to criticize.

Well, other than the fact that Florida law may have something to say about all that, you're circling again.

You are the man, EMJ... hope you have enjoyed the ride thus far. :)

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1389977135.jpg

That is just silly. Unidentified to him at the time of the shooting. If he was hit with a shoe, gun, rock...all might be unidentifiable in the dark...but we could certainly identify them as a shoe, gun, rock in the daylight later.

Tell you what. You go get into a verbal huff with a cop and throw popcorn at him. If you come out of it with a minor misdemeanor conviction, I'll pledge to take up a collection and pay the fine for you.

Interesting you didn't reveal your background early on. It would have given your words more credibility than a ranting internet poster.

I just looked up channel 10 news tampa. They reported (a day after the shooting) " officials said She was shot in the hand and was trying to block the bullet."
I don,t know how to link it.

Just for the record...I have never waited until someone shot at me and missed to shoot them. Seems counterproductive to staying alive.

I realize that...but whom did they quote? Not a witness.

Sorry, missed it - what was it about?

Retired TPD officer arrested in movie theater shooting death | News | New Tampa-Wesley Chapel News

Hilarious.

Ladies and gentlemen, I think we have discovered the big, badazz BOSSMAN of this thread.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1389977638.jpg

Be afraid.

Be very afraid.

it's good that he will die in prison.

An argument broke out between the couples, after which Reeves reportedly took out a gun and fired at Oulson and his wife. Officials said Nicole tried to block the bullet, resulting in a gunshot wound to her hand, before Chad was struck.
(Figured it out from Channel 10 Tampa )