Moderating:
It can be hard in emotional discussions to avoid making something personal. Accusing someone of being without empathy, however, is a personal attack. Please dial it back. Thanks.
No Warning issued.
I didn’t see any mention of him being yelled at. But according to the above cites he attacked the man. His wife admitted he was the aggressor. the man was shot in front and the bullet went through her hand so she was apparently trying to pull him away.
I can’t speak for aceplace57 but my sympathy level drops considerably when someone attacks a weaker person because of what is at most a rude comment.
He’s dead because he attacked someone.
What are you trying to imply here? “Look what you made me do” is not a valid defense. Punching someone for telling you to put away your cell phone is not a valid response.
There was a trial and Reeves was acquitted. So I guess a jury examined the evidence and decided the shooter wasn’t at fault.
Doesn’t that apply even more strongly with the application of lethal force?
Sure. But apparently a jury didn’t feel as though Reeves’ actions were justified under the law. It probably didn’t help that Oulson’s widow argued that her husband was the aggressor in her civil suit against the theater. She argued that they should have intervened when Reeves complained to them about her husband which would have prevented the altercation from taking place.
So, your position is the guy with the gun just stood there innocently while the other guy just got angrier and angrier until he was just forced to shoot him? There wasn’t a back and forth that escalated the situation to deadly violence?
I think reality proves it was two sided. How could it be otherwise? If two parties were involved it was, uh, two sided.
Are juries never wrong?
words don’t physically harm people. Hitting harms people.
Again, the wife said her husband was the aggressor.
They have a higher batting average than people on the internet because they are better briefed on the facts.
Of course juries can be wrong but that doesn’t mean this particular jury is wrong. Can you point to an example of this particular jury’s error in interpreting evidence or rendering a verdict? You seem really invested in the idea that there was a back-and-forth which led to escalation and Reeves is equally at fault. What do you base this off of? Did the jury see any evidence that Reeves was the aggressive party here? Does it matter to you that Oulson’s widow testified that he was the aggressor in civil court?
From the news article posted above:
“The documents say the men exchanged heated words”
According to the article when the retired cop came back from complaining about the cell phone use, he made a snarky comment to the guy about having put his phone away. Re-igniting the confrontation. He could have just sat down and watched the movie.
I think a frighteningly high number of Americans have a terrifyingly low threshold for when the use of deadly force in response to a perceived threat is justified.
A snarky comment is fine; escalating from snarky comments to a physical confrontation is not fine. You’re allowed to ‘reignite’ so long as it’s a permissible matter of speech; that doesn’t mean you’re allowed to ‘ignite’ by making it a matter of impermissibly getting physical.
Okay, I see where you’re coming from. Here’s the thing, I don’t care if Reeves made a snarky comment as he was returning to his seat. I’m about the same age as Oulson was when he was killed, I sure as hell wouldn’t get violent with a 70+ year old man because he was snarky. Who started the violence? It wasn’t Reeves according to Oulson’s own wife.
I don’t think you grasp the fact that 43 year old Oulson physically attacked 71 year old Reeve. I’m already on record as saying Reeve could have kept his pie-hole shut but the terrifyingly low threshold was with Oulson. In the trial they showed pictures of Oulson on top of Reeve.
It wasn’t a perceived threat, it was an outright physical assault.
Neither would I, but I also wouldn’t shoot a man for punching me in the face either.
Yes, it’s the use of lethal force that is far more of an esclation.
When a wackadoo attacks someone there is no way of knowing the intent or the extent of it. when a wackadoo attacks a weaker person the ability of that person to defend themself is limited.
We just had a young lady in my area attacked by a man on a bike path. He was much larger then she was and would have killed her if someone else had not come along and stopped the attack.
I wouldn’t either in most circumstances. But if I was 71 years old and a man nearly thirty years my junior was on top of me then my response might be to shoot. I’ll be honest with you, when I first heard about this case a few years ago the way the conservation was going I thought Reeves just got annoyed that someone was on their cell phone and shot Oulson and I was sure he’d be convicted. But after learning a bit more about the case, it wasn’t that simple. While I wish Oulson was still alive, I don’t think Reeves did anything wrong here. He’s not the one who initiated the violence.