[BadKosh]

Cops aren't trained too well about dealing with wack jobs.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

It appears, as usual, a lot of info was withheld by media outlets to add to the drama, like; the 71 y/o old man being heavily bruised from an altercation, and the "popcorn being thrown" was probably his. It wasn't thrown, it flew up in the air when the much-younger man slugged him. This is an elderly, retired officer, despite opinions to the contrary, I doubt he'd gun for someone over being loud in a theater.

And do you have a citation for this claim about the man being injured? From an actual news site and not some right-wing blog the likes of WorldNewsDaily.com? I ask because we all know you certainly weren't above relying upon such "sources" in the Trayvon Martin case.

Because every single news report said this was a verbal altercation, someone (presumably the victim) tossed a bucket of popcorn, the retired cop pulled a gun, the victim's wife raised her hand to shield her husband, and the retired cop shot through her hand and into the victim's chest ... killing him. All because he was texting his young daughter during the PREVIEWS. And since my M.O. has never been to just pull something out of my ass and make unsubstantiated claims, I'll back this up with an actual news source:

The two men began to argue and Reeves walked out of the theater. Police said Reeves was going to complain to a theater employee, according to the police report.

When Reeves returned, witnesses and authorities said that Oulson asked him if he had gone to tell on him for texting. Oulson reportedly said, in effect: I was just sending a message to my young daughter.

Charles Cumming and his adult son were two seats away. Cummings said that when Reeves returned to the theater, he didn't return with a manager. "He came back very irritated," Cummings recalled.

Voices were raised. Oulson threw a bag of popcorn at Reeves, according to a police report, and then the former Tampa Police Department officer took out a .380 semi-automatic handgun and shot Oulson.

Oulson's wife Nicole raised her hand just before the shot was fired and the bullet went through her hand and into her husband's chest, authorities said.

As Oulson staggered and fell, "He said, 'I can't believe I got shot," the younger Cummings recounted. "Blood started coming out of his mouth. I was trying to hold him up. He just fell down."

Nicole Oulson suffered a non-life threatening wound. Her husband died after being taken to the hospital.

During an interview with Reeves with his arrest, and after the former cop was read his Miranda rights, Reeves admitted to firing his weapon at the victim because "he was in fear of being attacked," according to the police report.

Reeves told police that Oulson had hit him with what the police report describes as an "unknown object."

Witnesses told police they saw no punches being thrown during the incident, according to the report.

Texting dad after movie shooting: 'I can't believe I got shot' - CNN.com

You seem to be developing some sort of affinity for "media conspiracy theories" which is .... odd. To say the least.

OAW

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by P 

I hate people who use the phone in movies, but

a) the victim was a parent who was trying to reassure his 3 year old daughter
b) the movie wasn't on yet

Also, if someone gets shot in a movie theater for texting, the problem is not texting.

[subego]

I feel like there's a scene missing here. Who throws their popcorn at people?

One could also ask "who puts a cap in someone for texting?", but one question doesn't obviate the other.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by subego 

I feel like there's a scene missing here. Who throws their popcorn at people?

The same kind of person who throws a drink in someone's face in the middle of an argument?

Originally Posted by subego 

One could also ask "who puts a cap in someone for texting?", but one question doesn't obviate the other.

A person with anger management issues who has ready access to a firearm during an argument in a public space?

OAW

[subego]

The kind of person who throws a drink, especially when not drunk, one would imagine having a pretty serious aggression problem.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by subego 

The kind of person who throws a drink, especially when not drunk, one would imagine having a pretty serious aggression problem.

Perhaps. Sort of depends on what was said. The witnesses said the argument escalated and it doesn't appear that the victim was the only one do the talking. I have absolutely no evidence that it went down like this ... but we do know from witness statements that the guy told the old man that he was just texting to his young daughter about something. Imagine if the old guy said something provocative or inflammatory about her in response? Regardless, I'm not buying that flying popcorn constitutes a "reasonable fear of imminent grave bodily injury or death" that warrants a lethal response with a firearm. IJS

OAW

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by OAW 

And do you have a citation for this claim about the man being injured? From an actual news site and not some right-wing blog the likes of WorldNewsDaily.com? I ask because we all know you certainly weren't above relying upon such "sources" in the Trayvon Martin case.

I cited Reuters and Drudge, actually, you were the one marching out articles from Stormfront. While I'm sure it upsets you, during the Martin trial I was going off statements from witnesses themselves. I didn't even know what type of site WorldNewsDaily was, and still don't because I don't frequent it (or Stormfront, which you seemed to get so hung up on).

There were no links this time because I made a comment based on watercooler talk from the station, specifically talk from the local ADA who was visiting. I didn't get it from anywhere online.

Because every single news report said this was a verbal altercation, someone (presumably the victim) tossed a bucket of popcorn, the retired cop pulled a gun, the victim's wife raised her hand to shield her husband, and the retired cop shot through her hand and into the victim's chest ... killing him. All because he was texting his young daughter during the PREVIEWS. And since my M.O. has never been to just pull something out of my ass and make unsubstantiated claims, I'll back this up with an actual news source:

We'll see, once all the evidence is presented. Info that comes out during the trial, if there is one, will be what's most relevant. You also seem to have forgotten the 3 times I caught you heavily embellishing, and once making something up entirely. I asked, on those occasions, "why would you do that?", but you never gave an explanation, disappeared for a couple days, then continued on a different line of discussion as if it never happened.

You seem to be developing some sort of affinity for "media conspiracy theories" which is .... odd. To say the least.

OAW

and you seem to have picked up nasty habits from the more Left-wing members around here, namely rushing out with direct attacks and accusations against a poster (in this case, me) and mixing that in with what you want to say about the subject. While I know it's a tactic to put a person back on their heels, it's rude and unnecessary, this isn't reddit. I'm not angry, I won't get angry, because getting bent way out of shape over a forum comment is absurd, but I will place you on ignore if you aren't more civil.

[OAW]

^^^

So let's cut to the chase shall we? Are you ....

A) Backtracking completely from your "the 71 y/o old man being heavily bruised from an altercation" comment in light of the fact that the witnesses stated no punches were thrown?

or ....

B) Backtracking somewhat from your previously emphatic claim and now hedging with "We'll see, once all the evidence is presented. Info that comes out during the trial, if there is one, will be what's most relevant."?

I'm cool either way. Just wondering ...

OAW

[Shaddim]

Neither, I wasn't drawing a line in the sand at all, but stating that there's more to the story. I suppose you'd rather for everyone to join in with the media parade, but not everything adds up, so I want to see what comes out later before declaring him guilty.

[subego]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Perhaps. Sort of depends on what was said. The witnesses said the argument escalated and it doesn't appear that the victim was the only one do the talking. I have absolutely no evidence that it went down like this ... but we do know from witness statements that the guy told the old man that he was just texting to his young daughter about something. Imagine if the old guy said something provocative or inflammatory about her in response? Regardless, I'm not buying that flying popcorn constitutes a "reasonable fear of imminent grave bodily injury or death" that warrants a lethal response with a firearm. IJS

OAW

I honestly don't know about the popcorn. It's a dark movie theatre.

The main point though is "they were arguing" and "popcorn gets thrown" (which I imagine is assault and battery, even though that sounds ludicrous on the face of it) isn't enough for me to make a determination. I need to know more, like were witnesses to corroborate your hypothetical scenario.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Neither, I wasn't drawing a line in the sand at all, but stating that there's more to the story. I suppose you'd rather for everyone to join in with the media parade, but not everything adds up, so I want to see what comes out later before declaring him guilty.

Really? Well I'm content to let the thread participants/readers determine for themselves if your statement was declarative or speculative. In the meantime, let's address this little nugget shall we?

Originally Posted by Shaddim

I cited Reuters and Drudge, actually, you were the one marching out articles from Stormfront.

Which is funny, because this is what you actually stated when you first tossed your little "lean" theory out there:

Originally Posted by Shaddim

I didn't, until I heard the neighbor's testimony (saying TM was on top of GZ; confident it was GZ yelling for help). Found out that Martin was a druggie, the Watermelon punch (not "tea" as the media insisted) and Skittles were for making more Lean. Discovered TM's recent violent history, truancy (also suspended for fighting), and lack of regard for the welfare of others. Then saw the tweets written by R Jeantel, which were hurriedly scrubbed by the prosecution when they found out about them, detailing her own abuse of drugs and alcohol. All of that, and more, mixed together to paint a picture of a thug who would start a violent altercation with some "creepy ass cracker" who was following him.

To which I immediately responded:

Originally Posted by OAW

It just seems to me that when the only reports of this "Lean" sh*t are coming from right-wing blogs (including Stormfront.org I might add) .... when Fox News doesn't even appear to be going there ... that ought to be one massive freaking clue!

I then go on to list some of the various websites that showed up in the first page of Google results for a search on "'Trayvon Martin' lean". Because quite unlike yourself, I actually backup what I say. To which you replied:

Originally Posted by Shaddim

I suggest you lookup "trayvon martin dxm" and "trayvon martin Robitussin", then glance through the 1000s of mentions, and not just cherry-picking the ones from the extreme Right.

Subego then chimes in and says:

Originally Posted by Subego

I confirm OAW's observation. Three pages in with "Robitussin" as the term and they're all fruit loop sites.

And then you go on to state:

Originally Posted by Shaddim

trayvon martin dxm is the search, and I'm aware that the lion's share are Right-wing sites, but I also understand that at this point in time, saying anything negative about Martin in the mainstream is akin to career suicide (which is why most editors won't clear it in the first place). Like OAW, the big media outlets won't even talk about the possibility that he was high or impaired, or that he had a drug abuse problem. The EiC of a major newspaper told me, point blank, "we were ordered not to discuss the matter, or allow a conversation on the subject, within the bounds of this media outlet" and my jaw hit the floor.

So here you are claiming that you "cited Reuters and Drudge" ... but the post you actually made had no citation whatsoever. Just you stating your opinion as fact. Furthermore, anyone here can go see for themselves. Just start with the link to that post when you first started on this "lean" drug theory. Then review every single one of your posts for the next 2-3 pages of the thread. And then come back here and post the number of times that you (i.e. Shaddim) provided a citation to a single news source making this claim. The answer of course is ZERO. Zip. Zilch. Nada! You see this is what happens when you can't keep your story straight and then encounter someone like me. Because I'm that dude that will put you on blast by pointing out that in Aug. 2013 you said "mainstream" sites weren't covering the "lean" story because it was "akin to career suicide" ... but now in Jan. 2014 you claimed that you cited "Reuters". And you can't get anymore MAINSTREAM than that!!

You go on to claim ...

Originally Posted by Shaddim

You also seem to have forgotten the 3 times I caught you heavily embellishing, and once making something up entirely. I asked, on those occasions, "why would you do that?", but you never gave an explanation, disappeared for a couple days, then continued on a different line of discussion as if it never happened.

I encourage all the thread participants/readers to go to Advanced Search and see if a search in the PWL forum for that phrase in bold above made by the user "Shaddim" brings back any results. I mean he did write it as a direct quote after all. Better yet, just see if ANYBODY made such a statement. Because let me be abundantly clear. There are those in this forum who don't like what I have to say at times. They either oppose my world view in general ... or perhaps they just disagree with the conclusions I come to given the same evidence. Which is fine. But even my most ardent opponents don't accuse me of just pulling stuff out of my ass. So perhaps you Shaddim could do us all a favor and provide a link to any one of the three supposed posts where you claim to have said that to me? Do try not to strain yourself though.

You know I'm starting to find this all real "interesting" ...

- Shaddim claims to be a multi-millionaire.

- Shaddim, the "Playa from the Himalayas", claims to have more than one wife all living in the same household.

- Shaddim claims that the "Editor in Chief of a major newspaper" told him personally that they were "ordered not to discuss the matter, or allow a conversation on the subject" of Trayvon Martin's supposed "lean" use.

- And now Shaddim claims that a "local Assistant District Attorney who was visiting" told him that the shooter was "heavily bruised" because the younger man had "slugged him". This guy right here who just appeared in court like this ...



Now on that last claim, one can interpret that in one of two ways. Was this "local ADA" from wherever it is in Flyover Country, KY that Shaddim says he's from? If so, how would this individual be privy to the particulars of an unfolding case all the way down in Tampa, FL? Particular claims which are obviously BS. And if this "local ADA" was from Tampa, FL ... then isn't it awfully "convenient" that this individual just happened to be visiting Flyover Country, KY so now Shaddim is able to provide us with all this "inside baseball" knowledge he obtained? Just like it's awfully "convenient" that Shaddim apparently gets "inside baseball" scoops from the EiC of a major newspaper? So what's next? The judge assigned to the case is an old fishing buddy and has provided him info about the defendant that isn't public knowledge? You know ... since he wants to go there about "embellishment" and all.

Sorry dude ... but it's gotten to the point where your credibility is negligible at best. You say I'm making "direct attacks and accusations against a poster" ... namely you ... but actually I'm not. Well OK maybe I did throw shade just a little bit. But there's nothing personal going on here. Nothing to get one's blood pressure up about. I'm just saying that your STATEMENTS are full of sh*t. As evidenced by the photo above. And it's not the first time. I mean seriously. Did you really think you were going to be able to claim that you made a Reuters citation ... which you never did ... and I wasn't going to call you on it? You want to put me on "ignore"? Knock yourself out. It's not like I give two sh*ts. Besides, anyone who persists in making such easily disprovable claims isn't worth my time to debate anyway.

OAW

[OAW]

Originally Posted by subego 

I honestly don't know about the popcorn. It's a dark movie theatre.

The main point though is "they were arguing" and "popcorn gets thrown" (which I imagine is assault and battery, even though that sounds ludicrous on the face of it) isn't enough for me to make a determination. I need to know more, like were witnesses to corroborate your hypothetical scenario.

Let's not get caught up on the "hypothetical scenario". Because I'm not saying that happened. I was only responding to your statement about what constitutes "aggression" in general. So let's just say for the sake of discussion that the victim tossed popcorn at the old man just because it was Tuesday. No provocation at all. My point here is that is still no justification to pull out a gun and take his life. It's just not that serious.

OAW

[subego]

I was only mentioning your example as an example of important added data.

[Shaddim]

Okay, let's dig through this:

Originally Posted by OAW 

**A mountain of blubber and angst over me pointing out how he exaggerated and even made things up... in this very thread.**

OAW

Ugh, never mind. Anyway, here's what you were looking for. It was where you made up and twisted the information about Good, then disappeared for several days and never addressed it again.

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Actually, now that I went back and read it again, Good says he thought it was Zimmerman, the guy on the bottom, calling for help, and...


You twisted a lot of that around to suit you, because what I quoted above was the account from the courtroom. Why do that?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by OAW 

.. but it's gotten to the point where your credibility is negligible at best. You say I'm making "direct attacks and accusations against a poster" ... namely you ... but actually I'm not. Well OK maybe I did throw shade just a little bit. But there's nothing personal going on here. Nothing to get one's blood pressure up about. I'm just saying that your STATEMENTS are full of sh*t. As evidenced by the photo above. And it's not the first time. I mean seriously. Did you really think you were going to be able to claim that you made a Reuters citation ... which you never did ... and I wasn't going to call you on it? You want to put me on "ignore"? Knock yourself out. It's not like I give two sh*ts. Besides, anyone who persists in making such easily disprovable claims isn't worth my time to debate anyway.

OAW

Photo? Kentucky? What the **** are you smoking? Oh, and I want an apology, since I did say that, or you're going on ignore, indefinitely.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Okay, let's dig through this:



Ugh, never mind. Anyway, here's what you were looking for. It was where you made up and twisted the information about Good, then disappeared for several days and never addressed it again.

Oh yeah. I recall that. Doesn't quite match your quote above now does it? In any event, I didn't respond because there was no need to. It's not as if you posted anything that actually refuted I what said. But to reiterate the fundamental point that "making things up " is not my M.O. ...

The state called seven neighbor witnesses. All of them heard the fight, but few saw it, and no one saw how it started.

John Good, who was closest to the fight, testified that he saw a dark-skinned male in a black shirt or jacket on top of someone with lighter skin who was dressed in red or white. (Trayvon had on a dark-gray hoodie and Zimmerman a red jacket.)

The one on top was on his knees, Good said, straddling the person on the bottom and either punching or pushing down. Good described it as doing the "ground and pound."

Zimmerman prosecution's case marked by several highlights - Orlando Sentinel

You can have a seat now.

OAW

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Oh yeah. I recall that. Doesn't quite match your quote above now does it? In any event, I didn't respond because there was no need to. It's not as if you posted anything that actually refuted I what said. But to reiterate the fundamental point that "making things up " is not my M.O. ...

"Oh yeah, I recall that..." I was quoting the actual court transcript, pointing out where you were lying, you know, where your "STATEMENTS are full of sh*t".

In this thread you openly twisted, distorted, and LIED to suit your agenda. All of this:

I encourage all the thread participants/readers to go to Advanced Search and see if a search in the PWL forum for that phrase in bold above made by the user "Shaddim" brings back any results. I mean he did write it as a direct quote after all. Better yet, just see if ANYBODY made such a statement. Because let me be abundantly clear. There are those in this forum who don't like what I have to say at times. They either oppose my world view in general ... or perhaps they just disagree with the conclusions I come to given the same evidence. Which is fine. But even my most ardent opponents don't accuse me of just pulling stuff out of my ass. So perhaps you Shaddim could do us all a favor and provide a link to any one of the three supposed posts where you claim to have said that to me? Do try not to strain yourself though.

You know I'm starting to find this all real "interesting" ...

- Shaddim claims to be a multi-millionaire.

- Shaddim, the "Playa from the Himalayas", claims to have more than one wife all living in the same household.

to smear me after you couldn't find the exact search you were looking for, and all you have to say is, "Oh yeah, I recall that..." You're shameful and your anger has taken this too far. Say "hi" to hytechit for me.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Photo?

The link to the photo in my post above stopped working for some reason. I updated it so the image from the International Business Times is visible now. But here's another image from a local news station site in case the IBT link stops working again.

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Kentucky? What the **** are you smoking?

My bad. I meant to say Tennessee because I recall you mentioning that you were near the border of North Carolina. My fundamental point remains though. Your story about the "local ADA" telling you that the shooter was "heavily bruised" is highly suspect ... not only because it's awfully convenient, but also because the photo above PROVES OTHERWISE.

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Oh, and I want an apology, since I did say that, or you're going on ignore, indefinitely.

And I call BULLSH*T!!! So prove me wrong and provde a link to the post you made where you included a LINK to a Reuters or Drudge article with a story about Trayvon Martin and "lean". Or a post you made where you even MENTIONED a Reuters or Drudge article. Until then, don't hold your breath. And have a seat.

OAW

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

"Oh yeah, I recall that..." I was quoting the actual court transcript, pointing out where you were lying, you know, where your "STATEMENTS are full of sh*t".
:

So if I was "lying" then I suppose the author of that Orlando Sentinel article I just cited which described Mr. Good's testimony was lying too. Because what I said was essentially the same thing.

And for the record, here's your post from July 26, 2013 that you linked to in its entirety ....

Originally Posted by Shaddim

Originally Posted by OAW

I really need to get going. Dinner with the wife at 7. But the neighbor ... John Goode .. specifically said he did NOT see TM hitting GZ. He say a "pushing down" motion. For the record.

OAW

Actually, now that I went back and read it again, Good says he thought it was Zimmerman, the guy on the bottom, calling for help, and...

The altercation seemed to escalate, according to Good. The struggle moved to the cement pathway, and he said the person in dark clothing straddled the other man in a "mixed martial arts position" he later described to police as a "ground and pound." He said he saw "arm movements going downward," though he couldn't be certain the person on top was striking the person on the bottom.

"The person you now know to be Trayvon Martin was on top, correct?" asked defense attorney Mark O'Mara. "He was the one raining blows down on George Zimmerman, correct?"

"That's what it looked like," Good answered.

You twisted a lot of that around to suit you, because what I quoted above was the account from the courtroom. Why do that?

Now first of all, the passage you quoted to "rebut" what I said is NOT a "court transcript"! You provided no link to even source the quote. Which I'll be "charitable" and say is poor form in and of itself. But beyond that ... anyone can see it's not even in the FORMAT of a court transcript. It's an ARTICLE describing the events that took place in court. Where you got it from who knows? I didn't concern myself with all that at the time. I simply responded to you in kind on July 29, 2013 here. The first thing I said was "Twisted what?". Followed by a quote from the ACTUAL COURT TRANSCRIPT with a proper link to source the quote at that! Even bolded the portion of my statement you took issue with along with the relevant sections of the transcript that supported what I said for all the skimmers out there. Yet here you are in Jan. 2014 TWICE claiming that I "disappeared for several days and never addressed it again." As if i was ducking YOU .... of all people.

So apparently it still hasn't dawned upon you that I'm not that dude. Moreover, here's a little free Debate 101 advice:

When you object to something your opponent says and quote his words .... make sure your OWN QUOTE you cite in so-called "rebuttal" doesn't actually support what the other guy said!

IOW, feel free to explain how the parts in bold from your July 26, 2013 above post contrast in any significant manner with each other. Until then ... have a seat.

OAW

[subego]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Let's not get caught up on the "hypothetical scenario". Because I'm not saying that happened. I was only responding to your statement about what constitutes "aggression" in general. So let's just say for the sake of discussion that the victim tossed popcorn at the old man just because it was Tuesday. No provocation at all. My point here is that is still no justification to pull out a gun and take his life. It's just not that serious.

OAW

As I mentioned above, isn't throwing a bag of popcorn at someone assault and battery?

Yes, I realize this sounds like a ridiculous question.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by subego 

As I mentioned above, isn't throwing a bag of popcorn at someone assault and battery?

Yes, I realize this sounds like a ridiculous question.

Indeed it is. As is throwing a drink on someone. Or spitting on someone. Even grabbing someone's arm against their will. My point is that the shooter Mr. Reeves, a highly-trained former police captain, will be hard-pressed to demonstrate how pulling out his gun and killing a man ... while shooting the guy's wife through her hand as she tried to protect him ...was a reasonable, proportionate response to said alleged assault.

"Here's the thing," said Bob Dekle, legal skills professor at Levin. "It's not whether or not you're in fear. If the standard about shooting were fear that would give cowards carte blanche. The question is was there reasonable fear, was the fear reasonable?"

Accused Movie Theater Shooter Said He Was 'In Fear of Being Attacked' - ABC News

OAW

[OAW]

And it gets worse ....

This wasn't the first blow-up for Florida theater shooter - CNN.com

OAW

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

As I mentioned above, isn't throwing a bag of popcorn at someone assault and battery?

Yes, I realize this sounds like a ridiculous question.

I would think it is, unless the law has a line it draws on deadliness. Would hitting someone with a pillow be assault and battery? Throwing balled up paper or a snowball? I assume the answer t all these is yes.

Originally Posted by OAW 

And it gets worse ....

This wasn't the first blow-up for Florida theater shooter - CNN.com

OAW

So basically he gave her a dehumanizing stare.

[subego]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Indeed it is. As is throwing a drink on someone. Or spitting on someone. Even grabbing someone's arm against their will. My point is that the shooter Mr. Reeves, a highly-trained former police captain, will be hard-pressed to demonstrate how pulling out his gun and killing a man ... while shooting the guy's wife through her hand as she tried to protect him ...was a reasonable, proportionate response to said alleged assault.



Accused Movie Theater Shooter Said He Was 'In Fear of Being Attacked' - ABC News

OAW

You're filling in a lot of blanks here.

I can come up with scenarios where the shooter is in the right and in the wrong.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

So basically he gave her a dehumanizing stare.

That's one hell of an escalation, from "Assault with a deadly gaze" to full-on Dirty Harry. I'd be serving multiple life sentences if some of the looks I've given other theatergoers were illegal.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by subego 

You're filling in a lot of blanks here.

I can come up with scenarios where the shooter is in the right and in the wrong.

Scenarios that also coincide with the witness statements?

OAW

[subego]

As of the last statements I've read, yeah.

Most of them couldn't even pin down with assurance who threw the popcorn.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by subego 

As of the last statements I've read, yeah.

Most of them couldn't even pin down with assurance who threw the popcorn.

The reports I've read either reflect what you just said or say the victim tossed the popcorn. I've yet to come across one that said the shooter did that. And I've yet to come across a report that says there was any physical contact between the two men. In fact, they consistently say there was not any. And the pictures I posted in reply to a certain individual who shall remain nameless hardly suggest the shooter was injured in any capacity. So it's altogether possible that you can surmise a scenario that comports with all this that would legally justify the shooter's actions. But in all honesty ... I'm tapped.

OAW

[subego]

The plausible, hypothetical scenario would be popcorn thrower was about to kick the shit out of an old man because popcorn thrower is a psycho asshole.

Just as you were, I'm not saying this is what happened, just it's really easy to come up with all manner of possibilities when you have only a half-dozen data points like we do.

My standard maneuver in such a situation is: wait for more data to make a determination, and maybe raise an eyebrow to those who seem to feel they have enough data.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by subego 

The plausible, hypothetical scenario would be popcorn thrower was about to kick the shit out of an old man because popcorn thrower is a psycho asshole.

Just as you were, I'm not saying this is what happened, just it's really easy to come up with all manner of possibilities when you have only a half-dozen data points like we do.

Fair enough. I suppose what I'm saying boils down to the part highlighted though. Which essentially jives with Mr. Reeves' statement to the police that he "was in fear of being attacked". He said he fired his weapon because of what he thought was about to happen. Not what what was happening. So let's take him at his word for the sake of discussion. Because it ties nicely into an overarching theme of this thread:

At what point is someone's "fear" reasonable enough to justify the use of deadly force?

- Is it when you get punched in the nose by a kid you outweigh by 50 lbs?

- Is it when you receive a half-inch cut to the back of your head from hitting your head on the ground during a wrestling match? A cut so small that it was treated on the scene with a band-aid and medical professionals described it in court as "insignificant"?

- Is it when you hear a young woman banging on your door in the middle of the night?

- Is it when a verbal argument escalates into a shouting match?

- Is it when you get a bag of popcorn tossed in your face?

Originally Posted by subego 

My standard maneuver in such a situation is: wait for more data to make a determination, and maybe raise an eyebrow to those who seem to feel they have enough data.

Fair enough again. But what I'm saying is that my "preliminary" determination (in the court of "public opinion" that is) based upon the available evidence is that Mr. Reeve's had no reasonable justification to take Mr. Oulson's life. Is it possible that additional evidence may surface which could alter my "final" determination? Absolutely! Do I think that is probable given the circumstances? Not so much. We shall see as the case unfolds. But I for one will not be betting my next paycheck that Mr. Reeves walks. IJS

OAW

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by OAW 

At what point is someone's "fear" reasonable enough to justify the use of deadly force?

There's no one size fits all answer to this question. That's why we have trials, y'know.

- Is it when you get punched in the nose by a kid you outweigh by 50 lbs?

It can be. And it was for GZ.

- Is it when you receive a half-inch cut to the back of your head from hitting your head on the ground during a wrestling match? A cut so small that it was treated on the scene with a band-aid and medical professionals described it in court as "insignificant"?

It can be. And it was, for GZ.

- Is it when you hear a young woman banging on your door in the middle of the night?

It can be. In the case your referencing, it wasn't and dude has been charged with Murder.

- Is it when a verbal argument escalates into a shouting match?

It can be, depending on other circumstances. Simply not enough information to make that determination.

- Is it when you get a bag of popcorn tossed in your face?

It can be, yes.

Fair enough again. But what I'm saying is that my "preliminary" determination based upon the available evidence is that Mr. Reeve's had no reasonable justification to take Mr. Oulson's life. Is it possible that additional evidence may surface which could alter my "final" determination?

Ok, but the rest of us here without a preconceived notion about what probably happened wait until the facts come out instead of filling in the blanks ourselves before screaming bloody murder (pun intended).

Absolutely! Do I think that is probable given the circumstances? Not so much. We shall see as the case unfolds. But I for one will not be betting my next paycheck that Mr. Reeves walks. IJS

Personally, I think the dude is going to end up being guilty of murder. But I'm not going to hold that position until there is enough evidence to support my opinion in even the lowest objective standard. Otherwise, your confusing your speculation with fact and removing any possibility of formulating an unbiased opinion.

[subego]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Fair enough. I suppose what I'm saying boils down to the part highlighted though. Which essentially jives with Mr. Reeves' statement to the police that he "was in fear of being attacked". He said he fired his weapon because of what he thought was about to happen. Not what what was happening. So let's take him at his word for the sake of discussion. Because it ties nicely into an overarching theme of this thread:

At what point is someone's "fear" reasonable enough to justify the use of deadly force?

- Is it when you get punched in the nose by a kid you outweigh by 50 lbs?

- Is it when you receive a half-inch cut to the back of your head from hitting your head on the ground during a wrestling match? A cut so small that it was treated on the scene with a band-aid and medical professionals described it in court as "insignificant"?

- Is it when you hear a young woman banging on your door in the middle of the night?

- Is it when a verbal argument escalates into a shouting match?

- Is it when you get a bag of popcorn tossed in your face?



Fair enough again. But what I'm saying is that my "preliminary" determination (in the court of "public opinion" that is) based upon the available evidence is that Mr. Reeve's had no reasonable justification to take Mr. Oulson's life. Is it possible that additional evidence may surface which could alter my "final" determination? Absolutely! Do I think that is probable given the circumstances? Not so much. We shall see as the case unfolds. But I for one will not be betting my next paycheck that Mr. Reeves walks. IJS

OAW

For your first question, which is a good one, there's no set standard because it's context dependent. A 5', 98 lb. woman is going to have a different threshold of fear than Ric Flair. Or, more importantly, is going to have an easier time proving it in court.

The "prove in court" is the key here. I know I've made this point before but I'll make it again. If you want to kill someone, and you have the choice of a knife or a claw hammer, pick the hammer. There are a lot of reasons to make this choice, easier to one-shot, less training needed to use successfully, etc., but probably the most important one is convincing a jury it was self-defense. Knives, wether designed as such or not, are perceived as weapons, hammers are perceived as tools. As a related point, I know a guy who was homeless for awhile, and his self-defense weapon of choice was one of those big, honkin BBQ spatulas with the serrated teeth on one side. This accomplished two things. The first and most important was cops wouldn't take it from him when he got rousted, because they didn't consider it a weapon. No way he could have kept a knife after a police encounter. The second accomplishment is it surprised attackers for a second when he pulled it. That one second is all you need to flip the situation.

The way this relates is the shooter has several things in his favor here. The key thing being age. Just like a jury would feel a knife is weapon and a hammer isn't, they're going to think "respect your elders". They're also going to think "people who use their phones in movie theaters are assholes". They're also going to be prompted to consider "why would someone think it's better to berate an old man for asking you to do the right thing and then continue to act like an asshole?" They're going to call into question the need to send digital assurances to someone who can barely form multi syllabic words. Then add in the popcorn guy assaulted him.

The thing is just like the knife vs. hammer, we have a preconceived notion of what popcorn guy did. The OMFG, the shooter is crazy scenario is he dumped the popcorn on his head, like in a sitcom. We even have a pause for the laugh track as the shooter does a slow burn. Little pieces of popcorn rolling off the top of his head.

A different notion would be what I would do if I was about to **** somebody up, and had a bag of popcorn in my hand. I'd fling it at their face. Even if I didn't intend to **** someone up, if I flung an object at someone and then made anything resembling a sudden move right after, I'd be hard pressed to say I didn't deserve whatever happened next.


To your second point, I have to ask you why? Why do you need to make a preliminary determination? What purpose does it serve? I'm not saying this is what you're doing, but seeing as I can't come up with a good reason for this need, it comes off as a need to push an agenda.

[OAW]

^^^^

Regarding the first question I posed, I agree with you. Naturally it's context dependent. Which is why I followed up with some of the various scenarios that have arisen in this thread. Additionally ... and no pun intended on your "hammer" comments ... I think you've hit the nail right on the head when it comes to the likely defense strategy. Now I disagree with your view of the popcorn tossing incident. I know I for one never imagined it to be "dumping" it on the old man's head like in a sitcom. Based on how it was described by the witnesses it was "thrown" ... so I always imagined that the guy threw it in the old man's face. Much like someone would throw a drink in person's face.

That being said, when it comes to my "preliminary determination" .... let's keep in mind that I'm not speaking about a court of law. I'm only expressing my personal opinion given the available evidence. Remember this is what I said to you ...

Originally Posted by OAW

So let's just say for the sake of discussion that the victim tossed popcorn at the old man just because it was Tuesday. No provocation at all. My point here is that is still no justification to pull out a gun and take his life. It's just not that serious.

Now that's just the way I see it. Regardless of whether or not he is found guilty in a court of law. Because it really ain't that deep! I suppose it all comes down to the fact that I have a fairly high standard for when lethal force is justified. So maybe I'm missing something, but it just seems to me that if it's OK to shoot and kill a man because he threw popcorn at you ... then surely it's OK to do so if someone tosses a spitball at you. Or a rolled up paper towel. This guy is a retired police officer. The one who setup the local SWAT team for God's sake. Someone who is highly-trained to deal with tense situations. You mean to tell me he can defuse a hostage staking standoff but he can't defuse situation with an agitated guy and a bag of popcorn???

Now as far as the "asshole" issue is concerned ... I have the feeling it's going to be more about who was being the "bigger asshole"?

Reeves was with his wife and sat behind Oulson and his wife, authorities said. Chad Oulson was using his cell phone and Reeves told him to put it away, according to police and witnesses.

The two men began to argue and Reeves walked out of the auditorium. Police said Reeves was going to complain to a theater employee. But Nocco told CNN on Tuesday night that the manager was busy with another customer and Reeves never addressed his complaint with a supervisor.

When Reeves returned, witnesses and authorities said that Oulson asked him if he had gone to tell on him for texting. Oulson reportedly said, in effect: I was just sending a message to my young daughter.

Police said Tuesday that Oulson was texting the daughter's babysitter.

Charles Cummings and his adult son were two seats away. Cummings said that when Reeves returned to the theater, there was no manager with him.

"He came back very irritated," Cummings recalled.

Voices were raised. Oulson threw a bag of popcorn at Reeves, police said. Then, the former police officer took out a .380 semi-automatic handgun and shot Oulson.

Bond denied for ex-cop Curtis Reeves who allegedly shot texting dad - CNN.com

So how did this all start? Did the old man ask the guy politely to stop texting or did he tell him with all kinds of attitude? I have no idea based upon the available evidence but it's certainly relevant because that sets the tone for the entire incident. What we do know is that it quickly became an argument and the old man walks out. And we know the old man comes back even more angry because he didn't get a chance to speak to a manager about the situation. The guy tells the old man he was texting the baby sitter about his 3 year old daughter. Which IMO should have given the old man pause ... especially since this was going on during the PREVIEWS after all. But clearly the only thing that mattered to the old man was his irritation at what? Being able to see the little bit of light from the guy's phone that wasn't blocked by his body? Remember the old man and his wife were sitting in the row directly behind the guy and his wife. Or was the old man just irritated because the guy was texting period ... even if he wasn't actually being disturbed in any way? Regardless, if I'm the prosecutor I certainly want to put parents with young children on the jury. Because the old man's attitude can easily be seen as "Screw you and your kid! I want to watch the PREVIEWS without seeing the glow from your phone."

OAW

[subego]

I will give a fuller response, but I want to make clear the sitcom scenario wasn't meant as characterization of your view, just one, absolute, extreme end of the continuum of possibilities.

[OAW]

^^^

Understood.

OAW

[OAW]

A central Florida man accused of fatally shooting a suspected burglar Thursday told police he acted in self-defense after he was attacked, according to police documents obtained by the Orlando Sentinel.

The documents suggest the state’s controversial “Stand Your Ground” statue could become a factor in the case, reports the paper. “Stand Your Ground” allows residents to respond with deadly force if they perceive their life to be in danger, but has been blasted by critics as encouraging a “shoot first” mentality.

The jury that ultimately acquitted neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman in the controversial shooting death of unarmed teen Trayvon Martin was instructed to consider the statute as they deliberated Zimmerman’s fate.

In this case. the alleged gunman, Claudius Smith, 33, is charged with second-degree murder in the death of 21-year-old Ricardo Sanes, reports My Fox Orlando. Smith was reportedly inside his single-family home in Orlando Thursday when his girlfriend noticed a man on surveillance video "walking around his yard," wearing dark clothing, and then climbing over a fence into a nearby apartment complex.

According to the documents obtained by the Sentinel, Smith told police he had had recent problems with burglaries at his home and was “certain” the man seen on the surveillance video was responsible. Smith told police he jumped the fence into the apartment complex, armed with a handgun, and saw Sanes "looking into windows of apartments as he walked past them."

Smith said he pulled out his gun and confronted Sanes, grabbing Sanes’ hooded sweatshirt and trying to force him back to his house so he could call the police, reports the paper. Smith said Sanes "punched him in the mouth and grabbed for his gun."

Fearing Sanes was armed, Smith shot, reports the paper. Police did later find a handgun concealed in Sanes’ pants. However, investigators also reportedly discovered that Sanes was shot in the back, which could contradict Smith’s story.

Smith was detained at a home about four miles away after a manhunt, reports My Fox Orlando.

It’s not clear whether Smith will seek to use the “Stand Your Ground” statute in his defense.

Claudius Smith, 32, claims self-defense in fatal shooting of man he suspected of burglary | CBSNews.com

So instead of just calling the police like a responsible citizen ... especially considering the fact the the guy was no longer on his property ... this dude instead grabs his gun, goes outside, climbs a fence, stalks the guy in the hoodie down in a neighboring apartment complex and shoots him. Claiming the guy punched him and went for his gun. Sound familiar?

OAW

PS: We'll see what role if any "Stand Your Ground" plays in this dude's defense. But it just seems to me that if he hadn't shot the guy in the back and sent the cops on a manhunt he'd have a good chance of walking. Then again, considering the demographic equation involved ... that stats show that SYG most likely wouldn't help him anyway.

[subego]

I assume they feel they have a case this time.

Last time they didn't.

[OAW]

^^^^

The dude shot the guy in the back AND he ran. Naturally, that's going to make it very difficult for him to claim self-defense. But even if he hadn't run away and shot the guy in the chest ... my contention is that grabbing his gun, following the guy, and initiating a confrontation should also disqualify a self-defense claim. The problem is that SYG in Florida in many instances makes it all too easy to do that and get away with it.

OAW

[The Final Dakar]

OAW, you hear they want to amend the SYG law in FL to allow for warning shots?

[OAW]

I did hear that. And I'm a bit on the fence about it. On the one hand, had that provision been in place Marissa Alexander wouldn't have been sentenced to 20 years in jail for firing a warning shot at her abusive husband who was admittedly beating her ass. But on the other hand, the SYG law itself needs to be repealed so "expanding" it makes me uncomfortable.

OAW

[subego]

I doubt that would fly.

The "shooting is only allowed with intent to kill, intent to kill is only allowed when in fear for your life" is an unusually clean set of rules. I don't think one can muster the political will to mess with it.

[OAW]

^^^^

And that's precisely why Marissa Alexander was found guilty. Because even though her husband admitted to abusing her that evening and was still threatening her when she fired the warning shots ... the DA basically said that since she only fired a warning shot the situation must not have warranted the use of potential deadly force. So when you say ...

"shooting is only allowed with intent to kill, intent to kill is only allowed when in fear for your life"

... there's a certain "logic" to that. But there's also a "perverse logic" to it in that it incentives people to kill in a threatening situation when perhaps a warning shot would suffice in order to avoid prosecution. Go figure.

OAW

[subego]

Warning shots have their own perverse logic.

Someone of dubious morals can fire a warning shot which "misses".

[OAW]

^^^^

There is that.

OAW

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OAW 

^^^^

There is that.

OAW

Yeah... and there's also the "admitted abuse" of moving her out of the way of the bathroom door when things got heated, her leaving the house, getting the gun, coming back into the home, and firing that "warning shot" -- at his head. Tryin' to shack up with one guy while perpetrating a relationship with another guy (and trying to claim his baby is the other guy's) and getting found out will piss you off enough to want to get that guy out of your life altogether. She missed. He was lucky.

[Shaddim]

'Piers Morgan' act would revoke need for gun license in Oklahoma

Awesome.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

'Piers Morgan' act would revoke need for gun license in Oklahoma

Awesome.

Here's where precise wording can make things look different from the way they really are. The ONLY thing Oklahomans need a "license" for regarding firearms is concealed carry. Unlike places like Massachusets and Michigan, Oklahoma does not require any form of state permission to purchase or own any sort of firearm. They even allow open carry by concealed carry licensees. So this "Piers Morgan"-titled bill would remove the need for a [u]concealed carry[/i] license, though the linked story makes it sound like it would remove something much more restrictive.

I am rather ambivalent about this concept. In Texas, one must complete a very detailed in-class course on the statutes regarding deadly force, conflict avoidance and other non-cowboy-like subjects, and (I think very importantly) prove competence with a firearm on a range within specific limits set forth in the concealed carry statute. If a state were to remove that level of pre-screening, and allow any idiot to stuff a pistol in his waistband, there would be, I think, substantial increases in failures of untrained people to appropriately manage the very important responsibility associated with being armed, or, as I like to call it, "Stupid people doing stupid things with guns."

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Here's where precise wording can make things look different from the way they really are. The ONLY thing Oklahomans need a "license" for regarding firearms is concealed carry. Unlike places like Massachusets and Michigan, Oklahoma does not require any form of state permission to purchase or own any sort of firearm. They even allow open carry by concealed carry licensees. So this "Piers Morgan"-titled bill would remove the need for a [u]concealed carry[/i] license, though the linked story makes it sound like it would remove something much more restrictive.

I am rather ambivalent about this concept. In Texas, one must complete a very detailed in-class course on the statutes regarding deadly force, conflict avoidance and other non-cowboy-like subjects, and (I think very importantly) prove competence with a firearm on a range within specific limits set forth in the concealed carry statute. If a state were to remove that level of pre-screening, and allow any idiot to stuff a pistol in his waistband, there would be, I think, substantial increases in failures of untrained people to appropriately manage the very important responsibility associated with being armed, or, as I like to call it, "Stupid people doing stupid things with guns."

[OAW]

Yet another example of the "shoot first and call 911 later" mentality ....

A West Virginia man shot and killed his new neighbor and the man's brother without warning as the two inspected their land.
The shooter told police he thought his alleged victims were breaking into a building he mistakenly thought he owned, and police are baffled as to why he chose such a drastic measure to preserve something of no value to him.

The Cabell County Sheriff's Department charged Rodney Bruce Black, 62, of Barboursville, with two counts of first degree murder after he killed Garrick Hopkins, 60, of Milton and his brother, Carl Hopkins Jr., 61, of Oak Hill, at 2:30 p.m. Saturday, Sherriff Tom McComas told the Daily News on Monday.

Garrick Hopkins and his wife had just purchased land next door to Black and planned to start building a home in the next few weeks, McComas said. The landowner had invited his brother over to check out the property Saturday afternoon.

Black saw the two men — who were both married with children — looking inside a shed. Then, allegedly without warning or calling the police, he grabbed a rifle and fired once at both men.

They died at the scene.

"He shot first and then called 911," McComas said. "He said they were breaking into his house but it wasn't his property."
The structure did not contain anything of value, McComas said. The building sits on land once owned by Black's family but not anymore, he said.

West Virginia man kills new neighbor without warning, thinking it's his property: cops   - NY Daily News

OAW