quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DominantWoman65

I think both of them were in the wrong, the dead man for texting and not standing down and the retired cop for not having the presence about him to walk away when he knew it was escalating. Why feed fire with fire? Am I holding the retired LEO a little more accountable.. perhaps I am. He was trained on how to handle these situations and his calmer head should have prevailed but I have a feeling he is just as culpable as the dead man.

I think that it rests on the man who decided to bully and abuse an old man.
He just picked the wrong old man.
If I threw popcorn in some ones face it would be to distract them from the real attack.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DominantWoman65

It may just be my opinion but I believe that a man who once wore the uniform of blue, would have enough experience and sense to diffuse the situation. Walking away does not make you the weaker person just as carrying a firearm does not make you always right.

Refuting two assertions I did not make.
So the man who initiated the violence is not in the wrong, the man who fought back is.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: EdBowie

I don't think I would have gone as far as that either. But then again, I'm not in my 70s and I don't know what was said or done by the deceased.

I mentioned earlier that I wondered why a person with a LEO career behind them would suddenly wait until this incident to shoot. Surely he had been out in public before where people were being rude or disrespectful... what was different about this time.

And the accounts seem to verify that he did go for help from the manager... what happened that he didn't wait?

As far as counting on other people to save your life... Kitty Genovese.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DominantWoman65

I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around the use of deadly force when "assaulted" by popcorn which raises a few questions in my mind.
Would the retired police captain have acted differently if he didn't have his weapon?
Why didn't he just go complain to management first instead of exchanging words?
Why did they not move if he felt uncomfortable?
How did he feel in threat of his life with others in the theater?
Was the movie theater crowded or empty and how many other people did he put in jeopardy by discharging his weapon inside the theater?

I own a firearm and I personally would have tried to diffuse the situation or even walked away, I could never in my own mind could justify shooting someone when there were other options to take.

Oulsen went after him for try to talk to management.

Really? You can prove from the couple of bare bones accounts online that he didn't go after Oulsen after management failed to throw Oulsen out as he demanded, can you?

quote:

ORIGINAL: eulero83

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DominantWoman65

I think both of them were in the wrong, the dead man for texting and not standing down and the retired cop for not having the presence about him to walk away when he knew it was escalating. Why feed fire with fire? Am I holding the retired LEO a little more accountable.. perhaps I am. He was trained on how to handle these situations and his calmer head should have prevailed but I have a feeling he is just as culpable as the dead man.

I think that it rests on the man who decided to bully and abuse an old man.
He just picked the wrong old man.
If I threw popcorn in some ones face it would be to distract them from the real attack.

ok but your legal criteria is what a reasonable man would think and do... not a sociopath

quote:

ORIGINAL: igor2003

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DominantWoman65

It may just be my opinion but I believe that a man who once wore the uniform of blue, would have enough experience and sense to diffuse the situation. Walking away does not make you the weaker person just as carrying a firearm does not make you always right.

Refuting two assertions I did not make.
So the man who initiated the violence is not in the wrong, the man who fought back is.

Throwing a bag of popcorn did initiate the physical confrontation. I'm not sure I would call it "violence", but that is your prerogative. And yes, he was in the wrong for throwing that bag of popcorn. However, I don't know how it is where you live, but here, if someone attacks you, you are allowed to use enough force to stop the attack, but not to escalate it. Going from the throwing of a bag of popcorn to a shooting is not just using enough force to stop the "attack". It is a definite escalation. So, just judging from what I know right now I would say that "the man who fought back" is definitely in the wrong.

quote:

When the human body experiences growing anger the frontal section of the brain (that which handles reason, wisdom, rational thought) shuts down and forces the back half of the brain to work double duty (it handles emotions). The person was already angry to begin with by the point the frontal half of the brain 'shuts down', the result is the back half determines the 'fight of flight' response and acts on it. Could this 71 year old been experiencing this concept? Hard to confirm. Yet, would fit the 'fight' section of using any and all attacks against what was threating the brain, including using a firearm for deadly force. Do we blame the individual? Yes, he lost control. Do we blame the firearm? Yes, it was the primary means of attack.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

When the human body experiences growing anger the frontal section of the brain (that which handles reason, wisdom, rational thought) shuts down and forces the back half of the brain to work double duty (it handles emotions). The person was already angry to begin with by the point the frontal half of the brain 'shuts down', the result is the back half determines the 'fight of flight' response and acts on it. Could this 71 year old been experiencing this concept? Hard to confirm. Yet, would fit the 'fight' section of using any and all attacks against what was threating the brain, including using a firearm for deadly force. Do we blame the individual? Yes, he lost control. Do we blame the firearm? Yes, it was the primary means of attack.

I think you pretty much got it right. But how can we blame him for losing control if the frontal cortex cedes control to the amygdala and the ex-cop acts? Seems that animal nature took over. I am raising an issue of free will here but I am not suggesting he was a biological robot. Hmmm. . .maybe in the moment he was. Just pondering. This question was posed in a non-threatening, gun free and popcorn free zone.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: EdBowie

I don't think I would have gone as far as that either. But then again, I'm not in my 70s and I don't know what was said or done by the deceased.

I mentioned earlier that I wondered why a person with a LEO career behind them would suddenly wait until this incident to shoot. Surely he had been out in public before where people were being rude or disrespectful... what was different about this time.

And the accounts seem to verify that he did go for help from the manager... what happened that he didn't wait?

As far as counting on other people to save your life... Kitty Genovese.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DominantWoman65

I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around the use of deadly force when "assaulted" by popcorn which raises a few questions in my mind.
Would the retired police captain have acted differently if he didn't have his weapon?
Why didn't he just go complain to management first instead of exchanging words?
Why did they not move if he felt uncomfortable?
How did he feel in threat of his life with others in the theater?
Was the movie theater crowded or empty and how many other people did he put in jeopardy by discharging his weapon inside the theater?

I own a firearm and I personally would have tried to diffuse the situation or even walked away, I could never in my own mind could justify shooting someone when there were other options to take.

Oulsen went after him for try to talk to management.

Really? You can prove from the couple of bare bones accounts online that he didn't go after Oulsen after management failed to throw Oulsen out as he demanded, can you?

According to the bare bones accounts upon returning from the attempt to talk to management Oulsen confronted him about going to management.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: EdBowie

I don't think I would have gone as far as that either. But then again, I'm not in my 70s and I don't know what was said or done by the deceased.

I mentioned earlier that I wondered why a person with a LEO career behind them would suddenly wait until this incident to shoot. Surely he had been out in public before where people were being rude or disrespectful... what was different about this time.

And the accounts seem to verify that he did go for help from the manager... what happened that he didn't wait?

As far as counting on other people to save your life... Kitty Genovese.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DominantWoman65

I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around the use of deadly force when "assaulted" by popcorn which raises a few questions in my mind.
Would the retired police captain have acted differently if he didn't have his weapon?
Why didn't he just go complain to management first instead of exchanging words?
Why did they not move if he felt uncomfortable?
How did he feel in threat of his life with others in the theater?
Was the movie theater crowded or empty and how many other people did he put in jeopardy by discharging his weapon inside the theater?

I own a firearm and I personally would have tried to diffuse the situation or even walked away, I could never in my own mind could justify shooting someone when there were other options to take.

Oulsen went after him for try to talk to management.

Really? You can prove from the couple of bare bones accounts online that he didn't go after Oulsen after management failed to throw Oulsen out as he demanded, can you?

According to the bare bones accounts upon returning from the attempt to talk to management Oulsen confronted him about going to management.

And Oulsen knew he'd gone to the management to tell on him how if he quietly sat back down and kept his trap shut?

quote:

ORIGINAL: eulero83

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DominantWoman65

I think both of them were in the wrong, the dead man for texting and not standing down and the retired cop for not having the presence about him to walk away when he knew it was escalating. Why feed fire with fire? Am I holding the retired LEO a little more accountable.. perhaps I am. He was trained on how to handle these situations and his calmer head should have prevailed but I have a feeling he is just as culpable as the dead man.

I think that it rests on the man who decided to bully and abuse an old man.
He just picked the wrong old man.
If I threw popcorn in some ones face it would be to distract them from the real attack.

ok but your legal criteria is what a reasonable man would think and do... not a sociopath

quote:

ORIGINAL: igor2003

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DominantWoman65

It may just be my opinion but I believe that a man who once wore the uniform of blue, would have enough experience and sense to diffuse the situation. Walking away does not make you the weaker person just as carrying a firearm does not make you always right.

Refuting two assertions I did not make.
So the man who initiated the violence is not in the wrong, the man who fought back is.

Throwing a bag of popcorn did initiate the physical confrontation. I'm not sure I would call it "violence", but that is your prerogative. And yes, he was in the wrong for throwing that bag of popcorn. However, I don't know how it is where you live, but here, if someone attacks you, you are allowed to use enough force to stop the attack, but not to escalate it. Going from the throwing of a bag of popcorn to a shooting is not just using enough force to stop the "attack". It is a definite escalation. So, just judging from what I know right now I would say that "the man who fought back" is definitely in the wrong.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

When the human body experiences growing anger the frontal section of the brain (that which handles reason, wisdom, rational thought) shuts down and forces the back half of the brain to work double duty (it handles emotions). The person was already angry to begin with by the point the frontal half of the brain 'shuts down', the result is the back half determines the 'fight of flight' response and acts on it. Could this 71 year old been experiencing this concept? Hard to confirm. Yet, would fit the 'fight' section of using any and all attacks against what was threating the brain, including using a firearm for deadly force. Do we blame the individual? Yes, he lost control. Do we blame the firearm? Yes, it was the primary means of attack.

I think you pretty much got it right. But how can we blame him for losing control if the frontal cortex cedes control to the amygdala and the ex-cop acts? Seems that animal nature took over. I am raising an issue of free will here but I am not suggesting he was a biological robot. Hmmm. . .maybe in the moment he was. Just pondering. This question was posed in a non-threatening, gun free and popcorn free zone.

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

When the human body experiences growing anger the frontal section of the brain (that which handles reason, wisdom, rational thought) shuts down and forces the back half of the brain to work double duty (it handles emotions). The person was already angry to begin with by the point the frontal half of the brain 'shuts down', the result is the back half determines the 'fight of flight' response and acts on it. Could this 71 year old been experiencing this concept? Hard to confirm. Yet, would fit the 'fight' section of using any and all attacks against what was threating the brain, including using a firearm for deadly force. Do we blame the individual? Yes, he lost control. Do we blame the firearm? Yes, it was the primary means of attack.

I think you pretty much got it right. But how can we blame him for losing control if the frontal cortex cedes control to the amygdala and the ex-cop acts? Seems that animal nature took over. I am raising an issue of free will here but I am not suggesting he was a biological robot. Hmmm. . .maybe in the moment he was. Just pondering. This question was posed in a non-threatening, gun free and popcorn free zone.

With a firearm comes a great deal of responsibility. Even if the person was in a state of blind rage, they are STILL responsible for how that weapon is used. Whether he bludgeon the other guy in the face or shot him, he is STILL responsible. Just because his body and mind did a normal human function is not an acceptable enough of an excuse. He had a firearm, it was used during an argument, and killed someone else. With no other information present, that person is guilty of murder! He is consider innocent until proven guilty in a court of law by his peers and afforded a lawyer if he can not afford one himself.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DominantWoman65

If the reports of Reeves confronting other movie goers about texting before the movie started on different dates turns out to be true, then one could believe that Reeves perhaps intentionally entered the theater with his weapon in his pocket. While I am not condoning the actions of the dead man, but who does that?

If the weapon had not jammed after the first shot, how many more shots would have been fired? How many other movie patrons could have been harmed?

I didn't see any news reports that stated that Reeves was punched in the face, but I did see the interview of the man who just happened to be a retired Marine and who's lap that Oulsen fell into after being shot state that popcorn was thrown but could not see who threw it, or the statement from the off duty officer who struggled with Reeves momentarily when he disarmed him, that is when it was discovered that the weapon had jammed.

We will all have our own opinions on this but I believe he is going to have a very hard time if he utilizes stand your ground or self defense because he could retreat to a safe area.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DominantWoman65

I apologize, I should have given the links to the gun jamming.


http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/14/us/florida-movie-theater-shooting-scene/
http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/14/justice/florida-movie-theater-shooting/
http://newtampa.wtsp.com/news/news/696252-cops-alleged-theater-shooters-gun-jammed