quote:

ORIGINAL: igor2003

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DominantWoman65

The conversation according to Mrs Reeves came after the shooting, and that big, younger and stronger hand wasn't around his throat was it?

No but then nobody said it was.
But the video shows that Oulsen struck at Reeves.
Yes, with the bag of popcorn that he took from Reeves...not with his hand or fist.
He may have been grabbing Reeves popcorn.
There is no "may" about it. It clearly shows that Oulsen grabbed the bag of popcorn and threw it back at Reeves.
Reeves says Oulsen struck and bent his glasses.
Here is what the article says, "Reeves told the detective that Oulsen hit him in the face and that his glasses became crooked." To me that is saying that Oulsen hit him in the face (with the popcorn) and that his glasses became crooked (askew, due to being hit with a bag of popcorn), which is NOT the same as bent. People that wear glasses often get them bumped, causing them to sit askew...or "crooked". To claim they were "bent" from that simple statement is stretching it quite a bit.
What will you say if it turns out that Reeves' glasses actually were damaged?

It's pretty obvious from the video that Reeves became aggressive after he was hit with the popcorn. He didn't cower back into his seat as if afraid for his life. He aggressively leaned forward, half out of his seat, toward Oulsen, and shot him.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

Also the fact that the lights in the cinema were twirling, it wasnt as if texting would have interrupted anything. But...people are hating to admit that an ol man can be an instigator...get pissy and self bloody righteous.

quote:

ORIGINAL: EdBowie

Other than as obfuscation, what the fuck does that have to do with anything?

The man is dead, and none of your internet games are going to change that. The man who shot him is going to get a trial, and your blather isn't going to affect that either.

The only people who are going to have even an approximation as to guilt or innocence are going to be in the courtroom, not on this forum

But hey, carry on with your bad Nancy Grace self.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DominantWoman65

Reeves shot two people that day but I guess some will justify that as Mrs Oulsen just being collateral damage.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DominantWoman65

My position would still be that it was not a case of using deadly force. I'm sure that if he was hit with such force that it bent his glasses that there would have been some type of mark or marks on his face and photos were taken and that will come out in the trial.

They were both being assholes and lets not forget, Reeves shot two people that day but I guess some will justify that as Mrs Oulsen just being collateral damage.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

quote:

ORIGINAL: DominantWoman65

Reeves shot two people that day but I guess some will justify that as Mrs Oulsen just being collateral damage.

That hand being in the way might wind up being the evidence that Reeves had reason to be in fear of his safety, and the wife of the dead asshole knew it.

We'll see when the facts come out at the trial.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
If you accept her current version of the story her hand wasn't in the way and couldn't have been shot.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DominantWoman65

My position would still be that it was not a case of using deadly force. I'm sure that if he was hit with such force that it bent his glasses that there would have been some type of mark or marks on his face and photos were taken and that will come out in the trial.

They were both being assholes and lets not forget, Reeves shot two people that day but I guess some will justify that as Mrs Oulsen just being collateral damage.

She now claims that she didn't know anything was wrong till Reeves shot.
How did she get her hand in the way?
We will see more as the trial comes along.
Keep in mind that, as I suspect you know but may have forgotten, it is mortal or serious bodily injury.
This makes a major difference in his defense.
He fired one shot clearly he had no intent to shoot two people.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DominantWoman65

He didn't intend to shoot two people but he clearly did. He drew his weapon and made a conscious decision to fire. Can't call that an oopsie, sorry lady.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DominantWoman65

Yes, Lucy in earlier reports it was stated that his gun jammed and that came from the person who I believe was an off duty officer who took the gun away from Reeves.



Edited for spelling

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: EdBowie

Other than as obfuscation, what the fuck does that have to do with anything?

The man is dead, and none of your internet games are going to change that. The man who shot him is going to get a trial, and your blather isn't going to affect that either.

The only people who are going to have even an approximation as to guilt or innocence are going to be in the courtroom, not on this forum

But hey, carry on with your bad Nancy Grace self.

Oh fuck, I forgot it was national irony day.

quote:

ORIGINAL: EdBowie

Will you be getting back to us with proof that I ever said anything different, before or after you finally provide proof for all your earlier assertions?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: EdBowie

Other than as obfuscation, what the fuck does that have to do with anything?

The man is dead, and none of your internet games are going to change that. The man who shot him is going to get a trial, and your blather isn't going to affect that either.

The only people who are going to have even an approximation as to guilt or innocence are going to be in the courtroom, not on this forum

But hey, carry on with your bad Nancy Grace self.

Oh fuck, I forgot it was national irony day.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: EdBowie

Will you be getting back to us with proof that I ever said anything different, before or after you finally provide proof for all your earlier assertions?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: EdBowie

Other than as obfuscation, what the fuck does that have to do with anything?

The man is dead, and none of your internet games are going to change that. The man who shot him is going to get a trial, and your blather isn't going to affect that either.

The only people who are going to have even an approximation as to guilt or innocence are going to be in the courtroom, not on this forum

But hey, carry on with your bad Nancy Grace self.

Oh fuck, I forgot it was national irony day.

Lmfao...... I never said you had said anything different, why the fuck do you think I bolded your post. I said quite pointedly that your remark was ironic,.

As for earlier assertions made by me, keep bleating on about it and enjoy. You know full well I am unable to post my info without getting a ban. If the mods let me post my points on the issue freely, I will be happy to do so.