quote:

ORIGINAL: Just0Us0Two

quote:

ORIGINAL: DominantWoman65
Most people I know don't carry their weapon in their pocket and that goes for retired and active police and military.

Maybe you should Google "pocket holster", they've become rather popular.

Also, if you carry on a regular basis, you'll know that sitting with a holstered gun isn't very comfortable, especially if you're going to be sitting through a 2+ hour long movie. I can see taking a pistol out of a holster and sticking it in a pocket till the movie was over.

quote:

ORIGINAL: eulero83
yes exactly, and the 71 year old is not in the reasonable person category, he is or a person that acted because of anger or a sociopath in both cases not a reasonable person.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

I must say, I used to watch The Waltons when I was a kid, and this never happened to them, so far as I recall. Was the reality that it was actually a regular occurrence, across the USA, before those SYG laws came into being?

quote:

ORIGINAL: eulero83

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: eulero83

FR

how I see the facts reported I'm more inclined in thinking the 71 year old acted not for fear but out of frustration, it is not reasonable to think he would be attacked when being in a cinema if there was not a row of seats at least movements were slowed down, and the victim wife was between them calming down his husband, he would have been forced to attack his spouse first. A popcorn bag is not painfull and not violence it is a provocation to humiliate. To me it looks more something like "this is battery, ah-ha I got you! ... and bang!", and this is the kind of dangerouse thinking process the stand your ground principle incentive.

But we are trying to view the actions of a reasonable person not a sociopath.

yes exactly, and the 71 year old is not in the reasonable person category, he is or a person that acted because of anger or a sociopath in both cases not a reasonable person.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Just0Us0Two

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

I must say, I used to watch The Waltons when I was a kid, and this never happened to them, so far as I recall. Was the reality that it was actually a regular occurrence, across the USA, before those SYG laws came into being?

Ever hear of the BTK Killer? He did exactly this, broke into homes and then tortured and killed everyone inside. There is another serial killer I remember reading about who did roughly the same thing. He'd check the door, if it wasn't locked that was God's signal that he should go in and kill everyone. I'm sure there are others.

I checked my local news station for recent home invasion robberies, and got an entire page of hits. A number of years ago when I still lived in NJ, I had a young man attempt to do a push-in robbery at my apartment. I think he thought there were only two women living there and it would be an easy target. He found out differently. ;)

quote:

ORIGINAL: EdBowie

The video shows that Reeves wasn't lying about the way it occurred.

It also very clearly puts to rest the lie sworn to by several 'experts' here who claimed to know for a fact that Oulsen was a distance away harmlessly 'throwing bits of popcorn', while Reeves was rampaging from row to row menacing society.


That of course isn't enough to determine final guilt or innocence.

What little bit that can be seen, shows Reeves seated (where he had every right to be, and where 'stand your ground/retreat' is a non-issue), and Oulsen turned 180 and facing the back of the theater to throw a hand to the face.

What we can't see clearly is how hard Reeves was struck, and if Oulsen's hand was holding a box, cup, or what.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

One bullet came out, why did it jam after? or even malfunction after?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Just0Us0Two

quote:

ORIGINAL: EdBowie

The video shows that Reeves wasn't lying about the way it occurred.

It also very clearly puts to rest the lie sworn to by several 'experts' here who claimed to know for a fact that Oulsen was a distance away harmlessly 'throwing bits of popcorn', while Reeves was rampaging from row to row menacing society.


That of course isn't enough to determine final guilt or innocence.

What little bit that can be seen, shows Reeves seated (where he had every right to be, and where 'stand your ground/retreat' is a non-issue), and Oulsen turned 180 and facing the back of the theater to throw a hand to the face.

What we can't see clearly is how hard Reeves was struck, and if Oulsen's hand was holding a box, cup, or what.

I've got to say, after seeing that video I'm starting to see this differently. Reeves has said that Oulsen jumped over the seats and punched him in the face with a bag of popcorn. From what I'm seeing in the video, Oulsen never jumps over the row of seats, at worst he leans over the seats to snatch Reeves' popcorn cup. It also doesn't look like he punched Reeves, he threw the cup, but his hand never gets anywhere near Reeves' face. I'd say that a good foot or more was between them when the cup was thrown. I also find it hard to believe that a cup of popcorn could have hit hard enough to bend glasses.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

One bullet came out, why did it jam after? or even malfunction after?

First off, while I'm sure Polite will appreciate all of your efforts to bury his repeated dumbass assertion from a few pages back, are there any further questions regarding the foolishness of stating a jam somehow proved an intent to keep shooting? No? Good.



There is no one answer as to why a gun fails to complete the firing cycle. A lot of things can cause it. Most of the time, clearing it is a matter of a couple seconds. The first time I took my .380 out plinking, the damn thing was giving me trouble all day. I got rid of the 10 round mag, started using just the 8 that came with it, and no more trouble. In every instance, I took care of it right there at the line. My Dad had one nasty hangup with his old competition shooting .22LR, where we took it back to the table, and we all had to have a look, and ask, "how the fuck did it do that." That part finished, it still took less than a minute to clear, and no tools were needed. No comparison whatsoever to the blown engine gobbledygook somebody was throwing around.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Just0Us0Two

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

I must say, I used to watch The Waltons when I was a kid, and this never happened to them, so far as I recall. Was the reality that it was actually a regular occurrence, across the USA, before those SYG laws came into being?

Ever hear of the BTK Killer? He did exactly this, broke into homes and then tortured and killed everyone inside. There is another serial killer I remember reading about who did roughly the same thing. He'd check the door, if it wasn't locked that was God's signal that he should go in and kill everyone. I'm sure there are others.

I checked my local news station for recent home invasion robberies, and got an entire page of hits. A number of years ago when I still lived in NJ, I had a young man attempt to do a push-in robbery at my apartment. I think he thought there were only two women living there and it would be an easy target. He found out differently. ;)

Is this an attempt to prove that SYG is responsible for home invasions?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Just0Us0Two

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Just0Us0Two

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

I must say, I used to watch The Waltons when I was a kid, and this never happened to them, so far as I recall. Was the reality that it was actually a regular occurrence, across the USA, before those SYG laws came into being?

Ever hear of the BTK Killer? He did exactly this, broke into homes and then tortured and killed everyone inside. There is another serial killer I remember reading about who did roughly the same thing. He'd check the door, if it wasn't locked that was God's signal that he should go in and kill everyone. I'm sure there are others.

I checked my local news station for recent home invasion robberies, and got an entire page of hits. A number of years ago when I still lived in NJ, I had a young man attempt to do a push-in robbery at my apartment. I think he thought there were only two women living there and it would be an easy target. He found out differently. ;)

Is this an attempt to prove that SYG is responsible for home invasions?

Huh? If that's directed at me, I have no clue what you're talking about or how you could have possibly gotten that from what I said.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Just0Us0Two

Ahhh, ok. I couldn't tell who that was meant for.

My take on it was that Peon was implying that home invasions where people are hurt/raped/killed don't happen, or that they happen so infrequently as to be non-issues.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Just0Us0Two

quote:

ORIGINAL: EdBowie

The video shows that Reeves wasn't lying about the way it occurred.

It also very clearly puts to rest the lie sworn to by several 'experts' here who claimed to know for a fact that Oulsen was a distance away harmlessly 'throwing bits of popcorn', while Reeves was rampaging from row to row menacing society.


That of course isn't enough to determine final guilt or innocence.

What little bit that can be seen, shows Reeves seated (where he had every right to be, and where 'stand your ground/retreat' is a non-issue), and Oulsen turned 180 and facing the back of the theater to throw a hand to the face.

What we can't see clearly is how hard Reeves was struck, and if Oulsen's hand was holding a box, cup, or what.

I've got to say, after seeing that video I'm starting to see this differently. Reeves has said that Oulsen jumped over the seats and punched him in the face with a bag of popcorn. From what I'm seeing in the video, Oulsen never jumps over the row of seats, at worst he leans over the seats to snatch Reeves' popcorn cup. It also doesn't look like he punched Reeves, he threw the cup, but his hand never gets anywhere near Reeves' face. I'd say that a good foot or more was between them when the cup was thrown. I also find it hard to believe that a cup of popcorn could have hit hard enough to bend glasses.

Whatever was thrown at Reeves and struck him in the forehead had a bright light in the middle of it.
That isn't a cup or popcorn.
And you can't see Oulsen.
Not to say this clears Reeves but it doesn't hurt him any.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Just0Us0Two

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Just0Us0Two

quote:

ORIGINAL: EdBowie

The video shows that Reeves wasn't lying about the way it occurred.

It also very clearly puts to rest the lie sworn to by several 'experts' here who claimed to know for a fact that Oulsen was a distance away harmlessly 'throwing bits of popcorn', while Reeves was rampaging from row to row menacing society.


That of course isn't enough to determine final guilt or innocence.

What little bit that can be seen, shows Reeves seated (where he had every right to be, and where 'stand your ground/retreat' is a non-issue), and Oulsen turned 180 and facing the back of the theater to throw a hand to the face.

What we can't see clearly is how hard Reeves was struck, and if Oulsen's hand was holding a box, cup, or what.

I've got to say, after seeing that video I'm starting to see this differently. Reeves has said that Oulsen jumped over the seats and punched him in the face with a bag of popcorn. From what I'm seeing in the video, Oulsen never jumps over the row of seats, at worst he leans over the seats to snatch Reeves' popcorn cup. It also doesn't look like he punched Reeves, he threw the cup, but his hand never gets anywhere near Reeves' face. I'd say that a good foot or more was between them when the cup was thrown. I also find it hard to believe that a cup of popcorn could have hit hard enough to bend glasses.

Whatever was thrown at Reeves and struck him in the forehead had a bright light in the middle of it.
That isn't a cup or popcorn.
And you can't see Oulsen.
Not to say this clears Reeves but it doesn't hurt him any.

I don't know what video you're watching, but in the on posted by EdBowie that's not what I'm seeing at all. At 50 seconds you see someone (Oulsen) reach over the seat, grab what appears to be a cup off of the other person's (Reeves) lap or arm-rest, and then throw it in that person's face. I don't see something glowing with a bright light, I see a cup.

You're correct, you don't see Oulsen, all you see is an arm. I can't prove that this was Oulsen, maybe someone completely unrelated walked over, got between the two men and grabbed/threw the cup, and then wandered away without being noticed by anyone. The more likely explanation however is that the arm belongs to Oulsen. Since Reeves isn't disputing that the event took place and has stated that he was punched in the face with a "bag" of popcorn, and other witnesses have stated that they saw popcorn being thrown, I think it's safe to say that that's what we're seeing.

I'm usually right there when it comes to supporting someone's right to self defense, but I'm having trouble seeing it here. With Reeves' statement that he was punched in the face for asking someone to stop texting, I thought Oulsen had gotten what he deserved. Irate schmuck picked on the wrong old man. I still think Oulsen was an irate schmuck, but I don't think he should have been shot for throwing a cup. If his hand had made contact with Reeves' face, or if he was coming over the row of seats, then that would be a very different story, but from what I can see at least, that's not what happened.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Just0Us0Two

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Just0Us0Two

quote:

ORIGINAL: EdBowie

The video shows that Reeves wasn't lying about the way it occurred.

It also very clearly puts to rest the lie sworn to by several 'experts' here who claimed to know for a fact that Oulsen was a distance away harmlessly 'throwing bits of popcorn', while Reeves was rampaging from row to row menacing society.


That of course isn't enough to determine final guilt or innocence.

What little bit that can be seen, shows Reeves seated (where he had every right to be, and where 'stand your ground/retreat' is a non-issue), and Oulsen turned 180 and facing the back of the theater to throw a hand to the face.

What we can't see clearly is how hard Reeves was struck, and if Oulsen's hand was holding a box, cup, or what.

I've got to say, after seeing that video I'm starting to see this differently. Reeves has said that Oulsen jumped over the seats and punched him in the face with a bag of popcorn. From what I'm seeing in the video, Oulsen never jumps over the row of seats, at worst he leans over the seats to snatch Reeves' popcorn cup. It also doesn't look like he punched Reeves, he threw the cup, but his hand never gets anywhere near Reeves' face. I'd say that a good foot or more was between them when the cup was thrown. I also find it hard to believe that a cup of popcorn could have hit hard enough to bend glasses.

Whatever was thrown at Reeves and struck him in the forehead had a bright light in the middle of it.
That isn't a cup or popcorn.
And you can't see Oulsen.
Not to say this clears Reeves but it doesn't hurt him any.

I don't know what video you're watching, but in the on posted by EdBowie that's not what I'm seeing at all. At 50 seconds you see someone (Oulsen) reach over the seat, grab what appears to be a cup off of the other person's (Reeves) lap or arm-rest, and then throw it in that person's face. I don't see something glowing with a bright light, I see a cup.

You're correct, you don't see Oulsen, all you see is an arm. I can't prove that this was Oulsen, maybe someone completely unrelated walked over, got between the two men and grabbed/threw the cup, and then wandered away without being noticed by anyone. The more likely explanation however is that the arm belongs to Oulsen. Since Reeves isn't disputing that the event took place and has stated that he was punched in the face with a "bag" of popcorn, and other witnesses have stated that they saw popcorn being thrown, I think it's safe to say that that's what we're seeing.

I'm usually right there when it comes to supporting someone's right to self defense, but I'm having trouble seeing it here. With Reeves' statement that he was punched in the face for asking someone to stop texting, I thought Oulsen had gotten what he deserved. Irate schmuck picked on the wrong old man. I still think Oulsen was an irate schmuck, but I don't think he should have been shot for throwing a cup. If his hand had made contact with Reeves' face, or if he was coming over the row of seats, then that would be a very different story, but from what I can see at least, that's not what happened.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
In court MRS. Oulsen said she didn't know there was a problem till the shot was fired which is at odds with
her first story, her second story, and the facts.