world

Retired cop kills moviegoer for texting in Florida theater

133 Comments
By TAMARA LUSH

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2014 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

133 Comments
Login to comment

Can't wait the "if everybody had guns, it would never had happen" spin...

18 ( +29 / -11 )

Only in America

13 ( +22 / -10 )

TumbleDry: Absolutely correct. The theory that armed civilians can somehow prevent violent crime instead of, er, causing it as in this case, is total nonsense and always was.

10 ( +19 / -9 )

This is just insane! Some guy is texting so they get angry at each other?? One fool throws popcorn at the other fool?? The other fool takes out a pistol and shoots the other man to DEATH??? And this idiot lawyer Escobar is trying to say it was self defence??Now I am beggining to understand how some of Trayvon Martin's supporters feel, with this Stand your ground law in messed up Florida.

6 ( +12 / -6 )

If they had both had guns they could have shot each other, saving court costs.

9 ( +15 / -6 )

Gun happy cop, goto jail please and die there.

10 ( +15 / -5 )

Can't go to the movies without putting a gun in your pocket? What is wrong with these paranoid nutjobs? And why do other people have to die because of it?

21 ( +23 / -2 )

@gogogo, I agree. Power-maniac career cops, used to throwing around their supposed authority are a danger to society. There was a time that they were Peace Officers and served to protect, at least in theory. Again, it's not the gun but the person.

We didn't read about the grandmother in Louisiana who defended herself against a second robbery by the same intruder.

http://www.guns.com/2014/01/08/great-grandmother-shoots-kills-teen-intruder-attempted-robbery-shreveport-video/

1 ( +10 / -9 )

it's not the gun but the person.

How could the guy have shot someone without a gun? That's right, he couldn't. So it's both the gun and the person. But without guns, no one would be getting shot.

15 ( +18 / -3 )

The perfect example of why gun laws in the US are so messed up. The other man would not be dead if the ex-cop did not have a gun to shoot him over TEXTING. He might have a bloody lip, but he would not be dead, and this cop would not now be in prison wondering how he could have reduced himself to what he did. Yeah, guns make things safe!

14 ( +21 / -7 )

Why should cinima goer to bring hand gun for watching movie?

The land of free, proud and brave should allow someone to bring Automatic Grenade Launcher for watching movie. If he shots the audience with laucher, It is not the launcher but the person will be excuse.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

I can understand people getting upset with others who text, or worse, at movies. But this is crazy.

“The alleged victim attacked him,” Escobar said, adding that Oulson threw something, possibly popcorn, at Reeves. “At that point in time he has every right to defend himself.”

I guess that popcorn must have been flung at extremely high speed, and caused pain and injury to have this reaction?

Why do people feel the need to walk the streets with concealed firearms? Not anti-American but I'd refuse to live anywhere this is considered normal (realizing the laws vary according to the state).

10 ( +11 / -1 )

"Oulson (the dead father of a three year old) told Reeves (71, retired police captain) he was texting with his 3-year-old daughter"

So the old man shot him, in a darkened theater, over what the old man could not understand, a father in contact with his three year old little girl. So the old man shot through the man's wife's hand, covering her husband's chest, killing him with a concealed weapon.

What the world should understand from this tragic and completely unnecessary murder. Guns have become a drug. An addiction. Nurtured by a multi-billion dollar industry and sold as a right without conscience or remorse.

After the NRA bought the Senators and Representatives in Washington, outlawed research and information and then marketed their weapons of mass destruction to children, the freedom to live in a slaughter house was finally achieved with gun sales profits at record highs. And a tiny girl will never see Daddy again. For Freedom.

Blood for gold. And a three year old, tiny girl, will never see Daddy again and Mommy will forever lose the use of her hand that once held her child's and husband's hands.

Why? Because the NRA has elevated insanity to an absolute right guaranteed by the United States Constitution.

Worst still? The NRA membership and NRA Corporate ownership will smile wide vigorous grins in the knowledge that more guns will be sold and there is nothing the majority of law abiding Citizens can do about it.

Victory! Let Freedom Rain Down Bullets for Freedom. The Constitution guarantees it. And the NRA celebrates another slaughter. Don't forget to send in your membership fees!

27 ( +30 / -3 )

The theory that armed civilians can somehow prevent violent crime instead of, er, causing it as in this case, is total nonsense and always was.

That is like saying having a military or law enforcement that is armed to prevent violence is total nonsense and always was. Having an armed civilian population can deter a criminal from attacking or stop their attack, keep in mind I said can I'm not saying it always will.

-19 ( +3 / -22 )

Having an armed civilian population can deter a criminal from attacking or stop their attack

Quite right, having a gun allowed this retired cop (who of all people should surely know better) to deter a dangerous criminal from communicating with a three-year-old fellow gang member and throwing popcorn all over the cinema.

Then again, if everyone else in the cinema had been armed to the teeth someone could have shot the cop to prevent him shooting the popcorn terrorist. Then in the dark and the confusion, someone else could have shot the one who shot the cop, and someone could have shot the one who shot the one who shot the cop who.....

On the other hand, if no one had lethal weaponry to hand they may have been a bit of a punch-up, a couple of people may have gone home with bloody noses and/or scraped knuckles or even spent a night in the cells for causing a fracas, but no one would now be arranging a funeral or trying to explain to a three-year-old why Daddy isn't ever coming home.

22 ( +26 / -4 )

Then again, if everyone else in the cinema had been armed to the teeth someone could have shot the cop to prevent him shooting the popcorn terrorist. Then in the dark and the confusion, someone else could have shot the one who shot the cop, and someone could have shot the one who shot the one who shot the cop who.....

In the imagination (fantasy) of the gun nut, they always shoot the right person and it's always justified. The problem is other people.

18 ( +20 / -2 )

In the imagination (fantasy) of the gun nut, they always shoot the right person and it's always justified. The problem is other people.

Right.....That is exactly what I'm saying SuperLib......

Quite right, having a gun allowed this retired cop (who of all people should surely know better) to deter a dangerous criminal from communicating with a three-year-old fellow gang member and throwing popcorn all over the cinema.

Right Cleo because we all know my comment was about this incident specifically and not about the larger argument made by theeastisred that no criminal will ever be deterred by an armed citizen.

On the other hand, if no one had lethal weaponry to hand they may have been a bit of a punch-up, a couple of people may have gone home with bloody noses and/or scraped knuckles or even spent a night in the cells for causing a fracas, but no one would now be arranging a funeral or trying to explain to a three-year-old why Daddy isn't ever coming home.

In this specific incident ya that is true but then again my comment was not about this incident now was it? Important to note that punches can kill such as in this incident:

http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Union-Square-Bias-Attack-White-Person-Punch-Death-222995081.html

So it is also realistic to say that one of them could have died in a punch up if one of them was to fall and hit their head.

-2 ( +5 / -7 )

If the old ex-cop had stabbed the people, would you blame the knife? Or how about an attack with pressure cooker bombs, do you blame the pressure cooker? No, just like in the knock-out punch instances, the blame lies squarely on the assailant regardless of whether the assailant uses a fist, golf club, knife, or, yes, a gun. Don't be hypocritical.

-16 ( +4 / -20 )

Here's a thought. How about having in big bold letters, "No weapons allowed in theaters. Violators will be persecuted to the full extent of the law" When I go to the movies. I wouldn't even have knife because I'm there to watch a movie... not start shooting off a gun or brandish a knife. This ex-cop is 71 years old and now on the exact opposite side of the law because he couldn't go see a movie without carrying a gun?

5 ( +6 / -1 )

An ex-police captain and instructor who is trained in the use of deadly force and when it's appropriate or not to use it, should had known better than almost anyone what to do in such a situation. The DA definitely doesn't think this amounts to stand-your-ground defense - a popcorn, heck a punch doesn't amount to stand-your-ground; it has to be more than that. When guns make everyone safer, America would be the safest place on earth.

13 ( +13 / -0 )

I've always believed it's the duty of the "strong" to protect the weak. Evidently this ex-policeman, who really should have understood and followed that more than others, did not.

Way too many people carrying guns or learning martial arts/boxing/etc for all the wrong reasons. And too many people who have no idea how not to escalate things to violence.

The popcorn thrower was an idiot, but the other guy was much worse. What a waste.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Reeves’ attorney, Richard Escobar, argued that his client should be released because of his deep ties to the community.

A man brandishing and using a gun without probable cause? Something tells me it is time to cut those ties.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

First, I think the retired cop desreves---and will get---a long prison term. However it is high time that rude people learn that we all live in a stressful world and acting like a jerk can get you rebuked, punished or killed. If you need to text your daughter, leave the movie theater. Oulson was asked to stop and didn't and now one less rude person will burden use with his presece. So to those people who cut in line, talk on phones in restaurant or take three seats on the bus, be warned; it takes very little to make people snap in today's world.

-5 ( +5 / -10 )

I definitely do not condone bringing a gun into a theater, let alone firing it, but this Oulson guy sounds like quite a dickhead. According to another article, when Reeves came back to his seat Oulson taunted him by asking him things like, "oh, did you go tell on me?" Reeves asked him again to stop texting but he didn't and instead threw popcorn at him. That doesn't warrant violence, but you're asking for trouble if you act like that. Oulson was in the wrong (using his phone in the theater) so he should have simply apologized.

0 ( +7 / -7 )

I think if more terrible things happened to rude people who failed to see beyond themselves then we'd have a lot less rude people.

-2 ( +6 / -8 )

the blame lies squarely on the assailant regardless of whether the assailant uses a fist, golf club, knife, or, yes, a gun.

Mmm, yes, but would you allow a person into a theatre brandishing a golf club, knife, or a pressure cooker? Or with fists permanently raised in a threatening manner? A person walking round armed to the teeth is obviously up to no good, probably not mentally stable and definitely in need of therapy. The kind of person who feels the need to walk around armed at all times is exactly the kind of person who should not be allowed anywhere near a golf club, knife, pressure cooker or firearm. Pity we can't do anything about the fists.

it is high time that rude people learn that we all live in a stressful world

If you find the world so stressful that you cannot bear to let a man text his daughter or do anything else that might might label him a jerk without feeling the need to shoot him dead, then you need help. You need to change your lifestyle. Seriously.

8 ( +13 / -5 )

I think this is a clear argument for gun control. I don't buy the argument that its the person's fault not the weapon's so leave the gun control debate aside. No matter what country you are in or what nationality you are, there are going to be people who have anger management issues. Nobody aside from a few edge cases has any business carrying around a concealed weapon would it be a gun, knife or home made device made to explode. Okay there is likely no excuse for carrying the last one in that list.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

We didn't read about the grandmother in Louisiana who defended herself against a second robbery by the same intruder.

What's your point? You seem proud that a 16 year-old kid was killed. If the teenager wasn't able to get his hands on a shotgun to begin with, this would never have happened. Not to mention, if it was the 2nd time he robbed the lady, then obviously she wasn't shot the first time. Sure, after the kid is dead and gone its easy for them to tweak the story and make it sound like he went in there to murder the lady and her whole family.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

I would have preferred that the old man drag Oulson out of the theater by his ear, to be ejected by the management. The management is also at fault for failing to enforce the "no cellphone use" rule. That said, Reeves used far excessive force and should be deservedly punished.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

It seems this former officer forgot he was AT the movies, not IN a movie. Texting in the movies? Better feel lucky, punk.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

It's ironic that they went to see the movie called "Lone Survivor".

1 ( +2 / -1 )

So... don't text while in a movie theatre while the film's playing. That's surely the lesson here, no?

I wish people could just be civil. That is really missing these days. This shooting is just the latest in a long and growing string of absurdities. No civility. It's unfortunate, but in the mind of many American's, you no longer can go to the movie theatre with the thought of being safe. Maybe that's why the old coot was packing. Can you blame him?

Just ban the damn things and do more to stop people from texting in movie theatres. That is just boorish. Get out ya douche if you need to communicate with someone.

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

Apparently the victim had thrown popcorn at the shooter before being shot, and the shooter is considering a "stand your ground" defense. Ah, Florida - land of never-ending innovation!

Http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/stand-your-ground-may-be-an-issue-in-theater-shooting/2160937

1 ( +2 / -1 )

It seems like they were both being dicks. Its sad for their family members on each side. I guess its not unusual for a cop, even retired, to be carrying a gun around pretty much all the time. Is it true retired police have that right in any US state?

It will be interesting to see if he gets off, I mean its Florida after all, popcorn was thrown, the guy was younger, probably stronger so he could argue he felt in physical danger.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

In situations like these, the knee-jerk reaction is to blame the assailant with the gun and start complaining about how lax gun control is in the US. I'm all for reforms to gun control laws but it's important to take a deep breath and assess the situation since there's enough blame to go around to all parties.

State of Florida

Having some of the loosest gun laws in the US

Oulson (the shooting victim)

Texting in a theater Taunting and throwing objects, popcorn or otherwise, at Reeves. I'm no lawyer but does this not constitute assault?

Reeves (the shooter)

Escalating the situation to deadly force Reportedly an ex-SWAT team leader so should've gone for an incapacitating shot as opposed to a kill shot

Reeves should definitely go to jail and get life (or death) but Oulson was also asking for trouble. Sometimes, just swallow your pride and remove yourself from a situation. Oulson should've complied and done his texting outside.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

And the movie is and was Zimmerman 2--the sequel!

Grab some popcorn and enjoy the show folks (just don't throw it!). I predict the final scene will show the ex-cop will walk free into the sunset, much like Zimmerman 1 ended with the wanna be cop free.

Arguments like you should not have a gun in a theater (or on neighborhood watch) will be shuffled aside. The dead man's silence will be held against him. We will hear how the shooter feared for his life, and how the dead guy provoked him. The dead guy will say nothing.

Of course this might all hinge on just how articulate the dead guy's wife is. I sure hope she is not a minority.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

"If you find the world so stressful that you cannot bear to let a man text his daughter...you need to change your lifestyle. Seriously."

@Cleo. You're cute. The texting is not the issue; doing it in a movie theater after being asked to stop is. If he wanted to texthis daughter he could have gone into the lobby or---even better---visited his daughter. It's not that I need a lifestyle change it's that people like you and Oulson need to learn basic manners. Seriously.

-5 ( +5 / -10 )

The texting is not the issue; doing it in a movie theater after being asked to stop is.

No, shooting a person for absolutely no good reason that I can see seems to be the clear issue in this case.

11 ( +12 / -1 )

We can only hope that the judges are strict Constructionalists and will refer to what the Framing Fathers intended regarding the Second Amendment and the right to text during movie previews.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

I am a little incredulous about some of the comments about texting. I don't know how bright that glow was in the dark theater, but I doubt it was as bright as the sun. I doubt it was as noisy as a garbage truck.

If a person will not comply with your request to stop texting, maybe you should just find another seat? Especially if you are packing heat?

I have trouble seeing texting as so almighty rude. However, I can see how a person might respond to that in a very rude way. I don't think the texting was meant as provocation. But I can easily see the demand to stop texting as being provocative if not done just right.

And I don't know, maybe the shooter was as nice as could be when he asked. But somehow, I doubt it.

6 ( +7 / -0 )

@Slumdog. I agree that the retired officer was wrong and should be sentenced to a long jail term. But there is also a pretty good chance that if Oulson hadn't had acted like an ass the he would still be alive. I am not advocating violence and gun owership; I'm advocating an increase in common sense and manners. Main point; don't be a jerk because the person next to you may retailate. Is that so wrong?

2 ( +5 / -3 )

" I wish people could just be civil. That is really missing these days."

@meanringo, that part I absolutely agree. There's no excuse for Reeves' act, nor is there for Oulson's.

@cleo, Reeves wasn't "brandishing". I would definitely have a problem with anyone brandishing any weapon. Do you understand the difference between brandishing and concealed carry?

2 ( +3 / -1 )

There's no excuse for Reeves' act, nor is there for Oulson's.

That some would use parallel construction to describe the minor annoyance of a man texting the babysitter of his three-year old while sitting next to his wife as movie trailers play and the willful violence of a man shooting the former dead illustrates how impossible it is to reason with gun nuts.

7 ( +10 / -3 )

If the old ex-cop had stabbed the people, would you blame the knife? Or how about an attack with pressure cooker bombs, do you blame the pressure cooker?

As I mentioned earlier in the thread, a person can only shoot someone if they have a gun. If they don't have a gun, they cannot shoot someone.

Solution: Get rid of all guns Pros: No one gets shot anymore Cons: None.

A person can only stab someone if they have a knife. If they don't have a knife, they cannot stab someone.

Solution: Get rid of all knives Pros: No one gets stabbed anymore Cons: No one can ever eat food that requires cutting again.

A person can only blow up someone with a pressure cooker if they have a pressure cooker. If they don't have a pressure cooker, they cannot blow someone up with one.

Solution: Get rid of all pressure cookers Pros: No one gets blown up with a pressure cooker anymore Cons: No one can ever cook food with pressure cookers anymore.

Surely even the gun freaks can see the difference here. A gun serves no other purpose than to shoot. Of course some people will say 'but we can shoot for sport' - sure. But that's essentially just practice to shoot someone. There is no necessity for guns whatsoever. Whereas knives and pressure cookers do have other uses. An argument could be made for getting rid of pressure cookers - after all, there are other ways to cook food.

What it comes down to is that Americans are willing to let people get shot, for the love of their guns. They are willing to pay that price, to know that their baby could get shot at any given time, that their mothers could get shot at any given time, that their siblings could get shot at any given time, because they want to own guns.

Very few people in the world would be willing to get rid of knives, even knowing that their parents, siblings or children could be stabbed, because the price to pay of getting rid of knives would be too high. So it's basically a no-go.

And I'd say only Americans would be willing to give up pressure cookers to prevent them being used as bombs, because only Americans have been bombed by them. But if it keeps happening, its very possible that many people in the world will be willing to give them up.

Now back to guns vs. knives, because those are the only two items that really matter in this debate, shooting someone with a gun is somewhat impersonal. It can be done from a distance, and there is no direct contact. Stabbing someone on the other hand actively involves thrusting the knife into the person - if the other person doesn't take it away first. This is very personal, and most people will have a mental block against doing so.

So the whole comparison of guns to knives is a false equivalency. There is no good use for guns other than shooting and killing. There is good use for knives, and they are used by millions of people, responsibly, for a purpose other than killing, every single day.

But of course, the gun nuts will never admit that. They would rather try to say 'do you blame the gun', as if there was any logic in this argument whatsoever.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

He should die in prison for this, together with everyone thinking and reacting the same...

4 ( +4 / -0 )

. But there is also a pretty good chance that if Oulson hadn't had acted like an ass the he would still be alive. I am not advocating violence and gun owership; I'm advocating an increase in common sense and manners. Main point; don't be a jerk because the person next to you may retailate. Is that so wrong?

No, but shooting and killing someone is way worse than acting like an ass. Personally, I'm glad I live in a place where I won't be shot if I happen to act like an ass.

8 ( +8 / -0 )

I can understand it if the vicim had been talking but shooting him for texting seems a bit OTT.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

@Cleo. You're cute. The texting is not the issue; doing it in a movie theater after being asked to stop is. If he wanted to texthis daughter he could have gone into the lobby or---even better---visited his daughter. It's not that I need a lifestyle change it's that people like you and Oulson need to learn basic manners. Seriously.

Agreed. I don't know what Cleo was thinking. Basic manners seem to be on the wane these days. Most movies shown at the theater even have a little reminder before the main feature to turn off their cell phones. Probably because of all these electronic gadgets people are forgetting common courtesy.

-2 ( +5 / -7 )

" There is no necessity for guns whatsoever."

Start by taking them from all criminals, police, and soldiers first.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Future drivel is too predictable:

Florida State Representative Don Givasit says, "A smart phone must be used with responsibility. My office is investigating sensible restrictions on smart phone carrying and usage in public places to protect the citizenry." Asked about guns, the Representative commented, "Second Amendment. No comment."

4 ( +6 / -2 )

What kind of individual feels it's within his rights to KILL someone for texting and throwing popcorn? What sort of person walks around with a gun in their pocket? Who in their right mind would walk around with a concealed weapon in a democracy?

Okay, not all Americans are John Wayne, but to live in such a state of fear that they feel the need to carry around a device designed to kill. Thugs carry guns to protect themselves from citizens with guns, who carry guns to protect themselves from the thugs who carry guns. A never ending cycle of violence.

Fukushima is safer than America.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

Florida State Representative Don Givasit says, "A smart phone must be used with responsibility. My office is investigating sensible restrictions on smart phone carrying and usage in public places to protect the citizenry." Asked about guns, the Representative commented, "Second Amendment. No comment."

If someone had shown me this and told me it was from an article in the Onion, I would have believed it without a second thought.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

HCKpro: "I think if more terrible things happened to rude people who failed to see beyond themselves then we'd have a lot less rude people."

Yeah, because it's not rude at all to shoot and kill someone. Not so ironically, this ex-cop is going to have a whole lot of rude AND terrible things happen to him in prison, and much deserved.

slumdog: "If someone had shown me this and told me it was from an article in the Onion, I would have believed it without a second thought."

Extremely sad, isn't it? Sadder still is that people will support him for it.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Do you understand the difference between brandishing and concealed carry?

When he took the gun out, it went from being concealed to being brandished. There is no defense for Reeves' behaviour. None at all.

Extremely sad, isn't it? Sadder still is that people will support him for it.

Absolutely. I can't understand it.

7 ( +8 / -1 )

Isn't texting consider politer than talking on a cell phone? It was done during the movie but during the commercial, previews. I saw reports on CNN where the shooter once went after a woman and follow her all the way to the restroom in a texting incident. I don't get it, one or the other could have moved seats? It was a matinee, doubt that the theater was full. Sounds like machismo gone way out of control. The ex-cop acted like a gangbanger.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

@genjuro. Thanks!

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

genjuro: "Agreed. I don't know what Cleo was thinking. Basic manners seem to be on the wane these days. "

So you don't think murdering someone over a triviality is 'bad manners'?

1 ( +4 / -3 )

I can't believe some people are criticising and/or blaming the victim for texting. If the text was silent (as in not beeping with every keystroke) then what's the problem? Anger management issues AND a gun. Lock him up and throw away the key.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

"So you don't think murdering someone oveer a triviality is 'bad manners'?" @SmithinJapan. Cheap shot, Smith, and you know it. Genjuro and I (and a few others) have clearly stated the retired officer was wrong and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Our side point was this whole situation could have likely been avoided if Oulson had acted with a little more courtesy. But Oulson, like so many of the rude people that Genjuro and I were lamenting, probably saw an old man (the retired officer is in his seventies) and dismissed his request to stop texting. Instead of saying "I'm sorry. I didn't mean to disturb you," he exacerbated the situation. Was the officer wrong? Yes. Are guns a serious problem? Yes. Was Oulson rude and did it contribute to his murder? Yes. That's our point.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

@Laguna 04:31PM JST

Bravo!

@samwatters

The manners of Oulson, and indeed of his killer, are of little significance compared to the main point of this story, to wit: American gun culture is crazy and obscene, and laws and attitudes need to be changed.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

taiko666,

American gun culture is crazy and obscene, and laws and attitudes need to be changed.

Exactly.

Unfortunately it's not limited to a psychotic cop in a movie theatre.

I cannot forget that the U.S.A. slaughtered hundreds of thousands and destroyed billions of dollars of property because of outright lies by Cheney and Bush - and these guys, for some strange reason haven't been arrested yet.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

@taiko666. I agree with everything you said regarding US gun culture but your comments are out of context in relation to point I was making to Smith.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

" What sort of person walks around with a gun in their pocket? Who in their right mind would walk around with a concealed weapon in a democracy?"

How about Diane Feinstein? She fits both of your questions. Oh, sorry, but she thinks others shouldn't have the right.

Laguna, your parallel structure comment is drivel. My comment was that both were in the wrong, though at different levels.

For anti-gun nutjobs, what was it the Detroit Chief of Police said recently?

http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20140103/METRO01/301030038#ixzz2pM1lTFSe

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

samwatters: "@SmithinJapan. Cheap shot, Smith, and you know it."

But true all the same. You're taking an incident in which it is clear that gun laws in the US are utterly wrong and this story as an example of why, and then trying to blame it on the bad manners of people as a deflection of what this man did.

Sorry, but someone texting in a cinema does NOT deserve them being shot, and hearing people say, "Well, he was being rude!" or other such comments is quite frankly very sad, and quite literally a huge part of the problem.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

Start by taking them from all criminals, police, and soldiers first.

How about taking them from everyone all at the same time.

For anyone who thinks this wouldn't have been an issue if the guy hadn't texted and/or thrown popcorn, that's absolutely ridiculous. This wouldn't have been an issue if some crazy yahoo hadn't first carried a gun into a movie theater, then used it for the slightest of reasons. In civilized countries, this would have at worst ended up with a bloodied nose - and even that would have been an over-reaction.

This is like nuking a country because they told you that you were neanderthals for allowing your populace to arm itself.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

"But true all the same. You're taking an incident in which it is clear that gun laws in the US are utterly wrong and this story as an example of why, and then trying to blame it on the bad manners of people as a deflection of what this man did.

Sorry, but someone texting in a cinema does NOT deserve them being shot, and hearing people say, "Well, he was being rude!" or other such comments is quite frankly very sad, and quite literally a huge part of the problem."

@Smith. Your zeal for staunch gun control is clouding your reading skills. My original sentence "First I believe the retired officer deserves---and will get---a long prison sentence" is hardly a deflection of responsibility for the shooter. And I agree with you that gun laws need to change and that America has some serious gun issues. See, we agree! But to imply that I believe Oulson deserved to be shot for bad manners is just not true, bordering on hysteria. Your passion for anti-gun laws is leading you to attack people who are not your enemy. Genjuro and I were simply commiserating on the deterioration of basic good manners and that people who act rudely may be putting themselves in harm's way.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

" In civilized countries, this would have at worst ended up with a bloodied nose - and even that would have been an over-reaction."

Name one.

Taikoo666, There's this thing called the US CONSTITUTION, including the Bill Of Rights. Japan has a constitution as well. The US Founders established as clear procedure for amending the Constitution. Read up on it. When you can vote, cast your ballot.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

samwatters: "See, we agree! But to imply that I believe Oulson deserved to be shot for bad manners is just not true,"

I never said you said he deserved to be shot for what you consider 'bad manners', I was commenting on the fact that manners are even an issue when a person murdered someone.

"Genjuro and I were simply commiserating on the deterioration of basic good manners and that people who act rudely may be putting themselves in harm's way."

Exactly! Thanks for proving my point. One thing I always fine interesting is that people who talk about the second amendment (and I'm not saying you, sam) and "police state" or "nanny state" when you talk about the need to control weapons who literally kill thousands every year in the US, and many of them in simple altercations like this, talk about the necessity of manners when using a cell phone. I think the quotation slumdog posted above says it best, so I will repost:

"Florida State Representative Don Givasit says, "A smart phone must be used with responsibility. My office is investigating sensible restrictions on smart phone carrying and usage in public places to protect the citizenry." Asked about guns, the Representative commented, "Second Amendment. No comment.""

The mentality of far, far too many Americans, and why we'll read about this again tomorrow.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

" What sort of person walks around with a gun in their pocket? Who in their right mind would walk around with a concealed weapon in a democracy?" How about Diane Feinstein? She fits both of your questions. Oh, sorry, but she thinks others shouldn't have the right.

Well, there's the ideal, and the reality right. She lives in a country full of armed gun nuts. As much as the whole concept is ridiculous, for someone living there, carrying a gun does make sense. But at least she's working towards the ideal - fixing the broken mentality that thinks its a good idea to have the populace armed.

" In civilized countries, this would have at worst ended up with a bloodied nose - and even that would have been an over-reaction." Name one.

Pick one. Civilized countries don't let their populace arm themselves. So movie theater shootings don't happen.

Taikoo666, There's this thing called the US CONSTITUTION, including the Bill Of Rights.

Have you ever actually read the 2nd amendment? It's so archaic as to be nearly intelligible, so people have twisted to somehow mean that people should be allowed to shoot kids in the face.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Most movies shown at the theater even have a little reminder before the main feature to turn off their cell phones.

Pity those reminders don't remind folk that the penalty for texting is summary execution.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

Absolute wreck of a country. I remember Noliving claiming before that guns were essential in the US, because it's a 'culture of a violence'. If it really is a culture of violence, then isn't having such easy access to these lethal weapons gravely stupid and insane?

2 ( +3 / -1 )

On a positive note, at least the now-orphaned three-year old girl has learned a valuable lesson: Don't be annoying, or you may be shot dead like your daddy was. It's kind of like Peter Rabbit.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

“He must have just snapped,” neighbor Joe D’Andrea said of Reeves, describing him as friendly, “stand-up” guy. “I’m trying to put all of this together.”

Guns don't kill people, crazy people with guns do.

I am so bloody glad I live in Japan.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Anyone that argues that guns have a place in society to protect themselves or to prevent crime, is deep down someone who wants to use that gun to go into a forest and shoot squirrels. Not to kill, but to see them suffer.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

I am wondering these 3 things, maybe I have been out of touch with society but-

Since when do 3-year old kids know how to text?

Have movie theaters started allowing people to leave the complex and allow them to come back in?

Are movie theater seats reserved in the U.S.? It would have been easier for one of the 2 to change their seat. Every time I go to the theater when I return, I just grab any seat.
1 ( +1 / -0 )

I'm in total favor of the ban of popcorn. What was the movie ? Another story with cops that shoot around then say "oops" ?

3 ( +3 / -0 )

I'm a lifetime member of the NRA and a gun owner who supports our 2nd amendment and conceal/carry laws (I never leave home without my glock), but I don't support this veteran cop who should have known better than anyone how to diffuse this situation.

RR

-1 ( +3 / -5 )

Since when do 3-year old kids know how to text?

You think too straight-forwardly. Judging by other comments, he was texting the baby sitter, who relayed messages between father and daughter. Shorthand--he was texting with his daughter.

Have movie theaters started allowing people to leave the complex and allow them to come back in?

I don't know who you think left the complex. My understanding is that the old man left the viewing room, went to alert theater employees in the lobby, and went back to the room. He no doubt had a ticket stub to prove he belonged there in any case.

Are movie theater seats reserved in the U.S.?

I think it depends on the theater. Either way, the old man could have asked to exchange seats with the texter.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Remember Reeves is in Florida, which law allows people in fear of serious injury to use deadly force to defend themselves rather than retreat. The goverment needs to review this law.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

In all fairness, I think a lot of Americans are heartily sick of firearm related violence and want reform. (Looking at various online forums, and speaking with friends, this certainly seems to be the case) Also, as the laws vary according to the state, it is a bit unfair to label the whole country as "gun nuts".

But as far as "gun nuts" and the guns themselves go, there's way too many. Don't understand why anybody needs one just to go outside, and think carrying one wherever they go is perfectly normal. Maybe somebody who lives in the woods where there's critters who will eat you is understandable.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Hey! I gots me an idea for our gun loving folk down there in the sunny state of FLORIDA, how about METAL DETECTORS at every entrance to any public place, restaurants, Disney World, them movie theaters etc...and if you LOVE your gun that much, you and your gun can stay the hell out of places like Disney World, them movie theaters (cinemas for our friends from the old continent) and maybe just maybe if we had more security on the ground like the TSA style before boarding airplanes etc...maybe we could avoid old messed up in the head geezer like this shooting some rude dude in the chest dead, while the poor dude's wife tried to stop the bullets with her bare hands. This is just so sickening, so stupid and sorry folks it is not ONLY in the USA, try Cambodia, South Africa, Iraq and they are also quite close or worse, right?? I can not wait to hear what all of the NRA dorks have to say about this. RIP rude texting dude down in Florida.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

" There is no defense for Reeves' behaviour. None at all."

Slumdog, absolutely agree! The use of a gun is only as a last resort. Reeves, as a retired Police captain, has the least excuse, and as such should feel the full weight of the law. He certainly hasn't shown any remorse.

@strangerland, I'm very well acquainted with the Articles and Amendments of the Constitution. Whether you feel it's archaic is completely irrelevant; IT'S THE LAW OF THE LAND.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

The amount of victim blaming in this thread is absolutely mental. My mind is boggled by the number of people who seem to think that Oulson was somehow deserving of being fatally shot for the heinous crime of being rude.

it is high time that rude people learn that we all live in a stressful world and acting like a jerk can get you rebuked, punished or killed.

While I agree that Oulson's actions were immature, they in NO WAY justify being gunned down, and this goes for any other perceived slight or act of rudeness. People who talk on their phones, cut you off in traffic, or ignore you should NOT have to fear being ''punished or killed'' for their actions. Rebuked, yes, by all means, call them out on their rudeness. But if they start to escalate the situation, you act like an adult and you walk away and remove yourself from the situation. Reeves could have easily changed seats or even asked for a refund/tickets for a different showing. Violence is not an acceptable answer to being rude.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

@strangerland, I'm very well acquainted with the Articles and Amendments of the Constitution. Whether you feel it's archaic is completely irrelevant; IT'S THE LAW OF THE LAND.

I didn't say the constitution was archaic, I said the language used in it was.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Somehow the gun nuts have twisted this to mean that people should be able to keep and bear any arms, at any time, anywhere. None of this was mentioned in the amendment. It could be interpreted that people should be able to keep arms at home, and bear them at home. This would not be infringing upon their right - they would still be able to arm themselves. It would just place reasonable limitations on that.

Of course, no gun nut would ever agree that this is a valid interpretation. But any civilised person would.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

@AngieStars. SInce reading comprehension does not appear to be your strength (fear not; you're not alone on this thread) and you directly signaled me out let again make a few points.

1.) Oulson did not deserve to be shot.

2.) The retired police officer deserves---and will likely get----a long prison sentence. If any person should have been able to defuse a situation like that it should have been a retired law enforcement officer. I think RomeoRII made that sound point.

3.) Oulson most likely could have avoided being shot if he had not been incredibly rude (throwing popcorn, etc.). This, again, does not mean that Oulson deserved to be shot---just that he could have avoided it. For example, I grew up in the Detroit area and there were places you just didn't go into after dark. Sometime, despite being warned, someone would and would wind up in the hospital or morgue. Did that person deserve to be hurt or killed? Nope. But it could have been avoided. Here's another analogy using scuba diving and spearfishing. Person goes into the ocean to shoot fish with a speargun. The fish bleeds. Sharks come. Sharks eat the fish until there is no more fish and then bites the person. Did the diver derserve to be bitten? No but it could have been avoided. That's my reoccuring theme; it could have been avoided.

Are we OK so far?

Now, some people have written that "a lack of manners" has no place in a discussion concerning a homocide. I have come to see that they are right. What I should have written was "a lack of common sense." It is common knowledge that the US has one of the highest gun ownership-to-citizen ratios in the world. It is also common knowledge that large swarths of the US population range from mentally unstable to downright psychotic (Proof: US consistently ranks 3rd just behind South Korea and Japan in suicides and approximately 30% of US citizens use some sort of personality-altering drugs and/or medication). You combine these two (easy gun access and general mental instability in case your attention has wandered) and you have a deadly combination. If, after being asked to stop texting, Oulson had taken a second and thought, "Wow, I am being rude and this guy might be packing, maybe I should just say 'sorry'," he would still be around. He didn't deserve to be shot but he could have avoided it.

Now, gun control. I have come to believe that the only people more hysterical than gun nuts are the supporters of gun control. This thread is proof positive you cannot have a reasonable discussion with any Pro-gun control supporters (Cleo, SmithInJapapn both come to mind) when dicussing firearms-vs- human decisions. Reread the thread and take note of the inaccuracies bordering on slander and the hysteria ("...the penalty for texting is summary execution." Are you serious, Cleo?). Now I understand how passionate you are about gun control---how could you miss it!--- and I agree with you which I why I have chosen to live in Japan. But read carefully......

.....gun control is not going to happen in the US. It is in their constitution and if you want to change that you are going to have to endure a long and difficult legal/political process. JeanValJean was right. Now I like America but I don't like its "Winner-take-all" mentality nor the gun culture which is why I live here in Japan. As written before I grew up in the Detroit area and have seen first hand what guns do not only to their victims but to their owners. Put a gun in the hands of a regular guy and his aggression seems to increase three-fold (and a sincere apology to responsible gun owners who do not derive this pleasure from their legally purchased firearms). I love being able to walk around Japan at night and not have to worry about being shot. But despite that, I know gun control is not coming to the US anytime soon. I also know that person sitting next to me on the bus or in the movie theater or standing next to me in line maybe a nutjob or packing (or God forbid both) and a mixture of common sense and good manners might help me avoid an unpleasant situation.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

take note of the inaccuracies bordering on slander and the hysteria ("...the penalty for texting is summary execution." Are you serious, Cleo?)

Deadly serious. He texted where he shouldn't. A nutter following his gawd-gibbon constitutional rights took it on himself to shoot him dead for his misdemeanour, without benefit of trial or his due day in court. If that isn't summary execution, I don't know what is. Especially when we have folk coming on here and tutting, 'Well he shouldn't have been rude, serves him right, that'll teach him and others like him.' Unbelievable.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

@cleo. Could you list the people who tutted "serves him right"? I haven't seen a single person who said that Oulson deserved what happened to him. Be careful; I'm just about to prove the hysteria I claimed infects the very Pro-gun control whose views I more-or-less support.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Could you list the people who tutted "serves him right"?

samwatters - it is high time that rude people learn that we all live in a stressful world and acting like a jerk can get you rebuked, punished or killed. If you need to text your daughter, leave the movie theater. Oulson was asked to stop and didn't and now one less rude person will burden use with his presece....there is also a pretty good chance that if Oulson hadn't had acted like an ass the he would still be alive.......this whole situation could have likely been avoided if Oulson had acted with a little more courtesy.....Was Oulson rude and did it contribute to his murder? Yes...people who act rudely may be putting themselves in harm's way.

kickboard - you're asking for trouble if you act like that. Oulson was in the wrong

HCKpro - if more terrible things happened to rude people who failed to see beyond themselves then we'd have a lot less rude people.

the_sheriff - does this not constitute assault?....Oulson was also asking for trouble

MeanRingo - So... don't text while in a movie theatre while the film's playing. That's surely the lesson here, no? I wish people could just be civil. That is really missing these days. This shooting is just the latest in a long and growing string of absurdities. No civility. .... Maybe that's why the old coot was packing. Can you blame him? Get out ya douche if you need to communicate with someone.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

@Cleo.

Samwatters: First, I think the retired cop desreves---and will get---a long prison term. (This is repeated many times in various posts of mine.)

Kickboard: I definitely do not condone bringing a gun into a theater, let alone firing it, but this Oulson guy sounds like quite a dickhead. According to another article, when Reeves came back to his seat Oulson taunted him by asking him things like, "oh, did you go tell on me?"** Reeves asked him again to stop texting but he didn't and instead threw popcorn at him. THAT DOESN'T WARRANT VIOLENCE but you're asking for trouble if you act like that. Oulson was in the wrong (using his phone in the theater) so he should have simply apologized. (Sounds like Kickboard doesn't support bringing a gun into the theater. He also says that the violence wasn't warranted.)

HCKpro: If more terrible things happened to rude poeple whofailed to see beyound themselves then we'd have a lot less rude people. (Again, doesn't say Oulson deserved it but I will grant you that it's not condeming the shooter, either).

Mean Ringo: I wish people could just be civil. That is really missing these days. This shooting is just the latest in a long and growing string of absurdities. No civility. It's unfortunate, but in the mind of many American's, you no longer can go to the movie theatre with the thought of being safe. Maybe that's why the old coot was packing. Can you blame him? (Sounds like Mean Ringo is also against the shooting. And look! He even calls the shooter an old coot. Nothing against Oulson.)

The Sheriff: Reeves should definitely go to jail and get life (or death) but Oulson was also asking for trouble. Sometimes, just swallow your pride and remove yourself from a situation. Oulson should've complied and done his texting outside. (Here again the shooter is deemed to be in the wrong.)

And, Cleo, you do an ingenius job of picking only the words and phrases that suit your stance but none of these people listed above have supported the shooter. Now if, as you claim, we blamed Oulson for getting shot wouldn't we be supportng the shooter? Woiuldn't we be claiming self-defense? But no one has. Yes, Oulson could have avoided this but he did not deserve it. There is a difference. Like the examples I gave to AngieStars (I know you read it because you responded to it) these people did not deserve to be hurt but the contributed to their demise through a lack of common sense and/or manners. Pointing that out is different from saying "Oulson deserved to die."

2 ( +2 / -0 )

so Oulson should have shot Reeves as a preemptive strike so not to get shot. Since Reeves was packing then that would be all the proof needed for self defense. This would be the argument pro-gun nutters would need to use if everyone was walking around with guns in their pockets. Now I ask everyone here what would have happened in Japan in the same situation? Which do you prefer? How would you change things?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

if, as you claim, we blamed Oulson for getting shot wouldn't we be supportng the shooter? Woiuldn't we be claiming self-defense?

No, because in the real world it's impossible to claim self-defence when it's popcorn vs a gun. The shooter had no reason at all to consider himself so much in danger that he needed to pull a gun.

the(y) contributed to their demise through a lack of common sense and/or manners. Pointing that out is different from saying "Oulson deserved to die."

Not really. 'If he hadn't done A then B wouldn't have happened' is the same as saying 'He got B because he did A', ie he got his just desserts.

There in nothing, nothing at all, a person can do in a cinema with a cell phone and a bag or popcorn that warrants anyone responding with a gun. Nothing.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

@Cleo.

"...it is impossible to claim self-defence when it's popcorn..."But Cleo, the shooter didn't know it was popcorn and the shooter didn't know if it was going to escalate. Also there is the shooter's age (71) versus the relatively youth of the victim (43). But none of those justify the shooting. So I do believe the shooter acted in self defence? No I do not. Neither do the other posters you accused of doing so. Your accusations were incorrect.

"If he hadn't done A then B....he got his just desserts." I don't think like that and neither does anyone I know and I doubt you do either. "Contributing to~" and "deserving of~" are different as anyone with critical thinking skills will tell you. Again, see the examples to Angie for further explanation.

"There is nothing at all a person can do in a cinema with a cell phone and a bag of popcorn that warrant anyone responding with a gun. Nothing." Hey, Cleo, we agree! That's why I've been advocating a long jail sentence since yesterday!

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Guns don't kill people. Retired police captains with guns kill people.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

This ex-cop doesn't even feel bad that he just killed someone just for throwing popcorn. He right away makes an excuse for himself to kill. I don't believe in the right to arms and I don't think the people should have the right to kill. Human life doesn't seem to have a lot of value after a while. They shot someone dead. They made excuses for their kill and they moved on like they just killed a fly.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

This guy is a ex-cop he will not go to jail. In florida they have the stand your ground law, this guy said he was struck with an unknown object and then POP CORN and the ex- COP fired. Here we go again!! He belongs to the police union retired cop he will get off because he will say he was threatened based on his training alone Reeves’ personnel files from the police department show he led other agencies in gun safety training and received numerous letters of commendation for his leadership. Watch his attorneys flip this information to be that of a person who knows about hand guns to be very non threatening. Just two days ago to cops in Fullerton California beat a homeless man to death because he was sitting on the curb they asked him to leave he took his time words was exchanged they beat him to death. The total incident was captured by many people on video and cell phones and would you believe 12 stupid jurors said the cops were not in the wrong the homeless man can never go back on the streets but those bastard cops can!!

2 ( +2 / -0 )

There are some who say I am a Japan "hater" but thats unrealistic. Im a realist, and call it as I see it. This part about the U.S., is well, messed up to put it nicely. Japan has the U.S. beat on this issue but I dont kid myself; I think if guns were legal in Japan, we would of course see the same statistics, after all there are 30000 suicides a year in Japan and I have seen plenty of violence due to stress, inequality etc. Something went wrong in the U.S. about 15 years ago. People always have had guns, but there was a social restraint and feelings of guilt, responsibility and a genuine respect for life (Christian values?) etc that came with gun ownership. The occasional loon would go biserk, but it wasnt the norm. This isnt a gun control problem, its a society problem, but the cat is out of the bag, so gun control is the only option now.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

@samwatters Could you please refrain from using that condescending tone with me? It is a distraction from what you are trying to communicate. Thank you.

I have an issue with your scuba analogy. Naturally, its expected of an animal to bite a human in those circumstances you described, but the difference is that both Oulson and Reeves are both human beings with higher intelligence. I would like to think that as evolved beings, we have moved beyond such animal instincts as lashing out quickly at any percieved threat (with deadly force, in this case). Just as you say that Oulson could have avoid being shot by not acting the way he did, I will argue that Reeves could have avoided shooting him by walking away from Oulson's taunts. It's not as though he had been backed in to a corner and left with using his gun as a last resort.

While we all agree that Reeves was in the wrong by drawing his weapon and firing on Reeves, and are advocating for Reeves' imprisonment, the addage that Oulson was somehow ''asking for it'' is where the knee-jerk reaction comes in. Because no matter how much you think Reeves was wrong, adding that puts some blame on Oulson for his own murder. It's the same line of problematic thinking that blames victims of rape or abuse (ex: ''It's wrong that they were raped, and their rapist should go to prison, but did you see what they were wearing? Totally asking for it.''). Those of us who take issue with statements like that are advocating for a world where there is no complacency (''It can't be helped. Just avoid x.'') towards violence, and where victims are not blamed for the actions of their attackers. Oulson was wrong for harassing and throwing things at Reeves. Full Stop. Reeves shooting Oulson was wrong. Full stop. No ifs, ands, or buts. It's a sad reality that we have to be so overly cautious that everyone else is out to get us, but I disagree that we should just shrug and say that every victim of violent crime should have just ''known better.''

0 ( +2 / -2 )

The image of a tiny three year old girl who will never see her Daddy again is the only outcome everyone can agree on in this pointless murder.

The image of an old man slaying an unarmed father and husband by shooting nearly point blank through his wife's hand with intent to kill is also an undeniable fact.

The reality is clear. During movie previews, in a darkened theater, a 71 year old retired police captain murdered a husband and father for texting to his tiny three year old baby girl.

Apparently, the Second Amendment requires these undeniable facts and strangely any restriction is a breach of the Constitution. That line of reasoning is so blatantly flawed it requires slaughter over sanity.

Is that what the Constitution demands?

If that's freedom, that's also death. Is that also what the Second Amendment was written to define? Some may think so and most of them are dictating law to the legislatures of the United States through the NRA.

Funny how that doesn't sound like freedom. Still many claim there is no compromise, no research and no education necessary to stop America's gun slaughter mania. Most of those are making billions on blood and claim the moral high ground based on a deliberate and flawed interpretation of both the Constitution and the intention of the Second Amendment.

According to that flawed reasoning a tiny three year old baby girl will never see her Daddy again and there's nothing any American can do about it.

Maybe too many are making too much money from gun slaughter? Maybe that's why what passed for "reason" on December 15, 1791 cannot be changed and that is why gun slaughter must be embraced.

Like a commandment from God, nothing that made sense in some limited context 222 years ago can be changed.

What an ugly way to justify making billions on dead parents and children. What an ugly way to justify the slaughter of a husband and father and the maiming of his wife in a darken theater over a texting beef. But, that's what a retired police captain did and that is what some are aching to justify. And that is disgusting.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

somehow 'asking for it' is where the knee-jerk reaction comes in." I can't find any post with that sentence. Kickboard wrote,"...asking for trouble..." which is not remotely the same as "deserving to get shot." "Asking for trouble," "looking for trouble," and "playing with fire" are among colloquial phrases that are used as warning to proceed with caution. They do not in any way, shape or form assign blame. Others have and probably will again argue that this means about the same thing but it doesn't. Ironically, Kickboard also wrote before "asking for trouble" that being rude "doesn't justify violence." Now, if you are in fact using Kickboard's statement as proof that we advocated the belief that Oulson deserved to get shot and you failed to add the "doesn't justify violence" clause, then that suggests some intellectual dishonesty on your part. If this is the case, you are not alone. Yesterday Cleo tried to cherry-pick phrases and words from various posters to prove the same point and I called her on it. Furthermore, as I wrote to Cleo, if Kickboard or I or anyone else blamed Oulson for getting shot we would logically want to defend Reeves. I haven't, Kickboard hasn't and I can't find anyone who has.

Now here is another statement of yours that highlights everything I said in the previous paragraph.

"...but I disagree that we should just shrug and say that every victim of violent crime should have just 'known better.'" Who wrote that Angie? DId anyone write that or was than just an emotional outburst?

And why does all of this examination of words and meanings matter? Because if we really want to get the bottom of gun violence in the US, the pro-gun control group (which I support) needs to stop acting hysterically, and stop referring to every person who shoots someone as a "gun nut" (side question: if Reeves is found not guilty will you refer to the judge and jury members as "gun nuts" too?) and stop the intellectual dishonesty that makes gun control discussion nearly impossible.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

stop referring to every person who shoots someone as a "gun nut"

Erm, but they are.....

(side question: if Reeves is found not guilty will you refer to the judge and jury members as "gun nuts" too?)

Maybe not 'gun nuts' but a judge and jury that found the shooter not guilty in the case of a gun against a bag of popcorn would quite definitely be a group of people not firing on all cylinders. Not quite Rodney Peairs all over again, but not far off.

"If he hadn't done A then B....he got his just desserts." I don't think like that and neither does anyone I know

Pity you write like that, then. I accept that you didn't mean to say that Oulson got what he deserved. But as AngieStars wrote, the ifs, ands, or buts do nothing but distract and suggest that you think maybe the victim was at least partly to blame.

the shooter didn't know it was popcorn and the shooter didn't know if it was going to escalate. Also there is the shooter's age (71) versus the relatively youth of the victim (43). But none of those justify the shooting.

Then why bother throwing them into the discussion?

What it boils down to is that if the shooter had not been carrying a gun, no one would have gotten shot, or had their hand blown off, or become an orphan at the age of three. End of. How pointing that out amounts to slander or hysteria beats me. It's the plain truth.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

@Angie. The first half of my post was somehow cut off during the submitting process. That is the reason for my previous post beginning with ..."somehow 'asking for it'....." I'll start again.

First, I will refrain from using a condescending tone if you refrain from referring to me and possibly others as "mental" for advocating views we did not promote. Fair enough?

Now, we both believe that Reeves was wrong to shoot Oulson and he will not face trial for his actions. No problem there.

Next you imply that I and possibly others are blaming the victim and that "somehow 'asking for it' is where the knee-jerk reaction comes in." I can't find any post with that sentence. Kickboard wrote,"...asking for trouble..." which is not remotely the same as "deserving to get shot." "Asking for trouble," "looking for trouble," and "playing with fire" are among colloquial phrases that are used as warning to proceed with caution. They do not in any way, shape or form assign blame. Others have and probably will again argue that this means about the same thing but it doesn't. Ironically, Kickboard also wrote before "asking for trouble" that being rude "doesn't justify violence." Now, if you are in fact using Kickboard's statement as proof that we advocated the belief that Oulson deserved to get shot and you failed to add the "doesn't justify violence" clause, then that suggests some intellectual dishonesty on your part. If this is the case, you are not alone. Yesterday Cleo tried to cherry-pick phrases and words from various posters to prove the same point and I called her on it. Furthermore, as I wrote to Cleo, if Kickboard or I or anyone else blamed Oulson for getting shot we would logically want to defend Reeves. I haven't, Kickboard hasn't and I can't find anyone who has.

Now here is another statement of yours that highlights everything I said in the previous paragraph.

"...but I disagree that we should just shrug and say that every victim of violent crime should have just 'known better.'" Who wrote that Angie? DId anyone write really that or was than just an emotional outburst?

And why does all of this examination of words and meanings matter? Because if we really want to get the bottom of gun violence in the US, the pro-gun control group (which I support) needs to stop acting hysterically, and stop referring to every person who shoots someone as a "gun nut" (side question: if Reeves is found not guilty will you refer to the judge and jury members as "gun nuts" too?) and stop the intellectual dishonesty that makes gun control discussion nearly impossible.

@Cleo. Your stance that anyone who shoots another person is a "gun nut" says all we need to know about your stance. As JeanValJean and others have noted there are legitimate cases of guns being used for self-defense that the media does not print. Not that you care but there are those who really would like to have a fair discussion on this issue and simply dismissing the proponents of gun ownership and their concerns only makes this process more difficult.

"Pity you write like that, then..." My writing is fine. Your reading skills need work.

"Then why bother throwing them into the discussion?" Because it addes weight to what I have been writing for two days; that I and likely others did not and do not believe the shooting was justified (as you have intellectually dishonestly posted).

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

The scary thing is this guy has tried to use the stand your ground law once already, and may try again in court. Over 70 of those that used the stand your group law win their cases, provided that they are white, and Ironically most of those that do have criminal records. Being a framer cop, I would say would unfortunately increase his chances of winning. so far he has shown absolutely no sorrow for what he has done. Gee pop corns now considered a deadly weapon? We live in a weird world especially here in the United States and especially in the state of Florida. By the way the governor and the Republican Party of the state of Florida refuses even to consider even minor changes in the law. Being able to literally get away with murder is good for gun sales, especially semi and full automatic gun sales

6 ( +6 / -0 )

Your stance that anyone who shoots another person is a "gun nut" says all we need to know about your stance.

I don't think it could be any clearer, thank you. No one needs to walk around carrying a gun. Only a fool keeps a loaded gun at home where kids (or a burglar) can get hold of it, while a properly locked-away, unloaded gun is of no use against a sudden intruder. Only a person who is crazy enough to think they could pull the trigger considers buying a gun in the first place.

there are legitimate cases of guns being used for self-defense

Like the Hattori Yoshi case?

simply dismissing the proponents of gun ownership and their concerns only makes this process more difficult

Sorry, but I've engaged in umpteen discussions with the proponents of gun ownership, and their 'concerns' hold no water. I have never heard a single argument in favour of guns in the general populace that makes any sense when weighed against public safety and the right of ordinary citizens to be safe in their own persons. Being able to visit the wrong house, or text in a cinema, or even throw popcorn, without getting shot to death, are surely rights that supercede the rights of squirrel-killers and paranoids who cannot sleep without a loaded gun under the pillow.

7 ( +8 / -1 )

@Cleo. Well thank you then for the discussion. And yes the Hattori Yoshi case was a both a terrible tragedy and crime but that sad case does not erase the fact that there are legitimate cases of self defense out there. Your smug self-certainty and refusal to acknowledge that the other side might have some legitimate concerns along with your willingness to engage in intellecutal dishonesty to forward your beliefs though does make progress in gun control less likely. Cheers.

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

Right. While my use of quotes was incorrect, it seems like many people believe that if Oulson knew better than to verbally harass and then assault Reeves with his bag of popcorn, he'd still be alive. But the thought of being shot as a result of immature acts like that is the last thing to cross my mind, and Oulson probably did not expect someone to shoot him over something minor. Maybe, ''This guy might deck me'' but not ''This guy might shoot me.'' That seems like a big leap in expectations, even if you are provoking someone. (However, this disagreement may be a result of our different life experiences, which is entirely understandable)

While we're examining words...

if you refrain from referring to me and possibly others as "mental" for advocating views we did not promote.

Except the part where I said that the amount of victim blaming that was going on was mental, not the people themselves doing it. I go in to these threads expecting a bit of victim blaming in the comments, but was surprised by the amount of ''Oulson was asking for trouble'' related comments. But upon re-reading the thread today, I realized I was exaggerating.

will you refer to the judge and jury members as "gun nuts" too?

I'm not sure where you got the idea that I've used that term during the discussion, (Pretty sure I never mentioned gun control, at all) unless you're referring to a general ''you'' towards the other commenters, and not me specifically? But then you mention Cleo specifically later, so...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

yes the Hattori Yoshi case was a both a terrible tragedy and crime

Officially, it wasn't even a crime. The bloke with the gun got off scot-free and was declared not guilty for shooting an unarmed, slightly-built, smiling teenager in the chest at point-blank range. Surely everyone involved in that decision, both judge and jury as well as those who write the laws, can be safely judged to be nutters.

there are legitimate cases of self defense out there

I may be wrong, but I imagine you're referring to cases where some householder shoots an armed intruder? But with proper, and properly-enforced, gun laws, there would be so few armed intruders no one would need to defend themselves with a gun.

I can afford to be smug, I suppose, because I grew up in a society where I didn't need to worry about someone shooting me either by accident, or for some perceived 'threat', or because they'd gone postal, and I live in another society where the same holds true. There are times when smug is good. Get rid of all the guns and America can be infuriatingly smug, too. :-)

5 ( +6 / -1 )

@Angie. You're correct, the "gun nut" quote was not directed at you. I haven't read that term in your posts so I apologize for any misunderstanding. And thank you for acknolwedging that you did exagerrate (and I would still like to know where the "but I disagree that we should just shrug and say that every victim of violent crime should have just ''known better"" quote came from). My purpose is not to attack but to discuss to better understand an important and complex problem. Hysteria and intellectual dishonesty, intentional or accidental, gets in the way of that.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

actually the focus here should not be on the gun culture- as this is a special case- a retired police captain. this man is almost next to god.

there is already a spin on this - the recommendations, the gun safety, next will come comments about how unstable the victim was.

this is a police shooting in the US- whether retired or not- the police do not want him in prison. i am doubting it will come to that.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

The USA is a rough place, we can point at Chicago etc...but that is only the tip of the iceberg. Do I wish we did not have all of these guns in the USA?? Sure do but the USA was built on violence and....hence this is the karma of the USA, but hey folks the USA is still a very, very young country, only 1776, right?? So we have more than enough time to live and try to learn from our stupid, from our mistakes like letting any Tom, Dick and Harry have a gun, take them to StarBucks, to the movie theaters, churches etc..and allowing people to shoot each other up like if they were in some kind of god awful video game, but these pain, the blood is all too real. Do hope this 71 year old idiot fool has a real fun time with Bubba and Jerome behind bars!

1 ( +1 / -0 )

@Cleo. I agree with everything you wrote about the Hattori case. That was an example of the US at its worst. I don't know where you grew up but if my native US, specifically the state of Michigan was as safe as you say your hometown is, I would probably be a bit smugber myself! I hope one day you have an opportunity to share why your hometown is safe with an advisory board or discussion panel because the US has a serious gun problem and needs all the help it can get. I was recently asked to present the concept of the Japanese koban system to some officers in Detroit and while we all agreed it's not feasible now it did lead to some other ideas.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

@Samwatt, the USA does not only have a big problem with guns, you mix this all up with some idiot fools on drugs (cocaine, speed, etc...) and they happen to have guns on them?? I guess we can all get the big picture. Guns do kill people, and idiot fools on drugs, alcohol or all of the above?? Yup! They will only be more looney and end up killing more and more people, laughing about it, posting it up on YouTube etc..and go back to selling drugs, using the drugs themselves, etc..many times gun violence, poverty, drugs all come in the same package, right?? You mentioned Detroit, Michigan?? Should we have to explain anymore?? My guess Detroit, Chicago etc..some up what can go wrong in the USA but we usually try to ignore it but when 2 "regular" white dudes end up killing each other?? at a movie theater in a "nice part of town" then all of the US mass media goes hay wire, so I see a bit discrimination but that is our USA, right??

1 ( +1 / -0 )

That is not a bullet resistant vest that is a suicide smock, henceforth why he has no clothing on under it. This comes from previous knowledge as a detention center officer.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

I hope one day you have an opportunity to share why your hometown is safe with an advisory board or discussion panel because the US has a serious gun problem and needs all the help it can get.

It looks like you already know why some places are way safer than the US. Guns, or rather, the absence of them.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

...as Adam Carolla says, 'Florida or Germany?'....meanwhile, more Chinese 'netizens' are secretly watching AKB live DVDs and eyes a way to somehow connect gun control issues to their stupid, short selves.

The Yanks and their guns, nothing like the good ol' matinee to bust a cap' with a senile old John Wayne/Charles Bronson complex.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

@ElbudaMexicano. I sure agree with you that a large part of the culture worships violence. Wish it weren't so....

"It looks like you already know why some places are way safer than the US. Guns, or rather, the absence of them." @Cleo. But your country seems to have not only an absence of guns but also a culture that deems them not necessary. I think both are equally important. A lot US citizens have guns because they make them feel safe. What can be done to make gun owners feel safe without needing a gun? I believe if we could answer that question we could solve the gun problem to everyones' benefit.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

there are legitimate cases of self defense out there.

How many cases where a gun was used in self-defense could have been taken care of with a stun gun or pepper spray? How many required a gun simply because the other guy had a gun, simply because guns are everywhere in America.?

In how many cases was a gun used fatally simply on the possibility that the other guy had a gun, a very real possibility since any fool can get a gun in America?

While I am not suggesting a ban on guns, doing all that can be done short of that to remove guns from random situations saves lives. America desperately needs uniform and strict licensing and registration rules on firearms. Given the behavior of the ancient ex-cop, I doubt he would have passed a yearly licensing test on whether he was fit to carry a concealed weapon, and if he failed that test plus a test of fitness to have a gun at all, his gun(s) could have been confiscated and the texter would most likely still be alive, and a little girl would still have her father.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

America circling the drain a little faster

3 ( +3 / -0 )

@DeDude:" Since when do 3-year old kids know how to text?

Remind you, when you were 2 years old you began how to read and write/ Nowa-days, any children who can read and write can text easily. They can teach old out-of-dated people on iPad and iPhone how to use. Many of them are quite good with games on iPad, too.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

samwatters: "@Cleo. But your country seems to have not only an absence of guns but also a culture that deems them not necessary."

Once again you completely miss the point. Why are they deemed necessary? To defend against other gun nuts. And that's what they are, nuts.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

"Once again you completely miss the point....."

@Smithinjapan. There are people (I am not one of them) who truly believe they need firearms for survival and some of those claims have various degrees of legitimacy. To dismiss all people who have guns as nuts is demeaning and alienating and does not move US society any closer to a workable solution which is what some of us want and if Cleo or anyone else has an idea on how to do that, then I think it should be heard. But that's just me.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

The 2nd Amendment which states that, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", was made in 1791!!

Hasn't the US evolved and developed enough in the past 223 years so that these weapons aren't needed anymore? If not, why not?

Surely it's time to grow up a bit and amend the 2nd Amendment!! How many need to die so needlessly before real change comes?

3 ( +4 / -1 )

The USA will give up gun ownership maybe when HELL FREEZES OVER?? I would not hold my breath! IMHO

1 ( +1 / -0 )

"Bankers Gone Wild!" That's how I'd explain all of the problems with my country. The white majority knows their population and power is waning. The big cities "rust belt" are falling apart. The U.S. is a mix of so many different colors and cultures, the whites are getting scared. Fear is the mind killer. We have lost our way. The gun culture is just a reaction to all this. Don't forget, we've only been a country for a little over a couple of hundred years. Look in the mirror you countries that have been around for longer, and you still managed to wage world wars in just the last century. Don't worry about us, we'll figure it out. But banning guns is dumbest move unless you want to become a slave to this grand scale printing corruption. No one knows what the future holds.

The cops in the States are becoming more and more militarized, that's a BIG problem, and this guy is the poster child.

And one more thing. if someone expresses their true feelings or emotions on here, don't "thumb" it down. It seems a lot of people just react to something they disagree with, and CLICK. That's wrong. Now, if they say something derogatory or stupid, yeah, but let's respect each others opinion more here.

Thanks

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

The us is a messed up country. Everyone should just migrate to Japan

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

It seems very likely that The killer in this tragedy will go free, given that the State of Florida has some of the most insane stand your ground laws in the US. Remember, this is the state whose legal system acquitted the delusional George Zimmerman for killing the unarmed Trayvon Martin on the grounds that the killer felt threatened.

Needless to say, Florida will not be on my family's list of potential vacation destinations.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

sensasianal opinons. Good job!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

A well regulated Militia, shall not be infringed? A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, shall not be infringed? A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed?

The right of the people to slaughter their fellow citizens shall not be infringed?

The NRA makes billions on slaughter. Is that what the Constitution protects?

The US Constitution requires a tiny three year old baby girl will never see daddy again? Twenty 5 and 6 year olds are slaughtered in their school? Six of their teachers are slaughtered? The NRA demands slaughter to defend their perverted Constitution, blood for gold?

And the NRA claims this is the Right of Americans?

Blood for gold. Dead children for profit. Sick lunatics cry "gun nut" hurts their 'feelings'? Who is really sick? American NRA death merchants?

3 ( +3 / -0 )

'If he hadn't done A then B wouldn't have happened' is the same as saying 'He got B because he did A', ie he got his just desserts.

No, it's not the same. "If I hadn't left my apartment, I never would have been hit by the drunk driver." Am I saying I got my just desserts?

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Being cute, Nessie.....:-)

A better example to fit what we have here is 'If I hadn't stood in the middle of the road wearing black on a dark night with my back to the flow of traffic, I wouldn't have been hit by the drunk driver'.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

The land of free, proud and brave should allow someone to bring Automatic Grenade Launcher for watching movie. If he shots the audience with laucher, It is not the launcher but the person will be excuse.

I got a good laugh from this comment. Well played, sir.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

I think we can work with the second amendment.

First question: Was the cop a member of a well regulated militia?

Second question: Does an annual test of mental fitness for possession of a dangerous weapon constitute infringement of one's rights to keep and bear arms? If no, then I know some nut houses where I could make some money selling guns!

Third question: When did the definition of arms cease to be bombs, mortars, grenades, all sorts of knives, chemical and biological weapons, etc? When did it become just guns? Seems to me that if the answer to question two is "yes", then it would be a very minor infringement compared to what is already taking place.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

A person that carry's GUN has the potential and Guts to start a trouble, why bringing gun with you when you're going out for movies ?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites