Shot over texting - the trial.

Actually, I can't completely agree with that.

Comparing the way someone is dressed (a passive action) to someone speaking to another person and that other person then throwing things at them doesn't seem an equal comparison.

The escalation to violence is in no way excusable, at least not to me. But the comparison doesn't really work. It does, however, manage to inflame it a bit, adding another layer of emotional heat.

Monkey said:

Yes. How about "Closely monitor the mental state of your elderly relatives who are in the habit of carrying firearms everywhere they go." How about, "When carrying a firearm, it's best to avoid even minor altercations, lest you end up on trial for a murder you didn't set out to commit." How about, "Follow all applicable firearm laws, even the ones that you don't agree with."

IMO, *those* are the sort of "lessons" we should all be taking away from this.

Click to expand...

Personally I agree that those are also good lessons. But if the goal is to avoid any possible chance of blaming someone other the guilty person, then isn't there a problem with this one? "Closely monitor the mental state of your elderly relatives who are in the habit of carrying firearms everywhere they go."

If only his wife had convinced him not to take a gun to the theater that day!

How is that not shifting blame to someone else, the same as saying: if only the texter hadn't escalated the encounter?

Williebee said:

Comparing the way someone is dressed (a passive action) to someone speaking to another person and that other person then throwing things at them doesn't seem an equal comparison.

Click to expand...

I wasn't directly referring to the way a woman is dressed. Perhaps Chrissy was when she made her original statement, but I thought it was more broad than that.

If it helps, there are plenty of examples of behavior that are not passive at all that are used for victim blaming in rape cases.

Look, if you remove the shooting from the scenario, you can find fault in the victim throwing popcorn. If his texting was bothering another movie goer, the polite thing to do would have been to have gotten up and left if it was an ongoing text.

That doesn't in any way shape or form excuse shooting him for it.

Things aren't black and white.

Same thing with rape cases. It doesn't do any good to try and pretend that all rape victims are as pure as the driven snow. That idea that if they're not, that they're somehow responsible for their attack is a big issue.

Celia Cyanide said:

I wasn't directly referring to the way a woman is dressed. Perhaps Chrissy was when she made her original statement, but I thought it was more broad than that.

If it helps, there are plenty of examples of behavior that are not passive at all that are used for victim blaming in rape cases.

Click to expand...

True enough, and thanks to both you and Chrissy on that.

And there are some parallels, but I do have a "modly" concern that the emotional flammability that comes with rape discussions will only serve as a derail and incendiary action in a thread that already has its own emotional touchstones.

Vince524 said:

That idea that if they're not, that they're somehow responsible for their attack is a big issue.

Click to expand...

I'm going to suggest you expand on this, carefully and with specific intent. I suspect that you did not mean what it might seem that you did.

MOD NOTE: On second thought, don't.

Folks, there are a number of threads in P&CE that discuss rape and victim blaming.

This story has weeks, if not months, to go.

Let's keep that derail separate from this discussion. Thank you.

In case I'm not clear enough? This is not a request.

All I'm saying is that we should be able to discuss what the victim did objectively and factually without saying that anything excuses the act of the perpetrator. He may have been rude by texting during the previews and even escalated the argument. That doesn't mean it was alright to shoot him.

RichardGarfinkle said:

I think the problem here is relevance. The behavior of the victim of a rape is irrelevant to the crime. To bring it up at all is to implicitly assert that it matters. It doesn't. It no more matters to the crime than the level of sunspot activity, the Great Vowel Shift, or KISS' total album sales.

In the shooting, any action on the part of the victim that is not threat of deadly force should be equally irrelevant.

Click to expand...

Yes, no and maybe so. It depends on the conversation. If you're trying to understand the whole of events, you have to go into them in full. Certainly the defense will. But you don't want to get hung up on something irrelevant.

In other words, it's okay to say that the victim was wrong in throwing popcorn. Saying that does not and should not in anyway excuse the shooting. And acknowledging it shouldn't in and of itself be seen as victim blaming. I'll keep away from the rape analogy per Williebee's request.

tjwriter said:

Unfortunately people fall into the denial/it can't happen to us trap and fail to do anything about the "sweet old guy" they know.

Not that it's an excuse, but it does cause some people to fail to take certain preventative actions.

Click to expand...

I absolutely agree. It is a shame.

I think that's an interesting question - how should friends or family members of someone who might no longer be fit to own weapons handle it? Especially when there's a reasonable fear the individual in question might react violently even to the suggestion? (To pup's earlier question, I wouldn't fault Reeves wife or family for precisely that reason, much as I might wish somebody had done something). Is there any societal or legal remedy?

RichardGarfinkle said:

To my mind this begs the question of why, in the face of the taking of a human life, is the throwing of popcorn worth any discussion at all?

Click to expand...

Because it's normal to discuss the entire incident. If he was sitting there, minding his own business, nobody would make a big deal. My point is, that just because the guy wasn't simply sitting there minding his own business doesn't take away from the tragedy or the awful nature of the crime.

That was my original point and maybe I made it badly. One thing has nothing to do with the other.

Vince524 said:

Because it's normal to discuss the entire incident.

Click to expand...

Yes, it is, but it's not an excuse to make comments that (unintentionally or not) put blame on a victim. This is where we need to become more sensitive to the whole shock-and-awe commentary after the train wreck type thing. This is where RG's posts in this thread need to be taken to heart.

If he was sitting there, minding his own business, nobody would make a big deal.

Click to expand...

That's exactly right. If he was just sitting there, minding his own business, everyone would call it horrible tragedy and condemn the shooter forthwith.

But he wasn't just sitting there. He was a human being having human reactions, and some people are judging him for those reactions (quite normal reactions, imo), and analyzing what HE could have done differently (and the unspoken rest of that sentence is "to not get shot").

We should be shocked that a guy can't text, or be offended by being harassed for texting, or yes, even, throw a bit of popcorn in his frustration -- without being SHOT TO DEATH.

RichardGarfinkle said:

To my mind this begs the question of why, in the face of the taking of a human life, is the throwing of popcorn worth any discussion at all?

Click to expand...

For this reason, back on the first page:

Sheryl Nantus said:

This is why I lost faith in the system back at the Casey Anthony trial. When defense lawyers start tossing anything at the wall and hoping it'd stick and it DOES...

Oh, and the dead man was a "hothead". Out of control.

Unlike the shooter.

Click to expand...

I didn't bring blame into this. I simply responded to someone who IMO tried to portray the victim here as almost random.

It was nothing of the sort. There was a pretty clear progression of events that Put Mr Oulson in Mr Reeves' sights. They don't have to indict Mr Oulson of anything for them to have clearly occurred.

robjvargas said:

I didn't bring blame into this. I simply responded to someone who IMO tried to portray the victim here as almost random.

Click to expand...

I agree with Sheryl's post. The victim wasn't a hothead.

How can anyone view him as such, based on how the shooter acted the whole time? He nagged him, he 'tattled' on him, and when it was supposed to be all over, he egged him on some more.

No, sorry, the only hothead was the guy who drew his gun.

robjvargas said:

It was nothing of the sort. There was a pretty clear progression of events that Put Mr Oulson in Mr Reeves' sights. They don't have to indict Mr Oulson of anything for them to have clearly occurred.

Click to expand...

Jesus Fucking Christ. So here's the morale of the story, folks. Don't do anything that might possibly put yourself in a crazed gunman's sights.

Chrissy said:

I agree with Sheryl's post. The victim wasn't a hothead.

How can anyone view him as such, based on how the shooter acted the whole time? He nagged him, he 'tattled' on him, and when it was supposed to be all over, he egged him on some more.

No, sorry, the only hothead was the guy who drew his gun.


Jesus Fucking Christ. So here's the morale of the story, folks. Don't do anything that might possibly put yourself in a crazed gunman's sights.

Click to expand...

Sorry to jump into the middle of this, but I'm solidly with Chrissy on this one. The victim-blaming going on here is shameful.

MOD Note:

Break time. This story isn't a sprint. It's going to be around for a bit. Let's give everybody a chance to breathe.

ETA: Re-opened. Let's try for civil to each other and reading for understanding, rather than argument. Thanks.

CNN has posted samples of security camera footage. What happened is on the very edge of camera coverage, but it's interesting nonetheless.

http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/v...savidge-movie-theater-shooting-video.cnn.html

As a retired cop, I find this man's actions egregious and reprehensible.

A 2nd degree murder charge is fully justified.

I routinely carry concealed but have a firm philosophy to never draw that weapon unless my life, my family's, or an innocent's is in immediate danger. In 11 years such a situation has never confronted me (thankfully!)

Texting and a face full of popcorn isn't even on the radar.

Perhaps others already know about this piece of information, but it's the first I read it. link

http://www.katu.com/news/national/R...ater-shooting-also-was-texting-250247781.html

Curtis Reeves' son, Matthew Reeves, told detectives that his father texted him at 1:04 p.m. Jan. 13, the documents show. Curtis Reeves told his son he was already seated inside the theater. Matthew Reeves, who is a Tampa police officer, made plans to meet his parents at the theater for the 1:20 p.m. showing of "Lone Survivor" but was late because he stopped to wash his truck, he told detectives.

Click to expand...

I don't know, maybe texting ought to be outlawed or something.

Okay, I know the movie in question was Lone Survivor, so it's not likely there were any kidlets in the theater, but Reeves has apparently harassed people at the movies before. Looking at the showtime as 1:20 in the afternoon, all I can think is -- what if there had been a crying baby or bouncy toddler? People bring tiny kids to afternoon movies all the time, and those kids don't always (or even usually) understand the grown-up rules, much less follow them.

Here we are, nearly three years later, and the case still hasn't come to trial.

There's a collection of the legal documents to date, though.