Posted on 01/19/2014 2:31:52 PM PST by Uncle Chip
On Monday, Curtis Reeves, a 71-year-old former police captain, ignored the signs posted at a Florida movie theater forbidding weapons on the premises....
Sitting a row in front of him, 43-year-old Chad Oulson, a former U.S. Navy petty officer, and his wife .....
According to reports, Mr. Oulson exchanged texts with the baby-sitter before the movie started to make sure all was well....
Mr. Reeves reportedly glowered at the couple before asking Mr. Oulson to stop texting. Mr. Oulson ignored him.
Mr. Reeves tried to find the theater manager, but he was busy with another customer.
Words were eventually exchanged while Mr. Reeves' son [a police officer] was in the lobby on a refreshment run.
The dispute quickly escalated. A bag of popcorn was angrily flung. It isn't clear who threw the first kernel. Witnesses insisted it was Mr. Reeves, who, in turn, blamed Mr. Oulson.
Allegedly fearing for his life, Mr. Reeves pulled a .380 semi-automatic handgun and shot Mr. Oulson. The bullet passed through Mrs. Oulson's hand as she tried to shield her husband.....
Mr. Reeves was put behind bars and charged with second degree murder ....
The theory his lawyer spun about his fearing for his life didn't begin to jibe with reality and was widely ridiculed, even by Second Amendment absolutists.
Mr. Reeves helped start Tampa's tactical response team in the 1990s, so his attempts to portray himself as some kind of scaredy cat added an element of absurdity....
Only the most irrational gun enthusiasts are defending Mr. Reeves on newspaper comment boards and blogs. There is a class of very scared gun owners out there who claim they would have done the same thing as Mr. Reeves did under the circumstances. Flicked popcorn kernels constitute assault if Mr. Oulson threw it first....
(Excerpt) Read more at post-gazette.com ...
" He’s being charged with second degree murder. Curtis maintains that he was attacked, but in court, an attorney called Curtis’ claims “weak” due to the fact that other people in the movie theater saw him throw popcorn first".
http://hollywoodlife.com/2014/01/14/curtis-reeves-movie-theater-shooter-five-things-to-know/
What I read was that the court stated being hit by popcorn didn’t justify the killing. Got a link?
“Authorities said a preliminary investigation had determined that there was no physical contact during the incident Monday afternoon at a theater in the Tampa suburb of Wesley Chapel. It was popcorn, thrown by Oulson, 43, that struck Reeves.”
http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/14/justice/florida-movie-theater-shooting/
Yeah, but he sure has that whole, “feeling threatened” thing down pat.
Popcorn probly had butter on it.
Well if you are a former or current LEO apparently you get that right. Or so some would have us believe...
Andrew Branca at Legal Insurrection took the SYG defense apart last week.
The Media was salivating at the thought of mis-characterizing the law again and calling for it’s repeal.
There’s a”Bad Apple”in EVERY Barrel!
shooting someone for throwing popcorn is Self-Defense?
In the regard that what the cop's training REALLY was, was to provoke a response and then use it to justify beating, tazing, arresting or killing people.
Grow up - cops carry throwdown pieces too. It's called the real world.
Witnesses said the perp threw the popcorn first. Know why? It's that training you're invoking. He DECIDED to shoot this guy, and hide behind self-defense. Maybe he didn't think his 380 would accomplish an immediate kill, but he decided to shoot. All he needed was a plausible reason. Hmmm, after being a cop for so long, it took him one second flat to come up with one.
And so he threw the popcorn.
yhe dude was texting the daycare center
A bag of popcorn was angrily flung. It isn’t clear who threw the first kernel. Witnesses insisted it was Mr. Reeves
when the old guy returns, he wasn’t able to talk to the manager, text dude starts a confrontation
<><><>
He was texting his daughter who was at home with a babysitter
According to this article, witnesses say the shooter threw the popcorn.
and the article does not say that the murdered one started it back up when the shooter returned
having a little trouble with your conclusions when you get the basic facts a) wrong, and b) make your own facts up when none are available
I would not put any faith in the Hollywood Life version, it has severe problems with literacy. Most other reports quote Reeves’ attorney Escobar as saying the probable cause document was “quite weak”.
I tend to think the HL Intern responsible for this particular version is confused on the facts, if for no other reason than they seem unclear as to which part of Curtis Reeves name is his surname.
The sheriff doesn’t think the case is weak. He’s been pretty clear it was a clear case.
From a previous article this wasn’t the first time he got upset with someone in a movie theater and acted weird about it. I wonder if he’s in the early stages of Alzheimer’s? A typical symptom is irrational fits of anger.
What do you expect him to say. He's his attorney. I would rather trust Hollywood Life than him.
And I agree with the sheriff, actually.
I was merely pointing out what a poor source HL is, with what appears to be an anonymous attribution of the “weak” quote that also turns it on its head, where multiple other sources definitely attribute the quote to a specific defense lawyer by name in a completely different context.
I think men behaving badly results in tragedy.
The texter should have been more placating when called on the minor rule infraction. “I’m sorry sir, I’m checking on baby, I’ll be done before the movie comes on”. When you’re on a date with the wife, you shouldn’t start sh!t and ruin the date.
But nobody should die over something this petty. The shooter was completely wrong to escalate to deadly force. I expect in a month or so, there will be a finding of diminish capacity from Alzheimer’s. If not, this guy will waste what health and life he has left behind bars for being an anal retentive control freak.
It’s just stupid sad.
HL is misquoting the defense lawyer completely out of context. Trusting their reporting diminishes your credibility and judgement. Grasping at the bad reportage of an online gossip rag makes your point of view look weak.
Build your argument with bricks, not straw.
No, LEOSA does not allow him to carry anywhere. However, in FL, the “no gun” sign does not have the force of law. The sign does however have the force of a property owner’s rights, and if asked to leave due to carrying a gun, he must leave.
“Although LEOSA preempts state and local laws, there are two notable exceptions: “the laws of any State that (1) permit private persons or entities to prohibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their property” (such as a bars, private clubs, amusement parks, etc.), or “(2) prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on any State or local government property, installation, building, base, or park” “
That’s called “being a cop.”
The shooter was pissed off that the victim wouldn’t “respect his authoratah!” and shot him. It’s that simple.
The retired cop is guilty. This is an open and shut case. Popcorn being thrown does not, in any state of the US, constitute a “reasonable threat of death or great bodily harm.”
The cop should fry.
It was buttered popcorn.
HL is misquoting the defense lawyer completely out of context.
Show Me -- I don't see any defense lawyer quote in the above statement.
Do you have any reason to believe that this statement is untrue: "other people in the movie theater saw him throw popcorn first" or that this statement from the article above is untrue: "Witnesses insisted it was Mr. Reeves".
No shi'ite!?!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.