Posted on 03/13/2014 11:58:40 AM PDT by Uncle Chip
A former police officer accused of killing a man in a movie theater during a dispute over texting had used his own phone to send a message to his son minutes before the shooting, according to documents released Thursday by Florida prosecutors.
Curtis Reeves' son, Matthew Reeves, told detectives that his father texted him at 1:04 p.m. Jan. 13, the documents show....
Matthew Reeves said he had walked into the dark theater while the previews were playing and looked around for his parents. It was then, investigators said, that Reeves shot 43-year-old Chad Oulson....
A judge ruled Wednesday that the documents could be released publicly.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Ping
Saying he shot him because he was texting while leaving the physical attack out of the picture is creating a lie by omitting the act that triggered the shooting.
Curtis always had this thing about being “the only one who should be able to text”’,certain friends revealed in interviews.
If SYG laws protect a guy who used deadly force after getting popcorn thrown in his face, then all those Trayvon supporters are right about the law needing to be repealed.
However, I have confidence that the jury will send this ex-cop to prison for a long, long time while upholding the integrity of Florida's self-defence and SYG laws.
“I’m about 2 shoot this guy in front of me 4 texting. LOL! SMH!”
Why I have Netflix ....Movie theaters are trashy these days.
It's not the theaters that are trashy, for the most part, it's the theater goers. Still this is a case of testosterone and stupidity.
Saying he shot him because he was texting while leaving the physical attack out of the picture is creating a lie by omitting the act that triggered the shooting.
<><><><><>
Leaving out everything that happened prior to the popcorn being thrown is creating a lie by omitting the acts that triggered the popcorn throwing.
Just as you think the shooting was justified, many, including myself, based on what we have heard of the evidence and seeing the surveillance video, think the popcorn throwing was justified.
I don’t think SYG is going to cover popcorn attack.
So you ‘re implying that Oulson throwing popcorn at Reeves for no discernable reason should give that act the gravity necessary to justify a fatal shooting, and that the texting played no part as an absurd catalyst to the act. of shooting? Mr. Reeves was obviously in a state of mind where ANYTHING could serve as a catalyst.
Absolutely.
I get extremely tired of those who have not a clue about what SYG means and does.
It does not say that anybody can use lethal force whenever they claim they felt threatened or in danger.
It says they can do so IF they had a "reasonable fear" of death or severe injury.
I think it highly likely, as you say, that a jury will find popcorn throwing is not a reasonable cause for fear of imminent death or severe injury.
According to witnesses the shooter initiated the altercation. So how do you know the victim didn't throw popcorn in self defense?
Its hard for me to say because I wasn’t in the theater... I don’t know either individual or thier personal character... I am not in the courtroom... I haven’t seen the defense’s evidence or the prosecution’s evidence. So I cannot judge.
SYG and (leathal) self defense are for eminent threats. I am a fairly good-sized healthy 40ish yearold man so popcorn in my face does not constitute a life threatening situation. I could probably take the guy or at least go toe-to-toe.
In that case... I would tell my wife, “here, hold my gun cause me and him fixin to fight”
If I were 80 years old, I know I cannot defend myself against a young buck so I would have to pull a weapon because I would have no other way to defend myself.
So, I don’t know, I wasn’t there so I can’t say what should happen.
The last movie theater I entered smelled like Clorox & the floors were extremely sticky. Yuk!
It is all on video. That is how I know it and I also read the police reports that support what is on the video.
The shooters stance that he felt he was, "about to get the crap beat our of him" is a little thin for me, but and this is a big but, it was the victim who initiated the physical confrontation. Until the guy who got shot got physical it was all a verbal exchange.
That the guy who got shot assaulted the shooter is a fact caught on video. What is not on the video is sound. There were a lot of words exchanged but we do not know what was said in the exchange.
I do not remember the shooter making any calls while he was in his seat and his son does not indicate where his father was when he talked to him.
Because the video does not show the shooter making a call from his seat it would be my opinion that he made the call to his son when he was out of the theater getting the popcorn and talking to management.
The timing on all of this is close. This whole incident took place in a very few minutes.
Again I will say I think the shooters case is thin but it was all not just as you posted. Take a look at the surveillance video for yourself.
The victim did not respect the former cop’s authoritah.
First I didn't say it was justified. Those are your words not mine.. Second it is never legally justified to physically assault someone just because you have words with them. That is a crazy statement. I have had words with many people and not a single time did I ever think it was alright or justified to escalate the situation with violence.
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.