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 ...
Again this has nothing to do with what you think only with what he thought in that split second.
It has all the appearance that his wife was trying to hold him back from attacking the elderly retired gentleman by restraining him physically. She put her hand on her husbands chest to hold him back. She didn't grab him and try and pull him out of the way.
You can't be serious --
What he thought in that split second is what this is all about and that is expressed in his words "that'll teach you to throw popcorn in my face".
That means that he wasn't shooting him out of fear but out of vengeance instead.
Even the shooter's wife in response to it said "that's no reason to shoot him".
She put her hand on her husbands chest to hold him back.
If she was holding him back then he had no reason to act out of fear. So then why did he shoot the person holding him back and the person being held back???
They do and that is what they are taught. Tossing something in someones face is usually a diversionary tactic to gain an upper hand in a confrontation.
Actually I'm not defending this guy. I started our pointing out facts that had been purposefully omitted. Any situation is whole, with all the facts, or it is wrong and a distortion of truth.
Most situations are also segmented as this one was. There was a verbal exchange initiated by the shooter but with both men participating. Then it exploded into a physical situation with the grabbing of the popcorn out of the shooters hands, throwing it in the shooters face, and then the man firing a shot. This physical part all happened in 3 to 4 seconds.
The last part of the incident was after the shot. The shooter trying to keep his wife from talking which was not only a good idea and follows what he has been instructed to do throughout his career. Do not say anything to anyone until you have a attorney is exactly what every cop is taught when they are involved in a shooting.
I really can't put too much into what he said about teaching the guy not to throw popcorn. I've never seen a cop who didn't have a smart remark about any and every situation even if they were not involved in it themselves. He was stupid to say it but that is just what cops do.
I have said before that the shooters position was thin. That statement is that he was and is on thin ice, very thin ice. There is no doubt in my mind that he reacted to some of this in the manner that he had been trained to do.
I find fault with him in putting himself and others in a life threatening situation in the first place. Although it is not illegal to talk to someone and even make rude crude and insulting remarks to them it is not something that should be done when carrying a concealed weapon.
I believe that this was a cynical arrogant old bastard who did not believe that anyone would challenge him physically. When it instantly got out of hand he reacted. His reactions were not appropriate to the threat but he didn't figure that out until after it was all over.
I think he will rightfully get murder 2. Depending on the DA he may be able to plea it down to manslaughter.
He could not see what they guys wife was doing he had a face full of popcorn. He was reacting to the physical assault. His wife's perspective, view of the situation was unobscured by popcorn so she did have a different assessment of the situation than he did. She saw what he could not see because he had a face full of popcorn. He reacted on what he knew and saw. There is not time to have a discussion in a reactionary "shoot no shoot" situation.
This will all come down to if he can convince a judge or jury that he was in fear of great and grievous bodily harm or death at that split second in time. None of this will be about what other people with better vision of the situation thought. He did not have that view or that knowledge at that time.
I don't put any significance on his statement later. I've been around a lot of cops and they always make smart-ass cynical remarks. That is how they deal with bad situations no matter if they are involved or not. That is just a cop being a cop.
It was not a physical assault.
There was no physical contact between them as both the video and the witnesses testify to and as acknowledged by the police and the prosecutor -- and his lawyer.
Actually I’m not defending this guy. I started our pointing out facts that had been purposefully omitted.
<><><><
My turn to call BS.
Your first comments were “Texting in not what this case is about. It is about a homicide caused by a physical attack.”
That’s not pointing out omissions.
By legal definition when you throw something at someone and it hits them that is assault. Period.
There was, as a matter of fact, by witness sworn statement, and on video, legally an assault. Period
Based on what is known about his past actions, he was going to kill someone or later. It just happened to be sooner rather than later.
Not so —
He took the bag of popcorn from him and when he whined “hey that’s mine give it back to me” — he threw it back to him.
It’s not his fault that he couldn’t catch it when it was thrown to him.
So where is the physical assault in that???
One expectation for me, another for thee....
OR
Texting is not a privilege for peasants, only for lords and knights of the realm!
Really LOL, I'm at a loss. I'm used to people being able to put forth an intelligent argument. Can you try a little harder please.
Go down to your local school cafeteria and you will see these “physical assaults” regularly taking place with chicken, broccoli, chips, brownies — and yet no one gets in a fight or gets hurt or gets in trouble or calls the cops or pulls a gun.
Kids handle themselves in school cafeterias better than retired cops do in theatre auditoriums.
You can want wish think or dream but you do not get to rewrite the laws or decide how they are applied. If you are so sure of yourself then next time you see a cop go and get a box of popcorn, get very angry and jump up and and throw it in his face. Just go right ahead and prove that you are right. You may or may not get shot but you will be wearing handcuffs as they cart your butt off to jail for assault.
You do understand that his defense is that he was assaulted with a cellphone or some other hard object that they cannot seem to find.
His defense is NOT that he was assaulted with popcorn and NOT that he was forced to defend himself from flying kernels even though they have that evidence.
So they have the popcorn but aren’t using it and instead are searching for some unidentified nonexistent hard object.
Could you explain that.
I will be glad to as soon as they go to trial and he and his lawyers present a defense. So far there has been no defense given only legal sparing at a few hearings.
You do understand that words like "defense" have specific meaning when we are talking about a legal case and you do not get to make up your own meaning.
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.