Posted on 02/25/2022 6:19:36 PM PST by NautiNurse
PASCO COUNTY, Fla. (WFLA) — Curtis Reeves, the man who shot and killed Chad Oulson at a Wesley Chapel movie theater in 2014 was found not guilty on all charges Friday night.
After over three hours of deliberation, a six-person jury returned to the courtroom Friday evening and delivered its verdict. Reeves was found not guilty of the counts of second-degree murder and aggravated batter
Reeves has never denied shooting Oulson, but has maintained that he was acting in self defense.
The retired police captain spent several hours on the witness stand Thursday, telling a Pasco County jury about what he says happened the day he shot Oulson in the theater.
He also testified about his career in law enforcement. Reeves helped establish the SWAT team for the Tampa Police Department and ended his career as the head of security for Busch Gardens.
He told the jury he had never drawn his weapon and shot anyone in his years of service as a police officer and says he never encountered rage from anyone the way he did from Oulson the day of the shooting.
The wife reached out to prevent her husband from assaulting Reeves again. That's how she was shot in the hand.
i would like to know who paid for this defense. there is a lot of money involved in this case.
Your knowledge of the events surrounding the shooting are sorely missing important details. It wasn’t about popcorn.
The right verdict, and for those who watched the trial realized that the media narrative was completely wrong. Fortunately, eight years of media lies and distortions did not sway the jury. They recognized that this was a proper use of self defense and they came to the correct conclusion.
The behavior of the prosecution team was deplorable. The defense team was right on the law, but their opening and closing arguments were disasters. Despite all of this, the jury did their duty and, in my opinion, reached the right verdict.
> There is no duty to retreat, and shooting someone because of fear of the threat is justified in law. <
Right. But the shooter must reasonably believe that it is more likely than not that his life is in danger, or that he is in danger of serious bodily harm. In this case, it was some unarmed younger guy yelling - and lunging - at some older guy.
This is nothing like the Zimmerman case.
Your points are spot on target. That Court TV calls it the "Movie Popcorn Trial" is reprehensible. Fortunately, the video clearly showed angry Oulson's long arm reaching over into Reeves' space at least twice. Clearly assault against an elderly person.
I too have a Florida carry permit, but I’d it would take 100 times as much for me to use it in a crowded theatre. Probably only if there was an active shooter will I pull mine.
> The wife reached out to prevent her husband from assaulting Reeves again. <
What assault are you referring to? I understand that the younger man threw popcorn, and perhaps a cell phone. Reeves said he was hit by both. I get that this constitutes an assault. But neither one would put the target in fear for his life. And that is the standard for the use of deadly force.
Was there another assault that I’m not aware of? (I ask that in all seriousness.)
I guess at 67 years old, I too am old.
Was this guy 70 at the time, or 70 now ?
Defense cross revealed that the woman was blind and deaf on the side where she saw and heard Reeves in the theater. Oops!
Shame neither of them had the sense to de-escalate the situation.
Dont throw popcorn at strangers then.
Perhaps she can join the prosecution team, sounds like she would fit right in.
A few more aholes need to be shot for aggression before the gen pop Starts thinking twice about acting like a fool in public. Now be nice or you could be next. Soon we’ll run out of assholes to shoot. Problem solved.
This case is not at all like the Zimmerman case. Trayvon Martin hit Zimmerman before Zimmerman fired. Reeves was struck only with popcorn, and perhaps a cell phone.
That doesn’t mean you have to wait to be hit before defending yourself! But neither does it mean you are always justified shooting someone because he *might* hit you.
In my opinion, Reeves overreacted, and so is guilty of manslaughter. You disagree, and I respect that. I also appreciate that you have keep our conversation civil.
Regards,
LR
I won’t criticize your opinion on this case. This was a very close case and the verdict could have gone either way. When this trial started, I had read the media reports over the last eight years and I was leaning toward guilty, at least of manslaughter. But, after watching all of the trial and seeing the evidence, I came to the conclusion that he was not guilty and properly exercised his right to self defense.
If you have the time, you ought to watch it. It was streamed, so it’s available on You Tube and other places and you can watch most of it a 2x speed. You may come to the same conclusion as you’ve made now and that would be fine. But, this trial was not about popcorn. What I learned from this trial is that you can’t trust anything that the media says.
if you think he shot Oulson because of popcorn, you’ve been lied to and haven’t done your homework.
Here’s the cliff notes since you’re too lazy
—
Reeves was sitting behind Oulson in the theater.
Reeves went to the manager to complain.
When he came back, Oulson was still mouthing off.
Reeves sits and Oulson continues... standing in front of Reeves... eventually throwing the popcorn.
note:
when the popcorn hit the 71 yr old Reeves, knocking his glasses, that was a felony due to Reeves being over 65
Oulson continued to rage... then moved to step over the rail between them.
As the 6’4” 43 yr old was halfway over the rail... Reeves shot him
Was deadly forced needed? yes.
I can tell you as someone that is 6’2” / 220 ...
if i were to be enraged and hit an elderly person
it would definitely be life threatening.
—
BTW, here at FR you’re EXPECTED to be better than the liberal rabble that floats by.
DO YOUR HOMEWORK
I'm about to turn 69 and am not of very sound body, going downhill this past year. I had been exercising and reducing my weight.
If this happened to me and I carried a sidearm I would be justified in taking the raging bull down. The older I get the easier it is to face reality. One coldcock can take an old person out for good.
Why did the old man not leave the theater or change seats?
In instances like this is it not reasonable to just leave?
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.