Posted on 01/14/2014 2:04:00 PM PST by centurion316
A 43-year-old father was shot dead by a retired cop in a Florida cinema after a row about him texting his three-year-old daughter as they waited for the movie to start, witnesses said.
Chad Oulson was shot in front of his wife and horrified movie-goers during an argument with 71-year-old Curtis Reeves.
The victim's wife, Nicole, was injured in the shooting after holding her hands out to try to shield Mr Oulson during the confrontation at a movie theater near Tampa on Monday.
After Reeves fired at his chest the victim was heard saying: 'I can't believe I got shot', according to Fox News.
Reeves, who is facing life in prison if found guilty, has been charged with second-degree murder. During a hearing on Tuesday he appeared via video link, wearing a green suicide smock - a fire resistant outfit that can't be torn or turned into a noose.
The judge ruled he should be held without bond because of the severity of the charges, but the no bond ruling can't be confirmed until a live hearing with Reeves.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
I say again: 9 millimeter manhood.
Officials said Mr Oulson asked Reeves if he reported him to management for using his phone.
Officials did not say what Reeves answer to that question was or if he answered him at all — except with his weapon.
“When we go to a theater we pay to see everything they put on the screen the movie and the previews.”
That’s WHY I don’t go to the theatre. They are more interested in shoving propaganda in my face for 20 minutes and more, than the start the movie on time. Last movie I went to was ‘The Passion of Christ’ and had to sit through inappropriate crap forever until they started the feature.
Previews are like the commercials on TV that everyone takes a leak during.
You make my point with all the FR “assumers”.
As to “deadly harm”, for Stand Your Ground that is purely dependent upon the defendant’s perception. Afterwards its the defendant’s responsibility to demonstrate that to a jury.
I have little sympathy for bonehead quickdraw LEO’s, but this is a case of an elderly guy being hit with “something” and then being faced with a threat, all of which put the aggressor texter in an untenable position.
One thing this certainly does is give me more respect for effectiveness of the .380 I carry and maybe will give all the idiotic movie phone users something to think about other than texting a dumbass selfie of themselves at the movie.
I don't think you understand. TRUE concealed carry holders are EXTENSIVELY trained to walk away from confrontations.
Police, on the other hand, are trained to dive into and escalate confrontations. And they're usually not TRUE concealed carry holders. They just get their hidden gun-penis as a perk of their Magic Blue Costume.
This old guy Reeves was just doing what he & his kind do best.
There's probably medication involved, and maybe even steroids. His picture from the arraignment showed a beefy-looking old dude.
Detectives looked into whether the shooting could fall under Florida's Stand Your Ground law, but found that the criteria didn't apply.
Good Morning,
“ Officials did not say what Reeves answer to that question was or if he answered him at all”
So is this where you got the “story” that Reeves went OUT to HIS CAR and GOT HIS WEAPON!
The “story “ you gave was duplicate to the one the Harridans gave on HLN! Could that be your proof?
Chip, If you could give reliable facts instead of suppositions and speculations, it may be more buyable.
You posts during the GMZ ordeal was better than what I have seen so far. Facts?
Hopefully I can remain a FRiend.
I didn't say he did one way or the other -- just that there was a possibility of premeditation since he came back in without management who he "presumably" went out to get but with his gun and then used it, allegedly after getting hit with an unknown object that even the detectives said didn't exist.
Detectives do not make that decision. First the DA will look at it but then the final decision is made by a judge.
You seem to be more upset at words than the fact that a man was shot to death by a retired cop.
Why is that???
Mr. Reeves and Mr. Oulson were in a combative argument.
Mr. Reeves had reason to fear his well being was being threatened when Mr. Olson threw something at Mr. Reeves. Mr. Reeves closed his eyes by reflex and went for his gun by instinct. Mrs. Oulson more likely trying to stop her belligerent husband than shielding him.
Mr. Reeves is likely very sorry now he didn’t move. Mr. Oulson don’t care anymore cause he is dead and won’t be excusing bad behavior using his child.
I guess Mr. Dixon is lucky that Mr. Reeves didn't have reason to fear his well being was being threatened three weeks before that...
Maybe he was afraid of the salt and/or butter which can eventually lead to high cholesterol, high blood pressure and in 20 years time, death?
Coconut oil
You’re deranged
As if someone wouldn’t know it was popcorn thrown in their laps. Or do ya think the shooter thought it was a brick that just landed on him?
Even a jury of mental cases wouldn’t buy that.
You can’t be this ignorant or stupid to believe that cock’nbull story..
I think that cops who shoot people for texting, and the people who defend cops who shoot people who text, should be put up against a wall and shot.
Maybe you don't know how to read.
In the police report it said
The victim stood up turned around and struck Reeves in the face with an unknown object.
I gave a likely scenario of what happened.
And what was the police report based on detective?
And I explained to you, are you suggesting the shooter wouldn’t know it was popcorn thrown at him? Or do ya think the shooter thought it was a brick or tire iron that just landed on him?
Once again, even a jury of mental cases wouldn’t buy that.
Come on.
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.