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 ...
The witnesses say the cop threw the popcorn first.
Hollywoodlife? Smirk! I’ll take CNN over Hollywoodlife along with the other accounts that covered the incident that included the eye witness accounts.
U hate people who text at the movies and often feel like killing them myself.
I do control myself and don’t act on it.
I don’t mind texters anywhere — it’s the yappers that are a nuissance.
So did the Judge.
That damn blue screen is plainly visible and disrupts the enjoyment of the movie. It costs me around $50 to see a movie now with food and movie costs.
Texters piss me off. If killing them wasn’t a crime, over 100 people would be dead in the past 5 years. I am NOT the only person that feels this way!
“I wonder if he’s in the early stages of Alzheimer’s? A typical symptom is irrational fits of anger.”
At 71, it would not be that unusual.
Unfortunately not. I just learned last summer that a former boss of mine has it and his wife is taking care of him. He is a couple of years older than me which makes him about 62. Apparently he has had it for a while now. That really shocked me but it can strike people in their forties even so it’s not a big anomaly.
So if I walk into a dark theater I can shoot anyone who ‘scares’ me?[Tongue-in-cheek Rant On}
Then, if someone tries to monday-morning-quarterback you afterwards, *BONUS*!! You can claim that you are a frail old "seasoned-citizen" who was in fear of your life from the young, impudent upstart who would still be alive if he only followed the rules and properly kow-towed to your all-encompassing authority.
I just thought everyone knew that by his steely-eyed glare from his arraignment hearing photo.
Other facts that get glossed over:
- The way I read it, the theater was not yet full and there were plenty of empty seats. The pi$$ed-off, badge-heavy, rule-mongering, Barney-Fife geezer could have moved anywhere else in the theater if he was so put-out by someone texting *BEFORE* the film started. But of course, that would have been an affront to his authority and besides, he was packin' his pistol! Damned if he was gonna back down!
- The way I read it, dead-dude was texting *PRIOR* to the movie, which is the time you can text, call, get up and go to the concession stand, talk to your date, stretch, do jumping-jacks, etc. The cell-phone notice don't come on until right before the opening credits, at least that's the way it happens in every theater I've ever been in.
- Correct me if I'm wrong, but texting on a cell phone before a movie starts is not a capital felony. I don't even think it's a misdemeanor. Is it even a law or is it just a policy of the theater, sort of like "NO WEAPONS ALLOWED UNLESS YOU ARE AN ON-DUTY LEO".
So I'm with you. God might forgive the pi$$ed-off, badge-heavy, rule-mongering, Barney-Fife geezer, but I dang sure won't and I see no reason for anyone else to either. Let him rot in that crap-sandwich bed he made for himself. He is a prime example of how modern Law Enforcement is headed down the wrong path. He demonstrated he holds a belief that everyone must bow to his "authority" (ahem!) without question or face a gun. Far too many LEO's today either can't or won't fight their way out of a paper bag -- they just go straight to the gun and as far as I can tell, figure they can always build probable cause backwards if they have to.
[Tongue-in-cheek Rant Off]
Serious as a heart-attack: We need more Andy Griffiths and far, far fewer Barney Fifes. Nowadays, we seem to have a large majority of Barney Fifes both on the job and retired from the job.
Every other account quotes Reeves’ attorney Escobar as stating the probable cause document was “weak”.
This the opposite of what HL says and I’m doubtful there are two different attorneys using the same phraseology, but in an opposite manner.
I also have not seen any other news article stating that witness say the shooter threw the popcorn, not one. They all say Oulsen threw his popcorn or that they don’t know who threw it.
And why does HL keep using Reeves’ first name Curtis as if it was his surname and then switch back to the surname?
Also of note, it is not original reporting and is bylined to HL Intern. It is not a well written account.
I am more likely to believe the local reporting with reporters that actually attended the arraignment and uses sourced quotes rather than an intern at a gossip blog offering a rehash of what they’ve read or think they’ve read.
When the initial story broke one witness Cummings said that “popcorn was thrown” — with no identification of who threw it or whether it came from one or both.
Then later we are told that Oulson threw “a bag of popcorn” and what is continually described is that it was a BAG of popcorn — not popcorn — but a BAG of popcorn.
So if Oulson threw the BAG of popcorn — then who threw the popcorn???
And remember that Oulson’s attorney said that Reeves started the row both times — when he first got there and when he returned from tattling.
AND Reeves attorney and Reeves have lied outright about the dark colored UFO that they claimed that Oulson threw. Police searched for the UFO and found nothing and said they found nothing thus painting Reeves and his attorney as prefabricators. Their credibility is in the toilet.
Where do you suspect that Tony Norman got this information:
"It isn't clear who threw the first kernel. Witnesses insisted it was Mr. Reeves who in turn blamed Mr. Oulson."
Oulsen doesn’t have an attorney, he’s dead.
The police report says Oulsen threw his popcorn. Cummings is not the only witness.
I’m not defending Reeves. He was clearly in the wrong in using deadly force, IMO. I just don’t see a valid self defense claim over popcorn. I also think Reeves may be displaying dementia.
That said, Oulsen also made a fatal error in judgement in participating in a petty dispute with an asshat.
And Hollywood Life is an inaccurate gossip blog.
Apparently Tony Norman reads HL, because I sure haven’t seen that claim anywhere else.
<>Oulsen doesn’t have an attorney, he’s dead.<>
Mrs Oulsen isn’t dead nor is their daughter and you can bet that they will be suing the Reeves family:
“Initial reports have suggested Oulson challenged Reeves, demanding to know if he had reported him, but lawyers for the Oulson family have said Reeves started the row on both occasions.”
[Note — this is not from Hollywood Life]
Yes, they will and should... but any settlement will be cold comfort for the loss of a husband and father.
Death is a heavy price to pay over a bag of popcorn.
<>Yes, they will and should ...<>
NO — Yes, they did and Yes, they do.
The Oulsons had lawyers and have lawyers.
And those lawyers that they did have and do have said that Reeves started the row both times as I cited to you — that is what I was responding to.
To be correct and assure that the house is built out of brick rather than straw, the police report said that Oulson threw a “BAG of popcorn” — not “popcorn”.
Cummings sitting with his son two seats away said that he saw “popcorn thrown”.
Someone threw popcorn and someone threw a bag of popcorn — two separate things.
BTW I am assuming that the “gossip blog” Hollywood Life is Hollywood Florida not Hollywood California and their little bunny intern just might have been there in court and scooped the other New York Times. It’s happened before and will again.
And as far as the use of the term “weak” by lawyers on both sides of the table at a hearing being a coincidence — it happens all the time as they mock each other’s arguments in court. It is not unusual at all.
If that’s all you got — It’s Weak.
- Since this occurred *BEFORE* the film started, the theatre was *not* totally darkened. Before the film starts, movie theatres leave it at twilight level so patrons can locate empty seats. I'm highly skeptical of any claim that the retired cop couldn't see that the thrown popcorn was something other than thrown popcorn.
I wonder if that may ultimate wind up being the defense attorney's case?
Thanks for the correction. That’s actually comforting that federal law bothers to respect individual property rights.
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.