Skip to comments.Records: Man in theater shooting also was texting
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 ...
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force after getting popcorn thrown in his face, then all those Trayvon supporters are right about the law needing to be repealed.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.
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.
When throwing popcorn becomes justification for murder, then the time has come to murder all politicians and lawyers as they do far worse every day.
Thankfully, your views are unlikely to prevail.
<>There is video.<>
You mean this:
Note who initiated the second round — the shooter who kicks the back of the seat in front of him and then leans forward and says something to him.
One might say that he earned that popcorn thrown at him.
And don’t tell us that he “drew his gun” —
He already had the gun in his hand under his jacket so all he had to do was lift point and fire.
If his hand were under his coat there is no way that you can see it or know it. You are now making things up.
There is a huge difference between a verbal confrontation and a physical one. There is a solid line between putting your hands on someone or something they are holding and throwing it at them and saying words to them. This difference exists in the reality of every day encounters and with the existing laws.
You can want what ever you wish but these laws have been on books for many decades. They reach from domestic violence situations clear out to strangers on the street. Words are never enough reason/justification to physically assault someone.
By your way of thinking we could assault anyone and everyone who yelled at us. No it does not work like that.
Yes judge she was yelling at me so I slapped her, she earned it.
Ya, sure, try that one on a judge. Let me know when you do, I want to hear what he has to say.
I did not say that throwing popcorn was justification for murder. I said his story was pretty thin.
Please tell the truth in the future.
He did draw his gun or do you want us to believe that it drew itself??
I did not quote your stupid remark. I made a comment. Learn to read English
You can believe whatever you please. The facts and witnesses speak for themselves. And neither align themselves with your version.
So then where was his gun when he “drew” it???
In his pants pocket as he claimed to the police???
or under his jacket as the video shows???
You clearly did not see the bond hearing where even his attorneys would not go anywhere near characterizing the thrown popcorn as a “physical assault” or any sort of a justifiable reason to escalate beyond that.
They didn’t want to be laughed out of court.
Were his pants and his pocket not under his jacket???
What are you trying to get at. He had a small pistol that was not visible per the requirements of his CCW. He had his hand on the end of his arm within quick and easy reach of his weapon. That makes since to me and is how I do it. Where was he supposed to put his hand when someone was yelling at him. Was he supposed to detach it and put it away or what??? He did draw his pistol and fire. It could have been in his pocket, in a pancake holster of poly molded holster outside of his pants or and inside the pants holster. All of them would be located under his jacket.
The fact that the firearm started out under his jacket is a given and not in argument.
Are you trying to say he is guilty because his weapon was located where he could access it easily? I teach people to keep it within reach so you can access it easily and also protect it from others getting a hold of it. I'm really not getting this under the jacket thing. When sitting down with a small handgun in your pocket it is immediately under your jacket. Where do you think that pocket was?
His defense will be either SYG or self defense. He does not have any other way to go with this.
As I have said several times that is thin.
And yes anytime you hit someone with anything it is assault. Even spitting on someone can be considered assault.
This case, as per the laws in Florida, is going to come down to what was in his mind in that split second. Their verdict will be based on if he can convince a jury that he felt that or was convinced that he was being threatened with immediate great and grievous bodily harm or death.
I will say again that this line of thought is thin, but it is all he has for a defense.
He told the police that the weapon was in his pants pocket and he drew it from there, but as the prosecutor told the judge without objection from his attorney, there is no way that he drew that gun from his pants pocket after the popcorn was thrown. It was already in his hand.
He claimed that it was in his pocket because he didn’t want the police to know that he had it out within easy reach because he intended to use it.
Watch the video — one second after the popcorn is thrown the gun is fired — one second.
His arm does not reach backward into his pants pocket but goes straight forward.
There is no way he drew his pistol at that time — it was already drawn — and that is evidence of premeditation.
and your argument is toast.
Total BS with a capital B.....
I shoot combat comp and pins. I draw from a holster and fire all the time. One second is slow to the first shot. BS BS BS. This retired cop has also had years of training shooting from a holster or pocket.
It does not show premeditation is shows preparedness just as he has been taught as a cop to do for all of his career. Cops are Taught to Have their hand on their sidearm. He went with what he was taught. For your way of thinking to be true every cop that stops you and approaches your vehicle is planning on killing you, in fact already has it all planned out, premeditated in fact.
After being hit in the shoulder by a bag of buttered popcorn -- LOL???
This retired cop has also had years of training shooting from a holster or pocket.
Yep -- training to draw his weapon when hit with a bag of buttered popcorn. I'm sure that's somewhere in their training.
It does not show premeditation is shows preparedness just as he has been taught as a cop to do for all of his career.
Yep I'm sure every cop is prepared to shoot at a moment's notice -- a dog barking, a kid answering the door, a kid turning sideways, a bag of popcorn in your face --
Cops are Taught to Have their hand on their sidearm.
That's funny because he was retired and guns were not permitted in the theatre and he knew it and the other cop in the theatre who is active duty didn't have his hand on his gun or even his gun on him.
He went with what he was taught.
Yeh shoot first at anybody who doesn't bow down to you and then make up a reason later.
Incidentally his daughter said that he usually carried a 22 but for some reason that day decided to pack a 38. I 'm guessing that he wanted to make sure that he had enough firepower for the texter that he ran into that day.
Retired cops in most states are exempt from many, most, or all of the carry laws.
Where is the unlearn button located on any retired cops body??? You seem to believe that the minute they retire they automatically unlearn all the tactical knowledge and patterning that they have learned for decades. Please explain how that is done.
What you want us to believe is that when a cop retires they just forget everything they have been taught. This is impossible but you want us to believe the impossible.
Trying to divert the discussion to dogs or anything else is called a straw man argument. It is usually employed when one can't discuss the facts of the pertinent argument logically. I do not go there. You're out of ammo.
Your points in this discussion are not accurate, or correct.
He had a CC license under which he carried that weapon and he violated theatre policy posted on the front door by bringing it in there.
Where is the unlearn button located on any retired cops body???
What you are telling us all out here is that cops are trained to be as bad as this guy -- that all it takes is one second of thought for a cop to decide to take someone's life over a bag of popcorn -- one second to step back and analyze the situation, to consider the consequences of pulling his weapon, to contemplate alternative courses of actions, to think it through.
You really are giving cops a bad name here by contending that Reeves was only doing what he was trained to do.
Anyway though the sheriff and his deputies that arrested him fully disagree with you.
Reeves clearly was ready to escalate the confrontation before the popcorn was thrown. There was a back and forth exchange between the two. Witnesses heard them arguing. Watch bond hearing, Sheriff’s deputy testimony at 58:00 minutes in:
That will teach you to throw popcorn at me.- 3 witnesses heard Reeves say that.According to the sheriff’s deputy who confiscated Reeves gun, he heard his wife say: (rough quote) That was no reason to shoot someone.
Reeves then told his wife to: Shut your fu#king mouth, and don’t say another word.”, according to the sheriff deputy.-When his own wife said (in front of witnesses) the shooting was wrong, why would you still defend it? -That is puzzling.
Recklessly shooting at people in a crowded movie theater is what cops are taught? That's a frightening thought. But I suspect that you are correct in that today's police think they're justified in endangering innocent bystanders, just to protect their own sorry butts from anything they *perceive* to be a “threat”. Reeves is in fact using that defense, saying after he shot the Oulsons; that he “ feared for his life.” Apparently, this coward didn't fear for anyone else’s life in the theater, including Mrs. Oulson, who was also shot... Pretty sad state of affairs, when everyone around a cop who “fears for his life” is just collateral damage.
The fact that the bullet first hit Mrs Oulson indicates that at the time of the shooting Mrs Oulson was standing in the gap between Oulson and Reeves thus making the "feared for his life" claim pathetically hollow -- unless he is claiming that he was afraid that Mrs Oulson was going to attack him.
The truth is that he shot him in retribution for tossing popcorn at him as he was heard to say:
"that'll teach you to throw popcorn in my face".
That's not fear for your life. That's shooting someone for what they did rather than what you fear that they might do -- and that makes it criminal.
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....
Texting is not a privilege for peasants, only for lords and knights of the realm!
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.