Records: Man in theater shooting also was texting

Yahoo News ^ | March 13, 2014 | Tamarah Lush/ Associated Press

[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.

[centurion316]

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.

[Uncle Chip]

<>There is video.<>

You mean this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G27d9hCjsUE&feature=youtube_gdata_player

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.

[oldenuff2no]

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.

[oldenuff2no]

One might say that he earned that popcorn thrown at him.

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.

[oldenuff2no]

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.

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.

[oldenuff2no]

And don’t tell us that he “drew his gun” —

He did draw his gun or do you want us to believe that it drew itself??

[centurion316]

I did not quote your stupid remark. I made a comment. Learn to read English

[sport]

You can believe whatever you please. The facts and witnesses speak for themselves. And neither align themselves with your version.

[Uncle Chip]

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???

[Uncle Chip]

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.

[oldenuff2no]

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???

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?

[oldenuff2no]

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.

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.

[Uncle Chip]

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.

[oldenuff2no]

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.

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.

[Uncle Chip]

One second is slow to the first shot.

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.

[oldenuff2no]

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.

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.

[Uncle Chip]

Retired cops in most states are exempt from many, most, or all of the carry laws.

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.

[FBD]

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:

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5iw1xtJx58&feature=youtube_gdata_player

“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.

[FBD]

“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.”

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.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/01/23/article-2544568-1AE792EA00000578-531_634x374.jpg

[Uncle Chip]

“ feared for his life.”

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.