Florida Man Is Shot to Death for Texting During Movie Previews

[Thebobo]

Yeah, I don't see that last one catching on. All defensive shootings are based on fear. The question is whether that fear is justified in any given incident.

The problem is you end up with a dead person and all justice in the world won't bring them back

 

[Vic]

Denied bail again. http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/07/justice/florida-movie-theater-shooting/index.html?c=justice

 

[dmcowen674]

Yep, looks like the ex-officer in this is going down for the count on this charge. I really don't see anything but jail time for him.

On a side note, the original guy was a fucking ass. If he needs to check voicemail messages then his ass needs to leave the theater to do so. Then throwing popcorn at someone for calling him out on his bitch ass behavior was showing how much an idiot/asshole he was.

And then the old guy had to do something truly stupid and shoot him. Both were idiots.

After seeing the video the dead guy did escalate it to the point of what happened by reaching back and grabbing the guy's pop corn.

Yep, both were idiots but one that was his last time to be an idiot.

 

[Vic]

After seeing the video the dead guy did escalate it to the point of what happened by reaching back and grabbing the guy's pop corn.

Yep, both were idiots but one that was his last time to be an idiot.

Agreed they were both rude hotheaded assholes, but as Reeves wife said right after it happened, "That was no reason to shoot anybody. "

 

[Lithium381]

but cops have training to deal with stressful situations, right? i mean that's why they can have a military arsenal but "mere civilians" can't.

 

[Daverino]

After seeing the video the dead guy did escalate it to the point of what happened by reaching back and grabbing the guy's pop corn.

Yep, both were idiots but one that was his last time to be an idiot.

According to one of the witnesses Reeves dared Oulson to throw popcorn in his face. Oulson obliged. Reeves shot him.

It should also be noted, if you watch the video, that it was Reeve's own popcorn that Oulson threw. Oulson did not throw his own popcorn. There is no way that Reeves could have mistaken the popcorn for a deadly weapon as it was, quite literally, his.

Actually, watching the video again, it looks even more depraved. It is obvious that Reeves had his gun drawn BEFORE Oulson threw the popcorn. There is less than one second between the time that Reeves is hit with the popcorn and Reeves fires.

 

[Venix]

According to one of the witnesses Reeves dared Oulson to throw popcorn in his face. Oulson obliged. Reeves shot him.

It should also be noted, if you watch the video, that it was Reeve's own popcorn that Oulson threw. Oulson did not throw his own popcorn. There is no way that Reeves could have mistaken the popcorn for a deadly weapon as it was, quite literally, his.

Actually, watching the video again, it looks even more depraved. It is obvious that Reeves had his gun drawn BEFORE Oulson threw the popcorn. There is less than one second between the time that Reeves is hit with the popcorn and Reeves fires.

Depending on how he carries and how much he practices, putting a shot on target in under one second is perfectly reasonable. But that's likely not what happened. He probably reached for his gun the moment Oulson lunged at him to grab the popcorn. That's more like three seconds, which is a wholly unimpressive draw time.

Speaking of depraved, grabbing an elderly man's popcorn and smashing it into his face with that much force is horrible. I had this image of Oulson lightly tossing his own popcorn at Reeves in frustration, but the reality is much more violent. Shooting him was an extreme overreaction, but what little sympathy I had for him is gone.

 

[Daverino]

Depending on how he carries and how much he practices, putting a shot on target in under one second is perfectly reasonable. But that's likely not what happened. He probably reached for his gun the moment Oulson lunged at him to grab the popcorn. That's more like three seconds, which is a wholly unimpressive draw time.

Speaking of depraved, grabbing an elderly man's popcorn and smashing it into his face with that much force is horrible. I had this image of Oulson lightly tossing his own popcorn at Reeves in frustration, but the reality is much more violent. Shooting him was an extreme overreaction, but what little sympathy I had for him is gone.

You haven't watched the video I guess.

Oulson throws the popcorn 13:26:37
Oulson is shot at 13:26:38

Witness Mark Douglas Turner, a 27 year Air Force Vet stated in testimony that Reeves said to Oulson, "Throw popcorn in my face."
Witness Alan Hamilton, an off-duty Sumter County deputy testified that Reeves said, "I'll teach you to throw popcorn at me," before shooting Oulson.

 

[Venix]

You haven't watched the video I guess.

Oulson throws the popcorn 13:26:37
Oulson is shot at 13:26:38

Skilled carriers can draw and fire in that amount of time. I still suspect that Reeves actually began drawing when Oulson first lunged toward him at 13:26:35.

I don't see any evidence from the video that he had his gun in-hand, then decided to shoot Oulson only after the popcorn was thrown. It's a possibility, but no more likely than either of the situations I outlined above.

Witness Mark Douglas Turner, a 27 year Air Force Vet stated in testimony that Reeves said to Oulson, "Throw popcorn in my face."
Witness Alan Hamilton, an off-duty Sumter County deputy testified that Reeves said, "I'll teach you to throw popcorn at me," before shooting Oulson.

He said, "I'll teach you to throw popcorn at me," in under one second? Is he the fast-talking Micro Machines commercial guy from the 80's?

 

[Daverino]

He said, "I'll teach you to throw popcorn at me," in under one second? Is he the fast-talking Micro Machines commercial guy from the 80's?

Which makes it likely that Reeves dared Oulson to throw popcorn at him BEFORE he threw it. . .

 

[Venix]

Which makes it likely that Reeves dared Oulson to throw popcorn at him BEFORE he threw it. . .

I don't follow. If he said it before firing, he would have had to start saying it before Oulson grabbed the popcorn. The witness is either mistaken about what was said, or Reeves said it while or after firing. If Reeves previously dared Oulson to throw popcorn at him, perhaps the witness heard that and remembered it incorrectly.

Do you think I'm defending Reeves or something? He's a prick. All I'm saying is that there's no evidence that he had his gun at-the-ready in some pre-meditated plot to murder Oulson. He was probably talking shit, then was angered or surprised when Oulson actually attacked him instead of continuing the bro down.

 

[Mani]

Well, it's Florida so the guy will probably claim self-defense and walk.

 

[Daverino]

I don't follow. If he said it before firing, he would have had to start saying it before Oulson grabbed the popcorn. The witness is either mistaken about what was said, or Reeves said it while or after firing. If Reeves previously dared Oulson to throw popcorn at him, perhaps the witness heard that and remembered it incorrectly.

Do you think I'm defending Reeves or something? He's a prick. All I'm saying is that there's no evidence that he had his gun at-the-ready in some pre-meditated plot to murder Oulson. He was probably talking shit, then was angered or surprised when Oulson actually attacked him instead of continuing the bro down.

What I'm saying is that two different witnesses heard Reeves say something to the effect of 'Throw popcorn at me.' Both witnesses also stated they heard Reeves say it before he shot Oulson.

If you've watched the video, you can see clearly there is no time between Oulson grabbing the popcorn from Reeves and Oulson getting shot for Reeves to say that. Literally, Oulson was shot one second after throwing the popcorn.

Therefore, it is likely that Reeves made the comment BEFORE Oulson threw the popcorn. If Reeves warned Oulson not to throw popcorn at him BEFORE Oulson threw it and then it is impossible for Reeves to mistake what was being thrown at him. In his statement to the police he claimed that Oulson hit him with a fist. He also stated that Oulson threw his cellphone at him. The video shows that neither of those things happened. All witnesses, including Reeves' own wife stated Oulson never tried to strike him.

My point is that clearly Reeves knew that popcorn was being thrown at him.
1. Two witnesses heard Reeves warn Oulson about throwing popcorn before it was thrown.
2. There was not enough time between Oulson throwing it and Oulson being shot for Reeves to make the statement.
3. The popcorn that was thrown was in Reeves hands, taken from him by Oulson, and thrown at him. Oulson did not throw his own popcorn at Reeves.

So if Reeves knew that he had been hit by popcorn, and not a fist or a cellphone, why did he feel the need to shoot and then feel the need to lie about it to the police in his statement?

 

[bshole]

Depends on the situation.. Is it a seemingly defenseless woman, alone, being harassed to the point where she can't call for help, cornered, being spit on and bullied by numerous people to the point to where her life is threatened? If so, sure, I support her defending herself via any means necessary.

And ultimately, the crux of this case really isn't about whether or not this is legal. It's pretty clear that throwing popcorn does not cause someone to fear for their life, so the shooter will likely serve time.

The issue here is that legal or not, if you confront someone you just might get dead. And when you're dead leaving behind a widow and child, it's not going to matter whether or not it was legal.

THAT is my problem... That a father, husband, is not only so selfish and daft as to pull his phone out in a theater, but he also is bullying a poor old man and throwing popcorn at him. I place that blame squarely on the young buck who initiated this entire thing and left his family without a father.


Again..... Legal or not, that sort of behaviour is not tolerable and if you act that way towards a crazy you could very well end up dead... Gun or no gun.

You literally can't make this shit up. The shooter just finished TEXTING himself!!!!! Good shoot huh Spatial?

Records show that a retired police captain who reportedly shot a man in a movie theater because he was texting had sent a text message to his own son moments before the incident.

According to records released Thursday by prosecutors, Curtis Reeves texted his son, who was on his way to the theater, saying that he was already inside.

The 71-year-old Reeves is charged with second-degree murder in the killing of Chad Oulson on Jan. 13.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/03/1...ie-goer-for-texting-sent-text-moments-before/

 

[TerryMathews]

You literally can't make this shit up. The shooter just finished TEXTING himself!!!!! Good shoot huh Spatial?



http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/03/1...ie-goer-for-texting-sent-text-moments-before/

So?

 

[bshole]

So?

Page after page of Spatial insinuating it was a good shoot because the victim was so rude as to be texting.... now we find out that the killer himself was texting as well?!!! That doesn't strike you as ironic? Is complete comedic myopia a requirement of conservatism?

 

[Geosurface]

In a public place with people around, there was no possible justification for shooting this guy during an argument over something so stupid and trivial, in front of his wife no less.

Only if he'd threatened to kill and/or had a weapon could it even begin to make sense. Execute the shooter tomorrow, IMO.

 

[HumblePie]

You literally can't make this shit up. The shooter just finished TEXTING himself!!!!! Good shoot huh Spatial?



http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/03/1...ie-goer-for-texting-sent-text-moments-before/

Just for reference, the old guy wasn't texting during the previews like the deceased. All movie theaters I know put up information of when you are suppose to turn off all electronic devices and stop talking. Talking, texting, and and doing other things besides sitting quietly during those times are not considered rude. After that moment, doing those things is considered very rude. Also, the article doesn't detail on where Curtis sent that text at 1:04. He could have stepped outside the theater for a second to send that text and stepped back, even if it was sent prior to the previews.

But being rude isn't justification for being shot at. More evidence will probably come to light. While I know there is a subset of scenario(s) based on the currently known evidence that would allow this shooting to be justified, I am of the opinion right now none of those apply. Again, it's my opinion the shooting was not justified, but future released evidence may change that. Who knows.

 

[HomerJS]

In a public place with people around, there was no possible justification for shooting this guy during an argument over something so stupid and trivial, in front of his wife no less.

Only if he'd threatened to kill and/or had a weapon could it even begin to make sense. Execute the shooter tomorrow, IMO.

I believe the same can be said for Jordan Davis

 

[irishScott]

The problem is you end up with a dead person and all justice in the world won't bring them back

That's not a problem in many cases, where self-defense is justice in and of itself. But you don't hear about those stories that often. The people demand drama! Controversy! Action! Suspense! Good vs Evil!

Before TV and the Internet a story like this wouldn't have been more than local news. Now overly-outraged people sell billions in ad-revenue to hear firebrands and pundits give them twisted information about something that ultimately doesn't affect them.

 

[TerryMathews]

Page after page of Spatial insinuating it was a good shoot because the victim was so rude as to be texting.... now we find out that the killer himself was texting as well?!!! That doesn't strike you as ironic? Is complete comedic myopia a requirement of conservatism?

No, because the difference in timing could be that one texted before the lights dimmed and the screen was on and the other did not.

Make no mistake, I dont think this shooting was justified. There's no evidence the deceased posed any threat under the reasonable person standard. All that said, you look foolish to compare their actions like that when you know full well the timing is the critical factor.

 

[TerryMathews]

I believe the same can be said for Jordan Davis

Too bad the jury didn't agree eh?

 

[Geosurface]

I believe the same can be said for Jordan Davis

Maybe and maybe not. That would depend on what exactly Davis said and did. If he made a threat to kill, and seemed to be acting on it (opening door, having or seeming to have a weapon) then what Dunn did may have been justified, or at least the initial shots may have been.

If, on the other hand, all Davis did was rudely tell Dunn off and curse him out, then Dunn opening fire wasn't even on the same planet as "justified." Problem is, none of us know which happened.

Popcorn texter was with only his wife, surrounded by witnesses, and I haven't heard any claim he threatened old asshole's life. Correct me if I'm wrong and such a claim has been made by either old asshole and/or a witness.

Texter had only his wife as backup, and tons of people around to break up a fight if it came to one.

Davis may have had not only a weapon but three young, fit males of like mind to back up his supposed threats, if Dunn is truthful.

 

[SpatiallyAware]

How quickly they forget that the ONLY reason dunn is in jail is due to shooting at a vehicle leaving the scene. That's it.

He could've trayvon'd jordan right in the heart and he would've walked.. even after ordering pizza...

 

[her209]

Was the theatre a gun-free zone?