Said Scott Rosenwasser, the Pinellas-Pasco assistant state attorney, addressing the jury, quoted in "He shot a man over tossed popcorn, prosecutors say. His defense: Stand-your-ground" (WaPo).
The defendant, Curtis Reeves was irritated by the light emanating from the cell phone Chad Oulson had left on in the movie theater. At some point Oulson threw popcorn at Reeves and Reeves shot Oulson dead. Stories like this tend to get boiled into the idea that X shot Y over popcorn (or something similarly trivial).
But:
In pretrial hearings, Reeves testified that Oulson was “on top of” him... “He hit me with his fist or with something. I think he had his cellphone in his hand because I saw the blur of the screen,” Reeves said.
Oulson was 43, Reeves 71.
Posts
69 comments:
You ever try to get popcorn butter out of your clothes?!?!
If you attack a 71 year old man physically, even when you have been provoked, he has every expectation his life is in danger. Looks like pure and simple self defense to me. The appropriate response to having popcorn thrown at you is to have the theater remove the asshole, not to attack him. Once you physically assault him then you are open to return of force, and it may well be disproportionate force. The line is not that indefinite. If he throws something that can damage you, then he forced the encounter. Otherwise, you are forcing the encounter.
I'm persuaded that we all reach a moment sometime in our life when we are provoked to a maniacal tipping point, however ridiculous the circumstances to others. It only takes a fraction of a second to tip. Most of us don't.
m
'Ever notice that every once in a while you come across someone that you shouldn't have fucked with? That's me.' Clint Eastwood, Gran Torino
Some people have guns. When you choose to antagonize a member of the public, you need to keep that in mind.
"Now I'm gonna go back inside and finish watching Sleepless in Seattle."
You go to the movie you shut yer yap, put yer phone away, enjoy the movie and show others the same respect you demand.
This is why comment moderation is back on.
Let me state at the top, I'm against killing people over popcorn attacks. It's not right, it's never been right, and it's never going to be right. Same goes for killing someone over inconsiderate cellphone usage. This cannot be overstated.
Having established my virtue credentials, let me now state that I've been in theaters where cellphones were abused. I've had popcorn ready to fire. IOW, I've been on both sides of this equation. And let me tell you, it can make a guy angry, either way.
So my conclusion is, don't bring a gun to the popcorn/cellphone fight. It won't turn out well.
Modern Duels: Gentleman chose your weapons. Either popcorn or a Glock17.
Fair is fair.
Popcorn, maybe no. Cell phone use while Movie is running - "you don't look so bad, have another."
If Chad had shot the senior for leaving his phone on, THAT would've been overdoing it.
I just want to congratulate the WaPo for this:
"Championed by the National Rifle Association, stand-your-ground policies have spread to most states despite intense scrutiny after the fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin....George Zimmerman argued successfully that he shot Martin, an unarmed Black teenager, in self-defense. Zimmerman’s lawyers did not cite stand-your-ground at trial, but a juror said the law came up in deliberations."
Beautifully done. (Weird how some people think the legacy media are political propagandists.) Zimmerman's lawyers did not cite stand-your-ground because the concept doesn't enter into it when you're pinned to the pavement getting your head slammed onto same.
It doesn't sound like a "stand your ground" case to me. A 71 year old man being assaulted while sitting in a movie theater chair by a guy that's 37 years younger than you simply doesn't have the ability to retreat.
"I'm persuaded that we all reach a moment sometime in our life when we are provoked to a maniacal tipping point, however ridiculous the circumstances to others. It only takes a fraction of a second to tip. Most of us don't."
A good argument against carrying a firearm in everyday outings from home.
Laws relating to self defense differ from state to state, so hopefully your concealed carry permit classes cover the applicable laws and precedents. In Virginia the applicable self defense doctrine is called “disparate force.” An older, weaker, person is not legally obligated to accept a beat-down. You are somewhat older. You are in reasonable fear of serious bodily injury, possibly (though not necessarily) including fear of death. You may therefore defend yourself with lethal force.
Ignore the Post mentioning “stand your ground.” The Post hates that stand your ground laws are even allowed to exist so they never miss a chance to grab that red herring by the tail and wave it around. Once a person has been violently physically attacked, the ability to retreat is mostly gone.
This is why I no longer go to movie theaters. Not worth the cost, the inconvenience, or the risk
Actually. Yes actually, the man is now 79. this happened in 2014. Why it took 8 years to come to trial is beyond me.
Justifiable. Not guilty!
Chad's last words as he threw the popcorn: "Hey old fart, what're going to do to stop me?"
Old guys used to get respect. I feel a tad bad, I might add, for the kid Chad had, and his spousal comrade, that the granddad made Chad not a deadbeat dad, but just plain old dead dad.
So the victim was with his wife, and after he stood up in his seat and turned around to confront the defendant in the row behind, his wife also stood up, and tried to turn him away. So when the defendant fired, the bullet first went through her finger. Sounds like it will be hard to establish self defense in that set up. Judge already rejected stand-your-ground following evidentiary hearing. 100 pretrial depositions taken if I read right. But that probably includes civil claims, including against movie theater. Still seems crazy. Defendant must have been a piece of work as a police officer.
WWRD? What would Reacher do? I worked with a number of combat vets in the 70s and 80s. Not well deprogrammed. Real nice guys, but as one told me, "Uncle Sam didn't give me an off switch". Rule of the street? Fuck with the bull, sometimes you get the horns.
Pre-covid stories. Watching at home we won’t have to worry about something like this happening again. #unlikelycovidsilverlining.
Follow up: if this story is not pre-covid then the answer is perfectly clear. We need to ban movie theaters 😉
So the WaPo mischaracterized the trial proceedings in the headline to create a false narrative.
The WaPo is a shitty evil publication that needs to be destroyed.
It is propaganda manipulation under a literal definition.
People that support the WaPo are supporting this.
rcocean said...
Actually. Yes actually, the man is now 79. this happened in 2014. Why it took 8 years to come to trial is beyond me.
So the prosecutors pushing an anti-self defense agenda could ruin a man's life to make an example warning others not to defend themselves.
Robert Cook said...
A good argument against carrying a firearm in everyday outings from home.
Good point.
That way women and elderly people have no way to defend themselves from bigger stronger men.
This is playing out in democrat controlled cities right now with exploding violent crime and murder rates.
Cook is always finding ways to make sure there are fewer equalizers and make sure that superior power is the only mediation in conflict.
A couple of thoughts about this case:
1) Chad Oulson is typical of many movie goers in this day and age where they can’t take their eyes off of their damned smartphones. In a darkened movie theater, that is damned annoying, especially when you eyes have adjusted for the dark! These people are addicted to their smartphones to the point that they can’t put the damned thing away for 2 hours to watch a movie in a darkened room that they paid $15-$20 to watch. If a person can’t leave their phones in their pocket, they shouldn’t be there.
2) Curtiss Reeves shooting Chad Oulson for throwing popcorn at Reeves is becoming the norm in this country, unfortunately. It seems that the standard now is if you disrespect someone, the course of action is for that someone to pull out their handgun and “teach” you the last lesson that you will ever learn. It is in the nightly new weekly in my area and it seems daily if you read the news stories out of the larger cities. Usually, it is gang bangers disrespecting each other who are using a gun to end the disagreement, not a 71 year old white former police captain who should know better about drawing a weapon. I cannot understand how this is considered “stand your ground” by Reeves’ defense as justification for pulling a weapon against a box of popcorn as the deadman’s “weapon”. Reeves was a trained LEO who knew how to de-escalate situations like this.
Whenever I have run into one of these smartphone addicts in a movie theater, I will politely ask them to put the phone away until the end of the movie. If that doesn’t work, I will go get an usher. That is how situations in a movie theater were handled in the “good old days”, not by escalating violence. BTW, I haven’t been to a movie theater in over 2 years due to Covid as well as a mask mandate as Mrs. Scott and I don’t care to wear something that fogs up our glasses while trying to watch something that I just paid $15 for (along with any purchased overpriced concession stand food). Especially when that movie shows up a month later on a streaming service I subscribe to at home for $8.99/mo…
There were two considerations:
1) the cell-phone light
2) the thrown popcorn.
If there had been just one such consideration, then I would say that shooting the miscreant to death was excessive.
However, there were two. So, justifiable homicide.
Streaming fixes this. Well, mostly.
eight years after the fatal shooting in Wesley Chapel, Fla., lawyers gave opening statements
So I guess these words don't mean anything at all: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial,"
Com'n, man, to quote Scranton Joe. It was just popcorn. Maybe if it was a drink. Or a drink and popcorn, well then maybe.
Robert Cook said...
"I'm persuaded that we all reach a moment sometime in our life when we are provoked to a maniacal tipping point, however ridiculous the circumstances to others. It only takes a fraction of a second to tip. Most of us don't."
A good argument against carrying a firearm in everyday outings from home.
Actually, it's an excellent argument for going out armed at all times.
When interviewed by police after the shooting, Reeves did not say anything about Oulson being "on top of him." He asserted only that Oulson had thrown something at his face.
The movie was Lone Survivor -- as in two guys have a popcorn versus gun fight in a movie theater and there can only be one lone survivor.
Clearly, you turn off your phone in a movie theater and if someone asks you to shut off the light, you just do so, but something like this might not happen now, when theaters or so empty that you can always find an empty seat somewhere.
Pussies and cowards praise overreacting to mild conflict. Part of you people's pathology is the citation of tough guy movie lines uttered by right wing chicken hawks like Clit Eastwood and Marion Morrison.
“If Chad had shot the senior for leaving his phone on, THAT would've been overdoing it.”
The old guy certainly didn’t leave Chad hanging…
rcocean said...
Actually. Yes actually, the man is now 79. this happened in 2014. Why it took 8 years to come to trial is beyond me.
https://nypost.com/2022/02/14/curtis-reeves-stands-trial-for-shooting-man-in-cinema-in-2014/
His case has been delayed for several years after Reeves argued that he was justified under the state’s “stand your ground” law because he feared for his life. COVID-19 only added to the delays.
Reeves, who retired from the police force in 1993, has remained under house arrest throughout the lengthy delays and appeals in his case.
according to the post, the cellphone use was "texting", not talking; and was during the previews, not the movie
He shot a man in a movie theater, just to watch him die.
Now it's the same old song
But with a different meaning.
Stand-your-ground
They should call it, the "get out of my face and leave me alone" law.
What sane person would be against that one?
Zimmerman's lawyers did not cite stand-your-ground
And yet the NYT managed to work it into its reporting anyway.
This is what they've learned from Palin. You insert the accusation into the article and then state it's "what people are saying".
The defendant was an old bull in more ways than one--assuming that Readering is right when he said the defendant had been a peace officer.
So yeah--mess with an old bull the results won't be good. Best to remember than an armed society is a polite society.
I notice that you used the "murder" tag on this one. Shouldn't that be "homicide"?
Readering said...his wife also stood up, and tried to turn him away. So when the defendant fired, the bullet first went through her finger.
Yikes, right. It's a room full of people. Even if he happens to succeed with a self-defense claim re: Oulson, he probably endangered at least a dozen people, and injured one of them.
Howard - you droning, rump-fed, canker-blossom you - your entreaties flow as if issued by a true maltworm.
I sympathize with the older man, but this was clearly manslaughter at least.
Based on the newspaper story, it is not at all clear to me whether the defendant Reeves had a reasonable fear of harm.
One thing that is clear is that the process on this has been FUBARed.
This incident took place EIGHT YEARS AGO. I searched for stories, and found one from the middle of 2016 questioning why it hadn’t already gone to trial. My impression is that the defense felt they had a weak case, and delayed at every turn, possibly hoping the defendant would die of old age first. The Florida courts went along with this. It wasn’t until the “end” of 2019 that all pretrial motions were settled and a trial ordered for 2020. After which the pandemic caused the case to be delayed yet another two years. During all this, defendant Reeves has been at home, except for six months in jail that began shortly after the shooting.
Another thing that is clear is that the Post is lying about the situation as much as it feels it can get away with. The defense attorneys argued for a dismissal of the charges under the “stand your ground” law, but lost. The present trial judge ruled (in 2017) that the question of whether Reeves had a legitimate case for self-defense was uncertain, and therefore must go to a jury. “Stand your ground” has nothing to do with Reeve’s defense, and won’t be argued in court.
After reading around eight different articles about the incident, it sounds to me like the deceased and the defendant were busy being assholes that day. Chad Oulson felt entitled to use his phone because it was only the previews, and Curtis Reeves was unpleasant in the two verbal exchanges. Oulson stood up, reached over the seat, grabbed Reeves’s popcorn bag, and threw it at Reeves. Reeves then fired one round, which killed Oulson. Again, it is not all clear to me that Reeves had a reasonable fear of anything worse.
The trial will be interesting.
At some point Oulson threw popcorn at Reeves and Reeves shot Oulson dead
That's a powerful "and" you've got there.
It implies, but does not state, that one guy threw popcorn, and the other immediately shot him
The defendant, Curtis Reeves was irritated by the light emanating from the cell phone Chad Oulson had left on in the movie theater. At some point Oulson threw popcorn at Reeves and Reeves shot Oulson dead
So, Reeves was irritated by Oulson's cell phone usage in a movie theater. Then he was more irritated that Oulson threw popcorn at him.
What happened in between those two things? Did Reeves politely say"please put away your cell phone"? Did he say "hey a$$hole, put that thing away before I shove it down your throat"?
From the article Reeves was so irked by the white light emanating from Chad Oulson’s device that he got up to notify a manager at a Tampa-area matinee.
Ok, seems like a reasonable response. he didn't scream, he didn't shout, he went and got a manager and said "this person is being disruptive, you deal with it."
Oulson, 43, eventually threw popcorn at Reeves, authorities say.
That's another powerful word, "eventually".
Then Reeves, a retired police officer, pulled out a handgun and fired into the other man’s chest.
Apparently Oulson was one or more rows in front of Reeves. To get shot in the chest, rather than in the back, he must have stood up, turned around, and then started throwing the popcorn.
Prosecutors said this was clearly murder — a violent overreaction to some tossed snacks.
Defense lawyer Dino Michaels disputed the idea that Oulson was killed over popcorn, arguing that Reeves’s age made him vulnerable and that he felt genuinely endangered. He told the jury that “something happened” to threaten Reeves before the popcorn toss — that he was punched or hit with Oulson’s cellphone, which prosecutors deny.
How many rows apart were they? Was Oulson in the next row, and thus able to threaten Reeves? Or was he multiple rows away?
I'm older than Oulson was. Could I cause Great Bodily Injury to an unarmed 71 year old guy with my bare hands from the next row? yes, I could.
Does that mean Oulson was threatening that? Not necessarily.
but you don't need "Stand your Ground", only basic self defense, to excuse you shooting someone who was an actual threat to you, when you're sitting in a theater seat and can't get away.
Garbage writing from teh WaPo. I'm so shocked!
The dead man seems to have had "anger issues". But its a could reminder not to argue with strangers. You never know what they'll do. YOu don't know who's going to have a gun or a knife. And will knock you down and beat you to death. Some people don't play by the "rules" or "fight fair".
Anyway, the whole stupid incident ends with one man dead, and another under house arrest. Now, contrast this weird 'Hey, lets take 8 years to have a trial" with the case in Georgia where two men struggled over a shotgun, and the old man who lived is now serving life in prison without parole. What justification is there for these incredible variations in justice?
So Oulson was actually texting? Then it wasn’t just the light that was annoying, was it? It was the little “ding.”
So Florida's got its own twist on the Kyle Rittenhouse case -- and, since it's Florida, the defendant isn't a teenager but an old dude, and the altercation that led to the shooting is a bit different too. The defendant (a retired deputy sheriff) says he was physically assaulted and was in fear of his life; the prosecution disputes that claim. So, now the jury gets to figure it out. Perhaps this one will turn out differently.
"Corn Pop was a bad dude."
I was in a Panera, not long ago, awaiting my order. There was a middle-aged man also waiting. He was doing the cellphone thing; acting as if his orthopedic guy had fused his elbow at 45 degrees, holding the cell phone while doing nothing with it. Maybe five minutes before his order was called. It was pretty big. He spent two mortal minutes trying to finesse the order into something he could carry with one hand--I really wanted to see that--before it penetrated his brain cell that he could put his phone in a pocket and USE BOTH HANDS.
The idea that this moron would feel anything but an outright assault on his human rights if asked for consideration wrt his phone is silly.
Perhaps there's a cohort in our society where you get social cred for walking into a lamp post while looking at your phone?
Thank you Stephen St. Onge
"Oulson stood up, reached over the seat, grabbed Reeves’s popcorn bag, and threw it at Reeves. Reeves then fired one round, which killed Oulson"
I hadn't realized that Oulson didn't throw his now popcorn at Reeves, but rather stole Reeves’s popcorn to throw it at him.
So. best case for the defense is they can prove that Oulson did more, and actually did threaten Reeves.
Worst case is that a guy who was being a major league a$$hole got shot for it.
If I were on the jury I'd have a hard time convicting. But if he does get convicted I won't shed any tears
Iman you Jane
Howard should show us pussies and chicken hawks how Real [Statist] Men flex their muscles. He should write a script about a squad of muscular, jackbooted IRS or ATL agents fisting tax-payers and/or peaceful gun-owners as they do in Howard's wet dreams.
"Actually, it's an excellent argument for going out armed at all times."
Sure, if you're happy with America's ballooning stats of firearm deaths.
We're in the top ten countries in the world of firearm deaths (for all causes) annually, second only to Brazil.
At some point Oulson threw popcorn at Reeves and Reeves shot Oulson dead
That's a powerful "and" you've got there.
Kyle Rittenhouse went to a protest and killed some people.
And, but and or ... they'll get you pretty far!
Bilwick: Why do you people feel the need pornographize everything? Well, not everything. You people also get off fetishizing things in the language of authentic snuff films.
"Actually, it's an excellent argument for going out armed at all times."
Sure, if you're happy with America's ballooning stats of firearm deaths.
We're in the top ten countries in the world of firearm deaths (for all causes) annually, second only to Brazil.
The majority of those firearm deaths come from inner city gang violence. I bet most of Brazil's is from criminals too. You know, criminals, those guys known for following laws.......
Cook, you mistakenly conflate self defense with criminal violence. If you really cannot tell the difference between the two, please never carry a firearm for self defense.
Greg The Class Traitor said...
Thank you Stephen St. Onge
"Oulson stood up, reached over the seat, grabbed Reeves’s popcorn bag, and threw it at Reeves. Reeves then fired one round, which killed Oulson"
I hadn't realized that Oulson didn't throw his now popcorn at Reeves, but rather stole Reeves’s popcorn to throw it at him.
______________________
Well, that’s what the WaPo story said. I don’t trust them to report anything accurately.
Gahrie said...
The majority of those firearm deaths come from inner city gang violence. I bet most of Brazil's is from criminals too. You know, criminals, those guys known for following laws.......
________________
Actually, the majority are suicides. Around two-thirds. It's the majority of the one-third minority that are mostly Black gang violence.
In Israel, movies begin with a PSA short telling the audience to turn off & put away their cellphones. I never thought of it as a mortal warning.
Suicide, black gang violence, and self-defense against assailants throwing popcorn.
Everything is explained, all is well!
It's not their age that matters, according to the activists.
It wasn't a fight over the cell phone or popcorn. It was a collective effort by the shooter, the manager, and both spouses to prevent Olsen from beating the older man in a frenzy. Even the biased Tampa Bay Times admitted that Reeves was polite, quietly got a manager to solve the problem, then was physically assaulted --- by a fist -- delivered by Olsen as the assailants wife tried to restrain him from attacking the older man.
The older man and his wife were in the theater's back row, with limited chance to escape the younger man's increasingly violent assault.
If even the Times admits this, the shooting victim must have been very violent. Now let's publish his priors.
Stephen St. Onge said...
Well, that’s what the WaPo story said. I don’t trust them to report anything accurately.
The writers at WaPo have two problems
1: They're dishonest political hacks
2: Most of them are really bad writers, to the point of being functionally incoherent
#1 says that since Oulson stealing Reeves’s popcorn to throw it at him makes Reeves look better, and they're anti-Reeves, the fact is likely true
#2 says the writer is stupid / incompetent enough to screw up any fact
So the odds are in favor of the story being true. But you're right, we can't know, given that the fact only came from WaPo
A few thoughts since this was close to home.
The prosecution didn't mind any delays, since they have a weak case. The defense didn't mind because a conviction and any sentence would be, in effect, a life sentence. Both sides recognized the defendant's age and the possibility nature would obviate the potential for either side losing.
The dead man was actually very large, well over 6 feet, while the old man is 5'8". There is zero media interest in the younger man's sizer or history because that would threaten the narrative.
In addition, press reports were that the wife said "I was shot trying to protect him (her husband)" when I think it's pretty obvious that she was trying to prevent her husband from assaulting the small, older man, because she certainly knew his personality. That doesn't speak well for the dead man.
And, BTW, the older man went to the theater manager to complain. The manager, presumably a 19 year old kid who couldn't care less, blew him off. When the older man returned, that's when the younger man turned around, said "Did you just complain about me?" and then assaulted the old guy.
It's messy and clearly not something anyone would want to see repeated or use as an example of justifiable/excusable homicide, but I think the old man was within his rights even if his judgement is and was suspect. Guess we'll see...
Post a Comment