United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: 'Throw popcorn in my face,' some heard Reeves say at time of movie theater shooting
Source:
Tampa Bay Times
URL Source: http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts ... ts-to-rule-by-march-10/2315088
Published: Mar 2, 2017
Author: Dan Sullivan
Post Date: 2017-03-10 11:19:22 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 1126
Comments: 16
DADE CITY — Right about the time that Curtis Reeves drew a pistol and shot Chad Oulson in the chest, killing him, three different people heard Reeves say something about popcorn. "Throw popcorn in my face," was what Mark Turner, a retired Air Force officer, recalled hearing from his spot at the end of Reeves' row inside Cobb Grove 16 cinemas three years ago. Charles Cummings, one row down from Reeves, heard the popcorn comment, too. So did Derek Friedhoff, a few rows down. He said it was prefaced by "show you" or "teach you." A surveillance video from the theater had captured Oulson's arm grabbing Reeves' bag of popcorn and tossing it at him right before the fatal shot, after a clash over use of a cellphone. The timing of the statement attributed to Reeves — whether it was uttered before, during or after the muzzle flash — became a point of interest when defense attorneys questioned the three, who were among final witnesses to testify during Reeves' two-week-long "stand your ground" hearing, which ends today. Reeves made the comment "almost simultaneously with the gunshot, quite frankly," Turner said. It sounded to him like a "declaratory question," he said: "Throw popcorn in my face." Reeves, 74, is trying to have the case against him dismissed under a controversial Florida law that says a person has no duty to retreat when faced with a violent confrontation and can use deadly force if he or she fears death or great bodily harm. The former Tampa police captain is charged with second-degree murder and aggravated battery. Pinellas-Pasco Circuit Judge Susan Barthle will decide whether the case goes to trial. A fourth theater patron, Jane Roy, was also seated down the row from Reeves. She said he brushed past her when he left the theater to complain that Oulson was using a cell phone during movie previews. "You could tell he was agitated," she said of Reeves. "He was mumbling and he was very brusk." Roy said she feared Reeves was about to start a fight. "I knew that Mr. Reeves was a very big man, and he frightened me," she said. Reeves was 6-foot-1 and 270 pounds, according to his arrest affidavit. Oulson was 6-foot-4 and 205 pounds, according to his autopsy report. After he was shot, Oulson staggered down his row. He collapsed near Cummings, who recalled hearing him say, "I can't believe he shot me." Friedhoff, a nurse, tried to administer first-aid. When he shined a light in Oulson's eyes, the pupils were dilated, a sign the brain was shutting down, he testified. Prosecutors played audio recordings of two interviews Reeves gave with detectives as he sat in the back of a sheriff's car behind the theater. Almost from the beginning he expressed regrets. As soon as he pulled the trigger, he said, he realized it was "stupid." But he said he was scared, more frightened than he had ever been as a cop, afraid he would be beaten. Had he been 20 years younger, he would have wrestled it out, he said. Everything happened so fast. "If I had it to do over again, it would never have happened," he said. "We would have moved. But you don't get do-overs." He reported that Oulson hit him in the face with something. He said he was leaning all the way back in his chair and Oulson was almost on top of him. "I was pretty confident after getting hit one time that it wasn't going to stop," he said. He chatted with the detective about his background as a former Tampa police officer. He said he has counseled officers on the use of deadly force. "What I tell people is even if you're 1,000 percent right and the other person is 1,000 percent wrong, it's still not a healthy thing to get involved with," he said. Later, in a second interview, Proctor told Reeves that Oulson had died. "We talked to everyone involved and nobody sees a punch being thrown and he's dead," the detective said. Reeves swore at the news. "I don't know what to say," he said. He talked about the lives that had just been ruined. Proctor then told Reeves he was going to arrest him on a murder charge. The state and defense will each present closing arguments in the stand-your-ground hearing today. The judge said Thursday she will enter a written ruling in the case no later than March 10. Her announcement came after Reeves' defense asked for two weeks to prepare a memorandum summarizing their arguments for why Reeves should be immune from prosecution. The request for two weeks seemed to irritate the judge. "I've got it. I've been sitting here. This is it. This is our time," Barthle said. "I'm well aware of the case law, I've done these hearings many times before. I'm not interested in a lengthy memorandum." The judge said she would prefer to rule immediately but would take time to prepare an order. "I'm not going to take another six months to do this," she said.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Deckard (#0)
(Edited)
Reeves was 6-foot-1 and 270 pounds, 74 years old, and seated at the time of the confrontation. Oulson was 6-foot-4 and 205 pounds, 43 years old, and was looming over Reeves at the time he threw the bag of popcorn in Reeves' face.
Put me on the jury and I vote not guilty. When someone threatens a 71-year- old guy with bodily harm, he can't wait for that person to strike first. That blow can kill him, especially when delivered by a pissed-off, 6 foot 4 inch, 43- year-old guy standing over him. Now, the guy didn't deserve to die, but die he did. It could be that God's purpose in his life and death was to teach others not to f**k with old people.
What is the problem? Throwing something in someone's face is an attack technique. Old man feared for his safety and dumbass paid the ultimate price.
I get the distinct impression that you would be singing a different tune had it been the ex-cop who was the victim instead of the perpetrator. You and paulsen both. Color me surprised. It's against your religion to ever find a cop guilty of anything. I'm sure if Oulson turned out to be a cop and Reeves just a concealed carry citizen, you'd be calling for Reeves head to be mounted on a pike for murder. I'd venture though, if Reeves had no history of being a cop and was an ordinary CC citizen, the shooting wouldn't have happened. At least from Reeves.
I might be inclined to agree, though we don't know what Reeves may have done prior to Oulson throwing the popcorn. The question is who was the first to get physical or perhaps issue a threat. I guess the security cam should show any and all prior physical action.
The double standard is becoming more and more apparent. Like with that roadside shooting of the guy with his wallet I commented on earlier today. If a concealed carry non-cop were to gun someone down like that while he was getting out of his car with wallet in hand, it would be Murder One and all the anti-gun people would be talking about how loony the guy was and his claims about fearing for his life would be met with confounded astonishment. But no, the guy was a cop trained to be in fear for his life so the entire context of the shooting changes into something reasonable. At some point, the 14th Amendment has to come into play. Equal protection under the law. If cops can legally use deadly force solely out of fear for their lives even when no danger exists, so can ordinary citizens.
You have read the stories about it being open season on cops and cops being ambushed, haven't you? You don't think cops are just a little more sensitive now when people exit their vehicle with both hands holding a black object? The cops didn't start this. But now that they're reacting to it, NOW you're upset. Give me a f**king break.
What if the ordinary citizen is a retired cop?
Read much? In 2005, Florida became the first state to explicitly expand a person's right to use deadly force for self-defense. Does the name “Trayvon Martin” ring a bell with you….refresh your memory as to the result in that incident. Those that have not yet enacted the law, need to get the lawmakers off their asses and get with the program. Deadly force is justified if a person is gravely threatened, in the home or any other place where he or she has a right to be.
Does the name “Trayvon Martin” ring a bell with you….refresh your memory as to the result in that incident. If you look at the stats in Florida and they show that more people are erroneously shot by police officers, then police officers are shot. Then in Florida it seems you would be allowed if a police officer pulls you over to get out and start shooting. Since you are more likely to be killed by the officer then the officer killed by you. You thought your life was in danger. This is for discussion purposes and not my view that you should shoot anyone.
Yea, I got it….I think. It’s kinda like what Yogi Berra meant when he said:
Stats for innocents shot by police are strangely lacking, but yes, I do believe the number of innocent people shot and killed by police significantly exceeds the number of police shot and killed by people with criminal intent year over year. Non-fatal shootings of both types would be a different stat altogether, though since only cops normally have body armor in such incidents, I'd expect the stats to reflect that. This is the legal conundrum waiting to happen, given the legal climate accepting that police can shoot to kill a perceived threat even when no actual threat exists. An innocent, armed citizen might end up in a situation where he knows a cop falsely believes the citizen is a criminal threat to the cops safety and will attempt to kill him, so the armed citizen fires upon the cop in self defense. So the false belief on the part of the police officer that the armed citizen might criminally fire upon him would result in the armed citizen firing in self defense believing it legal to do so. Or there could be a scenario where an armed citizen has compelling reason to believe a cop will kill him if he surrenders and believes he has to shoot in order to avoid being shot. This would be in a case where the cop has demonstrated clear, unreasonable threatening hostility to the armed citizen. I'm hard pressed to imagine a likely scenario where the former could happen, but surprising scenarios do happen. The latter scenario is far easier to imagine, though CC holders are likely to be too cool headed to be coaxed into firing upon a belligerent cop. (And because police work can lure applicants prone to violence, it's not so hard to find belligerent cops). On extremely rare occasions, police have been killed by home occupants during no knock raids by armed inhabitants who have gone on to be exonerated of the killing, but only because they were considered to be reasonably ignorant that it was police breaking into the home. Though I suspect many such cases warranting exoneration did not happen because the armed inhabitant was killed in subsequent shooting, and the need for a judicial consideration of legit home defense ends up getting buried. I think I've only heard of a single case of a citizen homeowner being exonerated for killing a cop in this way.
Sure I have. But if the laws governing when self-defense shootings are permitted are going to apply differently to cops than to non-cops, then lets come out and say it loud and clear so everyone knows this is a 14th amendment equal protection clause exception. And then lets start giving classes to high school students about how to safely behave in the presence of armed cops.
The laws are not the same, nor should they be.
All you have to do is show them this video:
Reeves was 6-foot-1 and 270 pounds, according to his arrest af affidavit. Oulson was 6-foot-4 and 205 pounds, according to his autopsy report.
#2. To: Deckard (#0)
#3. To: Deckard (#0)
A surveillance video from the theater had captured Oulson's arm grabbing Reeves' bag of popcorn and tossing it at him right before the fatal shot, after a clash over use of a cellphone.
#4. To: Justified (#3)
Throwing something in someone's face is an attack technique. Old man feared for his safety and dumbass paid the ultimate price.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.
#5. To: misterwhite (#2)
Put me on the jury and I vote not guilty.
#6. To: Justified (#3)
Throwing something in someone's face is an attack technique. Old man feared for his safety and dumbass paid the ultimate price.
#7. To: Deckard (#4)
I get the distinct impression that you would be singing a different tune had it been the ex-cop who was the victim instead of the perpetrator.
#8. To: Pinguinite (#7)
"If a concealed carry non-cop were to gun someone down like that while he was getting out of his car with wallet in hand, it would be Murder One and all the anti-gun people would be talking about how loony the guy was and his claims about fearing for his life would be met with confounded astonishment."
#9. To: Pinguinite (#7)
"If cops can legally use deadly force solely out of fear for their lives even when no danger exists, so can ordinary citizens."
#10. To: Pinguinite (#7)
The double standard is becoming more and more apparent.
You seem to always be behind the times. At some point, the 14th Amendment has to come into play.
Uh, better still….the Stand Your Ground Laws [SYGL] have come into play in states where state laws assert an expansive right to self-defense. Equal protection under the law.
There is “equal protection” in states that have enacted SYGL. If cops can legally use deadly force solely out of fear for their lives even when no danger exists, so can ordinary citizens.
Done deal….for states with SYGL.
#11. To: Gatlin (#10)
In 2005, Florida became the first state to explicitly expand a person's right to use deadly force for self-defense.
#12. To: A K A Stone (#11)
(Edited)
If you look at the stats in Florida and they show that more people are erroneously shot by police officers, then police officers are shot. Then in Florida it seems you would be allowed if a police officer pulls you over to get out and start shooting. Since you are more likely to be killed by the officer then the officer killed by you. You thought your life was in danger.
You’ve got to be very careful if you don’t know where you are going, because you might not get there.
[ I'm just “messing around” with you ... :) ]
#13. To: A K A Stone (#11)
If you look at the stats in Florida and they show that more people are erroneously shot by police officers, then police officers are shot.
Then in Florida it seems you would be allowed if a police officer pulls you over to get out and start shooting. Since you are more likely to be killed by the officer then the officer killed by you. You thought your life was in danger.
#14. To: misterwhite (#8)
You have read the stories about it being open season on cops and cops being ambushed, haven't you? You don't think cops are just a little more sensitive now when people exit their vehicle with both hands holding a black object?
#15. To: Pinguinite (#14)
when self-defense shootings are permitted are going to apply differently to cops than to non-cops,
#16. To: Pinguinite (#14)
"And then lets start giving classes to high school students about how to safely behave in the presence of armed cops."
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]