<p>I seem to recall having read that there were those who wanted to arrest him.</p>
<p>Well, there may have been but not the lead detective or the female cop who testified at trial. I happened to have watched the entire thing. Don’t ask why.</p>
<p>If you use your cell phone you will be kicked out in most local theaters.
Theaters are having to compete with home entertainment systems/ netflix.
Customers want a different environment than what is available in their own living room when they go see a movie.
But you dont need to shoot them, just get an usher.</p>
<p>[Alamo</a> Drafthouse Kicks Out Annoying Texter, According To Hilarious Voicemail ()](<a href=“HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News | HuffPost”>Alamo Drafthouse Kicks Out Annoying Texter, According To Hilarious Voicemail (NSFW VIDEO) | HuffPost Entertainment)</p>
<p>They definitely arrived immediately. Heck, he was on the phone with them half the time. But, there was no arrest. That’s what caused all the public outrage. Even at trial the police were very reluctant prosecution witnesses. Basically, they believed him and so stated at trial.</p>
<p>Well, then testing him later wouldn’t have revealed if he were under the influence at the time of the incident. So, that would be a different situation.</p>
<p>I don’t know if Reeves was tested for being “under the influence” or not, but you’d think he would have been since he was arrested immediately.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t know about most local theaters. </p>
<p>From what I’ve seen, even with no cell phone usage after the start of the main feature policy, enforcement of that against non-compliant patrons varies greatly from theater to theater and is highly dependent on the local theater management and employees. </p>
<p>Personally, I find cell phone users in theaters to be extremely annoying and have gotten ushers involved with varying degrees of success. In fact, I do feel people are on their cell phones chatting/texting too much in venues when they should be putting them away like theaters or moreso, on a date with someone.</p>
<p>However, despite my feeling this is rude and inconsiderate behavior, IT DOESN’T REMOTELY COMPARE WITH NOR JUSTIFY THE MORAL/ETHICAL WRONGFULNESS OF REACTING TO IT BY SHOOTING THE OFFENDER. </p>
<p>Sorry, but I don’t think texting rises to the level that it justifies someone reacting with shooting the offender…even if popcorn was thrown. </p>
<p>I’d be seriously concerned about anyone who believes or indirectly implies they are morally/ethically comparable.</p>
<p>Uh, again, the police have no reason to test people arrested for reasons other than possible intoxication. They had a man dead, a woman injured and the shooter sitting in his seat with the gun in his hand held against his leg. Their job from that point is to interview witnesses and try to piece together the details. The local police may have some rule or maybe there’s some FL rule but it’s not simple procedure to test everyone you arrest. And what testing do you do? A breathalyzer? Blood work? You can’t draw blood without a warrant and you need probably cause for that … which would be what? </p>
<p>I’m not even sure what forensics are done at a simple scene like this where the shooter is known. On CSI, they do all sorts of blood spatter analysis with photos and stuff. You know, they figure out how far away the gun was from the victim and construct some clearer picture of the event. In real life, they tend to rely on the testimony of witnesses and officers. Maybe there’s a few pictures. I’ve seen cases - in federal court no less - where weapons and stuff were involved where only a few pictures were shown, not the actual stuff. I found one almost inexcusable; a defendant was nearly convicted because a photo of a gun didn’t show the tiny scale of the defaced area. The defense lawyer didn’t notice - and she was really, really good. Neither did the judge. A juror picked up on it. Blew the judge’s mind when he interviewed the jury afterwards. Not like TV at all.</p>
<p>*the police have no reason to test people arrested for reasons other than possible intoxication. They had a man dead, a woman injured and the shooter sitting in his seat with the gun in his hand held against his leg. *</p>
<p>I don’t know what the protocol is for this situation (arrest immediately after incident). It just seems (to me) that procedure would include testing for intoxication.</p>
<p>Quote:
If you use your cell phone you will be kicked out in most local theaters.
Theaters are having to compete with home entertainment systems/ netflix.</p>
<p>??</p>
<p>Do you mean using during the feature presentation?</p>
<p>I hardly think that someone looking at a phone during the previews would get kicked out. And, I doubt that a woman looking at her phone (maybe checking the time) while it’s inside her purse would get thrown out either.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Mental illness is not necessarily even remotely the equivalent of insanity. One can muse that the perp might be mentally ill without implying that he was psychotic to the point of not knowing the difference between right and wrong or that he was not responsible for his actions. But clearly, a mentally healthy person doesn’t blow someone away because they are texting during a movie preview or even if someone tosses popcorn at them.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Huh? I’m not getting what you mean here. I believe you, I’m just not getting the point.</p>
<p>
Where has anyone, let alone “many commenters” suggested that he will be treated with kid gloves, get a slap on the wrist or possibly allowed to walk? Haven’t seen/heard that anywhere.</p>
<p>I really hope his service doesn’t allow him “special treatment”. There’s nothing worse than when police officers are let off for crimes which regular civilians would get penalized for.</p>
<p>Interesting comment :
[quote]
What seemingly appears to be a petty dispute, in a local theater, escalates into a shooting death and serious injury. Sensational media accounts don’t always tell the entire story. The shooter may have been wrong, but don’t be quick to condemn. Florida’s Stand Your Ground Law provides that law-abiding people can protect themselves, their families and other intruders and attackers without fear of prosecution or civil action for acting in defense of themselves or others. It creates a statutory immunity from criminal prosecution and civil suit. The law provides that an individual is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat, if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.** Attacking a senior citizen is a forcible felony in Florida.** <a href=“bold%20mine”>/quote</a> [Some</a> of what people are saying about the case of Curtis Reeves Jr. killing Chad Oulson at the movies because of texting and popcorn | Tampa Bay Times](<a href=“http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/state/some-of-what-people-are-saying-about-the-case-of-curtis-reeves-jr-killing/2161512]Some”>http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/state/some-of-what-people-are-saying-about-the-case-of-curtis-reeves-jr-killing/2161512)</p>
<p>I really hope his service doesn’t allow him “special treatment”. There’s nothing worse than when police officers are let off for crimes which regular civilians would get penalized for.</p>
<p>I agree.</p>
<p>I don’t know how he’ll be treated, but sometimes elderly people who commit “first time” crimes don’t get huge sentences. Don’t know if that’s because juries can be too soft on elderly folks or what.</p>
<p>There may sometimes be compassionate sentences when,for example, an elderly person aids a terminally ill spouse who is in a lot of pain in committing suicide. But this is a different situation. </p>
<p>But I was intrigued by the comment I quoted above. Also because other articles said he as in the back row. So could they claim it was difficult for him to “retreat”? Sure it was his choice to not only sit there, but to return there, and that was a bad decision on his part. Just wonder if this might be a line of defense they might consider.</p>
<p>
Perhaps, one thing I don’t understand about cases with an elderly defendant is when they’re let off for their age when age doesn’t play a factor. Eh…justice. I just want justice in the Florida case, but clearly from the past cases, justice isn’t always what we get.</p>
<p>Another interesting article [Closer</a> look at Curtis Reeves shows theater shooter’s two sides | Tampa Bay Times](<a href=“http://www.tampabay.com/news/humaninterest/closer-look-at-curtis-reeves-shows-theater-shooters-two-sides/2161618]Closer”>Closer look at Curtis Reeves shows theater shooter's two sides)</p>
<p>And he was denied bond. So unless that has changed, he is still in lock-up. Am guessing he is not in with any other detainees as they don’t tend to take too kindly to members of the police force when they are in their midst as fellow incarcerated individuals.</p>
<p>
Can you cite an example of when this has occurred?</p>
<p>BTW, niquii, that was a serious question. Are there examples of this? The only info I can find upon preliminary query is this [Hospital</a> shooting: Mercy killing or murder? - Health - Health care | NBC News](<a href=“http://www.nbcnews.com/id/48638867/ns/health-health_care/t/ohio-hospital-shooting-mercy-killing-or-murder/#.Utyoh5so6IU]Hospital”>http://www.nbcnews.com/id/48638867/ns/health-health_care/t/ohio-hospital-shooting-mercy-killing-or-murder/#.Utyoh5so6IU) and I am not sure it really answers the question.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Here is a quote from the article cited by jym626. Looks like the shooter showed up as the real jerk he has always been.</p>