Crazy! Retired 71yo cop kills a moviegoer over TEXTING!

Parent Cafe
641

<p>Reeves’ attorneys presented a second enhanced video clip from the theater camera recording that they said shows Chad’s iPhone being thrown at Reeves by Chad and bouncing off Reeves and falling to floor just before Reeves shot Chad. 2nd video clip presented by defense at hearing yesterday is in attached news article link.</p>

<p><a href=“Defense lawyers disagree on who benefits from theater video”>http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/criminal/defense-lawyers-disagree-on-who-benefits-from-theater-video/2164708&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

642

<p>Someone asked earlier why there seemed to be a skipping of the film, with several seconds missing. In the above news clip provided by lizard, they mention that the camera is motion activated. That might explain why there appears to be some time missing.</p>

<p>only one typo this morning…</p>

643

<p>"Have any of you been following the other FL case, where a middle age white man shot a black youth in his car, because he thought the youth had a gun? The dispute began because the youths did not turn down volume of music to the man’s liking. Rather than drive away, he shot.
"</p>

<p>How horrible. </p>

<p>Sadly there are a few people out there that seem to have this “chip on their shoulder” (Jym could probably better describe) and are daring people to “knock it off” so that they can serve “justice”. My sister says these types tend to “be on edge” at most times. My FIL, who likely had BPD (says his D who is a clinical psychologist), truly had such an attitude. He’d paint people “black” or 'white" and once painted, they pretty much remained “bad” or “good”. Very irrational thinker, raging and explosive anger. He LOVED to tell others “what to do”…and was NOT tolerant of anyone else’s opinions…not even his wife’s. He was extremely jealous of what others had. If someone bought a new car, he acted as if they bought it just to upset him (lol). It was “his way or the highway”…and he OFTEN said that. And God have mercy on anyone who ever corrected him or made a suggestion of a “better way” to do something. The older kids (who are boys) hated him, but he “mellowed” somewhat with age, and wasn’t that way with the younger kids (who are girls). </p>

<p>I’m not saying that either shooter has BPD or any particular disorder, my point is that there are people out there that do have disorders that don’t handle things well when they perceive that someone is dissing them or “purposely annoying” them. </p>

644

<p>“Reeves’ attorneys presented a second enhanced video clip from the theater camera recording that they said shows Chad’s iPhone being thrown at Reeves by Chad and bouncing off Reeves and falling to floor just before Reeves shot Chad. 2nd video clip presented by defense at hearing yesterday is in attached news article link.”</p>

<p>Reeves is supposedly told investigators that he’s never shot anyone before, never felt the need to do so. Something doesn’t really add up here. A cop faces annoying folks all day long. A cop faces people who won’t “obey” or “try to get away” and worse…all the time. Certainly, this guy did as well. So, why does a cell phone or popcorn trigger such a response (no pun intended)?</p>

645

<p>This clip is narrated by the news reporter <a href=“http://www.abcactionnews.com/dpp/news/region_pasco/wesley_chapel/bail-hearing-for-curtis-reeves-continues-in-movie-theater-shooting#ixzz2shDbymLx”>http://www.abcactionnews.com/dpp/news/region_pasco/wesley_chapel/bail-hearing-for-curtis-reeves-continues-in-movie-theater-shooting#ixzz2shDbymLx&lt;/a&gt; They mentioned yesterday that they planned to produce an enhanced video with it centered to better see what occurred. Personally, I think both the shooter and the victim were hot tempered, and that the wife put her hand up to hold her husband back to stop him from continuing to participate in the altercation, not to protect him from being shot. That happened too fast for her to have responded in a protective fashion. Her husband had already grabbed and thrown Reeve’s popcorn at him, and possibly, it seems, threw his cellphone at Reeves as well (that was bad judgment), so IMO, Oulson actively participated in the escalation of this confrontation. This doesn’t justify being shot, but he was not a completely innocent victim.</p>

646

<p>If the defense is able to portray the victim as someone who escalated the confrontation, then maybe voluntary manslaughter will be result. Don’t know if FL has that.</p>

647

<p>

</p>

<p>One consideration for giving bond is whether he poses a serious potential threat to others if he’s released on it. Considering how he tends to overreact to the point he would get exceedingly angry and tempermental over what are minor offenses, involve himself in situations where he should have involved responsible authorities(theater management…which he was too impatient to wait for), had a possible past history of imposing himself on others…including possibly stalking, and has actually shot two people…one fatally, there’s a good case to be made his hair-trigger temper/sense of entitlement is such he’s too much of a risk to be released even with house arrest and such. </p>

<p>In life, one has to deal with many annoying/aggravating people on a regular basis. </p>

<p>Part of showing whether one is a well-adjusted person is understanding that one “shouldn’t sweat the small stuff”, one’s response should be as proportionate as possible, and in public situations…it’s better to do one’s best to involve responsible authorities or if that fails and it’s possible, remove oneself from the situation. </p>

<p>From the evidence so far, it seems the shooter has shown he’s incapable of all of the above. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Would also depend on how influences from local culture influences the judge and jurors in that case. In some jurisdictions, this may be possible. </p>

<p>In others, the fact the defendant escalated to using the deadly force of a gun would mean he’d be assigned the lion’s share/100% of the blame as that very escalation would be considered such a disproportionate response that it overrides the victim’s prior actions and that the jurors/judge feel the maximum penalties should be applied. </p>

<p>There’s also the consideration that while Chad Oulson may not have reacted perfectly, his reaction is very understandable and natural when put upon by an overbearing busybodyish bully trying to impose his imagined authority over him when he ordered him to put away his phone. </p>

<p>It’s something many…especially men who have been taught to never back down in the face of bullying actions instigated first by someone else could relate to and this factor will cause them to sympathize with Oulson. </p>

<p>Especially when the instigator continues to harp on the minor issue which caused him to order Oulson around was already taken care of as he had already completed his text to the babysitter and put the phone away. </p>

648

<p>“Part of showing whether one is a well-adjusted person is understanding that one “shouldn’t sweat the small stuff”, one’s response should be as proportionate as possible, and in public situations…it’s better to do one’s best to involve responsible authorities or if that fails and it’s possible, remove oneself from the situation.”</p>

<p>This is very true. </p>

<p>While it may be annoying to see a cell phone out in a theater, most people won’t “sweat it”. They’ll just accept that being “out in public” can sometimes means putting up with “being annoyed.” Some may “speak up,” but once they hear the words, “talking to the babysitter,” the sane ones will realize that something important is going on, and put up with the temporary annoyance or move to another location. Only the fringe would still be outraged that a grown adult is trying to communicate with his child’s babysitter. Those persons may be black/white thinkers who will apply a “rule” w/o realizing there can be “gray areas” when rules are bent. If anyone here has ever dealt with a “black/white thinker” who was a boss or school principal, you know how frustrating they can be. </p>

649

<p>

</p>

<p>Yes, we who live here are now walking around heavily armed and wearing bullet proof vests. </p>

650

<p>

</p>

<p>There may also be a possibility the fringe individual who would take continued offense even after being told it’s a babysitter is an over entitled self-absorbed individual* who feels the whole world should revolve around him/her and world respond to his/her wishes at the drop of the hat. Such people don’t care about whether there are legitimate reasonable reasons for a given action. It’s all about their wants/needs right then. </p>

<ul>
<li>I considered using the word narcissist, but that may not apply to everyone with this issue.<br></li>
</ul>

651

<p>"There may also be a possibility the fringe individual who would take offense after being told it’s a babysitter is an over entitled self-absorbed individual* who feels the whole world should revolve around him/her and world respond to his/her wishes at the drop of the hat.</p>

<ul>
<li>I considered using the word narcissist, but that may not apply to everyone with this issue."</li>
</ul>

<p>Right, because such a person can’t pause and evaluate the given information. All he can see is that a phone is being used and HE IS ANNOYED. That’s all that matters. Giving life-saving info thru a text message wouldn’t escape his wrath, because he can’t process the difference. (I’m not necessarily talking about the shooter in this case, I’m talking about black/white thinkers. Our high school once had an ass’t principal who probably would have expelled a student for using a cell phone in class to call 911 if an intruder came in…cuz using a cell phone is a big no no. Thankfully, the principal got rid of this non-thinking-by-the-book idiot rather quickly.)</p>

652

<p>

</p>

<p>I’m trying to be inclusive of folks who may be able to process that information, but just don’t care because they are so overentitled and self-absorbed, they don’t care as their needs/desires are paramount over everyone else’s. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Ahh…one classical stereotype of the authoritarian martinet. </p>

653

<p>Not defending the guy’s actions, but the victim appeared to be a complete jerk and could easily and more appropriately have walked into the lobby to take his call. The shooter took appropriate action first by going to the movie management.</p>

<p>It is horrible than anyone was injured or lost life here, but he was not some random or innocent victim either. He was the narcissist in my book. Simple consideration on his part an this all blows over. </p>

<p>I think the bigger lesson for most of us has less to do with the guns or vests and more to do with being considerate of those around us. </p>

<p>Many lives ruined due to idiocy all around.</p>

654

<p>I think we’re missing some details here. And, throwing a cellphone at someone is assault (I don’t know if he was hit) so exactly what happened is going to be very important.</p>

655

<p>One thing that has bothered me from the beginning with this situation is that “normal folks” do tend to “judge” who the “offender” is and come to conclusions as to whether the offender should be corrected/stopped. If the “repeat-texting offender” is a teen, we tend to assume that he’s texting a GF or pals…nothing too important. If the teen texts a couple of times and stops, we may assume that he’s telling his parents where he is and when he’ll be home. If we see an adult, we tend to assume, “must be important.” “Must be texting boss, spouse, child, client, patient, etc”. </p>

<p>The fact that the shooter even attempted to correct another adult bothers me. And, once the shooter was told that the victim was texting his child’s babysitter, 99.9% of people would have thought to say another word…because the assumption would be, “something important is being communicated.” </p>

<p>I remember when I was a young employee and long-distance calls were a “big deal”. My boss called me in because I had made a couple of calls to my dad after his heart surgery and of course it showed up on the record. When I told my boss that I had called the hospital about my dad, my boss immediately stopped and said, “no big deal, that’s fine,” and sent me on my merry way. Mature people can differentiate between petty communications and serious matters. </p>

656

<p>

</p>

<p>A lot of that depends on very subjective judgement calls or perceptions of those looking at the situation. </p>

<p>First, whether he was right or wrong to text during the previews…not the main feature is a YMMV as many theaters I’ve been to only ask for cellphones to be shut off right before the start of the main feature, not the previews. This incident took place during the previews, not the main feature.</p>

<p>Second he was texting a babysitter because his child was sick and the babysitter had legitimate childcare questions to be answered by text. And once he was done, he put it away.</p>

<p>Third, while Chad Oulson wasn’t perfect, his reaction is a natural one to being put upon by an overbearing busybody who first ordered him to put away his cell phone. When he demurred because he was in the midst of answering the babysitter’s questions, that’s when the shooter went to management. Most well-adjusted people would have gone to management first as they are the ones with the standing to enforce theater rules. Would have also avoided the confrontation which the shooter initiated by making his request, especially in such an overbearing manner. </p>

<p>Fourth, the shooter was himself in violation of theater rules by bringing a handgun into the theater when there was a clear no weapons sign. And as a retired cop, he isn’t covered by the same exemption given to actively serving cops according to the Federal Law I linked to much earlier in this thread. </p>

<p>And lastly, as much as Chad Oulson’s behavior may not have been above reproach, none of it justifies the over-the-top escalation of the shooter taking out his handgun and shooting him at extreme close range. </p>

<p>Once a gun was involved combined with his own hypocrisy in bringing a gun to the theater in the first place, any discussion of Chad Oulson’s behavior…whether justified or not is rendered moot unless the defense can somehow find evidence showing the shooter had legitimate fear for his life. </p>

<p>Considering witness statements and those of the shooter’s own wife overheard by the deputy who was a witness, that doesn’t seem to be likely at this stage. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>That bothers me too…and is pretty ill-advised as you never know how the other person is going to respond and depending on the bystanders…would cause them to perceive the corrector as the aggressive instigator of the confrontation which may result. </p>

657

<p>Great explanation in that top post on this page (44), Cobrat. </p>

<p>Reeves is much more dangerous, IMO, than some career criminals in that it clearly takes very little to get him to shoot someone. If he were a family member, I’d be looking to find some place for him to stay in a supervised setting, some sort of lockdown place, rather than fighting it and trying to get him free. I don’t think he can be trusted to deal with people and life, in general.</p>

<p>And I say this as I also strongly suspect that Oulson was a jerk. In some “black comedies” or other type of movies and show, it could have been a “funny” tough guy thing when the smart aleck annoying jerk gets offed for dissing the wrong person. I shake my head each time I see those shows, as I fear what kind of lesson they are teaching or ideas they are planting. We all know the Wiley Coyote is a cartoon when he gets up from going off a cliff and rolled over by a truck. Not so obvious when the hero is lauded for punching, shooting throwing out a some wise acre. Yeah, maybe Reeves did the widow and mankind in general a favor getting rid of a boor, but the greater favor is more that he identified himself as a danger and he will hopefully get put away for life, so that we are safer that someone like him with a hair trigger temper and carrying a gun isn’t at large. </p>

<p>By the time the attorneys are finished with the Reeves family, I doubt there will be much left for the Oulsons to get from them. Pensions are protected at any rate. Reeves would be better served, as would society, if the family spent their time, money and efforts to find the best place to put him away for life. I wish they could understand that someone like that cannot be allowed to be loose, and if this reaction was so unexpected of him as the family knows him, then some degenerative process, some dementia is at work on him, and he can be a danger to everybody, including family members. I truly would not be working to get him freed, but finding the best option for him in terms of a lockup.</p>

658

<p>

I think it was already argued and agreed that texting (vs. calling) are very much accepted up until the main feature starts. People generally don’t get upset when people are texting/playing games on their phones during the previews, while the theater is still not completely dimmed for the movie. It was not a call; it was a text message. </p>

659

<p>“And, throwing a cellphone at someone is assault (I don’t know if he was hit) so exactly what happened is going to be very important.”</p>

<p>I don’t know how such things are judged. If you throw a brick at someone, that can certainly be considered an assault. If you throw a paperclip at someone, probably not. Anything in between may the the gray area. </p>

<p>While the defense may try to claim that the cell phone is a “real assault” the question is does that mean deadly force is justified? </p>

<p>Frankly, I have a hard time believing the guy threw his iPhone…those are just too expensive to replace. The iPhone may have been dropped. </p>

660

<h1>"Not defending the guy’s actions, but the victim appeared to be a complete jerk and could easily and more appropriately have walked into the lobby to take his call.</h1>

<p>I think it was already argued and agreed that texting (vs. calling) are very much accepted up until the main feature starts. People generally don’t get upset when people are texting/playing games on their phones during the previews, while the theater is still not completely dimmed for the movie. It was not a call; it was a text message."</p>

<p>I agree with Teri.</p>

<p>However, even if an adult checks a cell phone or sends a quick text during the feature film, I think only the most touchy person is going to say something. </p>

<p>I know that I’ve checked my phone to see the time (since I don’t wear a watch). I don’t think people should have to walk out to do that. Besides, walking out can be MORE distracting to a whole bunch of people than just a quick glance at a cell phone. </p>

<p>personally, I hate it when I have to go to the bathroom during a movie. I hate having to bother those next to me to shift their legs and such to let me pass by (both coming and going). I wouldn’t add to that by also “coming and going” to check for an important text or even to send an important text. But, as a woman, I can discreetly use my phone inside my purse. :slight_smile: Maybe men need some sort of “cover” as well. lol</p>