On January 13th, 2014, Curtis Reeves shot and killed Chad Oulson with a .380 automatic pistol. On February 25th, 2022, a jury of six found Curtis Reeves not guilty. I wrote about the event here, shortly after it happened. I've been watching this event ever since, waiting for the trial. There were delays, more delays, legalistic chicanery, and finally - fianlly! - we get a trial.
8 years, 1 month, and 11 days after Oulson cashed in his chips, a jury of six spineless idiots found Curtis Reeves not guilty of Murder II in Tampa, Florida. I'm less than thrilled with this verdict.
Keep reading as it amuses you to do so.
The short version (which everyone probably knows by now) is that Reeves and Oulson got into an argument at the movie theater during the previews. Oulson was sending text messages to his daughter's babysitter, which annoyed Reeves. Reeves told Oulson to knock it off, and Oulson told Reeves to go piss up a rope. Reeves left in a huff to inform management of the problem, then returned to his seat sans management (who probably doesn't give a royal rat's ass), and got mouthy with Oulson. Oulson took Reeves' bag of popcorn away from him and threw it all over him, adding an appropriate animadversion. So Reeves pulled a Ruger .380 from his pocket and put lead in the air. One shot, and Oulson was down, and that was that.
If you believe commercial media, Reeves' defense consisted of him being the victim, Oulson being a dangerous 'out of control' aggressor / attacker, and most importantly, Reeves being in fear for his life or great bodily harm. That last part, being in fear for his life, was likely a cornerstone in getting him off.
A few things that I don't like about this entire fiasco:
- The trial was delayed for over eight years, with the first judge recusing himself. Why all the delay?
- Reeves left and came back. As we all know, drawing and shooting a revolver is one thing; an auto-loader is something else. Reeves was using a Ruger .380, which he had in his pocket. Did he commonly carry the automatic with one round in the chamber - or did he chamber a round on his way back to his seat. Such things matter.
- The jury was instructed that they could find Reeves guilty of a lesser crime, such as manslaughter. They didn't.
- The jury found him not guilty of the assault charge as well.
Although the jury heard things that I haven't heard, and formed opinions based on Reeves comportment while giving his testimony, I would have found him guilty. Certainly guilty of manslaughter. I believe that Reeves lost his temper and was ready to shoot when he came back. Physically, Reeves wasn't much of a challenge for Oulson, and had he not been armed I don't think he would have been as brave. But that's just me.
As for myself, I'm careful not to go places that I deem to be inherently dangerous. The last time I did so, I was at a liquor store in a dodgy neighborhood close to my home. The parking lot was crowded, and not just with cars. I pulled my pistol out of my glove compartment and slipped it into my pocket - because you never know. I thought it was safe, there was high pedestrian traffic, but you never know.
The Reeves - Oulson shooting isn't over. There's still a wrongful death lawsuit that will take place, But Reeves is about 80 years old and may not live to see the case go to trial, and there's the not guilty verdict to take into account.
That leaves a woman without a husband, and a daughter without a father.
7 comments:
Have to agree with you. AS I had posted in another blogger's thread, you cannot pick a fight and claim self defense. Reeve's had started a verbal conflict with Oulson, and left in a huff-the I'm gonna tell on you maneuver, when he went to "find the manager". WE cannot know if he found the manager or not, or if the manager told him he had important things to attend that were more pressing than a parent texting his baby-sitter. We cannot know if Reeves went to his car at this point to get a gun which ( being from Fla. myself, prior to a move ) may have been prohibited to carry in the theater- which was just about universally posted at theaters. He then RETURNED TO CONTINUE THE CONFLICT HE HAD STARTED, KNOWING THAT OULSON WAS LIKELY NOT CARRYING A WEAPON, BUT HE ( REEVES) MOST ASSUREDLY, WAS. When Reeves had left, everyone was safe, everyone was alive. Then Reeves returned, and continued the conflict. He did not have to- he did so because he WANTED to, he was going to give this guy what-for. The badge-blind Fla jury should have seen their "verdict" over ridden, as it simply did not match the facts of the case, apparently.
Eye of the viwer type of thing. As I recall, when Reeves returned, Oulson renewed the disagreement and struck Reeves. New game, new rules. Reeves went off to talk to a manager, thus allowing Oulson plenty of time to cool off. Oulson wasn't the cooling off type, even with his wife tugging at his clothes. Reeves, in his 70s, was knocked back into the seating and was "under attack", drew his pistol and fired.
I don't know what kind of pistol was used. Mine is double-action with a slide safety so I don't need two hands to get it ready for use. Sounds like Reeves had something with a similar functional mode. There is always a round in the chamber.
Reeves was knocked back and was facing a deadly physical beating that he did not initiate. Good Shoot. A younger, stronger man may have had other options. Oulson could have just said, "Chill. I'll turn it off when the movie starts". Instead, he launched physical attack. So sorry. Good Shoot. Reeves may have been a total *aah*le, but once Oulson made it physical, Reeves gets to choose the response.
As I recall, unless it's your "castle", if you can withdraw, you are obligated to. Did they change that?
ThinkingMan: It never occurred to me that when Reeves left his seat, he was doing anything except finding and talking to a manager. He may well have gone out to his car to get his gun and/or put a cartridge in the chamber. I'd also like to know if Reeves had the pistol in his hand with his hand in his pocket when he returned.
Mike-SMO: Reeves left his seat. When he returned Oulson had put away his cell phone. Reeves initiated the conversation with some offhand remark, Oulson stood up, took Reeves' popcorn away from him and threw it all over him. At no time did Oulson push or touch Reeves.
Reeves described Oulson as being enraged and out of control. Oulson's wife disagrees. I'm guessing the truth is someplace in the middle, but in my opinion Reeves over-reacted.
Reeves used a Ruger LCP, which is what I carry. It has no safety and features a Glock style trigger, which is why I'm wondering if Reeves commonly carried it with a round in the chamber.
Ed: Truth. The defense ran this past 'stand your ground', and the judge ruled against him.
Reeves argued (through his attorney and his own testimony) that he had no place to retreat to, which is true. Oulson was effectively between Reeves and the exit; Reeves passed him on the way in and the way out.
The part that's in contention is Oulson's demeanor. Reeves contends that Oulson was enraged and out of control, while Oulson's wife disagrees. What we can all agree on is that Reeves made no attempt to deescalate the situation, which he could have done. Being armed and experienced, I believe that puts the responsibility to deescalate on Reeves more than Oulson. I'm not saying Oulson is completely innocent here - he isn't, but Reeves could have tried to deescalated the situation.
My thanks to you all for your comments.
Reeves "probably" wanted to make sure that the phone didn't come out during the show. Maybe he was a "grumpy gus". No recording or video. With my back to the seats, and a ~30 year age difference, I might have considered the popcorn trashing as the preamble to a physical attack. That guy wasn't "right". Mrs. Oulson was used to her husband's behavior, but still had her hand out to restrain him. She saw what he was triggering. Eight year delay sounds like the prosecutor didn't want to engage with the incident and was hoping that it would all "go away".
I'd still go with "self-defense".
I have to go with the jury not wanting to be responsible for sending a now 80 year old FORMER cop to prison, even if justifiably done. Justice was NOT served here. Even the elderly can be murderers, given experience, opportunity, motive, and tools.
Mike-SMO: There's a rumor that Reeves had a history of complaints (noise, talking, etc.) during a film, and he enjoyed the movies regularly. It's not like Reeves is alone in that complaint.
I thought about the thrown popcorn too. A distraction prior to a sucker punch, and it isn't an uncommon move, but Reeves was out of range for a punch.
True, Oulson's wife wanted him to settle down, and he wouldn't. Well, neither would Reeves, to a lesser extent in some ways.
ThinkingMan: I kind of wondered if Reeves' age entered into it. What is an 80 year old ex-cop going to do in the big house?
Thanks for your comments gents. I agree with ThinkingMan in that this is a no-win situation no matter what happens.
Post a Comment