Tuesday, January 14, 2014

Florida Retired Cop, Lawful Gun Owner, Shoots and Kills a Fellow Moviegoer Over a Trifle

Retired Cop Kills Father Of 3 Yr. Old For Texting In A Theatre
A retired cop, Curtis Reeves, 71 of Tampa shot and killed one man and wounded his wife with one shot for texting inside a Wesley Chapel, FL theatre. – Facebook picture of shooting victim Chad Oulson and daughter

Addicting Info

A retired cop, Curtis Reeves, 71 of Tampa shot and killed one man and wounded his wife with one shot for texting inside a Wesley Chapel, FL theatre.
While attending a screening of Lone Survivor, Chad and Nicole Oulson sat in front of Reeves who was accompanied by his wife. Prior to the start of the film an argument began because the Oulsons were texting their 3 yr. old daughter and making noise. A witness stated that Reeves left to get a manager but returned alone. And that’s when the altercation escalated inside the theatre.

What witnesses saw inside the theatre.

Charles Cummings, a 68 yr. old Vietnam War veteran in attendance for his birthday, was two seats away from Reeves with his son Alex. They saw and heard the whole thing. Prior to the movie starting but during theatre previews the argument began. When Reeves returned without a manager the argument began again it grew louder. Popcorn was thrown and Reeves drew a .380 pistol and fired. Nicole Oulson put her hand up in an attempt to protect her husband but the round went through her hand and into Chad’s chest.
All the news reports are talking about "texting" being the cause of the trouble, but I don't get it. Isn't texting a silent and unobtrusive activity? 

50 comments:

  1. Texting is not silent. It is tremendously intrusive and annoying. If you are sitting in front of someone, the text totally wrecks the movie. We went to the Opera in Budapest. The other morons in the box with us were texting about the opera. It was tremendously distracting. I tapped the idiot on the shoulder and they stopped, but if they had not, I'm not sure what I would have done. I didn't have a gun, but if I did, who knows?

    Do NOT text in a theatre. Under any circumstances.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Most theaters have a policy of no texting and no cell phone use agter the lights dim. In fact, my local movie house puts it up on the screen asking patrons to please turn off all digital devices.

      Delete
    2. That's like Starbucks saying don't bring your guns into our stores, but people like Greg will anyways. Should Greg be shot for ignoring a businesses rules?

      Delete
    3. The cop was a shining example of the group called lawful gun owners. He demonstrated how we're all safer with the lawful gun owners going around armed.

      Delete
  2. You dis me, you die.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This was the action of a retired police captain. In other words, exactly the kind of person the Brady Bunch tells us is professional enough to be armed--unlike ordinary citizens, in their view.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is the kind of guy gun loons say is perfectly fit to be armed.

      Delete
    2. Greg, what happened to cops are civilians? You're changeable like a feather in the wind. (Do you know where that's from?)

      Delete
    3. "Reeves, a 71-year-old retired Tampa police officer, told authorities that's why he took out a gun and shot Oulson at a movie theater in the suburb of Wesley Chapel on Monday. According to the police report, Reeves told authorities he feared for his life.
      “The defendant advised that the victim turned and stood up, striking him in the face with an unknown object,” according to the police report. “The defendant advised that he removed the .380 semi-auto handgun from his pants pocket, firing one round striking the victim and that he was in fear of being attacked.”
      http://www.ibtimes.com/movie-theater-shooting-suspect-curtis-reeves-was-fear-being-attacked-after-victim-chad-oulson-threw

      This one is going to get interesting. It sounds like he might even try to use a stand your ground defense.
      It also appears possible that the retired officer might not have a carry permit at all. He might very well be permitted to carry under the power of the LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS SAFETY ACT.

      "The Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (LEOSA) is a United States federal law, enacted in 2004, that allows two classes of persons—the "qualified law enforcement officer" and the "qualified retired law enforcement officer"—to carry a concealed firearm in any jurisdiction in the United States, regardless of state or local laws, with certain exceptions.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_Enforcement_Officers_Safety_Act

      One of those things which make the police more privileged than regular folk. How does it go? Some animals are more equal than others.

      Delete
    4. That piece is about women, Mikeb.

      I didn't say that cops aren't civilians. Why must you twist words to mean something they don't mean?

      Delete
    5. Without a URL Mike, he never said it.

      Delete
    6. Besides, Mikeb, did you notice that I was presenting the position of the Brady Bunch for ridicule?

      Delete
    7. ss, as an ex-cop he may not have needed a permit, but I consider him just another idiot with a gun. Besides, this is good for your stats. He won't count.

      Delete
    8. He may have been carrying under LEOSA.

      Delete
    9. May, if, probably; do you ever tell facts, or do you always just make shit up?

      Delete
    10. Anonymous, quit being an idiot. LEOSA is one possibility. I haven't seen anything in the reports about what kind of license, if any, he has. But how cute of you to say that statements of facts are lies and statements of probability are making shit up.

      Delete
    11. Laughable.
      You have no clue what the facts are so you just make shit up.
      Possible, if, maybe, most probable, you just pull this shit out of your ass.

      Delete
    12. Anon, that happens in a lot of our discussions here when there aren't any facts to go by. Mike often make these guesses when he posts articles.

      Delete
    13. As I said, to me it matters not a bit if he was an ex cop using his privileges or if he actually had a concealed carry permit under Florida's lax gun laws. You're all the same and too many of you are unfit.

      Delete
    14. So, you go by what is written and say yes, or no. You don't make shit up.
      But you, TS and the site lying coward make up shit all the time. That is why you are criminal lying cowards.

      Delete
    15. Anon, in my original post here, I had two sources for my comment. How do I make that up?

      Delete
    16. I forgot you lying criminal cowards are one and the same.
      You answer questions I put to Greg and I have to respond to you for comments meant for Greg.
      It's ll the same and you guys are interchangeable lying criminal cowards.

      Delete
    17. "But you, TS and the site lying coward make up shit all the time."

      I'm sorry if I was mistaken Anon, you mentioned the site lying coward, TS, and someone else. Thought I was the someone else. My bad, hard to keep the lying site criminal cowards straight at times I suppose.

      Delete
    18. Just playing the game you lying criminal cowards started. What's wrong? You can dish it out, but can't take it?

      Delete
  4. You really wouldn't think that you would have to post a no weapons sign in a theater. I am fifty-four years old and I have never killed even one person yet. I will never carry a gun.

    Clearly this man's career in law enforcement did not gift him with any particular moral authority. You would think a person who spent his life protecting others from harm and apprehending wrong-doers would understand not to carry a weapon around as a means of asserting power over others. Some people just never get it. Now he gets to see the inside of a cell.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. For the carry license holders that I know, including myself, it's not about asserting power. It's about legitimate defense, should the need arise. We don't know the circumstances of this incident entirely, and it may well turn out that this man acted inappropriately. But that's not how the vast majority of us behave.

      Delete
    2. "The vast majority" is not good enough, Greg. Whatever that famout "vast majority" is really, it's not enough. That's why we need higher standards. That's why we can't allow people to so easily own and carry guns.

      Delete
    3. Better than 99% isn't good enough for you.

      Delete
    4. With crime at its lowest levels in decades, where is the need for a gun?

      Delete
    5. It seems like very day there is another story about a person pulling a weapon in anger, whether it has to do with drinking, road rage, a simple argument or what have you. the angry person gets their gun and sometimes shoots.

      We don't know the circumstances of this incident entirely, and it may well turn out that this man acted inappropriately.

      Thinking that may well be the case in this circumstance. You are a master of understatement.

      Delete
    6. Crime is at a decades-long low, but it still exists. It's my choice to carry.

      Delete
    7. With crime at its lowest levels in decades, where is the need for gun control?

      Delete
    8. Very good point TS. Especially with the prevalence of more people utilizing their option to carry a firearm in public.

      Delete
    9. WOW, guys are full of paranoia, fear, delusions, insecurities, and a gun gives you the power and security to walk out of your house.

      TS,
      Ah, because there are 33,000 gun shot deaths a year!
      I know that number doesn't bother you, but as an average citizen, it is unacceptable to me.

      SS said:
      "Especially with the prevalence of more people utilizing their option to carry a firearm in public."

      So you are saying, the more guns, the more there is a possibility you would need a gun?

      Delete
    10. "Ah, because there are 33,000 gun shot deaths a year!"

      Though two thirds are suicides, if you recall from an earlier discussion. When firearm deaths are discussed in relation to crime, it usually means homicides.
      I don't know if you are the Anon who made the earlier comment about there being no need for guns for self defense because crime levels are down, but you need to decide on a side of the argument. Is it no need for guns because crime is down?
      If you want to refer to all gun deaths when crime is discussed, then how exactly does wanting to be able to defend myself when there are 33,000 gun deaths per year? Or even if we use the lower homicide numbers of 11,000 per year?
      Yes, the amount of crime has been declining over the long term. But at what point does it become low enough where wanting to be able to defend your life become paranoia? In 2012, there were well over one million violent crimes nationwide. How exactly is that paranoia?

      http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/tables/1tabledatadecoverviewpdf/table_1_crime_in_the_united_states_by_volume_and_rate_per_100000_inhabitants_1993-2012.xls

      Delete
    11. "Ah, because there are 33,000 gun shot deaths a year!"

      You just asnwered your question on where is the need for a gun: Ah, because there are 1.2 Million violent crimes per year!

      Delete
    12. The real question is whether guns do more harm than they prevent. To me and anyone honest who doesn't have an ax to grind, the answer is obvious. Guns do more harm than good.

      Delete
    13. I had no earlier discussion about suicide numbers. Don't know what lie you are trying to spread now.

      Delete
    14. If you are the Anon that posted the comment mentioning 33,000 gun deaths, then you did bring up suicide numbers.

      Delete
    15. As I said, I am not, but continue your lies.

      Delete
    16. That's the problem with anonymous commentary. It's frequently impossible to tell who is speaking--and often to whom--unless it's one of the Anonymous ones with identifiable writing errors.

      Delete
    17. When you play games with the "name" game it comes back to bite you in the ass, which is no reason to lie about someone else. But lying is what you do anyways, so nothing new.

      Delete
    18. Anonymous, explain how we're supposed to distinguish among the Anonymous commenters unless there's some identifying name or writing characteristic.

      Delete
    19. You can't. That's part of the confusion YOU created by insisting on your "name" game. Live with it game playing ass hole criminal lying coward. I'm laughing at you and as an ass hole lying criminal "name" game playing coward, you deserve it. It's obvious (except to you) that piggy backers on anon comments are on purpose because of your insistance on playing your "name" game. To make you look stupid, but it wasn't necessary, you do that fine all by yourself.

      Delete
    20. The laughter of fools is like the crackling of twigs under a pot.

      Delete
    21. You are a fool laughing. A lying criminal coward fool who refuses to respond because he is what everyone says he is, an ass hole lying criminal coward.
      Why do you say revenge is justice, criminal?

      Delete
    22. "2/3rds are suicides"
      So those are not gun shot deaths?
      They are what?

      Delete
    23. As usual, no response from the coward.

      Delete
  5. Things aren't looking so good for Mr. Reeves. In his original statement he claimed that he had been struck in the face with an unknown object. Now, there appears to be at least one witness that has testified in a recent court hearing that claims Reeves knew what hit him.

    "The registered nurse, Derek Friedhoff, who sat about 5 to 6 feet from Chad Oulson in the theater, testified that he heard bickering during the previews. As the conflict escalated, he said he saw Oulson's silhouette standing. He heard something being thrown and he heard Reeves say, "something along the lines of 'I'll teach you or I'll show you to throw popcorn at me' followed by a gunshot."
    http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/criminal/judge-surveillance-video-showing-wesley-chapel-movie-theater-shooting/2164252

    There also appears to be a surveillance tape of some sort that will likely help clarify things.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sounds like damning testimony if it turns out to be that.

      Delete