The Rude Pundit: Man Who Shot Movie Theater Texter Is Using "Stand Your Ground" Defense ...
Because Of Course He IsSo, yeah, ha, ha, we'd all like to shoot the dumbasses who text in the dark of the movie theater, so it's easy, at first blush, to call 68-year old retired cop Curtis Reeves, Jr. "America's Greatest Hero" for gunning the shit out of Chad Oulson in Florida because the 43-year old apparently thought his convenience was more important than the enjoyment of the rest of the audience. Then you hear that this was during the previews, not during the showing of jingoistic war porn, Lone Survivor (because, again, of course that was the film they were seeing).
Then you hear that Reeves had already complained to the management about Oulson and then confronted Oulson when the younger man asked him if he had complained. And then Oulson threw his popcorn at Reeves. And then Reeves shot Oulson and his wife. Yeah, texting during a movie is bullshit. But this is about about how unsafe we are under the rein of concealed carry laws, which means that there is an implied threat everywhere you go, not about what inconsiderate dicks do in the dark. Being a douche is not a crime punishable by death.
Now, it being Florida and Florida being ground zero for the lie that is the Stand Your Ground law, which allows a person to kill the fuck out of someone if he or she feels threatened, Reeves has indicated that he is going to claim the kind of ex post facto, pre-crime mindreading that forms the legal basis for the application of Stand Your Ground. That's also known as "getting away with murder."
See, Oulson beaning Reeves with popcorn meets the legal definition of assault. Reeves said he feared getting attacked. However, you shouldn't be allowed to fire a bullet into the chest of someone using popcorn as a weapon. But this is America, motherfucker. And that means we get to have lawyers actually say things like "
I)t becomes more complicated if Reeves considered it to be one step in an escalating response from Oulson. If he feared that Oulson would next come over the seats and physically attack him — and if Reeves felt he wouldn't be able to handle an attack from a younger man — jurors might consider deadly force reasonable."
What did big, threatening, strapping young Chad Oulson look like that a former cop thought he couldn't take? Surely, this was a muscular biker type, probably with tattoos and a do-rag, and his wife was some tramp-stamped meth whore. Who wouldn't be threatened by...what?
Oh. And he had a toddler daughter? And his wife loved him so much that she tried to block the shot, injuring her hand in the process?
So what happened is that a psychotic old pussy had a gun and a grudge against the world. Reeves was itching to shoot someone, and Oulson just got to be the one who finally took the bullet. The Rude Pundit's said it before and he'll say it until you pry this keyboard from his cold, dead fingers: Only cops, cowards, and criminals carry concealed weapons. If you're not a cop (retired doesn't count), you're one of the other two.
The Pasco County Sheriff's department doesn't think that Reeves can claim Stand Your Ground as a defense. Surely, he could have walked away after taking popcorn in the kisser. But the point of Stand Your Ground is that you don't have to walk away, right? Even if you're the one who's wrong, you are allowed to just shoot someone rather than suck it up and walk away, like a fucking grown-up should in nearly every situation.
Don't worry, though. It's Florida. A jury of Reeves' peers will no doubt make the sensible decision, as they always do in these cases.
http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/
= new reply since forum marked as read
might just kick some ass 
who the shooter confronted and then followed to a bathroom. 
This "incident" is beyond sad. Breaks my heart that this young mother is now a widow with a toddler to raise and for absolutely NO good reason. IMHO, if Reeves gets by with this, it will be another nail in the coffin of our once-great nation. I have been "housebound" with an ugly flu for almost two weeks, and this and the IN grocery store shooting honestly make me wonder if I ever want to venture outdoors again. I do realize that we are all no more than potential victims of some nut with a gun, but dayum--what an awful way to live!
Blessings to Chad's wife and family. I have no clue how someone would "get on with life" after such a horrific event. May she stay strong!
I'm sorry, but every story--every single story I've read on this--states that the texter asked the retired police chief, "Did you go talk to a manager about this?" after the chief had returned to the theater. The argument escalates from there, a bag of popcorn is thrown, and--bang!-- tragic ending.
Neither one of us was there. All we have to go on, at this point, are the stories of the eye-witnesses.
As for that line about "he came back looking even more agitated"--well, wouldn't you; if you'd gone for help and couldn't find any? The eyewitnesses don't say "he came back screaming and got in the texter's face" or "he came back brandishing a gun and spewing invective."
Which is why I keep asking the question no one will answer--because it obviously has no answer--if the incident had ended with the bag of popcorn being bounced off the old man's face, would that be acceptable to all concerned?
I've spilled way too much time and ink on this. You want to talk about speculation, look at the original posting which started this thread. You'd think the chief had left the house draped in ammo belts after snarling to his neighbors: "I'm going out hunting humans!"
I say 10% disagreement not because I think one party was 90% in the wrong and the other 10% right. In truth, this entire series of incidents could have been de-escalated at any time, by either party. If that gunshot hadn't been fired my sympathies would have been entirely with the old man--kindly or no. He was in the right; they were in the wrong. They were "only" texting durng the previews? Sorry, boorish behavior. Refusing to stop texting because you're texting your three-year-old? Irrelevant. ("I was speeding, your honor, to get home to my adorable three-year-old."
An argument--or rather, series of arguments--results in one party bouncing a bag or bucket of popcorn off another's face? I can tell you what the HR Dept. around here would tell an employee who did that to another employee, regardless of provocation: FIRED!
Up until that gunshot I am ENTIRELY on the side of the old man. Once he pulls out that gun--entirely against.
I say 90/10 because I roll my eyes at the howling mob pretending they don't understand this incident at all: Gosh, Pollyannas, have you ever watched a violent film in your lives?! You really can't understand how a person, in a moment of blind, unreasoning rage, might lash out at their tormentor? With a bucket of popcorn OR a bullet to the chest?
THAT's the 10% difference I'm refering to: whether this is a matter of 1st-degree, 2nd-degree, or 3rd-degree murder.
But we're in solid, 100% agreement on this--murder it is.
Good points, cogently made.
True. Everyone is putting far too much faith and credence in that most unreliable of form of evidence: the eye-witness report.
I see this as an escalating series of actions by both parties that went way, way too far.
But given human nature, I submit this: It's never a good idea to hit anyone, anywhere, with any kind of object during an argument.
Can we at least find agreement there?
Restore my faith that argumentation can lead somewhere, instead of ever-more vituperative nay-saying!
but okay 
Response to A Simple Game (Reply #50)
...may be more accurate, but I don't see how being more accurate about what happened saves the ex-policeman from being rightfully demonized in this instance 
I mean, you're serious right? (Or am I missing some ironic tone in your post?) Yes, he's 70, but he's also a retired policeman. With all those years behind him in confronting (I assume) far more volatile people and situations than this one, couldn't he handle or think of a way to handle this middle-aged dad outside of shooting him? Was the popcorn throwing really the first step in it getting totally beyond control to the point of putting the retired policeman's life in danger? If turning his back or getting away fast wasn't possible, then how about shouting for help?
I really don't think you've quite made your case here.
Response to cer7711 (Reply #11)
what's the big deal? and i certainyl would never dream of killing someone for texting in a movie 
how very sad. i hope the murderer gets life.
I really hope, for the sake of your community, that you don't have a conceal carry permit.
"But this is about about how unsafe we are under the rein of concealed carry laws, which means that there is an implied threat everywhere you go, not about what inconsiderate dicks do in the dark. Being a douche is not a crime punishable by death."
thank you, Rude.
what they'll attack you with. Gotta stand yur ground.
That's a good reason to get shot.
This country, most notably Florida, makes me sick.
Response to meegbear (Original post)
Let's go back to the current situation: If the shooter did not conceal his gun, wouldn't that result in the same stupid argument? The visible gun would be more of a threat than the shooter being strong.
But please, let's argue that the victim deserved to die so that we don't have to have any pesky discussions about our precious, precious guns.
Well done, Rude Pundit and meegbear.
