One dead in movie theater shooting in Florida

[Tousi]

Yes. We grew rhubarb in our yard in Connecticut. We ate the stalks raw with a little sugar sprinkled on, or cooked like applesauce, or baked into a cobbler or pie. We can't grow rhubarb in SC; very disappointing.

I wonder why you can't grow rhubarb since we could in Minnesota......

 

[Bebonang]

I wonder why you can't grow rhubarb since we could in Minnesota......

It is because this can grow in the North like Connecticut but in the South like South Carolina, the rhurbarb can not, depending on the soil that might be different than the soil in Connecticut. Also maybe has to do with the weather, too, like hurricane.

 

[Steinhauer]

If you weren't making an analogy to the movie theater shooting, then why the lengthy scenario about the queue confrontation?

In that particular analogy, I was talking about different cultural perceptions of authority. I was not talking about Curtis specifically, I was talking about police in general and people in authority.

It appears to me that anytime a police officer is accused of wrongdoing, you can almost just sit back and watch two different "camps". One camp will wait for further information, and another "camp", which has little, to no, respect for police, will immediately rush to judgement and crucify the officer simply because of the negative view they themselves hold of LEO's. Even if the LEO has been cleared of any wrongdoing, this camp will somehow justify that as all cops being corrupt.

 

[Steinhauer]

Yes. We grew rhubarb in our yard in Connecticut. We ate the stalks raw with a little sugar sprinkled on, or cooked like applesauce, or baked into a cobbler or pie. We can't grow rhubarb in SC; very disappointing.

I grew up in the south, and had never heard of rhubarb pie until I visited my roommate's family in MN.

In fact .... I was sitting in his mother's kitchen and talking with the two of them, when I noticed icicles hanging from his neighbor's gutters. I just stared at them ... then I said "Wow, your neighbor's Christmas decorations look so real!".

They looked at each other in an odd way, looked back at me, realized I was serious, then they both started laughing.

"They are real!".

 

[hurleysrus]

Following thread.... following.... following.... trying to follow... going back... nope, I am lost

 

[Reba]

I wonder why you can't grow rhubarb since we could in Minnesota......

We grew it in Connecticut and my in-laws grew it in Michigan. South Carolina is too hot, and has no winter season. I've tried growing it here but it wasn't successful. The stalks they sell in the store seem much rougher.

 

[Reba]

In that particular analogy, I was talking about different cultural perceptions of authority. I was not talking about Curtis specifically, I was talking about police in general and people in authority.

It appears to me that anytime a police officer is accused of wrongdoing, you can almost just sit back and watch two different "camps". One camp will wait for further information, and another "camp", which has little, to no, respect for police, will immediately rush to judgement and crucify the officer simply because of the negative view they themselves hold of LEO's. Even if the LEO has been cleared of any wrongdoing, this camp will somehow justify that as all cops being corrupt.

If I'm in any "camp" at all it would be the pro-police camp. But, as I stated in another post, because I have high regard for police I also have high standards that I expect them to maintain. Someone who made a career of law enforcement and had years of training and experience, should be able to know better when to hold 'em, when to fold 'em, and when to walk away. In other words, he should have handled the situation better.

 

[Beowulf]

If I'm in any "camp" at all it would be the pro-police camp. But, as I stated in another post, because I have high regard for police I also have high standards that I expect them to maintain. Someone who made a career of law enforcement and had years of training and experience, should be able to know better when to hold 'em, when to fold 'em, and when to walk away. In other words, he should have handled the situation better.

I agree. The thing is, the police officer goes through exhaustive, intensive training and needs to take in so many factors in a matter of seconds. The average person would hardly remember how many shots were fired, for one example, yet the police officer has to have that under control.
Personally, I don't think the retired officer had any business bringing a gun into a dark theater after non-access to continued training.

 

[Steinhauer]

If I'm in any "camp" at all it would be the pro-police camp. But, as I stated in another post, because I have high regard for police I also have high standards that I expect them to maintain. Someone who made a career of law enforcement and had years of training and experience, should be able to know better when to hold 'em, when to fold 'em, and when to walk away. In other words, he should have handled the situation better.

And I agree with you, but we were not there, witness accounts will come out during the trial, and so far, all we have is "He shot the guy for throwing popcorn at him" - when earlier it was "he shot the guy for texting".

I would also think that Curtis had significant training, more so than the average LEO, and apparently he was trained in dispute resolution (he received commendations for it). So that tells me he knew when a situation was escalating to a point that it was getting beyond control. He also stated that he was being physically attacked, and that was why he shot Oulson.

of course, I do not agree someone should be shot for throwing popcorn and having an emotional meltdown in public such as a temper tantrum. But that could be a far different incident than what actually took place, we simply do not know all the details and won't until the trial. Both wives, of Oulson, and Reeves, were there. What did they see? What if Reeves' wife claims Oulson swung at her husband with something in his hand, and when doing so, popcorn went everywhere? What if Oulson had thrown his cellphone at Reeves?

Throwing anything at someone is a felonious assault. At least, it is here in Georgia.

My dad found that out when the President of an HOA threw a tennis ball at his car as he was driving through the subdivision. He called the police and they arrested the guy, because throwing anything that is not welcomed, or wanted (even a tennis ball) at someone, or their property, is felonious assault.

I was a bit shocked by that too ... and Curtis would know what the statutes are in Florida.

 

[Beowulf]

And I agree with you, but we were not there, witness accounts will come out during the trial, and so far, all we have is "He shot the guy for throwing popcorn at him" - when earlier it was "he shot the guy for texting".

I would also think that Curtis had significant training, more so than the average LEO, and apparently he was trained in dispute resolution (he received commendations for it). So that tells me he knew when a situation was escalating to a point that it was getting beyond control. He also stated that he was being physically attacked, and that was why he shot Oulson.

of course, I do not agree someone should be shot for throwing popcorn and having an emotional meltdown in public such as a temper tantrum. But that could be a far different incident than what actually took place, we simply do not know all the details and won't until the trial. Both wives, of Oulson, and Reeves, were there. What did they see? What if Reeves' wife claims Oulson swung at her husband with something in his hand, and when doing so, popcorn went everywhere? What if Oulson had thrown his cellphone at Reeves?

Throwing anything at someone is a felonious assault. At least, it is here in Georgia.

My dad found that out when the President of an HOA threw a tennis ball at his car as he was driving through the subdivision. He called the police and they arrested the guy, because throwing anything that is not welcomed, or wanted (even a tennis ball) at someone, or their property, is felonious assault.

I was a bit shocked by that too ... and Curtis would know what the statutes are in Florida.

The measure of his training would be the answer to this question: in the same situation, would he do it again?
I am sure he has regrets and I feel for him.
This will blow over.

 

[Reba]

And I agree with you, but we were not there, witness accounts will come out during the trial, and so far, all we have is "He shot the guy for throwing popcorn at him" - when earlier it was "he shot the guy for texting".

But you see, it shouldn't have even escalated to the popcorn throwing stage. He made too much of a big deal about the texting in the first place. Sure, the guy was rude for texting. He should have done his texting out in the lobby. But was it worth making such a stink about? If it was truly bothersome couldn't he move his seat?

... What if Oulson had thrown his cellphone at Reeves?

What if he did? So what? It's not worth a life.

Throwing anything at someone is a felonious assault. At least, it is here in Georgia.

Just because some action is chargeable doesn't mean one has to make a complaint.

My dad found that out when the President of an HOA threw a tennis ball at his car as he was driving through the subdivision. He called the police and they arrested the guy, because throwing anything that is not welcomed, or wanted (even a tennis ball) at someone, or their property, is felonious assault.

I was a bit shocked by that too ... and Curtis would know what the statutes are in Florida.

Like I said, just because a statute exists it doesn't mean a person has to make a complaint.

 

[hurleysrus]

Just fyi...

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if: (1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or

(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

776.08 Forcible felony.—“Forcible felony” means treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; carjacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.

Online Sunshine ... /0776.html

784.021 Aggravated assault.—(1) An “aggravated assault” is an assault: (a) With a deadly weapon without intent to kill; or

(b) With an intent to commit a felony.

(2) Whoever commits an aggravated assault shall be guilty of a felony of the third degree,

Online Sunshine ... 4.021.html

 

[hurleysrus]

Even if he was charged felony assault for popcorn throwing, ha ha, I still see no possible syg defense

So let's take a look at Florida's SYG law for a second. The Florida SYG law defines SYG as "Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm." Section 1 also states:

"A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if: (a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and (b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred."

Now, "reasonable" is subjective, but I think it's a stretch that being hit with a bag of popcorn is enough to justify a fear of imminent death or great bodily harm. And while I may accept that it's enough to justify throwing a punch in self-defense, it's definitely not grounds to pull out a gun and start blasting.

 

[ChicagoBlue2]

Just fyi...

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if: (1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or

(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

776.08 Forcible felony.—“Forcible felony” means treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; carjacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.

Online Sunshine ... /0776.html

784.021 Aggravated assault.—(1) An “aggravated assault” is an assault: (a) With a deadly weapon without intent to kill; or

(b) With an intent to commit a felony.

(2) Whoever commits an aggravated assault shall be guilty of a felony of the third degree,

Online Sunshine ... 4.021.html

Let's not forget witness tampering-- that, too, could be considered a forcible felony if harm was threatened. And add obstruction of justice to the list of felonies, but in that case, there are several ways to obstruct justice, not just one.

 

[Steinhauer]

If I am reading that statute correctly, then Oulson was committing aggravated battery, which is a felony.

So he could have been arrested, even for throwing popcorn, if that was what happened.

Another thing to consider, is if he had punched Reeves, and Reeves was killed as a result. Who would the "bad guy" be then? What if Reeves had been wearing a pacemaker?

 

[hurleysrus]

Even IF he had punched reeves, the force he used was not justified according to the statue.....

 

[Foxrac]

If I am reading that statute correctly, then Oulson was committing aggravated battery, which is a felony.

So he could have been arrested, even for throwing popcorn, if that was what happened.

Another thing to consider, is if he had punched Reeves, and Reeves was killed as a result. Who would the "bad guy" be then? What if Reeves had been wearing a pacemaker?

That's not true - popcorn is not weapon and you cannot get hurt or killed by popcorn, so that's very far from battery.

Aggravated battery require use of deadly weapon or cause serious injury, so throwing popcorn isn't one of them.

Throwing popcorn could be disorderly conduct, that's misdemeanor, just like throwing water, throwing food, throwing dollars or light objects.

Now, your argument is nonexistent because Chad already died and Curtis charged with 2nd degree homicide.

 

[Foxrac]

Even IF he had punched reeves, the force he used was not justified according to the statue.....

I think it is exaggeration.

Chad didn't punch at Curtis, but he was just throwing popcorn at Curtis.

Also, the news said Chad was texting during movie preview - just before movie start.

 

[Foxrac]

Curtis seems have poor anger management - not surprised.

If Curtis can't stand about situation in movie theater so he should stay in home.

 

[hurleysrus]

I think it is exaggeration.

Chad didn't punch at Curtis, but he was just throwing popcorn at Curtis.

Also, the news said Chad was texting during movie preview - just before movie start.

I know he didn't but it was in response to the hypothetical that was posed earlier