FL - Chad Oulson, 43, killed in Wesley Chapel theater shooting, 13 Jan 2014 *Former LE arrest*

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
if for judge bizarre reason the judge grants the immunity I understand the state can appeal...correct? And do they need grounds other than just not agreeing and wanting another opinion? I mean the judge let virtually everything but the state of the plumbing in the theater into the hearing...so how does that work?

Based on reading article from 2014, yes. IANAL but in that case the judge changed his mind mid trial and thus they were not able to appeal...had it happened before trial prosecution could have.

[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.8)]Prosecutors cannot appeal a mid-trial ruling. However, had Lester granted Roelfosen’s Stand Your Ground motion after his hearing last year, prosecutors could have appealed the finding, according to Lynne Hooper, a spokeswoman for the State Attorney’s Office.[/COLOR]

https://thinkprogress.org/florida-j...in-bar-brawl-shooting-8c35f5161bde#.ujx2fpi0f
 
is the second obit.above someone's idea of a joke...clearly the first one is the real one...nothing has been changed...even the photo...I can't believe this is even posted anywhere...simply no one ever wrote that obituary and it is someone's idea of revenge?

Now I am not so sure it was recently revised, but appears it could have been slightly dfferent for each posting. The one from http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/whig/obituary.aspx?page=lifestory&pid=169260742 was Published in Quincy Herald-Whig from Jan. 24 to Jan. 26, 2014
The one from http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/thetelegraph/obituary.aspx?page=lifestory&pid=169359784 Published in The Telegraph from Jan. 27 to Jan. 28, 2014

The dates are different, and they may have decided to reword parts. Basically, they are the same, with only minor differences.

Turaj, I don't quite understand why you think one might be a "joke" ... ? They are very close. I think someone may have realized how those missing words might be perceived as him being the instigator in the event that led to his death. It was wise to remove them, in my opinion. Aggravator and instigator would not be how I want him perceived if I was going to trial like this.
 
Now I am not so sure it was recently revised, but appears it could have been slightly dfferent for each posting. The one from http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/whig/obituary.aspx?page=lifestory&pid=169260742 was Published in Quincy Herald-Whig from Jan. 24 to Jan. 26, 2014
The one from http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/thetelegraph/obituary.aspx?page=lifestory&pid=169359784 Published in The Telegraph from Jan. 27 to Jan. 28, 2014

The dates are different, and they may have decided to reword parts. Basically, they are the same, with only minor differences.

Turaj, I don't quite understand why you think one might be a "joke" ... ? They are very close. I think someone may have realized how those missing words might be perceived as him being the instigator in the event that led to his death. It was wise to remove them, in my opinion. Aggravator and instigator would not be how I want him perceived if I was going to trial like this.

I guess obituary wording is forever and should be thought out very carefully...his wife must have had significant input on it and I simply cannot imagine her putting in those words under any circumstances let alone how he died. I don't see "aggravator and instigator" as being positive traits which are usually what is put into an obit. Those word seem like a supporter of Curtis Reeves that reworded an obit. In any event it is all very odd and will have zero impact on what judge does but her ruling seems important for syg/immunity and its use in Florida which seems very open to interpretation and resulting in much court time for murders.
 
I guess obituary wording is forever and should be thought out very carefully...his wife must have had significant input on it and I simply cannot imagine her putting in those words under any circumstances let alone how he died. I don't see "aggravator and instigator" as being positive traits which are usually what is put into an obit. Those word seem like a supporter of Curtis Reeves that reworded an obit. In any event it is all very odd and will have zero impact on what judge does but her ruling seems important for syg/immunity and its use in Florida which seems very open to interpretation and resulting in much court time for murders.

thanks for the reply, and I am in agreement. It was a very poor choice of words.
 
JMO
I’m leaning toward defending Reeves. Gaah! :gaah:
This is difficult for me because I particularly dislike bully cops and arrogant ex-cops.
I don’t think the 776.041 FL statute “exception” applies in this case. JMO. I could be wrong. And, my interpretation of the law doesn’t mean I agree with the law.
They were both A$$es, yes. But I don’t think Curtis Reeves “Initially provokes the use or threatened use of force against himself”. I think Reeves just wanted compliance with his verbal requests. Reeves wanted to be obeyed. They were both mouthy and neither wanted to back down from their verbal argument.
But I don’t see that CR’s behavior provoked a physical confrontation by CO. Reeves was provoking a verbal argument, yes. We see the physical confrontation on video, showing what appears to be Oulson threatening use of force, as well as using force toward Reeves.
It seems most agree this should not have escalated, but it did escalate. Two hotheads, and neither is going to back down. But it seems to me that Oulson was the initial physical aggressor. Reeves picked the fight, but Reeves was fighting verbally, not physically. Reeves didn’t de-escalate the situation. Reeves antagonized with his continual verbal comments. But, Reeves didn’t physically threaten Oulson. Oulson then came at Reeves physically.
[Wow, if only Reeves didn’t have his gun in his pocket.]

Yes, DisneyFan, if the husbands had simply listened to their wives! Males and females react differently. It’s the testosterone! An interesting medical article:
Testosterone and Aggressive Behavior in Man
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3693622/
Atavistic residues of aggressive behavior prevailing in animal life, determined by testosterone, remain attenuated in man and suppressed through familial and social inhibitions. However, it still manifests itself in various intensities and forms from; thoughts, anger, verbal aggressiveness, competition, dominance behavior, to physical violence. Testosterone plays a significant role in the arousal of these behavioral manifestations in the brain centers involved in aggression and on the development of the muscular system that enables their realization.

[BBM]
[MOO]
Reeves carried his gun in his pocket wherever he went, apparently. His son, a police officer, referred to it as Reeves' "pocket pistol."
I wonder at what point in Reeves' life he began carrying his "pocket pistol." I assume it would have been after his retirement from PD, because I would think that during the time he was an active duty officer he would have just worn his service revolver, even while off-duty, if this was allowed under the regs. And he wouldn't have needed to conceal it, if allowed under the law.
[Somebody, please set me straight on whether Reeves would have been allowed to carry his service weapon during his off-duty hours while he was on the police force.]
I can totally see him strutting around in public with a holstered gun on his person during his off-duty hours when he was a member of PD.
When asked whether he had his own personal service weapon with him, SGT Hamilton* testified: "I had my gun with me, but I didn't have it ON me," (or something to that effect).[MOO]
[according to Spellbound, Hamilton said that he brought his own service weapon into the theater, and it was in his wife's purse]
(*the off-duty Sheriff's deputy who secured Reeves' gun in the theater after he shot Oulson)

In my opinion, Reeves was the instigator here. He acted aggressively toward Oulson, and Oulson was angered by his persistence. It escalated from there. But, unfortunately, I don't think that it matters who instigated the lethal shooting. The question that is important here is whether or not Reeves had the right to shoot Oulson.
I am inclined to think that the phone flew out of Oulson's hand when he reached to grab Reeves' popcorn bag. I don't think he intended to throw it at Reeves. Further, I don't think that phone ever hit Reeves. I think it fell to the floor beneath Reeves after it flew out of Oulson's hand. As to the bruising or whatever injury was photographed above Reeves' eye, I think he hit his head when they put him in the squad car at the time he was arrested. If that didn't happen, I would not put it past Reeves to inflict the injury on himself in some way.
I feel that there is a really good chance Reeves will win this one.[MOO]
 
I wonder at what point in Reeves' life he began carrying his "pocket pistol." I assume it would have been after his retirement from PD, because I would think that during the time he was an active duty officer he would have just worn his service revolver, even while off-duty, if this was allowed under the regs. And he wouldn't have needed to conceal it, if allowed under the law.
[Somebody, please set me straight on whether Reeves would have been allowed to carry his service weapon during his off-duty hours while he was on the police force.]
I can totally see him strutting around in public with a holstered gun on his person during his off-duty hours when he was a member of PD.
When asked whether he had his own personal service weapon with him, SGT Hamilton* testified: "I had my gun with me, but I didn't have it ON me," (or something to that effect).[MOO]
[according to Spellbound, Hamilton said that he brought his own service weapon into the theater, and it was in his wife's purse]
(*the off-duty Sheriff's deputy who secured Reeves' gun in the theater after he shot Oulson)
^^ RSBM ^
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...ng=&URL=0700-0799/0790/Sections/0790.052.html
The 2016 Florida Statutes
790.052 Carrying concealed firearms; off-duty law enforcement officers.—
(1) All persons holding active certifications from the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission as law enforcement officers or correctional officers as defined in s. 943.10(1), (2), (6), (7), (8), or (9) shall have the right to carry, on or about their persons, concealed firearms, during off-duty hours, at the discretion of their superior officers, and may perform those law enforcement functions that they normally perform during duty hours, utilizing their weapons in a manner which is reasonably expected of on-duty officers in similar situations. However, nothing in this subsection shall be construed to limit the right of a law enforcement officer, correctional officer, or correctional probation officer to carry a concealed firearm off duty as a private citizen under the exemption provided in s. 790.06 that allows a law enforcement officer, correctional officer, or correctional probation officer as defined in s. 943.10(1), (2), (3), (6), (7), (8), or (9) to carry a concealed firearm without a concealed weapon or firearm license. The appointing or employing agency or department of an officer carrying a concealed firearm as a private citizen under s. 790.06 shall not be liable for the use of the firearm in such capacity. Nothing herein limits the authority of the appointing or employing agency or department from establishing policies limiting law enforcement officers or correctional officers from carrying concealed firearms during off-duty hours in their capacity as appointees or employees of the agency or department.
(2) The superior officer of any police department or sheriff’s office or the Florida Highway Patrol, if he or she elects to direct the officers under his or her supervision to carry concealed firearms while off duty, shall file a statement with the governing body of such department of his or her instructions and requirements relating to the carrying of said firearms.
 
Very poor choice of wording for the obituary. However, without personally knowing the victim it would be difficult to reflect on his personality.
Certainly with an ongoing civil case against the theater, the wording is not flattering to the victim. When I viewed the video of the incident, it appeared (at least to me) the victim was taking a confrontational stance. Just my opinion.

I cannot imagine a supporter of Reeves would go to such lengths to alter a document. That document will have no impact on the judges ruling, so why alter it. It appears to have run in two different publications.

Both men acted inappropriately, in my opinion. The judge has her work cut out for her.
 
this is my first time listening to this interview right after the killing....Reeves is obsessed with his age...I mean obsessed...I wonder if getting old and not working really did a number on his psyche which is angry anyway. Interview all about him...I feel that the guy doing the interview is on to him all the way....and who in their right mind after killing someone makes jokes??


turaj, did you catch from the audio in squad car after Reeves was arrested, when Det. Procter (or Proctor?) interrupted Reeves as he was talking about being "on Swat" and how they [the Swat Team members] thought they were "Superman", but then [blah, blah, blah, as Reeves drones on, incessantly] says that being on the Swat Team took a toll on their bodies in later years -- but begins talking specifically about his own aches and pains which he attributes to being on the Swat Team.

Det. Procter interrupts him and, point blank, asks Reeves: "So . . . why'd ya do it?" (or: why did he shoot Oulson); Reeves stops in mid-sentence of reciting a litany of his many debilitating physical ailments (contributing to his overall "feebleness" and inability to go up against the likes of a strapping giant like Chad Oulson -- who Reeves could have suffocated to death just be sitting on him, I think!) [IMO]

... anyway, I digress, but what I meant to say is that Procter caught him so off-guard. Reeves said: "Huh?" As if at first he could not believe that Procter would even have to ask such a dumb question --- but also, too, he wanted Procter to have to repeat the question so he would have time to come up with an answer (other than: "Well, I had a gun. I was itching to use it!") [MOO] So, he kind of stumbles in his speech, as if grasping for a suitable answer for Stand Your Ground defense -- "Well, uh, I uh, guess -- uhh - I uh -- Well, I was scared for my life!!" -- or some such ridiculous comment. I am just paraphrasing here. By no means is this verbatim for what was said on the audio recording when Reeves was in squad car with Det. Procter.

Reeves was so cavalier in his attitude, yukking it up as he spoke to Det. Procter -- almost giddy -- when he first got into that squad car -- confident that all of LE would be siding with him on Stand Your Ground -- as if there was absolutely no question of whether he was justified in shooting (and killing) someone who tossed popcorn at him!

But when Procter asked him that question: "Why did you shoot him?", old Reeves realized that he was in some serious trouble.

In this hearing (SYG), Reeves started out barely audible -- his voice a soft whisper -- such that he was asked to speak up so they could hear him. He was doing his best to come across as soft-spoken, mild mannered, and respectful ("Yes, sir." "No, sir.") But boy did that tone change towards the end of his testimony when he was being questioned by the State! He could barely contain his anger and contempt for the prosecutor. It was quite something to see, and he showed his true colors. [IMO]
 
I don't know. Now that I am reading up on the SYG cases you posted here, SeesSeas, I am now waffling and finding that maybe the judge will NOT grant SYG defense to Reeves. Apparently, under the 2012 "new" SYG law, if I am referencing the correct info, the justice system is only required to ask three questions:

1. Did the defendant have the right to be there? (Yes.)

2. Was he engaged in a lawful activity? (I say, no, because he wasn't supposed to bring a gun into the theater.)

3. Could he reasonably have been in fear of death or great bodily harm? (Again, I say no. But that is my bias against the defendant. My opinion doesn't count!) The judge may be conflicted on this one, and if she is undecided, won't be able to grant immunity to Reeves under SYG.

So, now I think that he will have to stand trial.

[MOO]
 
Curtis Reeves - PHOTOS
http://curtisreevestrial.com/files/1988.pdf
This link includes a photo taken of Reeves handcuffed while he was sitting in theater seat.
Compared with his right eyelid, his left eyelid does appear slightly red.

Thanks, SeesSeas for posting these. I appreciate it very much as I have been very lax about not paying attention to this case. I guess we waited so long for anything to get moving in the case, that my outrage began to diminish.

When I looked at the last photo, of Reeves' Driver's License photograph from 08/2009 (Reeves would have been almost 57 years old then), I said to self: Who is THAT? It didn't even look like him at first, to me! [MOO]
 
Does anybody know if Oulson's attorney has requested that the bond be revoked should the judge reject the SYG justification and move forward with the trial?
 
^^ RSBM ^
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...ng=&URL=0700-0799/0790/Sections/0790.052.html
The 2016 Florida Statutes
790.052 Carrying concealed firearms; off-duty law enforcement officers.—
(1) All persons holding active certifications from the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission as law enforcement officers or correctional officers as defined in s. 943.10(1), (2), (6), (7), (8), or (9) shall have the right to carry, on or about their persons, concealed firearms, during off-duty hours, at the discretion of their superior officers, and may perform those law enforcement functions that they normally perform during duty hours, utilizing their weapons in a manner which is reasonably expected of on-duty officers in similar situations. However, nothing in this subsection shall be construed to limit the right of a law enforcement officer, correctional officer, or correctional probation officer to carry a concealed firearm off duty as a private citizen under the exemption provided in s. 790.06 that allows a law enforcement officer, correctional officer, or correctional probation officer as defined in s. 943.10(1), (2), (3), (6), (7), (8), or (9) to carry a concealed firearm without a concealed weapon or firearm license. The appointing or employing agency or department of an officer carrying a concealed firearm as a private citizen under s. 790.06 shall not be liable for the use of the firearm in such capacity. Nothing herein limits the authority of the appointing or employing agency or department from establishing policies limiting law enforcement officers or correctional officers from carrying concealed firearms during off-duty hours in their capacity as appointees or employees of the agency or department.
(2) The superior officer of any police department or sheriff’s office or the Florida Highway Patrol, if he or she elects to direct the officers under his or her supervision to carry concealed firearms while off duty, shall file a statement with the governing body of such department of his or her instructions and requirements relating to the carrying of said firearms.

CR's certification was not active at the time of this shooting,therefore he could not legally carry a firearm into a movie theater.
 
You know to me,I don't care what age a person is, throwing popcorn in someone's face does not justify putting a bullet in him. Especially a highly trained retired law enforcement officer. It boggles my mind that this SYG BS is even a defense. If someone breaks into my house,than I can see a SYG case being sought. When I was in the Florida police academy years ago. if someone came into my house and I could run out the back door, that's what the law required. I remember asking in the academy "so if someone comes in my front door I have to run out the back door and let them rob my House? and they said you cannot shoot them if escape is possible. Around 2006 or 2007 they changed it to now you don't have to run out of the house, you CAN shoot them. Anyhow, this was in a movie theater and to me the only criminal action at all was the firing of a weapon. I have worked many years with scumbags and some very brave LE
members and to me this CR had absolutley no justification AT ALL. Yet I know I live in Florida, where a women who molests a high school boy is too pretty to do ANY jail time and of course no justice for Caley and Zimmerman just keeps going off every few months. Anyway just my thoughts while I wait for this verdict and I sure as heck hope CR goes to trial and is found guilty,but I have no faith in the justice system in this State
 
CR's certification was not active at the time of this shooting,therefore he could not legally carry a firearm into a movie theater.
Hi indianwin2001 – I do realize that CR’s LE certification was not active when he shot and killed Chad Oulson in the movie theater. I was responding to this comment by alexwood:
[Somebody, please set me straight on whether Reeves would have been allowed to carry his service weapon during his off-duty hours while he was on the police force.]

From what I recall, CR did have an active valid CWP on that tragic day that he shot and killed Chad Oulson. The way I understand it, CR was legal (state law) when he carried the gun in his pocket. CR violated Cobb Grove movie theater rules which prohibited guns and knives. But I don’t believe CR violated state law by having the gun in his pocket.

ETA - Found this article:
http://www.tbo.com/pasco-county/wes...shooting-death-remains-closed-today-20140114/
Wesley Chapel theater shooting suspect had concealed weapon permit
January 14, 2014
WESLEY CHAPEL — Curtis Reeves Jr., the retired Tampa police captain accused of killing a man at the Cobb Grove 16 Theatre, had a permit to carry a concealed weapon, according to the Pasco County Sheriff’s Office, but taking the gun into the movie violated a Cobb Theatres policy.
 
Hi indianwin2001 – I do realize that CR’s LE certification was not active when he shot and killed Chad Oulson in the movie theater. I was responding to this comment by alexwood:
[Somebody, please set me straight on whether Reeves would have been allowed to carry his service weapon during his off-duty hours while he was on the police force.]

From what I recall, CR did have an active valid CWP on that tragic day that he shot and killed Chad Oulson. The way I understand it, CR was legal (state law) when he carried the gun in his pocket. CR violated Cobb Grove movie theater rules which prohibited guns and knives. But I don’t believe CR violated state law by having the gun in his pocket.

ETA - Found this article:
http://www.tbo.com/pasco-county/wes...shooting-death-remains-closed-today-20140114/
Wesley Chapel theater shooting suspect had concealed weapon permit
January 14, 2014
WESLEY CHAPEL — Curtis Reeves Jr., the retired Tampa police captain accused of killing a man at the Cobb Grove 16 Theatre, had a permit to carry a concealed weapon, according to the Pasco County Sheriff’s Office, but taking the gun into the movie violated a Cobb Theatres policy.

Thanks for clarifying that
 
Curtis Reeves - PHOTOS
http://curtisreevestrial.com/files/1988.pdf
This link includes a photo taken of Reeves handcuffed while he was sitting in theater seat.
Compared with his right eyelid, his left eyelid does appear slightly red.

I honestly do not see any difference, other than a glare in the pic with his glasses on. Redness could also be due to rubbing of eyes, allergies, age-related. It is just too hard for me to tell from pictures.
 
Marking my spot...Been waiting a long time for a conclusion to this case.
 
Judge will have the written order no later than 3 pm Friday, March 10. Will email it to counsel and to the court media rep.


 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
70
Guests online
1,944
Total visitors
2,014

Forum statistics

Threads
602,007
Messages
18,133,172
Members
231,206
Latest member
habitsofwaste
Back
Top