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

[Gardenista]

I wonder if there was additional theatre security footage that wasn't turned over to LE.

Same and/or tampered with video. Curious if defense has a video expert who will testify to this.

 

[SeesSeas]

<modsnip: Quoted post was removed>

Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine
The 2021 Florida Statutes
784.08 Assault or battery on persons 65 years of age or older; reclassification of offenses; minimum sentence.—
(1) A person who is convicted of an aggravated assault or aggravated battery upon a person 65 years of age or older shall be sentenced to a minimum term of imprisonment of 3 years and fined not more than $10,000 and shall also be ordered by the sentencing judge to make restitution to the victim of such offense and to perform up to 500 hours of community service work. Restitution and community service work shall be in addition to any fine or sentence which may be imposed and shall not be in lieu thereof.
(2) Whenever a person is charged with committing an assault or aggravated assault or a battery or aggravated battery upon a person 65 years of age or older, regardless of whether he or she knows or has reason to know the age of the victim, the offense for which the person is charged shall be reclassified as follows:
(a) In the case of aggravated battery, from a felony of the second degree to a felony of the first degree.
(b) In the case of aggravated assault, from a felony of the third degree to a felony of the second degree.
(c) In the case of battery, from a misdemeanor of the first degree to a felony of the third degree.
(d) In the case of assault, from a misdemeanor of the second degree to a misdemeanor of the first degree.
(3) Notwithstanding the provisions of s. 948.01, adjudication of guilt or imposition of sentence shall not be suspended, deferred, or withheld.
History.—s. 1, ch. 89-327; s. 1, ch. 92-50; s. 18, ch. 93-406; s. 1200, ch. 97-102; s. 19, ch. 97-194; s. 5, ch. 99-188; s. 1, ch. 2002-208.

 

[SeesSeas]

Defense Attorney:
Aggravated Battery
Felony Battery on Person 65 years of age or older
Robbery
FL v. Curtis Reeves Trial Day 4 - Defense Motion For Acquittal
Feb 17, 2022

 

[SeesSeas]

<modsnip: Quoted posts were removed>

FEB 11, 2022, both sides stipulated the fact that Chad Oulson 'was not texting the babysitter to check on his daughter, he was browsing the internet, football sites, etc'

Law&Crime Trial Network
https://twitter.com/cathyrusson/status/1492158392734924804
@cathyrusson
Judge says she thinks it's fair defense can mention that Oulson was not texting his daughter. Judge acknowledges that many jurors said that's what they heard about the case. Also, witnesses for the state will testify that Oulson told #CurtisReeves he was texting about daughter

https://twitter.com/cathyrusson/status/1492157125098807300
@cathyrusson
Defense wants to mention in their opening statements what Chad Oulson was doing on his phone during previews. He was not texting the babysitter to check on his daughter, he was browsing the internet, football sites, etc...

 

[Sillybilly]

ADMIN NOTE:

Many bickering posts were removed, all stemming from one post that did not include a link to information stated as fact about who did what with popcorn.

 

[Gardenista]

<modsnip: Quoted posts were removed>

FEB 11, 2022, both sides stipulated the fact that Chad Oulson 'was not texting the babysitter to check on his daughter, he was browsing the internet, football sites, etc'

Law&Crime Trial Network
https://twitter.com/cathyrusson/status/1492158392734924804
@cathyrusson
Judge says she thinks it's fair defense can mention that Oulson was not texting his daughter. Judge acknowledges that many jurors said that's what they heard about the case. Also, witnesses for the state will testify that Oulson told #CurtisReeves he was texting about daughter

https://twitter.com/cathyrusson/status/1492157125098807300
@cathyrusson
Defense wants to mention in their opening statements what Chad Oulson was doing on his phone during previews. He was not texting the babysitter to check on his daughter, he was browsing the internet, football sites, etc...

TY for putting all of this together.

 

[SeesSeas]

Movie Popcorn Murder Trial Daily Highlights - Court TV
MOVIE POPCORN MURDER TRIAL DAILY HIGHLIGHTS
updated 12:50 PM, February 18, 2022
[...]
Surveillance video shows Oulson grab Reeves’ popcorn and throw it at him.
[...]

 

[turaj]

Has he not been out on bail for the last 8 years? TV commentators like to stir up drama IMO.

Of course commentators like to stir up drama that is their job...but in this case what they are saying makes perfect sense. Yes he is out on bond however basically monitored and at home...not sure what difference that makes?

 

[FriendlyFella1976]

<modsnip: referenced post removed>

I don’t have time at the moment to watch all of the videos from that trial, but I will do, for sure,

From what I’ve seen of THIS trial so far, the witnesses are saying the lighting was pretty dim (as you’d expect), so wouldn’t most objects appear to be dark?

 

[Gardenista]

<modsnip: referenced post removed>

I don’t have time at the moment to watch all of the videos from that trial, but I will do, for sure,

From what I’ve seen of THIS trial so far, the witnesses are saying the lighting was pretty dim (as you’d expect), so wouldn’t most objects appear to be dark?

Yes the object would appear to be dark and unidentifiable. In fact, the witness said it was a mug. But what else would he have thrown before he threw the popcorn? The only thing that was at Reeves feet was Chad's phone.

 

[SeesSeas]

<modsnip: referenced post removed>
Reeves was within legal authority to carry his gun in the theatre.

https://twitter.com/JuliaCourtTVJulia Jenaé
@JuliaCourtTV
Feb 11
NO SIGNS ALLOWED: Defense and prosecution agree not to show the “weapons prohibited” theater signs during trial. Judge grants defense motion to exclude the photos saying they are irrelevant. (Photo taken at the remodeled movie theater, similar signs were up in 2014) @CourtTV

http://curtisreevestrial.com/files/1315.pdf
02/03/2022 — DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY REGARDING COBB THEATERS' SIGNAGE PROBIBITING FIREARMS WITHIN THE THEATER

Chapter 790 Section 052 - 2021 Florida Statutes
SECTION 052 Carrying concealed firearms; off-duty law enforcement officers.
790.052 Carrying concealed firearms; off-duty law enforcement officers.—
(1)(a) 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.
(b) All persons holding an active certification from the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission as a law enforcement officer or a correctional officer as defined in s. 943.10(1), (2), (6), (7), (8), or (9) meet the definition of “qualified law enforcement officer” in 18 U.S.C. s. 926B(c).
(c) All persons who held an active certification from the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission as a law enforcement officer or correctional officer as defined in s. 943.10(1), (2), (6), (7), (8), or (9), while working for an employing agency, as defined in s. 943.10(4), but have separated from service under the conditions set forth in 18 U.S.C. s. 926C(c), meet the definition of “qualified retired law enforcement officer.”

 

[SandyQLS]

<modsnip: referenced post removed>
There is a photo of the gun in evidence. See this official State of Florida - Pasco County Clerk website, Other Records header, scroll down to blue lines for: "2-19-14 Photograph of Gun".
State of Florida vs Curtis Reeves


JMO this is a Kel Tec P3AT .380 concealed carry semiautomatic pistol. The distinctinctive logo is in the bottom corner of the grip:

KEL
TEC

Here is the company website; the photo is the other side of the gun:
https://keltecweaponry.com/product/kel-tec-380/

Per the NRA:
An Official Journal Of The NRA | Kel-Tec P3AT
"... The P3AT incorporates two passive safeties: an inertia firing pin and a hammer block that prevents the hammer from contacting the firing pin unless the trigger is pulled. ..."

JMO This means that the safety is that the gun only fires when the trigger is pulled, e.g. the gun will not fire if it is dropped or merely touched.

 

[CocoChanel]

A gentle reminder from Admin:

PLEASE remember to include a qualifier stating it is your OPINION whenever you are posting your thoughts and perspective in any thread you are posting in on Websleuths. The Terms of Service say we must be clear that it is an OPINION when we posts something that is our take on the crime/issue. Websleuths is fact-based, which is why MSM links are required for any thing in your posts that claim to be true and factual. Likewise, if stating your opinion, you must be clear that it is such. Posts that violate these stipulations are subject to removal.

THANK YOU to all for your continuing efforts to follow the rules that we all agreed to when we joined Websleuths.

CocoChanel
Administrator/Moderator

 

[turaj]

I am still waiting for a clear cut video that shows a phone going from Chad (pre shooting) to hit Reeves on the side of his face. Unless they have something better than what they have shown if I were sitting on the jury I would question if that happened or the explanation of his dropping it after having been shot could be the reason it was on the floor. I sure wish there was some better video. For me even if Chad threw the phone I don't think shooting is justified however it certainly gives more support to a self defense case.

 

[BeckyF]

I am still waiting for a clear cut video that shows a phone going from Chad (pre shooting) to hit Reeves on the side of his face. Unless they have something better than what they have shown if I were sitting on the jury I would question if that happened or the explanation of his dropping it after having been shot could be the reason it was on the floor. I sure wish there was some better video. For me even if Chad threw the phone I don't think shooting is justified however it certainly gives more support to a self defense case.

Same here. The video is very poor quality. I can just barely make out any movement. I think the jury will feel the same. MOO

 

[turaj]

I am still waiting for a clear cut video that shows a phone going from Chad (pre shooting) to hit Reeves on the side of his face. Unless they have something better than what they have shown if I were sitting on the jury I would question if that happened or the explanation of his dropping it after having been shot could be the reason it was on the floor. I sure wish there was some better video. For me even if Chad threw the phone I don't think shooting is justified however it certainly gives more support to a self defense case.

Same here. The video is very poor quality. I can just barely make out any movement. I think the jury will feel the same. MOO

So if they are

Same here. The video is very poor quality. I can just barely make out any movement. I think the jury will feel the same. MOO

having as much trouble see what actually went down from that video that may go to "reasonable doubt" and be be favorable to CR.

 

[turaj]

can any legal sleuths out there clarify the difference between Stand Your Ground and self defense? In the SYG hearing before Judge Susan they had much of the same testimony as this trial including Reeve's wife and his own words and Judge Susan did not buy any of it. Ruled no way did she see anything on video or hear anything in the courtroom that would persuade her that would be a valid defense in this trial. It now seems to be a "self defense" case based on age.. I don't really see the difference. Anyone? thanks.

 

[BeckyF]

I am still waiting for a clear cut video that shows a phone going from Chad (pre shooting) to hit Reeves on the side of his face. Unless they have something better than what they have shown if I were sitting on the jury I would question if that happened or the explanation of his dropping it after having been shot could be the reason it was on the floor. I sure wish there was some better video. For me even if Chad threw the phone I don't think shooting is justified however it certainly gives more support to a self defense case.


So if they are

having as much trouble see what actually went down from that video that may go to "reasonable doubt" and be be favorable to CR.

Anything is possible. But I doubt it. It’s more likely to disprove self defense. MOO

 

[SeesSeas]

can any legal sleuths out there clarify the difference between Stand Your Ground and self defense? In the SYG hearing before Judge Susan they had much of the same testimony as this trial including Reeve's wife and his own words and Judge Susan did not buy any of it. Ruled no way did she see anything on video or hear anything in the courtroom that would persuade her that would be a valid defense in this trial. It now seems to be a "self defense" case based on age.. I don't really see the difference. Anyone? thanks.

IANAL! I, too, would like a legal explanation of "the difference between Stand Your Ground and self defense". It is confusing. The following is my best understanding based on reviewing FL statutes and legal websites. My opinion!

It seems that Stand Your Ground (immunity from prosecution) can't be granted if the "defendant initially provoked violence against himself".
But, a "defendant who is an initial aggressor may claim self-defense" - as described below.

Florida Stand Your Ground Law | Use of Deadly Force in Self-Defense
[...]
The justifications for use of force will also not apply where the evidence establishes that the defendant initially provoked violence against him- or herself.

To claim self-defense in such a scenario, § 776.041 requires the defendant to demonstrate that he or she used every reasonable means short of deadly force to extricate him- or herself from the situation, and that the degree of force used by the other person (the initial non-aggressor) led the defendant to reasonably believe that he or she was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm.

Alternatively, a defendant who is an initial aggressor may claim self-defense if: (1) in good faith, he or she withdrew from physical contact, (2) clearly indicated to the other person that he or she desired to withdraw and terminate the use of force, and (3) despite the communication and withdrawal, the other person continued or resumed the use of force. Fla. Stat. § 776.041(2)(b).
[...]

Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine
776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use or threatened use of force.—

Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine
776.041 Use or threatened use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use or threatened use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force or threat of force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use or threatened use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use or threatened use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use or threatened use of force.

 

[Sun]

Right, you can't start a confrontation and when things don't go as you want, just pull out a gun and shoot to kill. Shooting two unarmed people was a criminal act.