Retired cop acquitted for movie theater shooting speaks out | Nightline

Curtis Reeves spoke exclusively with ABC News contending he didn’t instigate the fight that prompted him to shoot Chad Oulson.

WATCH NIGHTLINE EPISODES:
https://abc.go.com/shows/nightline

ALSO AVAILABLE ON HULU: https://hulu.tv/2wSmSrZ

#Nightline

source

Author: avnblogfeed

ANGELHOUSE © 2009 - 2022 | HOSTING BY PHILLYFINEST369 SERVER STATS| & THE IDIOTS ROBOT AND CONTROL INC. |(RSS FEED MODULE)| ALL YOUTUBE VIDEOS IS A REGISTERED TRADEMARK OF GOOGLE INC. THE YOUTUBE CHANNELS AND BLOG FEEDS IS MANAGED BY THERE RIGHTFUL OWNERS (AVNBLOGFEED.COM)

30 thoughts on “Retired cop acquitted for movie theater shooting speaks out | Nightline

  1. It's completely baffling how the court allowed such jury instructions to be considered and deliberated by the jury. The jury essentially put Chad Oulson (He was the victim) on trial instructed jury to find him guilty without any required burden of proof while at the same time required State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Curtis Reeves was guilty of killing Oulson. If one reads the jury instructions, the jury is required to prove the State's case beyond a reasonable doubt but not required to use any burden of proof to prove Chad Oulson was guilty of battery. I have never seen that in court where a court had instruction a jury to consider the guilt of a person without any burden of proof. Only the prosecution can bring charges against a person. The court or defense can't bring charges against a person but that is exactly what happened in this case.

  2. It is quite interesting that no one in the movie theater saw this alleged life and death attack take place, not even his wife who was sitting virtually point blank in Chad Oulson's face. Vivian I believed testified, that was watching the previews when all of this was happening. Apparently, to Vivian, some angry, menacingly looking guy out to do some real harm to her hubby was not an interest or a concern for her.

  3. The jury clearly F***ed up. I mean if the jury had given due consideration to the case like the jury did in RittenHouse (The Jury deliberated for 26 Hours) I might, just might, buy the jury verdict. But, this jury barley deliberated for 3 hours before rendering it's verdict. Clearly, "Justice", was not on the jury's mind that night. It was Friday night and jury probably wanted to go home.

  4. Wow!, the lack of remorse is stunning on the part of Curtis Reeves. Ok! I get it! Chad Oulson was trying to kill him and he shot Oulson in self-defense and the jury bought his story and acquitted him. I get that! But, Curtis Reeves also shot the wife, Nicole Oulson in the process. She was just an innocent victim in all of this. You would think that after 8 years, Curtis Reeves might have little sympathy or remorse for shooting Nicole Oulson. Curtis Reeves came off as truly a cold-blooded killer.

  5. It’s sad that you can just scroll down these comments as usual, and see just emotionally charged and often unhinged comments by drooling idi0ts who can’t possibly look at anything like this, a complex situation both legally and in real life, and give it a nuanced take….but no It’s just the usual “Us vs. Them” and “Good vs Bad” where essentially no one can point out the faults of their own side and instead scream at their phones via the YT comment section lol.

  6. TLDR: Cases like these in the long run HURT laws like castle doctrine, stand your ground and 2nd amendment.

    Also, people worry about losing their own right to defend themselves if they were to find this man guilty (which is a likely factor involved in the trial verdict), when in truth it’s the opposite that can happen. Cases like these make a spectacle of stand your ground laws to an extreme and disenfranchise people who are on the fence about SYG and gun laws. That’s the real long term risk people don’t think about…. The more people see extreme situations of people being able to claim SYG and coming up not guilty, the more push back will come from the people and that’s how SYG/castle doctrine & 2nd amendment laws start getting slowly eroded.

  7. That old piece of sh1t deserves to be in jail- and I say this as someone who watched most of the trial (I’ll admit not all)is pro 2nd amendment and an attorney who has declined to prosecute many a SYG case. Should the decedent have attacked an old man? Of course not – you don’t get to act like an animal, and these were 2 men in a p1ssing contest.

    The wife of that old dolt seems like a good person, and I feel bad for her as she’s obviously going to be grouped in with him, and that she will be a party of the likely incoming lawsuit that will probably bankrupt them.

  8. Look how he quick drew the gun. He wanted to use it. It also contradicts him saying he didn’t feel like the guy was a threat so he returned to his seat. So then why was he so ready to use deadly force. He shot the guy in less than half a second after getting hit with popcorn.

    He was a crooked cop when he was one. You can tell.

  9. Respect for old people used to be a thing, in America. People in their 40's didn't attack people in their 70's. I've been told at theaters to shut up, and that is what I did. After all, everyone in there, paid to see the movie, not listen to your phone call. The man must have spent his life receiving participation trophy's, and not being taught manners by mom.

  10. BUT HE WOULD GO TO THAT SAME MOVIE THEATER ALL THE TIME AND LOOK FOR PROBLEMS? HE WANT TO KILL BEFOR HE DIES TRIGGER HAPPY

  11. Absolutely disgusting!!! There is no justice. This old man should be rotting in jail. A little girl will grow up without her father, because some old man's ego was hurt, because some popcorn was thrown at him. He's a fucking murderer!!!! He has no remorse!!! Shame on him!!!

  12. FockU Trump Nazis 🍴💩🎺🍴💩🎺🍴💩🎺🍴💩🎺FockU Trump Nazis 🍴💩🎺🍴💩🎺🍴💩🎺🍴💩🎺FockU Trump Nazis 🍴💩🎺🍴💩🎺🍴💩🎺🍴💩🎺

  13. Yeah, don't do the right thing by sitting somewhere else as your wife suggested.
    Instead, use a gun because it's the only way you know to communicate.

Comments are closed.