In Self Defense – Episode 100: The Curtis Reeves Trial Pt. 1

Don West and Shawn Vincent explore the legal themes of the Curtis Reeves trial. Steve Moses provides tactical analysis.

Shawn Vincent:

Hey, everybody. This is Shawn Vincent. Thanks for listening in to the podcast today. I am a litigation consultant, a passionate advocate for the wrongfully accused. Today, we’re going to be taking a deep dive into the Curtis Reeves case. Curtis Reeves was the Popcorn Movie Theater Shooter. This is an event that took place back in 2014. Curtis Reeves went to a movie with his wife. He was going to meet his son there. He got into a verbal altercation with a man named Chad Oulson. That altercation ended with a single gunshot from Curtis Reeves that took the life of Chad Oulson. Eight years later, the case finally went to trial. Curtis Reeves was acquitted. It’s a fascinating case with a lot of lessons for concealed carriers.

 

Don West, National Trial Counsel for CCW Safe, is going to join us today. As will Steve Moses, respected firearms instructor, for his tactical insights. We’re going to talk a little bit today, in our part one of this two-part podcast, about the elements of self-defense, and what separates it from murder. The question for the jurors was: was Curtis Reeves shot out of spite? Or was it in self-defense, with reasonable fear that he was about to be severely harmed or killed? In part of that conversation, we’re going to discuss the difference between the types of charges that a self-defense shooter could face in a homicide situation, from manslaughter to first and second-degree murder.

We’re going to talk about disparity of force, a big issue in this case. Curtis Reeves was in his 70s, relatively frail, and not in perfect health. Chad Oulson’s in his 40s, and by all counts very fit and capable, physically. How did that disparity between their physical capabilities play into the trial? We’ll wrap up our conversation today, talking a little bit about the subjective and objective way that a jury is allowed to look at the reasonableness of a shooter’s actions in a self-defense case. We’ll get right into it. This is my conversation with Don West and Steve Moses about the Curtis Reeves trial.

Shawn Vincent:

Listen, guys. We’re going to talk about the Curtis Reeves case. People might know this as the Movie Theater Popcorn Shooting. Is that how you heard about it?

 

Don West:

Yeah, that was the headline that I heard when it first happened, because actual real literal popcorn was involved in the sequence of events, as was the setting in a movie theater – where you associate, of course, movies and popcorn. Very rarely would you think there would be a lethal self-defense shooting.

 

Shawn Vincent:

Don, you and I have been talking together about these cases with CCW Safe for about six years now, and recording these podcasts for almost as long. This is a case that we were looking at before we started dissecting a whole bunch of other cases that have been opened and closed within that time. This event happened on January 13th, 2014, and it just now got to trial in February of 2022. That’s an extraordinarily long time for a murder case. He was charged with second-degree murder for the shooting of Chad Oulson. That’s a long time.

 

Don West:

That’s right. From 2014 to 2022, eight years. Which is not to say that nothing happened between 2014 and 2022, there were lots of things happening within the court system, but it was not finally and fully resolved until the jury returned its verdict last month.

 

Shawn Vincent:

Sure. Let’s go over the key facts that we know. Curtis Reeves, he was 71 years old at the time. He is a retired law enforcement officer. Steve, he had served on a SWAT team at one time, or at least was a captain?

 

Steve Moses:

Yes. From what I understand he was, at one time, the captain of the SWAT team.

 

Shawn Vincent:

He’s an experienced guy. He understands firearms, going to guess. He’s had some training in that through his profession. He is a law-abiding guy. He’s a law enforcement officer. He and his wife, Vivian, went to go meet their son to see a showing of Lone Survivor at the Cobb Theater in Wesley Chapel, which is a town near Tampa, Florida. In the lead-up to the film, the previews are about to start, and they put on that message asking you to put your cell phones away. Well, the guy in front of Curtis’s seat was named Chad Oulson, the 43-year-old guy.

 

Our friend, Andrew Branca, made a point in his trial coverage, over and over again, that he was over six feet tall, weighed 220 pounds. Compared to the arthritic and elderly 71-year-old Curtis Reeves. Elderly is a state of mind and lifestyle, not an age, actually. But by comparison, old Curtis Reeves, there’s a physical disparity between the two. So Curtis leans over right after the message to put your cell phones away to the guy who is scrolling on his phone, allegedly texting the babysitter, asked him if he could put it away. He said some things back that weren’t entirely polite. His wife, Nicole Oulson, said, “Hey, it’s just the previews.” As in, it’s not as bad as if the movie were running.

 

So Reeves, not satisfied, decides to get up and go tell the theater manager that someone’s using a cell phone during the movie. His wife testified, she says, “Why don’t we just move seats?” But, they had already told their son where they were sitting. He was going to come join them in a few minutes, so they decided to stay where they are. By all accounts, Reeves goes out in a rather annoyed, but not angry impassioned way, mentions that the guy in front of him is on his cell phone. He comes back in, sits down. The cell phone’s away now. Apparently, Reeves leans over the chair and says, “I wouldn’t have told the management, now that I see your cell phone is away.”

Reeves testified that Oulson gets up, starts yelling the F-word a lot, getting very aggressive. He’s leaning over the seat, Curtis Reeves, he’s in his seat, he’s got some popcorn on his lap. I’m pretty convinced Chad Oulson was leaning over and his hands were in front of him. He’s reaching out towards Curtis Reeves. There’s a suggestion that his cell phone was thrown, and maybe hit Reeves in the head. That’s a fact that is in dispute, we’ll talk about that in a little bit. At this point, Reeves feels completely threatened by this explosive and violent, if not physically yet violent, very physical, emotive, visceral, response from Oulson about this phone discrepancy. Then the popcorn is thrown somewhere in that sequence.

Reeves unholsters his pistol, fires one shot. I think we’re to understand that Olson’s wife had reached her hand around, and had it on Chad Oulson’s chest. The suggestion is that she was trying to restrain him a little bit. The bullet goes through her hand, strikes Oulson in the chest. It’s fatal. There’s a little bit of an aftermath. But in essence, he fired one time. Oulson’s son, who had just shown up, who was also in law enforcement, attempted to render aid. The police come, Reeves gives a statement. In the news, we’ve got a man who shot a fellow moviegoer over having popcorn thrown in his face. That’s the pop culture imagination of this case. We know it’s a bit more complicated than that. That sets the course … eight years of a controversial self-defense shooting. Is there anything important, Steve, from your perspective, that I’ve left out, that will help us guide our conversation?

 

Steve Moses:

No. I think that pretty much captures the essence of everything that took place.

 

Shawn Vincent:

Don, anything else that is noteworthy? While you think about that, I think it’s interesting to let our listeners know that you and I, from a litigation point of view, having been on the defense side of [self-defense cases] – me as a Consultant, you as a veteran Criminal Defense Attorney, we know that there are facts, and there are disputed facts, and that the court’s going to decide which of those facts get to be presented to a jury. Then, at the end of the case, the judge is going to specifically inform the jurors that they’re allowed to believe or disbelieve any of those facts. They’re allowed to decide which testimony they thought was credible, and which testimony they discount as not credible. Then they’re allowed to assign whatever weight they think is appropriate to any of the things that they believe or don’t believe.

 

I say that in the context of, nobody can know this case better than the parties that were involved, the lawyers who had every bit of evidence. Some of that evidence wasn’t allowed to be shown to the jurors. In the end, the jurors saw what they’re allowed to see and made their choice. It’s hard to ever second guess a jury on any of their decisions because they’re the only ones that saw only the things that were allowed to be shown, and to make their decision based on that. So when I asked you if there are any things that the jury saw that will be significant to our conversation today, is with the understanding that nobody can know everything, and a lot of these things are in dispute and subjective.

 

Don West:

Yeah. The judge, in the context that you’re describing Shawn, is the gatekeeper of information. The rule is: all relevant, probative evidence should be admitted and properly considered by the jury. If it’s not relevant, or otherwise material to the issues that the jurors have to decide, it shouldn’t come in because it’s not useful for anything in particular. Then there’s some evidence that may arguably be relevant and probative, but the prejudice of that particular information outweighs the probative value.

So in that sense, the judge is the gatekeeper and takes a look at how important this evidence might be on the issues, whether or not it’s so inflammatory or prejudicial that the risk of prejudicing the jury is too great for this evidence of, perhaps, marginal relevance or probative value to be admitted. So in that sense, the judge would exclude evidence that you might make an argument is relevant. But the judge concludes, “No, it’s too prejudicial,” so it stays out.

 

However, the rule is: all relevant evidence is admitted, and the jury gets to decide the role that it plays in the scheme of things. Of course, in different kinds of cases, there may be evidence that was seized or obtained illegally, meaning in violation of some constitutional protection, at which point a motion to suppress, prior to the trial, would be filed by the lawyers. The judge would rule, and then decide whether the evidence was obtained lawfully. If the court concludes it was not obtained lawfully, then it would be excluded.

 

That might be evidence that would exist. But the court has concluded, from the constitutional standpoint, from an evidentiary standpoint, it can’t be considered by the jury. There’s a lot of sorting that goes out through motions to suppress, ultimately motions in limine. Finally, at the end of that pretrial process, the body of evidence that can be admitted to the jury is there. It can take many forms. It can take the form of witness testimony. It can take the form of physical exhibits. Sometimes, opinion testimony from qualified experts, and such. As the court is the gatekeeper, the role is ultimately to provide a fair and proper setting for justice to take place.

 

Shawn Vincent:

Yeah. In that context, we’re going to discuss today a smaller subsection of that evidence that was presented to the jurors, that we think is relevant to how that jury rendered their non-guilty verdict in this case.

 

Don West:

Let’s do that though, again, since we’re talking about court procedure. The context of this is, the typical self-defense trial process is that someone is charged by the prosecutor by indictment, or by information with a crime of violence. In this instance, I think Curtis Reeves was charged with second-degree murder, if I’m not mistaken. Then aggravated battery, which I think related to the injury to Chad Oulson’s wife’s hand. So he’s accused of this violent crime, which carries a very, very lengthy prison sentence upon conviction.

 

Shawn Vincent:

For a 71-year-old man, almost any significant prison sentence is a life sentence.

 

Don West:

Oh, sure. Oh, sure. Then, he claimed his actions were justifiable in self-defense. Basically, the rule there is, if there is sufficient evidence offered, either through the state’s case-in-chief, by cross-examination, or other evidence from witnesses. Or ultimately, in the defense case, evidence of self-defense. It doesn’t have to be much, just a little, tiny bit of evidence, then the burden shifts to the prosecution of having to prove the crime itself. Which isn’t typically very hard to do because self-defense is, in a sense, conceding that you did what you’re accused of, but saying that you were legally justified to do it. The focus then shifts to whether or not the prosecutor can prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that you did not act in self-defense. That’s the context of a self-defense case that’s in trial.

Shawn Vincent:

Like you say, it’s different than a lot of criminal cases because, in this case, Curtis is saying, “Yes, I shot Chad Oulson, but I did it because I was terrified and in fear that he was going to harm me significantly or kill me.” The real question is: is that a credible claim?

 

Don West:

Yeah. He had to reasonably believe, in the context of what happened, that he faced an imminent threat of great bodily harm or death, and also had to ultimately pass the juror’s test of reasonableness. Did it appear objectively reasonable to them that, indeed, under these circumstances, did Curtis Reeves face that reasonable threat of great bodily harm or death?

 

Shawn Vincent:

Sure. In that vein, the prosecution seemed to embrace the public narrative about this case in their presentation. Which was, that there was an argument over a cell phone, and Curtis Reeves, indignant by the insult from Chad Oulson, and indignant by having popcorn thrown in his face, decided out of spite to pull his pistol and murder him in the movie theater … is essentially what the state was asking the jury to believe. Is that your impression? Steve, I’d love to hear from you, looking through this. Is that what you got, was the state’s argument here?

 

Steve Moses:

Yeah. Very much so. That it was a premeditated act upon Reeve’s part and that, basically, he was agitated by Oulson’s behavior, and he was just looking for an opportunity. Then, when it presented itself, that he went ahead and shot him, and that shooting was not justified.

 

Shawn Vincent:

Yeah. Steve, you used “premeditated” in that sense, in the layman’s terms. Don, we know that in a lot of states, and Florida’s one of them, that one of the distinctions between first-degree and second-degree murder is that premeditated thing. But then, second-degree murder is often a crime of passion, or an emotional response from an action. In this case, with a second-degree charge, what the state’s saying is that “Reeves didn’t go there to murder this man. But, in the passion of the argument that they had, he felt angry enough to kill the guy.”

 

Don West:

Yeah. When you take a look at Florida law on second-degree murder, and the jury instructions, you read and hear things like, spite, evil intent. It’s a level of response typically to something, or a complete disregard for the safety of others. It’s often an intentional act. Clearly, pulling the trigger of a gun and not claiming you pulled it by accident is an intentional act, without much regard for what the consequences will be. Certainly, everyone knows if you point a gun at somebody and pull the trigger, there is a very high probability they will be seriously hurt or killed.

 

Shawn Vincent:

Steve, to your point too, when you said “premeditated,” often we’ve seen prosecutors try to make that case. That just a high trigger pressure, if it’s higher than normal, means that you had to take that opportunity to reflect on what you’re doing, and make a decision affirmatively to do it. Or, that if you had to chamber a round – which is one of the reasons we don’t recommend people carry unloaded weapons. – then, that was an opportunity to decide that you were going to kill them before you killed them. So it’s a real thin line, right?

 

Steve Moses:

Yeah. I’ll probably need to go ahead and walk that term premeditated back, basically, as soon as I said it. But, he was agitated. This guy, he thought, was being disrespectful. Then, all of a sudden, “Oh, this guy’s attacking me? Okay. I can shoot this guy.” I think we talked about, maybe they’re similar, with the Drejka case. I think, in part, that was something that the media, for certain, was trying to paint that particular picture.

 

Shawn Vincent:

Yeah. I wasn’t calling you out on that to show you as incorrect, because I think what you said was right on, in the fact that what the state was trying do was show that intent, that he wanted to kill him. That’s important because Curtis Reeves’ defense, their story to counter the state’s narrative, is that it had nothing to do with popcorn. In fact, Reeves will testify later he didn’t even know the popcorn was thrown until afterwards. Steve, you mentioned, because we see some grainy, not perfect video of this, it’s hard to imagine Reeves responding to the popcorn. It seems more like he was probably drawing that pistol already in response to Chad Oulson lording over the seat and reaching out to him, than anything in response to the popcorn.

 

Steve Moses:

I believe that to be exactly true. It looked to me like Reeves, as quick as he was with that pistol, already had his hand on the grip. I think he was prepared for something violent to occur. There was such a short time between the movement in which Olsen flung the popcorn, or at least his arm was being outstretched quickly, and Reeves’ response to that, that I don’t think the matter of the popcorn was involved, played any factor at all. I think he was responding, basically, to an aggressive forward movement. As he said, he believed that contact had been made with him. I think later he said, he thought perhaps he’d been struck by a cell phone. So anyway, I believe that he felt like, “Okay. This man is large. He’s huge. He’s looming over me. He’s coming with a forward motion. He’s got his arm forward, and everything.” I believe, at that point, he thought that his life was in danger, and he basically used a pistol, from his perspective, to defend himself.

 

Shawn Vincent:

Sure. Those are the two stories that are being told. Steve, a few minutes ago you mentioned the Michael Drejka case. We talked about that case a lot in this podcast. It seems that the more distance we have from it, the more and more relevant its lessons are. That’s the Parking Lot Shooter case, also in Florida. The same part of the state, in fact. Michael Drejka was arguing with Markeis McGlockton’s girlfriend. Markeis McGlockton came out, pushed him pretty violently to the ground. Drejka pulls his pistol. There’s a little pause, McGlockton responds to it subtly, and then Drejka shoots him one time in the chest, just like this case. It proved fatal.

 

Don, what was interesting is, in the Drejka case, he was convicted. He was charged with manslaughter. This is one of the reasons I made a point of discerning between the different charges. Here we have Reeves charged with second degree murder. In my experience, and I think yours matches, we see a lot of cases overcharged. A lot of self-defense cases are overcharged as first or second-degree murder, when I think the state would have a much better case if they argued manslaughter. Do you think this case was overcharged?

 

Don West:

I think that’s a fair assessment of it because, we talked about a little bit already, the state went all in on their theory that the flung or flicked popcorn was the driving force that resulted in Reeves pulling his gun and shooting, which is pretty outrageous on its face. If true, it certainly would characterize what we know as malice or, in the definition of second-degree murder, the ill will, the spite, the evil intent, all of that stuff. But it’s almost as if the state had either failed to appreciate some of the other evidence in the case, or didn’t feel that it would get any traction, and they really wanted to paint Curtis Reeves as a guy who overreacted to a guy who was not actually a real threat. He was unarmed. He was in a movie theater. He didn’t pose that imminent threat of great bodily harm or death, that he would have to have presented to justify the use of deadly force in response.

 

I think they may have miscalculated. I don’t know. I wasn’t there, and I didn’t see all of the trial. But I know that seemed to be their theory from the beginning, all the way back to some of the earlier proceedings in the case, and certainly through trial, placing such great weight on the idea that Reeves grossly overreacted to the situation. As Steve pointed out, basically shot the guy, not because he was fearful of being injured himself, but because he wanted to. He felt he’d been disrespected, and that was going to be the way he took care of the problem, how he won the argument. That may have, in many ways, simply ignored the way that Reeves presented to the jury.

This was a guy with all of those years of law enforcement. He’d been in, probably, hundreds of encounters with people that had the potential to do violence. An ability, maybe, to predict better than most people, the way these things escalate. To anticipate the real danger from the loud-mouths and the guys that just blow off steam. I have to think that, at the end of the day, the jury gave him some credit for that, and placed some value on his prior experience, and training, and understanding. Steve, correct me, but that’s basically what a SWAT team does, right? It responds to a difficult, potentially violent, situation with the ability to use extreme force when necessary.

 

Steve Moses:

That’s very much true. One difference between a SWAT team, or a special response team, or any type of entry team is that, in many instances, that team is the hunter, if you will. They are knowingly going to a situation in which they know the possibility of violence is very possible. Regardless, they knew that there was a high likelihood that violence could ensue. Now, by the same token, a officer that is in responsive mode, he or she basically knows that this is a situation that may go violent, but it probably won’t. The majority of the time it doesn’t, but sometimes it does.

Well, for Reeves to be in a position to where he was on a team, and then a captain of a team, suggests that he had a lot of experience in both worlds. So he was probably a very good, experienced patrol officer that then be became a member of the team, and then rose through the ranks of the team and became a supervisor. So he had seen a lot of this. One of the things that I thought was very interesting was that he said that he had a lot of experience, I believe, dealing with loud-mouths. In most instances, they had a happy resolution, and that this particular incident caught him off guard.

I believe he said later, he second-guessed what he could have done in order to avoid this. I think that probably indeed caught him off guard, and that he was like, “Okay, this guy is after me. I need to respond. I’m prepared to respond,” and he defaulted to his training. It’s hard to argue when you have someone that is that large, that is apparently cursing at you, throwing the F-word around, and apparently has hurled an object in your direction.

 

Shawn Vincent:

Steve, he’s in a very vulnerable position. Let’s talk about disparity of force real quick, or disparity of ability. This is something that I hear a lot about in layman conversations about self-defense, and in self-defense law, after the fact. Often, it just doesn’t really necessarily apply. When you have two able-body people of about the same age, about the same weight, about the same ability, then the idea that violence can elevate to the level of imminent, serious bodily injury or death, it’s hard to believe.

A lot of the defense’s argument here is that Reeves is 71 years old, and he’s a little frail, and he’s arthritic, and he’s in relatively poor health. Like you mentioned, Oulson is a relatively fit 43-year-old man who’s over six feet tall, and over 200 pounds, and being very physically aggressive. He’s in a dominant position. Reeves is trapped in his chair. He’d have had trouble even getting up and getting away from that situation. Does that tactically play in, from how he perceived his vulnerabilities, Steve?

 

Steve Moses:

I believe so. A lot was made about the arthritic condition and everything. Well, if you live on into your sixth and seventh and eighth decades, you’re definitely going to have arthritis. Very few people do not have it. But, more in play is the fact that he’s not athletic anymore. He’s a heavy-set man. He’s seated. He’s not in a position that he can physically respond. Someone that in is over you has the ability to hit you with a lot of force, much more so than someone that is just standing on a horizontal plane. When someone is over you and they’re able to drop their weight, change their level and come down, you can generate a lot more power.

That’s one of the things why people try to not go to the ground with someone on top of them. They refer to that as “ground and pound.” Typically, the person that’s getting grounded and pounded is the one that’s going to come out on the short end of that stick. I could very well see why Reeves, or anybody else, would be in that position. Actually, that’s somewhat true for someone that’s younger and more athletic. If you’ve got someone that is larger and bigger than you, and they’re standing over you and you’re seated, basically to stand up, you’re going to step right into them, and you’re very vulnerable going forward. So yes, he was in a very vulnerable position, in my opinion.

 

Shawn Vincent:

Don, when you’re explaining the terms of reasonableness in the assessment of Reeve’s justification, essentially, the jury’s going to be asked if they believe he was just enraged and disrespected and shot out of spite, he’s guilty here. But if they believe that, even if he wasn’t facing an imminent threat, if he believed that he was credibly facing that imminent threat of serious bodily harm or death, then he’s not guilty of this. From that perspective, how do you see that disparity of force playing out legally?

 

Don West:

Well, talking specifically about disparity of force, there is a Florida jury instruction that would have drawn the jury’s attention specifically to the relative size, age, strength, vulnerabilities, abilities, capacities, and asked the jury to assess that when determining whether the threat was real. Real in this sense, to your point, is subjectively real. Meaning, did Reeves really think he was in danger, based upon his perception of what was happening? Not just of Oulson’s physical ability and size, but the way he moved, the way he positioned himself, the fact that he had become physically aggressive, had some kind of contact with him, had seemed to take every opportunity in this entire sequence to escalate the contact.

 

Oulson had several opportunities along the way to say, “Yeah, sorry, man. I’ll do it now,” or what have you, anything that would’ve stopped this progression. Including when Reeves left and then came back after having talked to the manager, and apparently said to Olsen, “If I’d known you’re going to put it away, I wouldn’t have gone to see the manager.” Instead of it being done, that’s when Oulson really got agitated, became much more aggressive and physical. From Reeves perspective, I would submit he thought he was more physically likely to be struck, that Oulson was more aggressive, that he was in a superior position that Steve talked about.

Then all of a sudden, from Reeves’ perspective, as he was saying, “Wait, I’m sitting in this seat. There’s this big guy in front of me that’s more and more agitated.” I think Reeve’s probably, from his perspective thought, “If this guy lands one solid blow to my head, I’m done. I’m unconscious, or I’m otherwise completely incapable of defending myself.” He already had some contact, and it looked like he was preparing himself for more. So, from the subjective standpoint, it seems pretty clear.

Now this is where it merges. Reeves, with his background, and training, and prior experiences with guys like this, would have been in a unique position for himself to evaluate what his real danger was. Then, of course, the objective assessment is whether, looking at the totality of the circumstances from a third-party standpoint, would the third-party perspective also suggest that Reeves’ perception of the danger was reasonable? Not that it had to have been a hundred percent correct, but was it reasonable under all of the circumstances? Objectively, did he respond in a reasonable way to something that he believed was a reasonable and imminent threat of great bodily harm or death?

I think so. I think that’s ultimately what the bottom line was, that the jury took a look at it from Reeves’ perspective, with the help of the defense lawyer’s presentation, including a witness that the defense offered on aging on the human body. Now, this witness wasn’t specifically qualified to talk about Reeves individually, but he testified at length about the vulnerability and the physical risks from being injured and struck, that a typical 70-71 year old person would have. I think that helped flesh out this notion that Reeves fear was objectively reasonable, given the man of his age and vulnerabilities.

I think what you’re saying though, bottom line, is the jury would’ve been asked to take a look at all of that stuff and then draw a conclusion. Ultimately, whether it was reasonable or unreasonable, that Reeves thought he was at risk of great bodily harm or death, and that his response to that was reasonable or unreasonable. By their verdict, of course, they concluded that it was reasonable, both subjectively and objectively. Or, at least what their verdict says is that the prosecution didn’t convince the jury that it was unreasonable.

 

If it was possibly reasonable, in the larger context, then the proper verdict would be not guilty. That’s why I think the state may have, by going all in with the popcorn flick and the ill will response, missed the opportunity to really focus on that aspect of the case. Just to the dot the “I”, think some of Reeves background, and experience, and training, while it put him in a better position to understand certain kinds of conflict and their escalation, I think it also put him in a better position to deal with it differently. No doubt, having talked with hundreds of knuckleheads over his career, he was able to diffuse and avoid conflict lots, and lots, and lots of times.

 

Shawn Vincent:

Yeah. I think that Oulson’s explosive behavior helped Reeves make his reasonable argument. Although it was not illegal behavior, unless he did in fact threaten or strike Reeves, the violent, animated, physical swear word laden response that he had to a reasonably polite request was unreasonable. If you’re a jury and you’re looking at it, not from a legal standard, but just from a socially acceptable standard, I think you’ll look at Chad Oulson’s behavior as unreasonable. Would you agree with that?

 

Don West:

Yeah, I would. He was clearly over the top. He had lots of opportunities just to let it go and all watch the movie together. Yeah. I don’t know. Is he a bully? Was he having a particularly bad day? Is he a hothead that looks for opportunities to push people around? I don’t know any of that stuff, and Reeves wouldn’t either. Reeves was dealing with what he was facing at that particular moment and responding as Oulson, from our perspective, and consistent with the evidence, continued to escalate, continued to be more aggressive. Reeves attempts at deescalation, if not failing, maybe even encouraged the guy to take it to the next step.

 

Shawn Vincent:

You talk about subjective and objective points of view on this. I think Chad Oulson’s wife makes a case for Reeves’ impression, because she’d put her hand on her husband’s chest. No one knew Chad Oulson better than Chad Oulson’s wife, and she had put her hand on his chest. The inference was to restrain him, to maybe pull him back. My guess is, she’s seen him go off the handle like this before, and she was trying to calm things down. I think her actions helped the jury see that Oulson was behaving beyond what was acceptable for that circumstance.

 

Don West:

Yeah. It probably doesn’t matter whether she’d seen it before and knew what was coming, or whether her perception of what was happening at that moment made her think she ought to intervene. In some ways, it’s like the old days, the seatbelt in our car was our mom’s arms sticking out to keep us from going through the windshield.

 

Shawn Vincent:

I remember that.

 

Don West:

So maybe that’s what she was doing. She saw the windshield coming up on him, and decided to put her arm out instead. But in any event, I think you’re right. I think her assessment of what was happening at that moment suggested she ought to intervene to stop him.

 

Shawn Vincent:

Steve, in your examination of the coverage that we’ve read about this case, I got the impression that the witnesses that the state presented, most of them really corroborated that, throughout all of this, Reeves was, at worst, slightly annoyed. But his behavior was generally pretty mild-mannered, even when he went to complain to the manager about this.

 

Steve Moses:

I think so. I believe there were some inconsistencies where some witnesses said, at one point, exactly what you said, and then came back later and walked back their statement. If I’m not mistaken, I think their testimony might have been, what’s the term, Don? “Impeached”?

 

Don West:

Impeached. Mm-hmm (affirmative).

 

Steve Moses:

I believe, for the most part, they pretty much supported that. The manager said that he was respectful. The first person that he dealt with, I believe it was a female, also said the same thing. Even just the way he moved and everything, just on what little video I saw, did not seem to me that he was terribly agitated. He thought the situation had been resolved.

 

One of the things that I was going to just throw in, in terms of his ability to deescalate situations and handle loud-mouths like that, I believe that was his exact words, when you’re law enforcement, your ability to deescalate is often more effective, then when you are just a citizen. So you do get some respect for the badge and the uniform, as an officer, that you don’t always get as a civilian. I think one of the things that Chad Oulson said, or was reported to have said to Reeves is, “Who do you think you are?” I think he was taking issue with the fact that a person would be so rude as to intrude on his business, and complain to the management on behalf of an action that he had taken.

 

Shawn Vincent:

All right, everybody. That’s the podcast for today. Thanks for listening through to the end. Next time, we’ll have part two of our conversation. We’re going to pick up on this idea of what the witnesses had to say, and how that factored into the defense. Until then, be smart, stay safe, take care.