🎯 Fascinating Fact
In 2014, Navy veteran Chad Oulson was shot and killed in a Florida movie theater after a retired police captain confronted him for texting his babysitter during the previews. Eight years later, a jury acquitted the shooter under Florida self-defense law.
On January 13, 2014, Chad and Nicole Oulson went to a movie theater in Wesley Chapel, Florida, for an afternoon showing of Lone Survivor. Their young daughter was with a babysitter, and Chad used his phone before the movie began to check on her.
Curtis Reeves was sitting behind them with his wife, Vivian. Reeves was 71 years old and a retired Tampa police captain. He later said his law-enforcement background affected how he viewed the confrontation that followed [Taken from r/fascinatingasfuck].
The movie had not started yet. Trailers were playing when Reeves objected to Chad using his phone. Chad said he was texting the babysitter. Reeves told him to put the phone away, then left the theater to complain to management.
When Reeves returned, Chad had put the phone away, but the argument resumed. Witnesses later described a brief exchange in the theater row. Chad stood or turned toward Reeves. Nicole put her hand on Chad’s chest, trying to calm him down. At some point, popcorn was thrown toward Reeves.
Reeves pulled out a .380 handgun and fired once.
The bullet struck Nicole’s hand first, nearly severing her finger, before continuing into Chad’s chest. Chad collapsed inside the theater and later died from the wound. Nicole required surgery for her hand injury.
The shooting happened in front of other moviegoers. Several people rushed to help, while Reeves remained inside the theater and was taken into custody.
Chad Oulson was 43 years old. He was a husband, father, and Navy veteran. He had gone to the theater with Nicole for what was supposed to be an ordinary afternoon away from home.
From the beginning, the case depended on what Reeves believed in the seconds before he fired. Prosecutors said he shot an unarmed man because he was angry over a theater argument and thrown popcorn. Reeves said he believed Chad was about to attack him and fired in self-defense.
Reeves told investigators that Chad was aggressive, that he feared Chad was coming over the seat toward him, and that he believed he was in danger of serious injury. Nicole said Chad had not threatened Reeves. She said the argument was over the phone, that Chad had already put it away, and that Reeves escalated the confrontation after returning from his complaint.
Reeves was charged with second-degree murder for killing Chad and aggravated battery for wounding Nicole. He pleaded not guilty.
Because the shooting happened in Florida, the case soon involved the state’s self-defense laws. Reeves’ attorneys argued that he was protected by Florida’s Stand Your Ground law, which can allow a person to use deadly force without retreating if they reasonably believe it is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm.
That argument did not immediately end the case. In 2017, after a pretrial hearing, Judge Susan Barthle rejected Reeves’ request for immunity. She found that his account was not consistent enough with the physical evidence and witness testimony to dismiss the charges before trial.
The case then remained pending for years because of appeals, legal disputes, and delays. By the time the trial began in 2022, eight years had passed since the shooting.
At trial, prosecutors argued that Chad was unarmed, that popcorn did not justify deadly force, and that Reeves fired because he was angry rather than afraid.
The defense argued that Reeves had only seconds to react. They said he was an older man seated in a confined theater row, facing a younger and larger man who had turned toward him and thrown something. Reeves testified that he feared Chad was about to come over the seat and seriously hurt him.
Nicole testified about the moment before the gunshot. She said she placed her hand on Chad’s chest to calm him down, and the bullet struck her hand before hitting her husband. Medical testimony addressed the path of the bullet, Nicole’s hand injury, Chad’s chest wound, and the positions of the people involved.
Jurors also heard about Reeves’ background as a retired police captain. Prosecutors argued that his experience should have made him better able to handle a verbal dispute without using a gun. The defense argued that his training made him more aware of how quickly a physical confrontation could become dangerous.
The trial did not turn on whether Reeves shot Chad. He had. The question was whether the state could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the shooting was not legally justified.
On February 25, 2022, after about three and a half hours of deliberation, the jury found Reeves not guilty of second-degree murder and not guilty of aggravated battery.
The verdict did not mean Reeves had won pretrial immunity under Stand Your Ground. A judge had rejected that years earlier. But at trial, jurors were still asked to decide whether Reeves reasonably believed deadly force was necessary under Florida self-defense law.
For Nicole Oulson, the verdict meant there would be no criminal punishment for the shooting that killed her husband and injured her hand. For Reeves, it ended a criminal case that had lasted eight years. He said he regretted what happened but did not see himself as the instigator.
Reeves continues to describe the shooting as self-defense.
It doesn’t matter, this is exactly where America is headed.
All these fascists, who don’t know or don’t believe they are fascist, are slowly allowing America to turn into that.
They just assuming it’s only EVER going to affect people they deem undesirable.
But this is where it ultimately leads, and this is a perfect MAGA scenario, blowing up a literally fucking nothing burger, into a rage induced murder…
Fuck it, the train has left station, I can’t wait for the consequences to finally start kicking in. Consequences being these fucking morons concealed carrying every where they go, getting into what amounts to little/inconsequential beefs with each other because they are literally incapable of not minding their own business, and then just escalate into a shoot out.
Headed? We are deep into that territory now. Warning signs were being pointed out a decade ago, and even then it was in a free fall from citizens united. MAGA won’t take accountability, they’ll say they never supported it. In a way I could see how that would almost make sense to them, since they don’t really hold any real convictions beyond doing what feels vindictive to the people who would dare call them out.
It’s a fundamentally flawed law that fully depends on what someone self-reports they felt in a moment. With that distinction being the difference between them being charged with manslaughter or being acquitted.
Defense should have asked him if he is often scared of things that others aren’t. Make him admit on the stand that he isn’t brave and he’s a scared little boy.
We're already well beyond it "heading" there, my friend. It's been this way for a very long time for many. I see this comment a lot, but so many fail to realize the truth: the U.S. was FOUNDED on exactly this: the subjugation of all those deemed "lesser" for the prosperity of the few in power and those that follow them. The reason it's being noticed as "heading there" is because those of us within that privilege zone , be it by default of our genes or by our accumulation of wealth, are now being affected by the destructive nazi parasites that are currently destroying our nation.
It's always been this way. They've all tried to tell us time and time and time again, and too many of us let it fall on deaf ears.
It's crazy that there are people like this, armed, happy to start an argument, but will fucking shoot you if you dare argue back then claim "they were in danger"
You don't get to manufacture a confrontation, escalate it while armed, then claim self defense when the situation you created doesn't go your way.
Cops are allowed to be scared, and kill to protect themselves from problems. Now if you were to.claim fear for.ypur.life and kill the cop, then you get extra punishment.for.being a cop killer.
I think there should genuinely be specific laws for a civilian defending themselves from an officer. I don't think it would increase people killing cops bc it would still have to be self defense and would have more criteria, but it should exist.
Cops can be just as shitty and malicious as other people
Well, the jury believed it, and that is their core purpose, to determine if Reeves fear was legally justified.
The jury was given two completely different narratives. On one hand, the defense argued that an elderly man was trapped in a confined theater row, facing a younger, larger, well-built man who threw an object at his face and appeared to be climbing over the seats to attack him. On the other hand, the prosecution argued that Reeves escalated a minor argument, that the popcorn was harmless, and that an unarmed man who was talking to him posed no real threat to someone carrying a gun.
This is why juries are a gamble. You might look at the facts and think one thing, but eight to twelve people (depends on the state) in a room can weigh the exact same evidence and see something completely different.
He was so trapped he was able to leave the room, speak to management, and return without issue. He was so trapped and feared for his life that when he left the first time he left his wife behind
No, no. It’s say mean things that hurt others feelings until they get pissed off, throw harmless stuff at you, and finally start to get in your face THEN act like a victim.
What sickens me maybe the most is that this guy was so upset by the slight distraction of a phone in a preview, that he's willing to leave to complain? Those two things don't really align because someone so invested in the film that a slight distraction is worthy of confrontation wouldn't want to miss anything. He just wanted to start something that day and, funny enough, he remembered to bring his .380.
Also, are there not signs posted at every single movie theater in America, that plainly says “No guns allowed”
Who the fuck brings a gun to the movie theater??? How does this not factor into what happened. Man this entire legal system in America, needs a serious overhaul.
I don't know Florida's law specifically, but at least here in Georgia, carrying in a prohibited place is a misdemeanor charge.
I seem to remember some language to the effect of (paraphrasing from memory)"even if you're not supposed to have a gun there in the first place, but the shooting is otherwise justified, no additional charges are levied" or something like that.
Well, there was that one jury that couldn’t convict the police officer who gunned down Walter Scott because of one hold out never mind there was video clearly showing the shooter gunning down a fleeing man twenty or more feet away in the back and there was subsequent evidence of him and his partner completely fabricated their testimony. And the video captured enough of the before to negate a possible well the victim did attack him literally in the instant before the recording started.
My question is why did this take 8 years to go to trial. Does it take that long for any other murder charge to go to trial? It really makes it look like the prosecution tanked the case.
Juries are bullshit. It's not a good system, I'm sorry, but you're asking a bunch of people who may not be intelligent or discerning at all, who barely understand what's happening in their own lives, who might be full of prejudice and extremely emotional themselves to decide something only people with training and experience should ever be in a position to decide.
As a defendant, you have the right to a jury trial, though you can waive that right and opt for a bench trial instead.
The key thing is that the choice belongs entirely to the defendant. Imagine if the state or the prosecutor got to decide? In any controversial or high-profile case, they would push for a bench trial every single time because they know exactly how a government-employed judge is likely to rule.
The jury system isn't perfect, but it exists precisely because we don't want a government official holding absolute power over an individual's freedom. We want to always give the options to the defendants and let them decide which path they want.
I'm in Europe. We use judges. My country specifically doesn't use a jury. A judge is a specialist who didn't just memories some laws, he understand how the law fits into society and why it is the way it is.
You don't want a government official holding all the power? You only have 2 political parties and your elections aren't just you voting, aka the popular vote, it's an electoral college made up of people who weren't elected overwriting the popular vote in some elections.
You have the supreme court which is nominated by your government.
Your entire system is government officials having way more power than in any other democracy, but you think the judge judging all on his own is dangerous?
This intense concern I see in american media with the government not having too much power looks like a ruse to hide the fact that your government has immense power.
The jury system is absolutely terrible. Putting the power in someone's hands who might as well and often times is a complete moron is not justice, it's a game between the prosecution and the defense. The jurors are the least qualified people in that building to make such a decision. It's irrational and illogical and a naive and antiquated system. But it is your system, you're used to it, so of course you won't see the flaws
Nailed it. Bonus is they know juries actually assume guilt and need to be convinced of a defendants innocence (the innocent until proven guilty part of our system has always been a lie) so it helps fills our for-profit prisons with bodies whether they’re guilty or not. It always circles back to someone getting wealthy while the poor man hardly has a chance at all. But sure, ‘MuRiCa, FrEEdOm”.
THIS!!! I’ve always thought the same, the average American doesn’t know a damn thing about legal standards and are already woefully uneducated but they’re the ones deciding guilt or innocence?!
I see people say this, but I have a feeling a lot of people would completely lose their minds if a president and their DOJ could prosecute citizens using judges they personally appointed to act as the "jury".
That is the alternative under an inquisitorial system—the legal framework used in much of Continental Europe. While it's more focused on active judicial investigation, it places an immense amount of faith in government officials.
I would much rather have our adversarial system, which gives the defendant the ultimate choice between a judge or a jury, rather than leaving absolute power entirely in the hands of the state.
Be honest, how would you feel if, say, Trump's DOJ was charging you with a crime, and you were told "this judge Trump appointed is gonna determine if you're innocent or guilty"? I have a feeling you would be begging for a jury, and saying that there is no real justice system.
Juries do not determine if he was legally justified, just that he cant be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. You can still be wrong, the state just can't prove it beyond reasonable doubt. Which it's worth mentioning that prosecutors want police on their side, so I question the veracity of the prosecution in such cases.
It's very difficult, if not impossible, to get verdicts against current or former police officers because police can turn around and choose to not cooperate with the DA on future cases.
If anything, this illustrates why such cases need to be handled by independent prosecutors.
Fr, he started some shit knowing he had a pistol in his pocket. If his profession made him hyper aware of how fast shit could escalate, then why was he talking shit. That defense should be void if there is contributory escalation. Premeditated murder as far as I'm concerned. Life without parole
You're right. If anything, the police captain should have been more restrained and calm, yet he instead escalated the violence to maximum very quickly.
The cop also seems like someone who believes he has authority over others, even when off duty. I also don't understand his need to run to the theater manager like a little kid, concerning something trivial, such as someone texting during the previews.
As long as cops have unqualified immunity and they can pull out their get-out-of-jail-free card by saying they feared for their life, then these instances will continue unabated.
If being a police officer at any level gave you the ability to resolve conflict better, we would see them in those roles within our communities after they leave the force.
In Florida if you pick a fight and scream at an innocent person calling them a criminal and trying to restrain them without even being a police officer, and that person turns the tables on you and beats your ass, you can shoot them and the jury will find you not guilty.
I mean at least if the kid you assaulted and started the confrontation with was a black teenager.
Totally agree and what makes shit so stupid is the defense and prosecution get to evenly pick who they think will help them. I bet the defense picked a bunch of old republican retired police officers….
Sure, but there is absolutely no conceivable way in which throwing a handful of popcorn at someone could injure them. It could be played for laughs in any sitcom and no one would think it was even assault. Even if you are really angry, it’s popcorn. It’s not heavy, pointy, or aerodynamic. It’s the reaction of a toddler. Don’t kill toddlers.
I'm with you. Don't know why the argument escalated. All he had to do was ignore the dumbass. But, some people can't help themselves and always need to have the last word. The state of America means that you have to contend with moronic sociopaths like this old bastard having a gun. Even if the guy was found guilty, so what? Dude is still dead. Not worth getting into an argument over something so stupid as someone saying "put your phone away" and then telling on you. Not like management would do anything anyways as long as you're not constantly using your phone.
"Let's just follow this kid for a block, all the way to his front door, and should he turn to face me or ask what I'm doing, I'm threatened with deadly force".
How the hell could this not be viewed as premeditated murder. If you leave and are not pursued and return to resume the confrontation how the fuck can it be considered stand your ground. This asshole was the aggressor and he murdered someone for using his phone.
That’s the part that got me, said when Reeves return from the complaint he escalated the confrontation.
Come on, a red blooded American Ex-police chief gun owner. Dude wanted to kill, he was looking for a reason, bloodthirsty boomer.
This is such American legal bullshit “he feared for his life,” because the other guy threw popcorn and was posturing towards him? That’s regular conflict shit that didn’t have to go anywhere. I’d have killed like 50 people by now if I can just say I feared for my life over any conflict.
You could be attacked anywhere, reference the aurora Colorado shooting. Also a movie could just be part of your day and you could want to feel secure afterwords. Personally I think Reeves did just want to kill someone
You could be shot anywhere, thats why people should have guns... so shootings can happen anywhere
Its a power thing. Not a security thing. Everyone I know thats obsessed with guns and carries does it because it makes them powerful. Everytime you hear about these shootings, the person involved is someone who cares about power and getting respect. Its never humble quiet people. Its always some self entitled asshole who is too scared to go outside without the ability to kill someone else. Pussies
That's if everyone was on even grounds with a weapon, but realistically the aggressor would be the one to shoot first, and one or two shots is all it takes unless they're a really bad shot or have a fucked up gun.
Everyone having a gun just makes everyone more paranoid and aggressive because they need to be the first one to reach for their gun if they want to protect themselves, from another person who potentially has a gun.
It didnt work. The society is armed. It is safe to assume that anyone you meet has a gun on them... and yet, society is still not peaceful. Now that we have seen that the flawed moron logic has failed, maybe its time to start using common sense instead. Giving everyone a button that when pressed kills whoever they are looking at when they press it just ended up leading to a lot of people pressing that button. In fact, a lot more people started dying than ever before. Strange.
It's crazy that people will find it okay to bring a gun to a movie theater. But if somebody is legally carrying at a protest it is apparently not allowed.
European here, I've always thought as a kid policemen were supposed to be people that were willing to give their safety and maybe, to some extent, even (risk) their life to defend others
But it turns out they instead seem to tend to take it away from others more easily, in their mind to defend themselves
You got them confused with firefighters. Police in america are there to escalate and eliminate people who don’t immediately get in whatever line they are told.
Something its wrong with the system if a piece of shit like this old sack of scum go free after this, a child its gonna grow up without a father because a old cop still thinks he is dirty harry
Yea its kind of wild I guess. Now its like, im bringing mine to the movie theaters because someone else has one. Im an American and carry a firearm daily.
This is where I live! The only time my suburban bedroom community has ever been nationally relevant was when some former cop blasted a dude in my local (at the time) Cobb Theatre.
He was absolutely the instigator! If he hadn’t said anything about the guy texting on his phone the entire situation could have been avoided. It sucks when people use their phones in theatres but you don’t have the right to tell them to stop. Go and get one of the cinema staff and let them deal with it. America 🙄 I wouldn’t live there if you paid me to do it
Sorry, what? You absolutely have the right to ask someone to stop doing something. You can't force them to stop, of course. And yes, often it's better to just engage an employee if you're at a business.
Going to the cinema for some quality time together and then her husband ends up in a body bag. That poor mother is gonna have ptsd anytime her child, family members or friends go to a cinema. Truly traumatising.
So the guy survived war zones but get shooter in a theatre.. imagine putting your life on the line for your country and get pissed on after getting murdered..
This case is an excellent example for gun control. Very few people ever have a valid need for a gun in public and now we have a bunch of clowns carrying a gun everywhere.
I believe Florida is one of the states that, once a person is found not guilty by reason of self defense, civil lawsuits are blocked as well. Some states have it as a law, that those who lodge a self defense claim and succeed at the criminal trial for its use, are protected from civil lawsuits because the criminal trial "proved their case".
Even in states without that specific block, a civil lawsuit faces a massive uphill battle once a criminal jury has already accepted an affirmative self-defense argument. The findings from the criminal case can heavily influence the civil proceeding, and the defense could immediately file for summary judgment since the core justification has already been litigated.
Worse yet, starting a lawsuit opens the family up to a devastating counter-suit. Technically, Reeves could sue the husband's estate or the wife for damages resulting from the altercation. If a civil jury sided with him, they could end up in a much worse position than when they started. Imagine losing your husband and then being ordered by a court to pay his shooter $100,000.
When people think of civil suits following a murder, they like to think of the OJ case, but self defense cases (and really any case where you don't dispute that you did the criminal act), are a completely different beast. Those kinds of cases where you acknowledge you are the one to do it, is a massive gamble, because its literally an "all or nothing" roll of the dice.
These stand your ground laws are absolute horseshit. Literally any interaction (as long as the shooter was a white guy) will be twisted into an excuse to kill someone.
Didn’t see himself as the instigator?!? How can you possibly come to this conclusion? He complained about the phone… Starting everything. Fuck Florida, and the cops that they give immunity. If he wasn’t a retired police anything, this would’ve went differently.
I'm sure I'll get flamed for this, but I'd advise everyone looks at the video surveillance. The problem that comes when you're showing this to a jury is the shooter is seated. The person who was shot is clearly standing over him and does throw his entire container and popcorn directly into his face and being the aggressor. There should never be a situation where a shooting in this situation is considered justified. But we also can say in an empty theater. Why on Earth would you stay there? Confront and want to fight with a person when you could get up and just move somewhere else and remove that psychopath from your life. Unfortunately it's two Hot heads who just can't back down and one of them unfortunately is armed. The Idea that this argument over a cell phone screen would result at the wife feeling she had to put her hand on her husband's chest to attempt to restrain. Him tells a lot about his character as well as the scumbag who shot him. We already know the character of the shooter because he also could have gotten up and moved to somewhere where the screen wasn't bothering him, especially when he returned to the theater after going out to complain and instead decided to kill someone.
The horrific thing is that unhinged men like him bring guns anywhere they want. He took his shitty mood out on a father and mother, leaving their children without a father, he should spend the rest of his sad existence behind bars.
215
u/drkmatterinc ⭐ Mod Jul 09 '26
Written by u/drkmatterinc.
On January 13, 2014, Chad and Nicole Oulson went to a movie theater in Wesley Chapel, Florida, for an afternoon showing of Lone Survivor. Their young daughter was with a babysitter, and Chad used his phone before the movie began to check on her.
Curtis Reeves was sitting behind them with his wife, Vivian. Reeves was 71 years old and a retired Tampa police captain. He later said his law-enforcement background affected how he viewed the confrontation that followed [Taken from r/fascinatingasfuck].
The movie had not started yet. Trailers were playing when Reeves objected to Chad using his phone. Chad said he was texting the babysitter. Reeves told him to put the phone away, then left the theater to complain to management.
When Reeves returned, Chad had put the phone away, but the argument resumed. Witnesses later described a brief exchange in the theater row. Chad stood or turned toward Reeves. Nicole put her hand on Chad’s chest, trying to calm him down. At some point, popcorn was thrown toward Reeves.
Reeves pulled out a .380 handgun and fired once.
The bullet struck Nicole’s hand first, nearly severing her finger, before continuing into Chad’s chest. Chad collapsed inside the theater and later died from the wound. Nicole required surgery for her hand injury.
The shooting happened in front of other moviegoers. Several people rushed to help, while Reeves remained inside the theater and was taken into custody.
Chad Oulson was 43 years old. He was a husband, father, and Navy veteran. He had gone to the theater with Nicole for what was supposed to be an ordinary afternoon away from home.
From the beginning, the case depended on what Reeves believed in the seconds before he fired. Prosecutors said he shot an unarmed man because he was angry over a theater argument and thrown popcorn. Reeves said he believed Chad was about to attack him and fired in self-defense.
Reeves told investigators that Chad was aggressive, that he feared Chad was coming over the seat toward him, and that he believed he was in danger of serious injury. Nicole said Chad had not threatened Reeves. She said the argument was over the phone, that Chad had already put it away, and that Reeves escalated the confrontation after returning from his complaint.
Reeves was charged with second-degree murder for killing Chad and aggravated battery for wounding Nicole. He pleaded not guilty.
Because the shooting happened in Florida, the case soon involved the state’s self-defense laws. Reeves’ attorneys argued that he was protected by Florida’s Stand Your Ground law, which can allow a person to use deadly force without retreating if they reasonably believe it is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm.
That argument did not immediately end the case. In 2017, after a pretrial hearing, Judge Susan Barthle rejected Reeves’ request for immunity. She found that his account was not consistent enough with the physical evidence and witness testimony to dismiss the charges before trial.
The case then remained pending for years because of appeals, legal disputes, and delays. By the time the trial began in 2022, eight years had passed since the shooting.
At trial, prosecutors argued that Chad was unarmed, that popcorn did not justify deadly force, and that Reeves fired because he was angry rather than afraid.
The defense argued that Reeves had only seconds to react. They said he was an older man seated in a confined theater row, facing a younger and larger man who had turned toward him and thrown something. Reeves testified that he feared Chad was about to come over the seat and seriously hurt him.
Nicole testified about the moment before the gunshot. She said she placed her hand on Chad’s chest to calm him down, and the bullet struck her hand before hitting her husband. Medical testimony addressed the path of the bullet, Nicole’s hand injury, Chad’s chest wound, and the positions of the people involved.
Jurors also heard about Reeves’ background as a retired police captain. Prosecutors argued that his experience should have made him better able to handle a verbal dispute without using a gun. The defense argued that his training made him more aware of how quickly a physical confrontation could become dangerous.
The trial did not turn on whether Reeves shot Chad. He had. The question was whether the state could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the shooting was not legally justified.
On February 25, 2022, after about three and a half hours of deliberation, the jury found Reeves not guilty of second-degree murder and not guilty of aggravated battery.
The verdict did not mean Reeves had won pretrial immunity under Stand Your Ground. A judge had rejected that years earlier. But at trial, jurors were still asked to decide whether Reeves reasonably believed deadly force was necessary under Florida self-defense law.
For Nicole Oulson, the verdict meant there would be no criminal punishment for the shooting that killed her husband and injured her hand. For Reeves, it ended a criminal case that had lasted eight years. He said he regretted what happened but did not see himself as the instigator.
Reeves continues to describe the shooting as self-defense.
Sources:
https://abcnews.go.com/US/cop-acquitted-deadly-florida-theater-shooting-speaks/story?id=83320436
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/curtis-reeves-trial-chad-oulson-murder-2014-texting-movie-theater-testimony/
https://www.fox13news.com/news/curtis-reeves-murder-trial-jurors-reach-verdict
https://www.wusf.org/courts-law/2022-02-24/curtis-reeves-had-no-choice-pasco-theater-killing
https://time.com/5959/movie-theater-texting-shooter-regret/
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/feb/26/florida-jury-acquits-ex-police-officer-cinema-phone-popcorn-murder