Quote:
Originally Posted by Villages PL
In my opinion, having a three year old and being concerned about her would be all the more reason for him to play it safe and not take the chance of inflamming and triggering violence. Although, perhaps he was betting that he would have the upper hand being a young man against an old man. It seems he guessed wrong and now the 3 year old is without a father and there's no father to be concerned about her.
Then the lesson to be learned, in my opinion, is: If the retired police captain was a "crazy old curmudgeon", the popcorn thrower should have been careful about arguing and throwing popcorn. One never knows before hand what the consequences will be.
It seems you're not understanding what I'm saying and I'm not sure I'll ever be able to explain it to your satisfaction. But I'll give it another try:
Knowing how the popcorn thrower treated an old man, I just can't work up any sympathy for him (but sympathy for his daughter and wife, yes). The popcorn thrower's behavior doesn't justify the shooting, but at the same time I think it's obvious that he would not have been shot if he had backed-off from the very beginning.
|
I think the point you make is valid and could be generalized as "never get into a confrontation over a petty issue."
The actions of the victim do not justify the shooting, but it demonstrates the folly of verbal conflicts with strangers. The danger is that the other person may be irrational or hot tempered and armed with a deadly weapon.
In my own experience I saw an argument over an electric fan escalate to a conflict that resulted in the wounding of one man, the death of a deputy sheriff, the maiming of another deputy, and the death of the man who shot the deputies.
.