Originally Posted by Villages PL (Post 812485)

Yes, and if someone tells you to stop, stop and take it out to the lobby. Don't throw popcorn in the person's face.

Everyone wonders what would have or could have been if the retired captain didn't have a gun. How about asking what would have happened if the nasty texter had just stopped being nasty. Sometimes bad things happen to people who are nasty.

And the retired captain, 71, had been retired for over 20 years. He, like many other retired people, may have been taking multiple prescription drugs which may have impaired his judgement. He might have been taking drugs for depression but, then again, nothing would have happened if the popcorn-jerk had stopped being a jerk.

Originally Posted by eweissenbach (Post 812559)

WOW! I am sure the killer hopes you and eleven more like you, are on the jury. Jerk? Seriously, jerk? Well the killer certainly has stopped him from being a "popcorn-jerk". That popcorn can burn if it hits you in the eye!

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725 (Post 812576)

Ex-cop challenged woman over texting in SAME movie theater just three weeks ago it emerges as lawyer claims retired cop had 'every right to defend himself and felt threatened' after victim threw popcorn in heated row | Mail Online


My brother and my sister-in-law and I drove by this Cobb Theater which is on the west side of I-75 near Wesley Chapel. Directions - The Grove at Wesley Chapel

I cannot think up any means of preventing such stupidity as the actions of this shooter as well as the hotheadedness of the popcorn thrower. Throwing the book at the shooter probably will not prevent future outbreaks like this whether or not a gun is involved.

A few weeks ago I parked my golf right next to another golf cart at a local store in a parking space. I went into the store to buy some things. After I came out, the driver of a SUV which had been parked to my left was furious with me for parking the golf cart a view inches further to the parking space line than I needed to be.

He beeped his horn numerous times, yelled at me, and then stopped and glared at me from his SUV. Then came back in the other direction.

I just froze in the golf cart not wanting to provoke the man any more. He did have his wife with him whom I assume had a hard time of getting into the passenger side.

Still to get red with rage at me for my parking a few inches too close.

This was a senior as well like the person at the Cobb movie theater.

Hope this event of mine and the Cobb theater shooting are lessons that we can all learn from in that we should just try to calm down and reflect a bit before anger takes over our better judgments.

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725 (Post 812576)

Ex-cop challenged woman over texting in SAME movie theater just three weeks ago it emerges as lawyer claims retired cop had 'every right to defend himself and felt threatened' after victim threw popcorn in heated row | Mail Online


My brother and my sister-in-law and I drove by this Cobb Theater which is on the west side of I-75 near Wesley Chapel. Directions - The Grove at Wesley Chapel

I cannot think up any means of preventing such stupidity as the actions of this shooter as well as the hotheadedness of the popcorn thrower. Throwing the book at the shooter probably will not prevent future outbreaks like this whether or not a gun is involved.

A few weeks ago I parked my golf right next to another golf cart at a local store in a parking space. I went into the store to buy some things. After I came out, the driver of a SUV which had been parked to my left was furious with me for parking the golf cart a view inches further to the parking space line than I needed to be.

He beeped his horn numerous times, yelled at me, drove away and then stopped and glared at me from his SUV. Then he turned around and came back in the other direction.

I just froze in the golf cart not wanting to provoke the man any more. He did have his wife with him whom I assume had a hard time of getting into the passenger side.

Still to get red with rage at me for my parking a few inches too close.

This was a senior as well like the person at the Cobb movie theater.

Hope this event of mine and the Cobb theater shooting are lessons that we can all learn from in that we should just try to calm down and reflect a bit before anger takes over our better judgments.

Originally Posted by Villages PL (Post 812578)

Do you condone the behavior of the "popcorn-jerk"? And do you doubt that he would still be alive today if he hadn't acted like a jerk?

I rest my case. :thumbup:

Originally Posted by Bogie Shooter[/quote

Like getting killed? Wow!
So we just go off and kill jerks? Wow!

Originally Posted by JRW8219 (Post 812110)

Before I provide the statistic I have a bet:

If less than 365 people were murdered (in the U.S) from legal guns last year I will pay YOU XXXX. If more than 365 people were murdered from legal guns last year you will pay ME XXXX.

What shall we make the XXXX?

I know you won't take that bet at any price.

PS: and yes we will not count those stopping a crime (police or otherwise). I'm talking about the number of people arrested and charged with murder whose gun was legally registered to them.

For the last year I could find stats (2011), there were almost 9000 murders from guns. You really think less than 365 (4%) were legally purchased?

Originally Posted by Villages PL (Post 812578)

Do you condone the behavior of the "popcorn-jerk"? And do you doubt that he would still be alive today if he hadn't acted like a jerk?

I rest my case. :thumbup:

Originally Posted by eweissenbach (Post 812608)

First, were you there? Did you observe the alleged popcorn thrower being a "jerk"? Second, are you justifying killing someone for being a jerk? If so, I probably deserve to be dead, along with a majority of people I have known in my life. I can imagine some self-important a-hole confronting me while I was texting my granddaughter DURING THE PREVIEWS, and I would have probably given him a look, or even told him to mind his own business, making me a potential victim. How do you, or any of us know, that there was not a serious reason for this guy to text his 3 YO daughter and/or her sitter DURING THE STINKING PREVIEWS. I am beyond astounded that any thinking human being can rationalize that this was in any way a justifiable or reasonable act.

Originally Posted by blueash (Post 812420)

The assailant is already setting up his stand your ground defense. Under Florida's law, which our legislature had the opportunity to revise and did not, a person may use deadly force in a situation where they fear for their own safety. Here is the exact language

"He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony"

Thus the "right" to use deadly force can be based on the belief that either death/great bodily harm might be imminent OR a forcible felony is about to happen

Here is the Florida definition of forcible felony:

“Forcible felony” means treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; carjacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.

and lastly under Florida law a battery ..

The offense of battery occurs when a person:
1. Actually and intentionally touches or strikes another person against the will of the other; or
2. Intentionally causes bodily harm to another person.

A battery when the victim is aged 65 or older is a felony
784.08 Assault or battery on persons 65 years of age or older; reclassification of offenses In the case of battery, from a misdemeanor of the first degree to a felony of the third degree.

Thus if this shooter believed that he was preventing a battery on an elderly person (himself) his belief may be enough to get him off. Note that the definition does not require that the battery has taken place nor is taking place only that the shooter believes such an event is imminent. There is nothing in the law about who started the incident only about the state of mind of the person choosing to exercise his Florida right to stand your ground. If the shooter reasonably believed that he was about to be struck then one interpretation of this law is that he had a right to use deadly force to prevent the battery of a person aged 65+. A good lawyer can certainly make this argument and a judge can rule without the question going before a jury.

Originally Posted by Villages PL (Post 812596)

I was simply saying that if he hadn't acted like a jerk, non of this would have happened.

Originally Posted by Carl in Tampa (Post 812618)

Your logic is impeccable, but it won't work.

I used to have a friend who was a Judge on the Florida Second District Court of Appeals. I used to sit in on the sessions when we were going to lunch together.

One day when I was there a case came before them in which an elderly man had been convicted of murder for shooting a younger man.

The old man was living with the younger man's mother. On the last three occasions, when the younger man came to his mother's house he severely beat and robbed the old man.

On his fourth visit he was shot and killed by the old man as he entered the house.

The lawyer for the old man argued the logic which you have posted. The old man was in fear of great bodily harm (with good reason) and because of his age it was a greater crime (felony.)

The appeal was denied by a three Judge panel.


I think the old man might have fared better if he had let the younger strike at least one blow before he shot him.

,

Originally Posted by blueash (Post 812634)

I would appreciate it if you post the date of this incident and if you recall the name of the convicted person. If the shooting occurred before the date of the stand your ground law it does not apply. Also if the appeal was based on an attempt to overturn a jury verdict there needs to be an error in application of law or evidence or legal representation etc for a conviction to be reversed.

Originally Posted by buggyone (Post 812674)

Hopefully, the ex-cop will remain in jail until his trial. He sounds like a real loose cannon -and a jerk!

Originally Posted by shcisamax (Post 812619)

I hate to be contrary because on one hand you are right, none of this would have happened if the guy wasn't a jerk..or at least not texting in the theatre. But I don't think we have a law that allows the defense "I shot him because he was a jerk".
And for good reason, we would all be dead prematurely.

Originally Posted by Villages PL (Post 813864)

Shcisamax, with all due respect, I never said the shooting was justified. Nowhere on this thread will anyone find a statement by me stating that the shooting was justified. I will leave it up to the legal system to sort it all out.

The shooter said he felt he was in danger, or threatened. That's his perception based on being there and reading the body language of the victim. As to who played a major role in bringing about the shooting, I stand by my earlier assessment.

Originally Posted by eweissenbach (Post 813876)

The father of a three year old had a "major role in bringing about the shooting", because he was concerned about his child?

Originally Posted by Villages PL (Post 814297)

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.

Originally Posted by Carl in Tampa (Post 814305)

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.

.

Originally Posted by Villages PL (Post 814317)

To understand where I'm coming from: I'm trying to look at the situation objectively rather than subjectively loaded-down with emotion. Emotion tends to obscure rather than claify.