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.