If the old man thought he was being attacked and needed to defend himself...why would he not use a weapon...especially after being struck by the younger man? Must he wait until he is on the ground and the younger, larger man is pounding his head on the concrete? Seems a bit late to try to dig the gun out then.

The hypocrisy of the old man is endless. He brings a gun to a movie theater - forbidden - and ends up murdering someone with that gun because the guy was texting? The old man was getting his way one way or another. Control freak at its finest. Even if knocked in the face by the texter, there is no way he could justify shooting him. Murder 2 - no question. The texter was inconsiderate, yes. But certainly not worth being murdered. I can imagine his poor wife putting her hand in front of him to protect him and getting a hole shot through it. Pretty terrible stuff.

You mean not getting caught....

That is not justification for breaking rules.. You are assigning priorities to their policies based on your own bias.

You're the one who changed the discussion by asking me how I'd respond to a POLICY.

I responded by saying my response would be based on the CCP laws of the state.

Get it? I can still be asked to leave, but if I'm not breaking a law, I won't be prosecuted.

And as Rick said, if the gun is concealed, it won't offend anyone.

Apparently, it's not forbidden, according to Florida law.

It has been reported that her hand was in front of her husband because she was trying to restrain him (contrary to earlier silly speculation that she was attempting to catch a bullet).

Seesm that if the younger, larger man needed to be restrained...he was being pretty agressive. The older guy was not required to flee and had every right to defend himself. The younger man should have stayed in his seat, shut up (since he was clearly in the wrong), and turned off his phone. The older guy would have done the same (as he was doing before the incident)..

So why don't you respond in like regarding the laws of the state for texting in a movie theater?

The old guy went to get management, but he didn't wait to talk to them.

And it doesn't matter again if the texting guy was terribly rude, a hot head, and even texting during the movie, it doesn't invite a death sentence by anyone. Being rude, yelling, throwing popcorn, texting, although not great behavior isn't cause for killing anyone.

I don't think there is a law regarding texting in a movie theatre.

Your point?

And no one, including the older guy...have claimed it was...so why do you keep making that argument?

Oh this argument again? There was zero justification for this shooting. Witnesses have confirmed that there was no physical confrontation. As Fox stated, the guy with the gun has the responsibility to diffuse the situation. To find another seat. Not let it escalate. When you have the power to end a confrontation with the pull of a trigger in seconds, you have to be a bigger person. No one would expect to be shot over such a trivial incident.

Not at all. Breaking any rule is grounds for a trespassing cite IF you make fuss once asked to leave. That's all that can happen. Since there's no chance of anyone seeing a gun on my belt, there's no chance of anyone being made uncomfortable by it. The same can't said for cell phone use, loud talking, gum chewing or anything else, which, by definition, entails making noise in a place where it would normally bother people. As it is, I ignore gun busters signs because they don't have the force of law and, if someone made me and then asked me to leave, I would cheerfully take mu business elsewhere.

It was a dark theater...so most witnesses probably saw nothing There is at least one witness that claims it was physical. Others claim that the younger man was being restrained by his wife, etc. The guy with a gun has zero responsibility to flee and can "stand his ground" if attacked.

I'd be surprised if there was a law.

I'm glad you aknowledge that neither the texter nor the old man broke the law. They only broke theater policies of texting and carrying.

Would you rate one over the other in terms of severity of offense, the possibility of misuse, etc?

Texting in a movie theater is rarely fatal.

I ignore texting signs in theaters because they don't have the force of the law.

Jim, aint it a shame that you were forced to use the word "rarely" in your statement???:(

An therein lies the rub. The old man was not at risk of death based off of what transpired. He wasn't physically assaulted, stabbed, shot at, threatened, etc. He overreacted. Here's a thought: he could've simply walked away. Honestly, the words "I'm texting with my 3-year-old daughter" should've been enough to diffuse the situation. That and the fact that the victim was clearly being difficult. A police captain should know better.

LOL, don't take everything so literally.

I'm not shooting anyone over texting in a movie theater. I'm not going to give the behavior a pass either. I'm not going to escalate it and will look for ways to resolve it in a non violent way because you just don't know who you are dealing with or what they are capable of. Something the texter should have been thinking about. He let his ego and "machismo" control his actions and unfortunately it cost him because he did not expect to run into someone with the same personality traits.

I was not there and don't know the specifics so whether there was justification or not is not something I feel qualified to weigh in on. I don't believe a simple disagreement of this nature should ever end in one losing their life.

Both parties made poor choices at varying points.

Let's not be trying this case on a message board. YukYukYukYukYuk

So you think it's worth killing someone because they wouldn't stop texting in a movie theater because you told them to, and they got in your face about it? And because it's legal? This is essentially what happened. And no, the old man's actions were not legal. Or moral.

fify

I see what you did there. :D

I'm too smart to fall into your cheap little trap.

I don't believe you for a minute. You're doing it again. :D

Look, two idiots met up at the wrong place and time. The courts will sort it out.

And hopefully, fewer idiots will have their phones on in the theatre from now on.

People are just inconsiderate phone addicts, huh?

Yep. I hated living in FL because of the intolerant blue-hairs. Twenty-some years ago, kids repeatedly cutting across an old codgers' lawn lead him to go postal. He didn't go after the kids. Instead, he packed a couple of duffel bags of guns and ammo and went to the nearest shopping center and started killing indiscriminately. Lots of dead and wounded. Some people I worked with died, and others were in harm's way. Who would think some kids taking a short cut through their neighborhood would lead to the loss of innocent lives?

---

I agree with your edit. The texter was way wrong. But one can only control one's own actions. The one with the power was the one with the gun and he was the one responsible to diffuse the situation. The texter had no idea the incident would cost him his life.

Agreed!!!:(

By the way, I just upgraded from my old Motorola Razr to an Iphone 5S.

Well, reading 'not likely' means 'not likely' in my book - sorry, typing is very literal, I can't see your face or notice inflections in your voice.

I certainly don't think it was justified. And even if it were justified and legal, its being avoidable is my standard. If I can at all avoid it, I will. Nothing but true threat to life or limb is worth what Reeves is about to go through. Some people need to be dead right.

Man that's sad...:(

I rather doubt there's a kid alive that hasn't cut through a lawn, lot, over a fence,,,,,

Old guy that forgot what it was like to be a kid.... I vow to never do that...

Hey, that actually happened:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/11/24/owner-allegedly-shoots-kills-country-singer-in-nashville-bar/

When does the sacred viewing time start, at the start of the previews or the start of the actual movie? it seems like during the previews people are still moving around, taking their seats, and talking. Then when the actual 'main attraction' starts everyone goes quiet and attentive.

The texter is responsible for instigating the situation and also had the power to diffuse the altercation before it cost him his life but apparently he chose to escalate it.

Again we were not there so who knows what ultimately transpired to push the old guy to take a life.

If the courts find he was not justified he will pay for his actions.

Still won't bring the other guy back though.

He claims he was.

We actually don't need to have been there to know what happened since there were plenty of witnesses. And I disagree that the texter's "escalation" cost him his life as he apparently had no idea that the shooter had a gun and would kill him over the situation. CNN reported that the victim said, and I paraphrase, "I can't believe I've been shot." Very telling.

The guy with a gun has zero responsibility to flee and can "stand his ground" if attacked and fears for his safety. It doesn't matter if the attack comes from a douche who insists upon texting in a theater or a street gang.

What does that have to do with anything? He should know who has a gun and who does not...so he can target folks to attack that way? The only consideration should be if the older man believed the younger one was physically attacking him and he feared for his safety.

Fint, your wild, wild west philosophy is totally off-base. If he was annoyed, he certainly had the option to move seats, instead of escalating the conflict. It was all within his control. Suffering fools vs. killing them. That's the difference between the 21st and the 19th centuries.

Case in point,

I'm standing in line at the supermarket where I shop a couple times a week for over a decade.

The store is not crowded, there is no one fifteen feet from me and I'm standing at the back of the line.

Some guy walks up to me and exclaims "you cut in front of me!!!!"

I'm not a fighter but the guy was about my size and a few years younger.

I quickly assessed the situations, the guy had kind of a wild look in his eye... he was obviously a few fries short of a happy meal... even thought everyone in the store knew me and would have backed me up I opted not to embarrass myself and let Mr. coo coo puff go ahead of me. (thou I did say, "it is not that important, go ahead")

Ironical as he was checking out he looked back at me and said "oh, I'm sorry, I thought you were someone else."

Fint lives in an imaginary world where old guys with guns make the rules and everyone who stands up to those old bullies are threatening their life so lethal force is justified. He should consider a career in writing fiction.