http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1389824257.jpg

This whole thing reminds me of the film, "Falling Down".

I think the old dude had just had enough, and his patience for all the little B.S. in life finally ran out that day. The guy snapped. Mr. Texter just happened to be the one to pull the ripcord. Looking back at my life, I have FAR less patience for rudeness and bad behavior then I did in my 20's and 30's. The "Me" attitude that seems to pervade society today drives me nuts. If I hit 80, I fully expect to be sick of the whole thing and deep into "codger mode".

I guess the lesson to be learned here is: Watch out! Act like an ass all you want, but you never know when you'll be the last ass in a long line of asses and get your ass handed to you.

I think you are pushing your standards onto everyone, just like most of the studies do. They compare 'rude' behavior then and now, however, they don't take into account society evolving. Do I think that talking on the phone in a restaurant rude behavior - yes I do. Does a 20 something - probably not. Therefore they don't see that as rude behavior - it doesn't 'tally' in their mind. Does not calling the older gentleman 'sir' equate to rude behavior - probably not to someone in their 30s, but to someone in their 60s - probably yes.

Every generation could post a study that says 'the younger generation isn't as polite as we were'. Meaning, they think they are polite. However, when the previous generation is questioned, they would say that the subsequent generation is ruder than they are. I don't think we are become exponentially more rude, I think each generation has a different set of parameters that they gauge 'rudeness' on.

Hollow point or FMJ?

Stayed at a holiday inn a few times.....but I don't know the laws in Florida. Generally speaking:

Assault is the saying your going to kick some ones a$$. Battery is the act of hitting them. So throwing a rock at someone for the purpose of hitting him is a battery if the rock in fact strikes the person and is an assault if the rock misses.

Pound of feathers, pound of bricks or a pound of popcorn, all the same.

So old guy was being assaulted and battered by a guy half his age, a foot taller and 80 lbs heavier. Popcorn is thrown in his face, the beginning of a distracting move? So the guy can land a haymaker? Something strikes him. Was it the guy swinging at him and his wife pulled him away causing him to missing the punch? Or was it the popcorn box? Old guy defends himself. As I said in post #9 he will be found not guilty but will be ruined financially.

JYL, You are absolutely correct about " the "majority", in most of these threads" favoring gun use in any situation. I see that one of the crazies dissed you and Foxpaws too, but that doesn't change reality. I say this as someone who owns and uses several guns. I expect some of the gun nuts here will eventually get charged for some type of assault using a gun, will claim "self-defense" and have a prosecutor go through the threads here for use in court.

I'd say the issue is that old folks DO remember what it was like to be a kid - and they remember having to treat older folks with respect and tread carefully with strangers. Throwing popcorn at a stranger, much less an older person? Had my grandparents been present for such behavior from me and I got shot, they would have apologized for my rudeness and offered to compensate him for the bullet.

Not only was it bad manners, it was bad judgement. He was surprised someone shot him over something minor, but good sense says you should always assume everyone is armed and behave accordingly, as these sorts of incidents aren't rare.

Who threw the first punch?

By my count, two posters here think the gun was justified use of force. Where are all these gun nuts who support Reeves?

I wonder what Bernard Goetz thinks of all this.

As one of the "old folks" of whom you speak, the above statement is certainly a glowing endorsement of our current society. We should all be proud, what a country.

it was popcorn, not punch

What would you do if someone threw popcorn at you after having words? Would you assume it meant they wanted to throw down? Obviously, shooting the guy is going way overboard. But would you really not punch the guy?

OK - so who threw the popcorn first?

Goetz was threatened with a weapon and by four thugs. He had more justification than he needed (weapon and disparity of force). The idiot turned himself in and was bankrupted for it. If a guy with that much justification was bankrupted for shooting four thugs who richly deserved it, rest assured, Reeves is gonna die very broke.

What about cake? How can you have punch without cake?

First, something has to be made clear because it appears, again, in this post.
Yes, the shooter (Curtis Reeves) is 70 years old, but according to the booking records he is 6' 1" and weighs 270 lbs. Was the victim really 7'1" and 350 lbs? (I'm asking seriously, because I haven't found that information, but regardless of the victim's size, the shooter was not a frail old man as depicted/implied by several posts.)

Second, according to Florida law, "An "assault" is an intentional, unlawful threat by word or act to do violence to the person of another, coupled with an apparent ability to do so...". One thing no one knows are the actual words spoken by each man and without that information, there is no evidence (yet) that the shooter was being assaulted, or even if the victim was being assaulted. Throwing popcorn is not, in itself, an intentional unlawful threat.

Battery, according to Florida law, is when someone "1. Actually and intentionally touches or strikes another person against the will of the other; or

2. Intentionally causes bodily harm to another person."

No witness have come forward to say the victim actually touched the shooter.

Now on tonight,s local news (I,m in Tampa) there was an interview with another movie going couple who were accosted by the SHOOTER a couple of weeks ago about them texting at the same theatre. (He seems to routinely behave in a confrontational manner too.
I think the shooter sees himself as the texting/manners police.
As I said earlier. The shooter should have changed seats and left the enforcement of rules to the theatre management.
He was breaking the theatre rules about bringing in a gun but sees himself as above that rule.
I use the term rule because both texting and maybe his concealed weapon are not against the law.

I have an alarm system because my insurance company calls for one and they also give me a discount.

I have all sorts of sensors in my house including fire because they are common sense.

I don't think that all that carry guns are scared but do believe that many carry guns as some sort of equalizer. I understand if you carry into a situation that you may feel uncomfortable, craigslist situation, etc...but, to a movie? That's ridiculous and I guess, illegal as well.

By the way, I have a concealed permit and own guns but cannot remember the last time that I carried a gun for protection against some perceived threat.

(Crickets...)

Wow, 10 pages have been added to this thread while I was off line. I'm not going to go back and tried to read all the BS. But here is some local news that may not make the nations air waves....

I heard today that this is not the first time Grandpa got into with movie goers. Someone has come forward that remembers Gramps from another movie about a week before this one. He was scolding someone for talking too loud at this one.
The guy has issues and should have retired to North Carolina like most folks do in FL.

I,m in Tarpon Springs and posted this in #379 a few minutes ago.

I see that as just the opposite. If gramps scolded folks daily regarding theater etiquette...it shows that he was not loose cannon that many imply. The only one who got shot was the asshat that assaulted him.

Fat old man (71) with multiple medical problems...according to the Tampa Tribune: "arthritis in both hands, bursitis, hypertension, high cholesterol, and “very low” levels of oxygen in his blood, which require him to wear a mask that forces oxygen into his lungs."

Dictionary def #1 for frail: having delicate health; not robust; weak

LOL! Pre chewed... They stick better.

Easy,

Pound cake.

Sounds like frail guy made it a habit to verbally assault movie goers and was an armed ticking time bomb. The texter was defending himself from the verbal assault and used the only tool available to defend himself. He just brought popcorn to a gun fight.

I can see a good defense atty. totally slaying this one.

Though, Fint makes a good point that he didn't escalate the situation the first time, which makes it more likely he didn't start it this time either. The lawyers will have a field day with this case.

I'm really interested in the civil suit in a few years. If Reeves walks because the use of force was justified, can he still be sued for the same bullet that also hit a non-assailant? Weird stuff.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1389842513.jpg

I stand corrected about the weight/height ratios. I based my math on pictures published in the media of the two.


I think it's been determined by witnesses that he threw popcorn at the shooter. A pound of feathers, a pound of popcorn or a pound of rocks is all the same in the eyes of the law = Battery.

If he had used a deadly weapon it would have been Aggravated assault under common law. Not sure what they would call it in Florida.

O.J........ Not guilty in the criminal trial. Guilty in the civil trial.

Who Is Getting Shot And Why? (1 2 3 4 5)

Already did that joke.

Look, a lot of y'all either haven't read through the thread up 'til this point, or you have very short memories.

This thing is going in circles. I applaud everyone for doing a stellar job. :eek::D

Some forget salient points that have been made and just go on arguing as if they don't know their popcorn from their privileged attitude from their cute little cellphone screen glowing in the dark bothering nearby moviegoers.

But by all means let's just all keep shooting in the dark and trying to figure out how many eyewitnesses said which hothead raised his voice first after grandpa got back from his search for a sympathetic manager.

And then there's some who think almost everyone here thinks grandpa was breaking a law by just going in carrying.

Is there anything else I missed?

:cool:

Hey, one thing I hope we can all agree on; stomachmonkey's dad was a guy everyone would've loved to hang out with. Seriously, thanks for sharing those stories.

The same to Seahawk and anyone else who shared personal stories too.

Even slakjaw and the story of his magic cellphone that turned itself on in his pocket. I really do believe you, dude.

Koom-Bah-Yah. It's been fun, I love all of y'all, and I haven't had a drop to drink. :cool:

But some of y'all need to pay attention or work on your memory or logic skills.

Okay, that was uncalled for. *ducking some roundhouse kicks to the head*

Hmmmm... okay, let's melt down the YouTube servers... everybody go... now!

Skip ad in 5 seconds...

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/9-k5J4RxQdE?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Ha ha.....post of the thread right there John......

.... and soon lawyers will contest smokers breath or vapor from the lungs, second hand smoke from ones clothing drifting to another as 'Battery'.

Wasn't there a frivolous case of a second hand smoke incident in CA?
mehhhh, what does it matter.... everyone just stay home now, screw the theatres, bullies and tough guy grandpa's and plant yourself in front of your plasmafantastic TV.

Worth noting - grandpa wasn't a CCH carrying civilian ignoring the law. He was an ex-police officer who likely had the right to LEGALLY carry anywhere, much like an active police officer. I don't know FL law, but in most cases both active and retired police are afforded rights that the average citizen cannot obtain. So this is not a CCH or gun control issue, no matter how badly some want it to be.

I'm not buying the "frail" or "grandpa" descriptions of the shooter. Just because someone is 70 years old, or smoked and drank a lot in life causing health problems, (speculation), does not make them a weakling or genteel. The video of him in court makes him look like a brute and the ex-cop and SWAT background absolutely negates any type of victim type personality.

I think that he has some real issues and he snapped. If he hadn't had the gun, (and maybe was a few years younger), he's the kind of guy who would take it from verbal to punching and kicking. He's a bully.

One more...

"If you like your cellphone on, you can keep your cellphone on. Period."

"Duck Season!!!!!!!"

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1389848474.jpg




No outrage, please. This not poking fun at the tragedy.

Yes!!!!

More speculation!!!! Perfect.

BTW, the hothead texter???? Any chance he'd throw down, too?

It's a federal law.
Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The interesting part is that the law doesn't override private property owners' rights to ban guns on their property. But then, technically, they could also ban active duty, uniformed cops from carrying on their property if they wanted to. They can ask anyone to leave for any reason and you're trespassing if you refuse. Otherwise, I've never heard of a case of anyone being prosecuted for ignoring a no guns sign.

Laughable.

No one packing a gun, everyone would've gone home alive, albeit with bruised egos.