Maybe they were frightened of this crazy old man with a vendetta... and left.

As far as moving to another seat - there were only 25 people in the theater - certainly there were other, equally 'satisfactory' seats available. And no, he shouldn't have to change seats - but, being a responsible gun owner and an ex-cop, certainly he knew rather than escalate or exasperate the situation by returning to the same seat, the choice is to defuse the situation. Stepping away isn't, as fint indicated 'unmanly,' it is the commonsense thing to do. Returning to the same seat is begging for the situation to escalate, why, it is a stupid movie for gosh sakes.

And stomachmonkey - no, we shouldn't be avoiding all confrontation, but in this case - we are talking about texting in a movie theater before the film started. There is really no need for any sort of 'confrontation' here, especially one that escalates to killing another person. The old man did the right thing by going to the management, it was just he was too impatient to wait for them to do their job.

You talk about options. Carrying a weapon gives you lots of options - many of them bad. Unholstering in a movie theater over this incident is one of those bad options. People do stupid and rude things all the time, they don't get shot over them, nor should they expect to.

That is what I am finding very unsettling about your, and others, (this includes you too Baz) tone on this thread, is that you seem to place equal blame on both parties. Throwing popcorn is rude, killing someone for it is insane. There is no 'equal' here when it comes to this situation. This isn't the joke of bringing popcorn to a gunfight.

It was the friggin Previews, explosions and fire probably all over the screen, and the light from a phone is gonna bug you? The movie preview must not have been very interesting.

The texting was about his child and a babysitter, who may or may not have been experienced with the family. I want the texter to be in touch about his daughter. In an emergency you would want him to be available for contact. If my kids were in a theater I would want them to be able to message me.

Maybe seats where texting is allowed in a theater? Or just ban parents and children from theaters. That will do wonders for the industry. (green font)

When the popcorn flew the old guy could easily have had the man ejected from the theater. End of story. No way the shooting is justified.

And Fint, this was probably the first guy who objected to the dickhead's complaining, probably because the the welfare of his daughter was involved. It was the friggin previews, not the actual movie. Big Difference !

Why is it begging for escalation? You are assuming the texter was an *******? What do you base that on?

Yes, the old guy went to management and returned to his seat and for all we know was content to sit and quietly fume until management arrived to deal with it but upon returning was taunted by the texter, ie, at that point the texter escalated it.

Why is the burden on the old guy to move? Why could the texter not get up and move to get away from the frightening crazy old man? Seems a prudent thing to do, no?

"Hey honey, this guy is nuts and smells of used Depends, let's just move"

It was not a babysitter. The child was in her regular daily professional day care facility.

This occurred during the day, not evening. Both parents work opposing shifts and the wife took a sick day to go to the movies with her husband.

And I'm a Dad, and yes, my kid should 1000% be able to reach me in an emergency.

If I'm sitting in the middle of a movie (or anywhere for that matter) and get an Emergency text I'm not texting back, I'm grabbing my wife and we are out of there.

he forgot he's no longer a Cop....
lock him up..

Rika

:)

Because the old man didn't like texting - so complain about it, and change seats. Again in a theater that has only 25 people in it - there are plenty of options. And yes, if you know that if there is a situation where you know you have a chance of getting upset (as obviously texting did push buttons with the old man), just move. Don't go back expecting the behavior to stop - that isn't usually the case. Just remove yourself from the confrontation, cops tell you to do that all the time, why wouldn't he be aware of the very same solution every cop in America hands out. Leave, don't make it worse by returning.

Heck, if you were the texter it certainly appeared that the old guy left - he was probably grateful, and perhaps surprised when he returned to the same seat, when obviously the old guy had issues with texting before the feature started. There were people sitting right next to the texter (two of the witnesses), they didn't have issues, they were fine with this behavior, as most people are. That is what you seem to miss here - texting before the film starts isn't unusual or considered 'bad' behavior, no more than getting up and going to the concession stand, or talking to your date.

Again - the disturbing trend to place equal blame on both parties - one chose to throw popcorn, stupid move, the other chose to kill, insane move.

You're still missing the point. Because he was the one who was angry, frustrated, packing, and obviously, willing and able to use his weapon in this situation. You can almost call it an ambush. The deadly popcorn assault was all he needed in his mind to use lethal force. He'd been itching for trouble at the movies for weeks and finally found it. Had he really been interested in a peaceful viewing of the movie all he had to was change seats.

Guaranteed if the texter had been the one who shot the old man, the same lot defending the old man would be defending the texter saying he was threatened and within his right to defend himself and his wife. They can't see a situation for what it is, only that there was a gun involved and the one that pulled the trigger must be justified.

Wrong, old guy's wife was with him. Nowhere has it been stated that she left her seat when he went to get management. This is an EXCELLENT example of "debating without having read the whole thread or the links contained therein."

You're making points that fall flat because they're based on a faulty premise.

Just like the people who continue to assert that the old man began the verbal confrontation when he came back to his seat.

Several news reports linked or quoted in this thread have said that when the old man returned, the texter confronted him by asking if he went to management.

I realize this is mere speculation, but perhaps the old man's experience had been that many/most texters... especially those who don't respond with civility to being asked... yes, asked... that word has been in quoted or linked news reports here also, I believe... those texters many times don't turn their phones off after the feature begins (or after the trailers begin).

Don't be so focused on "believing" there is a trend to place equal blame on both.

Just admit that from what we know at this point, the texter could have easily defused the whole situation by not acting like an azzhat to begin with.

Also, please stop saying the old man should have just moved (implied: because that's what you would have done).

He did what he thought best. He stood up to a bully, the bully assaulted him, and he had to think of himself and his wife regarding his response.

if the child is in his normal day care then it's even more likely the text was an important one that needed addressing. It was the previews. The guy semi apologized when he told the shooter it was about his daughter.

The wife should sue the theater for 1) allowing the gun inside and then 2)not properly supervising the audience who have paid to enter.

"He stood up to a bully, the bully assaulted him, and he had to think of himself and his wife regarding his response.
__________________"


you could say that just as easily about both guys

Pure BS fantasy on your part.

Given the facts as we know it now, if the texter had whipped out a gun to defend his right to annoy other movie patrons, I don't see anyone here defending him.

Get over yourself... you obviously cannot defend your points without attempting ridiculous leaps of illogical thinking.

The shooter was 100% wrong and this is a tragedy.

I read the article way back when this whole mess started... tried to pull it up to get my facts straight but it won't open right now.

A) "Why didn't either of them move to avoid the confrontation?" Popcorn guy was there with his wife, I think it said the cop was there with someone else too.
This is silly I know but sounds like we had two alpha males butting heads, to move would be to lose face with the others there.

B) When the cop got back from complaining... popcorn guy asked if he had complained to management (what is this high school? Did you tattle to the teacher?)... no doubt words were exchanged... then popcorn flew... then bang.

People get killed for stupid things every day, getting cut off on the freeway, steeling a parking spot, grabbing the last microwave on sale on black Friday... it is all senseless and stupid... just like getting shot for texting during the previews.

So why did the texter not get up and move?

Look, the guy did not deserve to die. No one does over something so insignificant but he had a significant part to play in how this turned out.

Every option that you say the shooter had the texter had yet somehow he is not burdened with any of the responsibility for how this situation unfolded.

To deny that is silly.

simmer down now. :rolleyes: What is fantasy is anyone defending the old guy and actually thinking that they are using logic to make their case.

Wrong.

1. The texter didn't "stand up to a bully."
2. From what we know at this point, the texter initiated the assault on the old man.
3. The texter was implicitly not thinking of his wife at all... he put her at risk by being a complete azzhat.

Any questions?

I see you are now running away from the ridiculous "point" you attempted to make with teenager-level logic.

Let's see how many people defend your "fantasy example" of the texter whipping out a gun.

Wait for it...

Sorry, Heel. Pretty clear who the bully was in this case. The guy with the gun always has the upper hand. He can use lethal force without much effort. All of this "logic" talk and you haven't even considered that the wife was shot and other innocents could have been shot as well. Clearly the victim was a hothead - a trained and retired police captain would know to leave this situation if he wasn't looking for trouble.

it was a ridiculous point to show how ridiculous it is to defend the old man. I don't expect anyone to support it.

Now for another point. The solution to avoiding the confrontation was completely the old mans responsibility. He chose not to avoid it. Instead he confronted the guy that was annoying him, he let his internal rage start a fight. He had every opportunity to get up, leave the theater and demand a refund because the theater didn't enforce their policies. He chose the path he new he could win because he had a gun hidden and it gave him the upper hand.

Maybe they weren't shot because they chose not to argue over such an insignificant misunderstanding and simply let it go instead of raising their voices and throwing crap.

That is the big difference between the guy who got shot and the other instances.

I don't believe he was looking for trouble.

Please attempt to defend your assertion.

Look, both parties could have made different choices.

However, if you are not willing to admit that from what we know at this point, the texter could have easily defused the whole situation by not acting like an azzhat to begin with...

...you might be ignoring his role in initiating the entire incident.

Look back at my three points in post #458.

The texter began the entire incident.

Doesn't the bully initiate things in the vast majority of cases/confrontations involving bullies?

Just think about it.

The guy texting could have been a complete jerk, rude, etc., but that is not justification for killing him. Hence, murder in the 2nd degree according to the law and the charging authorities.

Unfortunately for the old guy, when there is an altercation and you had the opportunity to retreat to safety but instead stayed, (or returned), and then shot the other guy, you're fk'ed legally speaking.

I think they teach this in CCW classes. This was an avoidable conflict. The answer to the question of "why should he have to change seats?" is that he was carrying a gun and if the argument continues, he might have to shoot an unarmed jerk in the movie theater. :cool:

^^^this.

To paraphrase slackjaw, that old guy is going to spend the rest of his life getting butt-raped in prison. Seems to me texting during the previews at the theater is a lot more tolerable.

You failed in your attempt. Your "example" did not work.

At all.

BS.

I wonder how many people agree with you on this.

No responsibility for the texter?

That, sir, is one of the most ridiculous assertions anyone could make in light of what we know now about this incident.

Maybe we should put exactly that point in a poll.

I hope you would see how close to alone you are in that viewpoint.

Wow. Just wow.

I see the concept of "personal responsibility" is a foreign concept to you.

Good luck in life... you're gonna need it.

No said the killing was justified. I'm pretty sure everyone agrees on that.

What people don't agree on is that they both had an equal part in what happened.

We all agree they both could have made better decisions leading up to this mess.

Yes, they do teach this, but don't mistake a legal CCW'er for a retired cop who doesn't need a permit. I always hear cops are trained to de-escalate situations, but I don't see it much. I think a non-LEO with a legally carried gun would have not even thought about drawing his weapon in this situation. I know I wouldn't have. Even if the guy had pulled a knife on me, I'd rather back down and walk away than risk gunplay in a crowded area when walking away is a realistic option.

Bingo!

He returned because I'm assuming his wife is still in the same seat. It was Mr. Popcorn that wouldn't let it go.

try to use more colors in your response this time.

Using your fancy logic, how does the scenario play out if the old guy doesn't say anything to the texter?

Actually, some here (finstone, et al) are arguing that it was justified.

And I don't know what it is about movie theaters that really brings out the worst in rude or anti-social people. Maybe that everyone is in the dark? Speculating...

A couple years ago, some thug assaulted someone really badly when the victim complained about his phone ringing in the theater. I think that guy was answering the phone, etc.

I remember being at a movie about 20 years ago with a friend. There were a couple of dudes right behind us, one of them kept opening and closing a zippo lighter.

"Click/click/click/click."

My friend, a small and bookish-looking guy, turned around and shot them a look. One of them said, "What's your problem?" So I said, "his problem is that fking noise you're making. Stop doing it." :mad:

After a few minutes of quiet, the guy started doing it again. So I turned in my seat and asked, "are you having fun?" He said yes. So I said, "good...we'll have some fun after the movie." When the lights came on, I turned and they were gone. I guess they changed seats or just left. And I never heard the clicking after the the last exchange.

My friend said that I came off as a contract killer and they just decided not to chance it. :D

Yes, and the old man started and ended this whole mess and shot the texter's wife, too. Obviously she deserved a round, too? How about addressing that? The texter was obviously very annoyed at the old man and was a jerk, yes. A hothead, yes. Pissed. Yes. A brutal popcorn assailer. Yes. A real "bully."

A real bully wouldn't be held back by his wife or flung popcorn.

Equal part? One threw popcorn, one fired a round through the hand of one victim that landed in the chest of another victim and killed him. How can you possibly fathom these were equal parts?

It takes two to tango. Had either of them backed down, both would still have a life.

They both played a part leading up to it. One of them just ended it.

For every action, there's a reaction. Even if the reaction was a bit extreme...

This is not a senseless massacre. They provoked each other.

A "bit" huh. Shooting two people and killing one over texting in a movie theater is I'd say a little more than a "bit extreme."

The colors are supposed to help you keep up.

Still running, I see.

I'm not discussing fantasy scenarios.

If you're trying to weasel around and attempt to say that the old man initiated things by asking the texter to turn his phone off, you failed again.

Thanks for trying. Logic and personal responsibility continue to elude you.

:cool:

Similarities and differences to the Bernard Goetz case.

Goetz was confronted by 4 thugs on a subway car. None of the thugs was armed, or showed any kind of weapon at any time. One thug said to Goetz, "Give me five dollars."

Goetz pulled out his .38 handgun which was unlicensed and ILLEGAL in New York City at that time, and without saying a word, shot each of the punks. He said in court that he wanted to kill all of them. All 4 thugs were rendered incapacitated by his shots, and one was paralyzed from the waist down (still is).

The prosecutor threw the book at Goetz, but he was only convicted on one charge -- possession of an illegal weapon, and he served 8 months in prison for that. The jury refused to convict him of anything else.

The paraplegic guy won a $ 43 million dollar civil suit against Goetz, but has never received a penny of it. Goetz continues to live comfortably in NYC, he owns a successful electronics business, and he is a local celebrity with much admiration and support.

The same thing will happen to the retired police officer. He will not be convicted of anything. I have no doubt that people will go out of their way to be on his jury, just so he can walk free.

__

30 round clips are the only answer to rude people in mass numbers.

I'll say it. That's exactly what he did. Pestering the texter three times to stop texting was most definitely "starting things." The previews were on.

The old man started this by asking texter dude to turn off his phone?

The day that you can't ask someone to turn off their phone in a theatre without it legitimately being called "starting an incident," will never come.

Again... fantasy lives inside some of the heads here.