But, isn't it true it has to be at night - deadly force with regards to stolen property is only an option at night in Texas?

Don't need a posse. You embarrass yourself with every post while most here are debating. Troll on this subject - as others have said.

Stop dancing: How can you can defend someone who shot an innocent, the victim's wife, and could have possibly shot others? Did the wife deserve to be shot?

Again, all you're doing is saying, just look at this and that, and everyone will see it exactly as I see it.

Sorry, that doesn't work in the real world. You have to back up your statements with reasoned responses.. if you want to be taken seriously.

And you haven't done that... no matter how much you wish you have.

So you're just left with empty claims.

Again.

But thanks for trying. :)

Deflection again? You're the one who's dancing.

You need to back up your other assertions first.

While you're doing your research, you can look for where I said the things you are now claiming.

:rolleyes:

Direct question, not a deflection. How about answering it? I see you have nothing to say now.

No the wife did not deserve to be shot...and would not have been if her husband had not been acting like a douche bag.

...and would not have been if the old man hadn't shot her. So, the texter deserved to be shot? Not saying you stated this, just asking the question.

I think the "at night" qualifier is a different state. I could be mistaken but he shot the man during a daytime burglary so at least in this case the "only at night" stipulation did not apply if that were the case.

Weeeee!

http://s231432788.onlinehome.us/loti...s/P72-0003.jpg

It may be a direct question, but you still need to back up your other assertions first.

If you want to be taken seriously.

That's just how it works.

You've got time... I need to be gone for awhile.

Give it your best shot. :cool:

Technically he did not shoot her.

She stuck her hand in front of his bullet.

Carry on.SmileWavy

Okay, tap dancer. You just go ahead and wait for me.

Really? The gun didn't fire the bullet that struck her hand that the old man fired? He meant to just murder one person and not injure the other? His intent doesn't change the fact.

Do you need help making a sign for your missing goat?

No...according to his testimony...he was defending himself. She placed herself in the line of fire trying to restrain her husband's attack on the older man. An accident.

Without facts, I do not think there is much more to say about this then is contained in your post here.

All the more reason an experienced retired police captain should've known better than to shoot in that situation. No way will he get off - he wasn't even touched by the man.

Of course he was. There seems to be no disagreement that he was struck...as a minimum, by a bag of popcorn.

So I suppose this guy was shot for running a red light?
Deadly Shootout with Middlefield Police During Traffic Stop, Gun Shoots Cops with AK47 - YouTube

Wow, this thread has a life of its own!

A lot going on in this thread we have.

Ageism (young Vs old) although that doesn't really pan out because the opinions don't seem to polarize with a particular age group.

Sexism (man Vs woman) I like your posts foxy and agree with you, but I can also see male logic Vs female logic working in this argument.

Pro gun Vs anti gun, although many gun owners here have condemned the shooter so that doesn't pan out either.

I don't think anyone thinks anyone should get shot for texting in a theater... I also think pointing out that the poor guy who got shot could have made better decisions is in any way vindicating the old guy who was doing the shooting.

Correct - I have mentioned on several occasions that the texter could have avoided a confrontation in the first place had he extended the shooter a little common courtesy.

There I said it again.

I think it's important to stress how not extending common courtesy to fellow humans - is all too often the cause of deaths in our society

Aside from this situation - how about all the road rage incidents....resulted in a deaths.

Mostly because of the "me first" personality.

Does not the common courtesy portion of this story deserve mention?

If we do not discuss it.....what does that say about preventing future deaths due to certain personalities who are prone to violence?

Can anyone disagree with anything I just wrote above?

Guess this is now a felony:

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1389905766.jpg


Further evidence of the destructive PC path the country is taking.

Yea, that seems like a stretch based on what we know so far.

Maybe they expect him to plea down to 3rd?

Drifting from the topic here but this one raises another question. What does the next generation do with all of our guns? You as a gun owner, what are your plans for the your guns once gone? Seriously.

Scenario - While here, what's one conscience thinking if an heir of a gun goes nutz? If so concerned about responsible gun ownership, how can a current gun owner predict if an heir OR next owner by sale is sane enough? Why not turn your guns in now to protect the future generation?

I know of a few in their 30's and one in his 20's that have inherited from a few gun's to rather nice collections. One in particular never had interest in guns, contemplated selling but going on four years has kept all of them.

I might suggest visiting a gun show or range and observe. I'm not sure if the NRA might have a better idea on age stats but I've seen a wide age range of both men and woman, guessing a majority are in the 30 to 40 year old. Guns, illegal or not are here forever.

Back to the topic......

This should be closed......

3 days old, 588 replies, 9541 views earns 4 stars ---- :eek:

Murder 2 seems correct to me...He certainly didn't kill him accidently.

"a killing that resulted from the intent to do serious bodily injury"

Doubtful that he pulled the gun to just brandish and intimidate. As an ex cop he knew that the likelihood of the texters death would be the result of shooting him.

I think he fully intended to shoot him.

Seems this has been mentioned throughout - the texter was inconsiderate, even a jerk. Okay. The discussion is whether or not this lack of courtesy, for whatever reason he decided he would would be discourteous, should have resulted in his death? Again, why was it that he was to do what the old man said to do when he said to do it? Previews were on and we don't know the situation with the kid (his daughter). We can make a very short leap in thinking that the old man wasn't kind or pleasant when he repeatedly told the texter to stop texting. His actions afterwards prove this. Most people when approached rudely respond in kind. This said, the texter's reaction when he found out the old man ratted him out to the theater police was uncalled for, yes. Should he have been killed over it? Absolutely not.

Oh, Baz you make it too easy.

You are assuming that the older gentleman asked the texter in a nice way to stop texting or that the texter responded impolitely in the first 'round'.

I don't think we know what that particular exchange was.

The ex-cop could have easily said 'Shut off the phone jackass', and the texter could have replied with - 'Sorry, I'll be done in a second, heck the movie won't even start for another 10 minutes'. Again - people texting before the movie starts is pretty much standard procedure anymore, it isn't any different than patrons talking before the movie starts, and, in fact, is probably less disruptive.

Sorry - you don't know the entirety of the situation, yet you continue to imply that this could have all been avoided if the texter had been 'more polite'. Perhaps it is the case of - if the old guy had been more polite all of this could have been avoided.

edit - wow EMJ - we responded at the same time with a similar tone - it is odd that that those who continue to play the 'if only the texter had' card doesn't understand the overall problem here.

+1. Almost exactly what I wrote above.

I think this is a pretty clear case of murder two. But I can see it getting pleaded down or an acquital if the DA sticks with murder two. Either way, Reeves will die in some form of gov't housing.

We know how the older gentleman has said in the past.

"Could you please, please turn off your phone? It's bothering me."

Your assumption that he didn't ask politely is a bit more of a stretch.

So what do you assume his state of mind was like when he went back into the theater after being ignored by management???

source? (I believe it will indicate he 'snarled' those words... inflection is everything isn't it?)

Florida theater shooting: Couple had tense run-in with Curtis Reeves - CNN.com



and in related news...

State to spend $2.8 million on 'Welcome to Florida' signs - Orlando Sentinel

People who assault others do so at their own risk. The silly prattle about texting and changing seats is just misdirection.

Fox, there's a link to a story from another couple that had a run in with him. The quote was from that incident.

I work with a guy that has one of those ON/OFF switches. 0-100 in 1.2 secs. You don't get much warning from him when he gets irritated and the intensity hits a peak.

All speculation I know but, the escalation could have been equally quick from both guys. Old Cop is already pissed when he heads back into the theater. This I can see clearly. Dead Guy calls him out for tattling like a bitc! and the cop throws some choice words back as well.

I know guys that are fully ready to throw down if they're called a pussy and they know it wasn't said as a joke.

What it comes down to is whether as a society we accept that having a bag of popcorn thrown at us is justification for responding with lethal force.

I dont, regardless of who started what..

His status as an ex cop will go against him at trial for murder 2 if it goes that far. His fearing for his life is a tissue thin defense. I'm sure he knows this from experience. It'll be interesting to see what his ego allows. Will he take a plea?

Maybe, but the DA seems pretty intent to me. I could see a 3rd degree charge gaining traction, but I think the average jury would be more inclined to go manslaughter since 3rd w/firearm is a mandatory minimum 25yrs. The judge can still hammer him with what would effectively be a life sentence, but the jurors could push some of that weight off their shoulders.

And if you were an annoyed patron, you could take is as "snarled" where it could merely be a firm request.

It also depends on the state of mind of the listener.

Would you really use the words "please, please" if you were going to snarl at someone?