If it comes out that he was on serious meds for any type of condition, that is only going to heat up the debate on the topic of open/conceal carry vs. mental states.

Where are you getting your information from that we accept that as a society?

Seems like a good defense to me. Old, has serious documented medical issues, etc.
His history as a policeman could well work on his favor as he was closest to his attacker and observed his actions (and is trained to interpret them)...judging a deadly attack was forthcoming (how do you prove he was not right?). He was already technically being assaulted.

Passive Agressives and Narcissists are masters at doing just that.

Plea - 10 years, out in 5 with good behavior - 'witnesses' is the key to this case along with prior behavior.

I think the 'acceptable' threshold truly depends on where you live - Florida, Texas, Oklahoma, this has a much better chance of being dismissed (although I don't think in this case it will in FL), when you read their SYG laws they are so open ended that sneezing in the general direction of someone who is having a bad day and is armed is 'reasonable cause'.

Certainly - sarcasm and snarling go hand in hand.

Fox, if the DA offers that plea, I think Reeves would be a fool to turn it down. I just don't think the DA is going to offer anything.

He will walk.

Yea, I posted a link to that article and it's important to note that the vibe put off by that man is one of a stressed person ready to go postal.


Florida theater shooting: Couple had tense run-in with Curtis Reeves - CNN.com
It will be interesting to read later if he had "crazy eyes".

Don't Be A Victim |
http://www.kathycommunicates.com/wp-...9/sanpaku3.jpg

My wife teaches at community college, one of her former students had crazy eyes, he didn't finish the term and ended up in the loony bin.

Some of her other students were so worried that some of them stayed after class to escort her out of the classroom.

Some people are just ready to snap, it's a stressful world.

The board members discussing this topic are a slice of the societal pie. I'm speaking of those that feel that the "Assault by Redenbacher" was more than enough reason for the cop to "defend himself". That's why they continue to crie out "ASSAULT!".

For them, it has already been accepted... Once formally accepted in the eyes of the law one time (precedence) leads to further acceptance which leads to an "acceptance" by society.

The concept is not limited to murder in a theater.

Yes, the double "please" is a dead giveaway. Usually through clenched teeth and a forced smile. Jack Nicholas style.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1389910734.jpg

Even if all of this is seen favorably at trial, he won't walk.

Perfect.

"Wendy? Darling? Light, of my life. I'm not gonna hurt ya. You didn' t let me finish my sentence. I said, I'm not gonna hurt ya. I'm just going to bash you fookin skull in!"

Yes.....good, FP. I like the way you think.

A discussion of courtesy instead of just the actual shooting.

So we can both agree....a little common courtesy goes a long way.

Did I ever tell you about my Dad?

Even when others were rude to him - he never crawled down in that gutter with them - and always held true to his moral compass.

Assuming either one our both of us is correct - that the initial conflict included a lack of common courtesy from either party - my point is that should be included in the discussion.

Perhaps we will know more of the dialogue in coming days.

Until then - thanks for agreeing with me about the significance of common courtesy!

SmileWavy

The old guy is guilty of causing the other mans death.....has to spend some time in jail.

Since was denied bail, he'll have a good year in the joint before the trial gets underway.

She apparently uses it while driving too, so why give it up in the movie?

His health will deteriorate and some favors will be quietly called in resulting in him getting a high 7 figure bail and home restriction monitored by an ankle bracelet.

He'll be out in a month.

It is like a horrible automobile accident... I want to but I just cant look away... :confused:

Train wreck. Some where it jumped the tracks ;)

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/MgrjhtbQlOQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

This thread....is nothing short of amazing.

No-one has the full story, and to a large extent, it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter how aggrieved the shooter was, it doesn't matter how big an areshole the victim was, it doesn't matter who did what do whom first, it doesn't matter how much popcorn got thrown (seriously?). The known facts appear to be that a minor dispute over a triviality escalated and some one got shot and killed at the pictures in front of a room full of people.

Unless it can be established that the killer acted out of genuine concern for his life or someone elses, no reasonable person could possibly defend the use of a gun in these circumstances.

Absent the gun, there'd maybe have been some unpleasant argy bargy and no one would be dead. All these lives- the shooter, the victim, the families, the witnesses- would be largely unaffected and no one would be reading about this idiocy in the paper.

That anyone can defend, or attempt to justify this mans actions- excepting the above- beggars belief. And to SammyG- suggesting that anyone takes this view needs professional help only shows how detached from civil decency you really are. WWJD, Sammy?

Well put Stuart

There is a serious lack of common courtesy in our society.

In situations where complete strangers wind up killing one another.....this breach of common courtesy is often in play.

In no way can anyone justify the use of deadly force.....when a person is rude and inconsiderate to them.

Yet the media does not care about the courtesy aspect.

Only that guns are bad.......and people are nuts.....

That's sexier than talking about behaving yourself. Respecting others. Communication skills. Being a good person. Turning the other cheek.

We will always have shootings...and nutty people.

No matter what.

It's the definition of insanity you know....

What has the media got to do with this man's (a former policeman no less, trained professional ect ect, no some cracked up ice-hole) decision to shoot and kill another man?

Absolutely nothing. I only read the LA Times online most days, plus NY Post for laughs. I've seen scant to moderate coverage of this story.

It's just another one of the endless series of gun murder stories coming out of the U.S. that makes us look positively insane to the rest of the world.

And it has zip/nada to do with common courtesy or modern manners. There have been rude people since the dawn of time. The only thing notable about this event is that one party had a gun and he chose to use it to kill the other guy.

If he had not had a gun and chose to use it, we'd have one guy covered in popcorn and another one ejected from the theater. Probably 86'ed for life, who knows?

If the angry old guy had pulled out a cell phone instead of a gun and called 911, he might have been able to get the other guy arrested for assault, though it would have been assaulted and buttered popcorn which is only a misdemeanor in Fla.

Exactly.

No mention at all.

Not surprising.

You need to be clearer Baz.

I read about it another country on the (electronic) front age of my usual paper. The story read exactly as Speeder described- just another crazy shooting murder in the USA. As opposed to, say a suicidal mass shooter or a mundane crime/drug shooting- what made this newsworthy I suspect is the insane triviality involved, and the fact that the antagonists were two otherwise normal people doing a completely normal thing.

Stuart.....the media is a powerful tool that could be used for the greater good, IMHO.

If an editorial comes out which discusses how a human being should treat another human being in a way that does not incite friction - I think that would be useful.

Some folks in society already know how to be courteous - because it's how they were brought up. How to handle themselves when confronted by angry, rude, or unreasonable persons.

Others could use some help.

That's all I am saying.

It will not prevent all killings but it could help prevent some.

Guns don't kill people....people kill people.

They do it for reasons.

Road rage doesn't just happen.

It happens for a reason.

Common courtesy can go a long way to resolve conflicts in society.

I respect if others do not agree with me - my opinion is just that - my opinion.

I could not agree more, Stuart. Short of being in real, honest, justifiable fear of his life, there can be no excuse. None.

I initially gave the old cop the benefit of the doubt, thinking an old cop could not possibly be this stupid, callous, or both. I was wrong. By all witness accounts, that's exactly what he is.

As I'm sure you know, I particularly cherish our right to keep and bear arms. As such, I find it particularly troubling to see someone go so far out of bounds and take an innocent life while exercising this right. Aside from my feelings of condolence for the poor guy's wife and family, who will now forever be deprived of their husband and father (and I feel absolutely horrible for them), a secondary but very strong concern for me is how these senseless killings may ultimately affect our rights.

It's no secret that there is a battle raging over those rights. Those who would deprive us of those rights have a proven track record of rather unemotionally exploiting these cases (feelings of the deceased's family be damned, we need to give this legs). Their position is every bit as disingenuous as banning driving for every tragic car wreck, but that won't keep them from wringing this out for all it is worth. Never mind that good people actually defend themselves and their families when a real need arrises on countless occasions every year - one tragedy like this justifies, to them, the removal of all firearms from our society.

Oh well. I hope they fry this guy. Something tells me, though, being an ex-cop is going to prove to be a factor in this. I bet he walks.

He might be healthier in jail tbh.

There's no waiting going on here.

I had a pretty good hunch you wouldn't even try to respond substantively.

I've seen your type all too often. Bloviation with no substantiation.

It's quite clear who is tap dancing, and it's you.

You wanted to attack me, so you made an assertion, but it's one you can't back up with evidence in a reasoned manner.

I called you on it, and you didn't like that.

You have made... what... how many replies (guessing 8 or so), now trying to weasel out of it by asking me questions having nothing to do with your assertions?

And you lamely continue your farcical pursuit by falsely claiming I'm the one who's tap dancing?

So, I called you out for attempting to use deflection, and you don't like that either.

If it wasn't so pathetic, it would be funny.

Either way, you should remember that in order to be taken seriously, you need to back up your claims.

I'm guessing you're not used to being taken seriously by thinking adults with whom you disagree.

If you even tried, it would be a start.

I'm guessing you're not gonna make the effort. :cool: ;)

Yep, no one has yet said he should have been shot for texting.

As to your second point, did you mean to say...

I also think pointing out that the poor guy who got shot could have made better decisions is not in any way vindicating the old guy who was doing the shooting.

Because if that is what you meant, that is also a valid point based on what has been posted here.

It is a point that seems to be lost on those who continue to try to focus only on the shooter's actions, etc. as the cause of what happened.

Oh, yes. They definitely can.

Or at least, that's what you'd be led to believe by what some have posted in this very long, repetitive (circling?) thread.

Thank you for your very thoughtful and reasoned posts here, Baz... you're a much-appreciated voice for common courtesy... and the fact that texting dude's complete lack of it contributed heavily to the escalation and his death.

Oh no... I hope not, Paul.

The gun control or gun grabber peeps who have posted here have shown themselves out so clearly, and it's very instructive.

They supplied their own rope and... well, you know.

It's good to see irrational, unreasoned anarchists in all their glory from time to time.

Many of these peeps are still rebelling against their parents... and/or holding Che Guevara, Cesar Chavez, and/or others like Saul Alinsky or (anarchist of choice) in high regard and just want guns gone.

So transparent.

I hope it's not closed. Moved, maybe... if it is deemed appropriate... but not closed.

That would be covering up evidence.

:D:D:D

The discussion... for some of you guys is whether or not this lack of courtesy, for whatever reason he decided he would would be discourteous, even contributed his death.

Y'all are easily perceived as giving texter dude martyr status. Y'all seem to be unwilling to consider the fact that he contributed heavily to the outcome.

According to at least one report linked or quoted fairly early in this thread IIRC, he was not ignored by management.

He was told by a staff member that the manager or person he wanted was busy with someone else.

It's not a stretch to assume that the person he did talk to said the manager would come into the theatre when he finished with the other person.

If not, the person he did speak to would have probably gone back to his seat with him.

So he went back to his seat instead of waiting in the lobby, hallway, etc. so as not to miss any more of the trailers (or the beginning of the movie).

More fresh air by way of conciseness. Thanks, Finny. ;):D

Exactly. I posted basically that several pages back.

The hearer's receptivity to being asked to turn her phone off is very important to the "whole story."

A story we'll never know fully.

In either her story nor Oulson's story.