Not so. Those aspects of the incident (in blue) matter very much.

They will be the core substance of the trial.

Other details will also be important.

Appear to be?

That is what happened, based on what we now know.

Is any of that (in green) in question in your mind?

Until a version of events is established by a court, what we have is an alleged version of events.

None of that means a thing (events prior to the assault). If the old man was assaulted (felony in FL on a senior) and feared for his safety...he had every right to not only stand his ground but defend himself with deadly force.

As far as I am concerned, he is innocent until proved guilty. That seems difficult unless he said something that implied otherwise (he was not in fear or shot the man to teach him a lesson, etc) or confesses. I, nor any juror can read his mind to ascertain whether the large, fit younger man aggressively jumping up and striking him in a dark theater made him fear for his safety, but in this day and age (knockout game, etc)...I personally would have assumed (once struck) that I should defend myself. I would not have taken the time to evaluate what the stranger was striking me with...but would have probably punched him as forcefully as I could to end it quickly and decisively...as his intent to assault me would have already been established and I would not know if he was armed or not. I am nether unhealthy, nor 71 years old...so I assume the old guy was a bit less confident of his ability to defend himself...and refused to be put at a disadvantage in the dark by a clearly much younger and more vigorous man that was clearly behaving irrationally by assaulting him.

The law is on his side...like it or not. You cannot assault people and expect to always lie down and take it. Sooner or later, every bully encounters someone who will defend them self (even if they look like an easy target).

OK fint...I'll bite: A couple of questions for ya...

1- What did the "large, fit younger man aggressively jumping up" and strike the shooter aka "old guy" with? (Please be explicit with your reply and include a few pasted sites as backup)

2- In your own words is there any difference between "intent to assault" and "assault; did assault; assaulted"?

It's ironic that the pro ex-cop shooter folks are also pro left wing gun control.

65
1. At least with a bag if popcorn ( per several witnesses). The shooter testified that he was stuck with an unknown object.
2. Yes. But he was clearly assaulted. The intent question was really more one of if the attacker intended to commit battery or homicide..or is his much smaller wife could restrain him as it was reported that she was attempting to do.

And some just believe that even ex cops deserve equal protection under the law.

So let me see if I understand your statement(s) correctly:

"...he was clearly assaulted...At least with a bag if popcorn...felony in FL on a senior...he had every right to not only stand his ground but defend himself with deadly force."

Is this what you are saying??

That is the law...if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony...he has no responsibility to retreat and may use deadly force to protect himself.

Assault on a senior citizen is a felony

Assault is an intentional, unlawful threat by word or act to do violence to the person of another

How many dissenting jurors does it take to get a hung jury?

Fint, while that is the law, the key words are "reasonably believes." It's gonna take a super good lawyer and dumb jury to determine there was anything reasonable about using deadly force in a crowded public place for what should been no more than a minor scuffle.

This doesn't make much sense, the manager wouldn't know who made the compliant if the older guy went back to the theater - a vague description maybe, but if you are the manager are you going to go in and question every older looking guy 'are you the one who complained about the texter?'

It is a stretch.

do you have the source where it states the texter's wife was restraining him?

"reasonably"...now that is a good word! Don't cha think he would want reasonable evidence first to form a reasonable conclusion?

None of the other 25 +/- patrons fled
The dead guy didn't leave
The shooter left and came right back in
The shooters wife didn't go anywhere nor the dead guys wife
The two guys sitting a couple of seats away from the dead guy didn't move
The off duty cop in the theater didn't go anywhere
There was no "unknown object" found and presented as evidence

The arresting officer didn't buy it
The DA's office didn't buy it
The Judge didn't buy it
The vast majority of the posters on this thread, including myself didn't buy it

Just you and the shooter pack'n a concealed 38 believe it!...and he is sitting in jail right now (innocent until proven guilty) facing the possibility of life!

Theres going to be a funeral soon over some words and a bag of popcorn.

Does that really sound "reasonable" to you??

Baz - I don't think this was about a lack of good manners - I think the ex-cop had a vendetta from the beginning (two examples of very recent prior behavior) - and no matter how nice the texting guy may have been or not have been (and he may have been really nice in the first encounter, we don't know) this old man was going to not take it any more.

Rick and 911-65 are correct - reasonable is going to really hurt the ex-cop's defense.

Locally here.(I,m in Tarpon Springs Fl. about 15 mi away) The first reports clearly said "the wife put her hand out to shield her husband from the shot" . It makes more sense she was attempting to restrain him the same way I might put my arm out in front of a child in a similar verbal altercation.
I suspect his SWAT experience played a role too.
He wasn,t on the hostage negotiating team instead his experience was with the "Use a sledgehammer to kill a fly team"

You've made a fool of yourself on this thread attacking those who find the shooter's actions disdainful. I don't have to prove or substantiate my opinion because it is an opinion. You went on a troll-like binge for several posts filled with multi- colored text and teenage-like arguments of how the thread was circling. Several posters called you on it. The only one who should be embarrassed here is you. The rest are here debating a horrible incident. Get over yourself and the wanna-be extensive knowledge of what logic and reasoning is. You haven't a clue. If you can reason that the old man was justified in shooting an unarmed man, center mass, for throwing popcorn in a movie theater, killing him, and shot his innocent wife in the process, you have serious issues.

None of that makes any difference to what the shooter believed. Why would going in and out, finding nothing else, others that were not involved not fearing ...have any impact on what this guy believed. If he thought that this guy standing up, raising his voice, then hitting him with something while being restrained by another person meant that he (old guy) was about to get his arse kicked? Seems like a logical sequence of events to me.

Cops, DA, Judge, etc. really had no choice politically..did not want to be "Trayvon Martined" by the press.

Don't you find it interesting that he walked past hundreds of empty seats to get the manager and then walked past them again to return to his confrontation?

He could have easily taken another seat and avoided the entire situation. Now, due to his behavior, the lives of many including is own are ruined.

As I said, much more to this story will come out.

Not with me, but it was reported as such.[QUOTE]

Guess he wanted to sit with his wife. That does not really seem all that odd to me. Who would have thought he would be attacked?

Dude is going to get the chair. Thats how we deal with people like this.

Again - source on restraining - no excuses - source?

Plus, you do have to remember they were in different rows in the theater with stadium seating and high back seats - the texter, on the lower level, would have had to leap over really high seats and onto an upper level to 'reasonably' get to the older guy.

This isn't about 'reasonably fearing for your life'.

This was assumed by the media...no witnesses were quoted. Chances are slim that she was quick enought to reach around her husband and catch a bullet. She was restraining him...because he was acting like a fool.

I have never seen theater seats where a tall man (standing) could not strike another in the next row. Otherwise, people in the next row would not be able to see the screen around the seat back.

Hmmm. We'd need a medical report on which way the bullet went through her hand.

But again, this whole thing is stupid.

Speeder is right, it is a blatant attempt by our media to make the US look stupid.

Un-subscribing.

Ridiculous. "The media" didnt shoot someone over a triviality. The media did what the media does. Its just a local news story.

If the US looks ridiculous- (youre suggestion) ...well, you work it out.

Fint, honestly, you really feel that the shooter had no recourse but to defend himself with deadly force? Seriously? I don't care to convert you but I'm genuinely interested. If you think legally he was within bounds, okay. But morally, he had no other recourse? How about pulling out the gun and telling the texter to stop what he's doing? That would've ended it, no? There would be consequences, yes, but at least he would be safe, if indeed his "safety" was his concern. He didn't do that, he pulled his weapon and fired.

This will be one of those things that will come out at some point.

Did the bullet pass through the back of her hand and exit palm or the other way around?

The former would certainly be a strong indicator for restraint, the later could go either way.

Also her position, if she were standing to husbands left and took the bullet through the back of her left hand her body is turned and that would most definitely be restraint.

So many little details make such a huge difference in what we as yet don't know.

Woops, James already covered that.

Again - source on the restraining? She could have seen the weapon pulled and was pushing her husband down away from the weapon, there are many, many reasons for her hand to be in the position it was.

I certainly have been in many theaters which have stadium seating where a tall man standing in one row isn't going to be able to strike an almost equally tall man in the row behind him with any force at all. The idea is to get over 18" of height difference between the seat levels, as well as decent leg room, I think that goes against 'reasonable' if the older guy felt threatened at all. The things that are working against this 'ex-cop' is his past history as a decorated police officer, witnesses, prior behavior, and physical location, all which point against the 'reasonable' part of the equation.

The shooter was there with his wife as well and behaving like this?

I really want to hear this more information since some people seem to think they know it all and were there.

Does anyone have a diagram of the theater? I have heard they were in the back rows. Behind everyone else.

Fox...I don't believe any witnesses have been quoted either way.,.but I know for sure "The Daily Beast " and lots of other websites have reported it...much as the responding LE stated their belief. Personally, I don't believe the woman was fast enough to teach around her husband and catch a bullet. That only happens in movies like the Matrix...so I tend to believe the latter until someone testifies.

I don't think she was trying to catch the bullet - I think she was pushing him down and away from the muzzle of a .38 - just as reasonable as the restraint.

Again - you don't really have any source on restraint - just some speculation from the 'Daily Beast' (tell me you don't get any real information from the 'Beast').

No excuses for either of these stupid people ending their stupid lives, BUT, everytime I have seen people who are argumentative the wives/girlfriends are usually tying to ease the situation. Not stick their hands in front of a real gun, Daffy Duck style.

Again, dark theater. The dude that got shot didn't even know he got shot. Maybe didn't see the gun.

Off topic but I thought the US wasn't using the electric chair for executions anymore.

Am I wrong?

The chair is not used. He is not even close to a crime that would call for execution. That is for first degree murder and no one thinks that is the case.

Don't know about all of the US, but the state of FL hasn't been using "Old Sparky" for years. On a related note, I saw the headline where a condemned man gasped for 10 minutes while dying...that's bs imo. Got no problem with capital punishment (NOT in this case for a 2nd degree), but it does need to be done properly...

I agree. This is definitely not a premeditated crime.

To be fair, you were also a part of that endless argument that went round and round.

He only had to think the younger man was about to hit him and potentially seriously injure him. Seems reasonable to feel that way based on what we know now. Personally, I assume he thought that was the case...and consider him innocent until proved otherwise. If he pulled out a gun and threatened the other man, he would have been breaking the law and went to jail. You don't pull the weapon until you feel it is necessary to shoot it.