It seems to me that the older man acted appropriately by asking the man to stop and then reporting him when he did not. When the older man returned, he was confronted by the younger man for reporting him. Obviously, the felt threatened and protected himself. Clearly the younger man was the aggressor prior to being shot.

Getting a better picture of what happened:



Police: Texting argument in movie theater sparks fatal shooting - CNN.com

BOTH parties were responsible to some degree. Both violated theater policy and also that of society.

"Popcorn was thrown" + then a gunshot = murder.

Self-defense.

Given the opportunity, I would personally shoot that ex pig dead. And I would feel pretty good about it.

Why? Do you pick fights with old guys at the theater too?

BS. total BS. Dude threw popcorn. Are you old people that frail? does popcorn hurt you old farts?

Maybe you old farts should not go to the talkies anymore.

NO this guy acted like a PIG so he earned the name
only in a PIG's mind does lack of respect for his authority
equal the right to shoot in a crowded place and kill the victim
he murdered the younger man and wounded his wife
he is 100% wrong and acted like a PIG

+ 1 million

Don't go now. Too many noisy, inconsiderate punks.

The shooter has, indeed, been charged with murder two. Most states have a deadly force threshold that reads something to the effect of, "if a reasonable person would conclude that death or grave bodily harm is imminent."

So, if the texter gave the old man a good hit, I wouldn't put is past a jury to acquit him or even for a grand jury to no bill him. Not saying the texter deserved to die, but texting had nothing to do with the grounds for shooting him.

The fact that he wounded the wife and killed the guy with one bullet tells me that she was most likely trying to separate the two men.
Which means they were in physical contact with each other when the old guy pulled his gun.

Was the old guy right or wrong? There will be a court case to answer that question.

The old fart instigated the entire thing. I hope he gets the chair after spending a year locked in a cell with bubba getting beat and raped every day. Since he is an ex cop he will get off. Cops are above the law. Which is why I hope someone shoots him dead.

Carl, Lighten up a little... Three lives have been ruined here. Not just the deceased.

The article didn't specify who threw the popcorn.

From the article:

It is hard to believe that many here is in some form or the other is defending the older guy for shooting and killing a guy for throwing popcorn at his person (or so it appears). I would imaging that the older gentleman could have walked away, easily, without escalating this to a deadly encounter. A movie visit is never, ever worth killing someone over.

I am pretty sure there are no carry laws for the theater - most of them have that sort of restriction, the old man is probably going to be in trouble on many levels -

mreid - how difficult for you - what a terrible loss for your coworker and her and her husband's family, and how senseless.

Pic of the deceased from his FB page...that's the daughter he was texting to?

https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.n...86060804_n.jpg

agreed.

but like any cop, ex or otherwise, he could not de-escalate the situation. cops only ever escalate situations.

I'm not defending anyone, FWIW.

I'm only stating that both parties had responsibilities in the outcome.

Absolutely there were other options available for the shooter.

As there were for the guy texting.

It's not a black and white issue.

It never is....

1) Text guy could have easily said "I'm just checking on my daughter. I'll put my phone away when I'm done" the first time he was asked.

How hard would that have been to say?

A man is entitled to defend himself and his wife...even if he is old.

Looks like the deceased was a pretty big guy.

He does look big but probably really friendly.

I wonder if he extended his hand to the old guy and said "Hi...I'm Chad. I apologize for the inconvenience.....I promise it won't happen again. Can I buy you a box of popcorn for the inconvenience I caused you?"

Who threw the popcorn?

https://scontent-a-mia.xx.fbcdn.net/...93934396_n.jpg

I don't think you understand the mentality here on PPOT, which is that private citizen with a concealed weapon is always justified in shooting another. I can't recall a thread in which the majority of the board has argued contra. The motivation is to support gun ownership and gun owners.

Wow I agree with foxy and cocker on something. alright. Anyways this thread should be titled "Frustrated wrinkly nasty erectile dysfunction'ed old fart murders a person for no apparent reason"

Old people, you are making the case for euthanasia. For real, we will do it. Test us I dare you.

The old man could have just walked away - it doesn't matter how ill mannered someone is, you don't shoot them for it Baz. There may be 2 sides to this story - but no side should of ended up with 'I think the best solution here is taking out my gun and shooting the guy'.

It was reported: The man who had been texting, Chad Oulson, got up and turned to Reeves to ask him if he had gone to tell on him for his texting. Oulson reportedly said, in effect: I was just sending a message to my young daughter. Remember, all this occurred before the movie even started.

So basically, just to sum up what is going on here, no one knows the facts. The articles do not seem to know the facts. The reporting appears, to me, to be questionable and inciteful. Some people have violent opinions about this.


I feel for all parties. If someone started becoming aggressive towards me, stated they were going to harm me, had the apparent ability to carry out that harm, and had proximity to commit the act then I would act accordingly. If someone threw popcorn at me I would react to a childish act as such.


There are no facts on the table to make an informed decision on who acted correctly and who overreacted.


What I do see is an outpouring of idiocy. I see people throwing stones at each other. I never understood the opinion: I am enlightened, I accept others for what they are, I accept others can be different from me, You must be more like me, You do not deserve to live because you have a belief that differs from mine and I believe your beliefs do not have a basis in the society to which I belong. Entitled/Progressive/Regressive it is all the same to me.


And is this what a PARF discussion looks like? Sure feels that way...

There are thousands, (maybe millions), of cases of murder that started out as an argument or minor scuffle until one of the parties pulls out a gun or knife and murders the other. It's actually the definition of second degree murder. Only first degree supposes that there was no provocation or dispute that led up to the killing.

From the sounds of it, this one has nothing to do with concealed carry laws, "stand your ground", the fact that he was once a cop, etc. He will argue self-defense, as all second degree murderers do if they are caught red-handed, because it's the only possible defense for shooting and killing someone, (generally speaking).

This is a classic Murder2 case. Started as an argument, tempers flared and someone pulled out a gun and shot the other dead.

Also, let's see the photo of the killer. Why fintstone assumes that he's "frail" just because he's 71, I don't know. Sounds like a form of ageism. I know 70 year olds who are extremely robust. :cool:

I agree that no one should have been shot...

BUT the text guy did nothing to diffuse the situation until it was too late.

mreid- Very sorry to hear. When a tragedy like this happens and connected in some way, it hits home.

I can't believe some of the responses from fellow pelicans here. Respectful comments or not, I don't know what else to say but maybe this is not a thread for you to follow.

which, ironically enough, hurts public perception of gun ownership and gun owners.

if they will defend nearly anyone, doing nearly anything, ending in someone getting shot ...

You need some help.

Speeder
It would be a rare case indeed where a person in their 70's wasn't old and frail as compared to a man almost 30 years their junior.

I believe you make an assumption when you declare that the person was shot out of anger rather than self defense. There is nothing to indicate that the older man did not act calmly and rationally throughout most of the situation. It seems likely that the large, much younger man did something to make the older one feel threatened. If you have some sort of evidence to the contrary, please present it.

Without all the facts, I'm not defending the ex-cop or the victim(s). Don't know if the ex-cop was attacked and don't know if the ex-cop was psychotic.

The victim: More importantly, someone was killed... perhaps a father, brother, son, kind hearted fellow. He could have also been a thug, bad guy, bully, jerk. Is it relevant and why he should have been killed?

The ex-cop: Like all of the above, but he's alive. Supposedly he's a Nam Vet and out of it has a different degree of temperament, accustomed to death and or killings, or pent up for whatever reasons and didn't take much to tick him off. If so, this guy needed help.

I hadn't looked up the law in FL, but is there an exemption for an ex-cop to carry in a theater? Regardless, doesn't FL law require ALL, including retired cops be checked for mental stability before permitting any gun ownership?

^ I thought the Nam Vet was just a witness?

I'm not a gun owner, but I do realize there's two sides to this story besides what the sensationalist headlines would have you believe.

Ah, you're right, Nam Vet was a witness. Thanks.

Pretty sure retired cops can carry nationwide sans permit. A no guns sign in a movie theatre does not have the force of law. It just means you can get cited for trespassing if you get made, are asked to leave and then refuse. But then you can get a trespassing cite for the same even if not carrying. Signs mean nothing.