Originally Posted by foxpaws (Post 7861577)

You are taking the word of the older man, and not the word of the witnesses (that we have been privy to). The old guy has reason to further his 'side' of the story (and to lie perhaps) - to foster the SYG defense.

He can say anything, but with eye witnesses that don't cooperate his 'version' in court it will be a difficult sell.

Plus, I would be quite surprised if he took the stand (if it gets to that point), rarely does the defense want to put their client on the stand - especially since it allows a whole lot of other evidence to be presented, usually damaging to their client.

Originally Posted by speeder (Post 7861622)

IMy opinion is that he likes a challenge and therefore enjoys taking the "wrong" side of a debate, which is much more challenging to argue than the "right" side.

Originally Posted by speeder (Post 7861622)

If I may, I don't think that he's related to the shooter or knows him. Fintstone is a guy who just really likes to debate and he's good at it. He has a specific style that is like a boxer who just hammers away at your kidneys and never gives up. He will wear you down.

He also does not result to name-calling or other childish actions like cartoons and colored text. He's cool-headed and even. My opinion is that he likes a challenge and therefore enjoys taking the "wrong" side of a debate, which is much more challenging to argue than the "right" side. If you ever debated in HS, you know that someone always has to take the other side, no matter what the argument. :)

Originally Posted by EMJ (Post 7861408)

This is why those here defending this shooter who was a SWAT member and former police captain have absolutely no clue. No way would this guy fear for his life over popcorn or react in this manner via his training. This guy appears to have reacted in this manner because he was angry.

Originally Posted by speeder (Post 7861571)

Dude, stop trolling.

I'm not trolling. Trolling is when a poster does something with the specific and exclusive motive of getting a rise out of another person.

Therefore, you have assigned the trolling moniker to me incorrectly.

Go back, ( I know you have the time), and visually scan a page or two of this 34 page thread. Even though the subject matter touches several "hot button" issues, there is a refreshing lack of name-calling and bickering. Not to mention emoticon abuse and large font/multi-colored text plus cartoons and ultra-repetitive memes.

Except for you.

I use these methods for emphasis and to make points. If it's something you dislike and/or disagree with, feel free to b*tch about it. It won't bother me nor stop me.

It's textbook internet trolling. It could be in a textbook someday when people are studying antisocial behavior in the early internet age. You cannot bear to see a group of people having a reasonably civil, (though long-winded), discussion so you have to take a dump in the middle of the room and start jumping up and down while screaming and pulling your hair.

That's your erroneous way of mischaracterizing me, apparently in an attempt to justify this self-righteous "scolding." If you knew me personally, you'd never have even the slightest idea that I am the type person who "cannot bear to see a group of people having a reasonably civil, (though long-winded), discussion."

I've seen you do it before, with the cartoons and the endlessly repetitive needling of another poster that you've engaged. Just stop it. If you did something similar in the gravity world, someone would close your mouth for you. But you know that, so you're probably as polite as can be in real life. So you do it here, where nothing bad can happen. Anyone who points it out is simply wrong and about to get a barrage of cartoons ands colored text.

This has nothing really to do with the argument or discussion at hand. It's about being an internet troll. Stop it. :cool:

Your opinion may be that I'm endlessly needling at times, but if I employ a method that looks that way to you and that's all you see it as, you are just seeing it on a limited level through your eyes. Many times, there's another level of emphasis going on... a way of engaging points more forcefully in order to make counterpoints.

Feel free to respond to these things any time you wish.

But I'm not a troll... again, see my explanation above.

And I will continue to respond to anyone I debate with using similar methods if I choose.

Kumbaya, Denis

Originally Posted by speeder (Post 7861622)

If I may, I don't think that he's related to the shooter or knows him. Fintstone is a guy who just really likes to debate and he's good at it. He has a specific style that is like a boxer who just hammers away at your kidneys and never gives up. He will wear you down.

He also does not result to name-calling or other childish actions like cartoons and colored text. He's cool-headed and even. My opinion is that he likes a challenge and therefore enjoys taking the "wrong" side of a debate, which is much more challenging to argue than the "right" side. If you ever debated in HS, you know that someone always has to take the other side, no matter what the argument. :)

Originally Posted by foxpaws (Post 7861140)

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.

Originally Posted by speeder (Post 7861622)

Fintstone is a guy who just really likes to debate ... snip ... My opinion is that he likes a challenge and therefore enjoys taking the "wrong" side of a debate...

Originally Posted by Shaun 84 Targa (Post 7861645)

I almost pointed this out 30 pages ago but I thought, let the man have his fun. And he has, even with an extremely weak argument. He's good at persistence.

Originally Posted by EMJ (Post 7861640)

I was roped in too deep to stop when I noticed this about 20 pages back!:p

Originally Posted by ossiblue (Post 7861644)

I must support Fint here, not that he needs it. Please, read the Florida statues regarding Stand Your Ground and assault (I have posted both.) Both laws require knowing the minds of the participants, not what an outsider considers reasonable. Naturally, the shooter claims he was in fear and, if he doesn't testify, it will be up to his defense to simply show the jury that all the eye-witness testimony and forensics do not show he was not in fear. And what's to corroborate? That the actions of the victim did not instill fear into the shooter, or that a reasonable person would not be in fear under the same circumstances? If it's the former, that is an impossibility as you cannot know what is in another person's mind. If it's the latter, it does not apply to the SYG law. It is a poorly written law and the flaw is showing up, again, in this situation.

Originally Posted by EMJ (Post 7861408)

As you are now. Give it a rest.

I was an NRA and FBI-certified firearms instructor 20-plus years ago when I was a kid. We trained with the FBI, SWAT, the military, and all types of law enforcement personnel. Hitting the bulls eye was part of the training but countless hours were always spent on when it was appropriate to use deadly force. This was beat into our heads. Believe it or not, back then, for most circumstances, it was shoot only when shot at, or when a gun was aimed at your direction in a confrontation. That's right. This is why those here defending this shooter who was a SWAT member and former police captain have absolutely no clue. No way would this guy fear for his life over popcorn or react in this manner via his training. This guy appears to have reacted in this manner because he was angry.

Originally Posted by Baz (Post 7861685)

FP:

My posts have never really been about the criminal case. I'm not concerned about that. Obviously the shooter was wrong in the eyes of the CJS and should be held accountable.

I agree the shooter was predisposed to those who continually (as you noted) violate theater policy regarding the use of cell phones...thus causing him inconvenience.

I get that. I have my own pet peeves about certain behaviour by other human beings that I find deplorable - and contrary to how I was brought up, not to mention just down right ignorant. But that's the hand we as the human race were dealt. Doesn't mean we shoot others on the road - just because they cut you off, drive slowly because they are checking their email (or texting), or flip you the bird. Right?

Why get down in the gutter?

Not having a transcript, we don't know what exact words were exchanged.

So we can only speculate.

I will maintain my opinion that the texter did not go out of his way to be polite - and if you are of a different opinion...or have none - that's OK by me.

;)

Originally Posted by URY914 (Post 7861518)

Originally Posted by fintstone (Post 7861673)

65
The situation was not potentially life threatening when he left his wife alone... Nor was his gun drawn. It became that way after he returned and the irate tester stood up, accosted him, and the struck him. Obviously there were two separate incidents...Separated by his departure and return.

Originally Posted by Baz (Post 7861724)

-- snip -- When you are dealing with humans...errors occur...no matter who they are and what training they receive.

Originally Posted by Shaun 84 Targa (Post 7861726)

if only this thread were texting in a movie theater.

Originally Posted by foxpaws (Post 7861731)

The thing I found objectionable about your posts were you always stated that the texter was the 'impolite' one - when, in fact, we don't know that. It created an 'he deserved it' atmosphere, even if you didn't intend for that to be the case. Your posts were always extremely one sided, and if indeed, you are all about 'fair play,' those posts would have reflected that both sides could have crossed the 'impolite' barrier.

Originally Posted by foxpaws (Post 7859863)

See - this is what I mean - you consistently draw out things the texter could have done to avoid the situation, however, you don't give 'equal' time to ways the older guy could have avoided the situation. It appears that you always 'blame' the texter when you do this. "The texter could have done this or that or maybe something else", while never using this same reasoning for the older man. However, you now have stated that you believe that it wasn't 'equal' but you still just use the texter as the 'only if he had done this' example.

Originally Posted by Baz (Post 7860035)

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?

Originally Posted by fintstone (Post 7861700)

Strange that many of you consider it impossible that an out of shape 71 year old with significant medical problems could not be afraid of a physical altercation with an aggressive, vigorous, much younger man. Is it because he ran a desk as a security guard at Busch Gardens for the last 20 years( yep, rentacops are badassed!)..or sat on his butt as a police captain or detective for the prior 10 years? How many times do you think someone threatened to kick his arse doing either job? Not many I would guess. How many bad guys do you think he has shot? Likely none, since the press has not dug it up. Maybe just a scared old man who got on over his head...never expecting things to escalate.

Originally Posted by foxpaws (Post 7861731)

The thing I found objectionable about your posts were you always stated that the texter was the 'impolite' one - when, in fact, we don't know that. It created an 'he deserved it' atmosphere, even if you didn't intend for that to be the case. Your posts were always extremely one sided, and if indeed, you are all about 'fair play,' those posts would have reflected that both sides could have crossed the 'impolite' barrier.

Originally Posted by Heel n Toe (Post 7861750)

Ugh. Why can't you "hear" Baz?

Below... offered as evidence of continued circling... and Foxy, why is it so difficult to deal with what Baz has been continually trying to say about texter dude's responsibility in this incident? Is it because of the death? Why can't you acknowledge that the texter had a massive part in the cause of the tragedy?

Originally Posted by Shaun 84 Targa (Post 7861726)

if only this thread were texting in a movie theater.

Originally Posted by Heel n Toe (Post 7861750)

Ugh. Why can't you "hear" Baz?

Below... offered as evidence of continued circling... and Foxy, why is it so difficult to deal with what Baz has been continually trying to say about texter dude's responsibility in this incident? Is it because of the death? Why can't you acknowledge that the texter had a massive part in the cause of the tragedy?

Originally Posted by fintstone (Post 7861782)

Fox
I have not seen anything in the news that would imply Mr Reeves is rude..or any accounts of him being rude (other than to politely ask folks to be a bit more considerate. What "priors" do you refer to?

Originally Posted by foxpaws (Post 7861773)

Because even throwing popcorn at someone isn't 'massive'.

Foxy, Baz has been asserting that the texter's part in the incident began with the texting and after being asked to stop... refusing to do so.

Forget the popcorn, please... it looks silly to keep focusing on that. It comes off as failed hyperbole... or at the very least, sidestepping and dissing what Baz has to say about common courtesy.

No one gets shot, dead, for throwing popcorn, no one dies because of being rude. There is no 'responsibility' here - no one gets killed for doing these things, period. Just throwing popcorn isn't a death threat, and we know very, very little of what transpired verbally between these two people, however, it seems that you want to place 'massive' blame on the texter, even if you don't know the facts.

I can 'hear' Baz just fine - it appears he continually states that the texter, because he was impolite, escalated the situation, just as you are, and has the bulk of the responsibility here. First off, we don't know that the shooter wasn't impolite to begin with, that he may have been the 'instigator' of all this. Texting during the previews isn't a criminal offense, nor is it even against the 'rules', and, currently is accepted behavior by most people who go to movies. Add to that we don't know what the ex-cop told the texter initially. Was it 'if you don't put that cell phone away I am going to make you sorry you took it out', did the texter reply with 'Sorry, just finishing up, I'll make sure it doesn't bother you again'. Wow - that would change everything wouldn't it? At that point who has the 'massive' part in the cause of all this? The guy that threatened the other one, the one that left the theater and came back, disgruntled that management was too busy to deal with his all important cell phone matter, and willing to take matters into his own hands?

The whole thing against Baz and now you, is you don't know - you are assuming that the texter was somehow 'first' to the rude starting line. After reading about the 'priors' that this older man has regarding cell phones in theaters, I would certainly say that the older guy has at least a 50/50 chance of being the first to the 'rude' threshold.

Originally Posted by fintstone (Post 7861799)

EMJ
Staring at someone who is/was rudely using their phone in a theater hardly seems rude.

Originally Posted by fintstone (Post 7861642)

Satman
Look at 784.08 where battery is elevated to a felony if on 65 or older....then 784.03 for def of battery.

Originally Posted by fintstone (Post 7861817)

I would do the same...ask them to stop, report them if they did not, and then glare at them until the movie was over unless they made an apology...or at least seemed to regret their bad behavior.

Originally Posted by fintstone (Post 7861661)

Speeder
He is sitting in jail because if Zimmerman case...not in spite of it.
Satman
Sitting down with gun in lap kept him from being shot. The healthcare professionals were the right ones to perform first aid. His demeanor allowed them to approach.

Originally Posted by fintstone (Post 7861751)

65
Why would "accosted" preclude "assaulted". Of course he was assaulted.

Physical condition and age are important...if one is to ascertain if it is reasonable that he would fear an attack from the younger man.

Given the same information, why would he make a different decision? Would the tester?