FL Retired cop, shoots texting wanker

[Heel n Toe]

Originally Posted by EMJ

I'll say it. That's exactly what he did. Pestering the texter three times to stop texting was most definitely "starting things." The previews were on.

More fantasy.

You can say it, but it's pure BS.

But by all means, keep saying it... it's hilarious.

[foxpaws]

Originally Posted by Heel n Toe

Wrong, old guy's wife was with him. Nowhere has it been stated that she left her seat when he went to get management.

It certainly could have appeared that the older gentleman left, did the texter know that the older gentleman had his wife with him - the older gentleman was sitting behind the texter - how do you know that the texter had that additional knowledge available to him - you don't.

This is an EXCELLENT example of "debating without having read the whole thread or the links contained therein." You're making points that fall flat because they're based on a faulty premise.

I could say the same about you, don't get so all 'judgmental' here - this is all based on a very tiny amount of knowledge -

Just like the people who continue to assert that the old man began the verbal confrontation when he came back to his seat.

I don't think the older man did, from reports -

I realize this is mere speculation, but perhaps the old man's experience had been that many/most texters... especially those who don't respond with civility to being asked... yes, asked... that word has been in quoted or linked news reports here also, I believe... those texters many times don't turn their phones off after the feature begins (or after the trailers begin).

You don't kill someone because you assume they may continue texting, plus, if this is the case, that the older man thought that the texter might have continued texting - then why not move (as I stated before, he was a cop - they certainly tell everyone else not to return to confrontation situations, why would the older gentlemen return and risk confrontation when there was absolutely no need to, again - this is a stupid movie). There was plenty of space in the theater - why remain and be annoyed.

Don't be so focused on "believing" there is a trend to place equal blame on both.

Just admit that from what we know at this point, the texter could have easily defused the whole situation by not acting like an azzhat to begin with.

Here you go again - appear to place blame again - equally - are you not? You use rather descriptive words to really place the texter in a poor light, however, you haven use any such picturesque language with regards to the older gentleman. In fact, I dont believe I have seen any of the perceived 'equal blame' camp use such colorful language to describe the older gentlemen, however often they use similar words to azzhat to describe the texter (the camp that places more of the blame on the older gentleman however certainly uses some interesting descriptors).

Also, please stop saying the old man should have just moved (implied: because that's what you would have done).

He did what he thought best. He stood up to a bully, the bully assaulted him, and he had to think of himself and his wife regarding his response.

He should have moved, his background as a police officer, with the knowledge that is used in that particular profession gives him double reason to move. Not only is it commonsense, why even flirt with confrontation when you know that you hate texting, and that there is a chance that the guy texting in front of you will be continuing to text during the feature film, and as a police officer the standard reply is just remove yourself from the situation, he knew that was the 'good advice' in this situation.

Again, you appear to place equal blame on both parties, while 'justifying' the escalation of a rather common disagreement to killing someone. Someone throws popcorn during a heated argument and the correct response is to shoot him? I find that incredibly hard to fathom that anyone would considered that a reasoned response.

[EMJ]

Originally Posted by Heel n Toe

The old man started this by asking texter dude to turn off his phone?

The day that you can't ask someone to turn off their phone in a theatre without it legitimately being called "starting an incident," will never come.

Again... fantasy lives inside some of the heads here.

Yes, pestering him multiple times was unnecessary. Most people would be annoyed and not comply, especially when the old guy was probably a major doosh about it.

[sammyg2]

The guy did not get shot because he was texting. he got shot because he physically attacked an old man.
To those that get it, good.


To those that don't get it or refuse to admit the truth because it makes the voices angrry, seek professional help.

[URY914]

It would seem that up until the point that Gramps pulled the trigger, he had done everything correctly.

The hot head (he's friends term not mine) texter ramped it up.

Did he deserve to die? Of course not, but he is not blameless here.

[Heel n Toe]

Wow, Foxy... you are going in circles again.

I may get back to your "points" and address them later, at some point, but... yikes, that stuff you just posted is... uh...

Quoted for posterity, nonetheless...

Originally Posted by foxpaws

It certainly could have appeared that the older gentleman left, did the texter know that the older gentleman had his wife with him - the older gentleman was sitting behind the texter - how do you know that the texter had that additional knowledge available to him - you don't.

I could say the same about you, don't get so all 'judgmental' here - this is all based on a very tiny amount of knowledge -

I don't think the older man did, from reports -


You don't kill someone because you assume they may continue texting, plus, if this is the case, that the older man thought that the texter might have continued texting - then why not move (as I stated before, he was a cop - they certainly tell everyone else not to return to confrontation situations, why would the older gentlemen return and risk confrontation when there was absolutely no need to, again - this is a stupid movie). There was plenty of space in the theater - why remain and be annoyed.



Here you go again - appear to place blame again - equally - are you not? You use rather descriptive words to really place the texter in a poor light, however, you haven use any such picturesque language with regards to the older gentleman. In fact, I dont believe I have seen any of the perceived 'equal blame' camp use such colorful language to describe the older gentlemen, however often they use similar words to azzhat to describe the texter (the camp that places more of the blame on the older gentleman however certainly uses some interesting descriptors).


He should have moved, his background as a police officer, with the knowledge that is used in that particular profession gives him double reason to move. Not only is it commonsense, why even flirt with confrontation when you know that you hate texting, and that there is a chance that the guy texting in front of you will be continuing to text during the feature film, and as a police officer the standard reply is just remove yourself from the situation, he knew that was the 'good advice' in this situation.

Again, you appear to place equal blame on both parties, while 'justifying' the escalation of a rather common disagreement to killing someone. Someone throws popcorn during a heated argument and the correct response is to shoot him? I find that incredibly hard to fathom that anyone would considered that a reasoned response.

[fintstone]

You guys keep making statements that the fellow was shot because he was texting or because he threw popcorn or because the old dude was mad. Why don't you stick to the facts as we know them. The old guy is the only one who knows why he chose the path he did...and has testified that it was because he was struck by an unknown object and was afraid. Unless he has admitted something else to you...that he knew it was only a box of popcorn or that he was really not afraid of the younger man who aggressively jumped up, confronted him and and was being restrained by his wife...then you are speculating.

[VaSteve]

That guy had every right to be in the theater. His dad's girlfriend lived there. Never mind that he was on school suspension.

The other guy disobeyed a lawful instruction from a $10/hr theatre manager to return to his car. These people always get away with it.

Oh, wait.



The only reason we're talking about this is because they are white and one is an ex cop CCWing. People get capped in the hood all the time for less confrontational reasons. That said, I dare anyone to grab a box of popcorn and throw it at someone in the hood and report back how it went down. I'm not sure I have a point.

[AFC-911]

Originally Posted by foxpaws

Again, you appear to place equal blame on both parties, while 'justifying' the escalation of a rather common disagreement to killing someone. Someone throws popcorn during a heated argument and the correct response is to shoot him? I find that incredibly hard to fathom that anyone would considered that a reasoned response.

How many here would act like a little ***** and start throwing popcorn over someone asking them to put their phone away?

It's hard to fathom anyone would consider that action from a reasonable adult.

[Jim Richards]

Who said that is reasonable? No one that I can tell. But does it warrant the "death penalty?" Now that's unreasonable.

[ossiblue]

Originally Posted by scottmandue

The shooter was 100% wrong and this is a tragedy.

I read the article way back when this whole mess started... tried to pull it up to get my facts straight but it won't open right now.

A) "Why didn't either of them move to avoid the confrontation?" Popcorn guy was there with his wife, I think it said the cop was there with someone else too.
This is silly I know but sounds like we had two alpha males butting heads, to move would be to lose face with the others there.

B) When the cop got back from complaining... popcorn guy asked if he had complained to management (what is this high school? Did you tattle to the teacher?)... no doubt words were exchanged... then popcorn flew... then bang.

People get killed for stupid things every day, getting cut off on the freeway, steeling a parking spot, grabbing the last microwave on sale on black Friday... it is all senseless and stupid... just like getting shot for texting during the previews.

This thread is rampant with speculation and "what if's" that do nothing to move the discussion forward because there seems to be a need to blame one participant over the other or to, at least, get inside the head of the shooter to understand his justification--which is not the same as defending the actions of the shooter.

In the attempt to understand the shooter, the term "assault" has been thrown around like the ubiquitous popcorn in the theater. Because someone verbally treads upon your sensibilities does not constitute criminal assault which is the only form of assault that has bearing in this case.

From the Florida Statute: An "assault" is an intentional, unlawful threat by word or act to do violence to the person of another, coupled with an apparent ability to do so, and doing some act which creates a well-founded fear in such other person that such violence is imminent.

You may feel assaulted by someone yelling and calling you names, but it does not constitute criminal assaut.From the information released so far, absolutely no criminal assault occurred. Unless the victim made an intentional unlawful threat to do violence, there is no criminal assault.

What no one here knows are the actual words exchanged between the two, and those exchanges will be key. It is possible that there was a verbal threat made, but we don't know and we don't know which participant may have made it. The shooter has to show a "well founded fear" that violence was imminent to justify his actions. Throwing popcorn could conceivably be seen as a precursor to imminent danger if it was preceded by a true verbal assault. Again, to date there is no information that there was a threat of violence.

Given what is known, it comes down to the bold part of the above quote, IMO. Both participants made choices that escalated the conflict and it's ridiculous to continually spin out and argue scenarios detailing what each should/could have done. It does nothing to advance understanding of what did happen.

[LakeCleElum]

Originally Posted by Heel n Toe

Wow, Foxy... you are going in circles again. .

I think we have 25 pages of "Going in circles here".....Also very sad, there was a shooting during a movie in my town over 10 years ago. This is no different than a traffic dispute that gets out of hand.......Happens every day somewhere.

[Heel n Toe]

Originally Posted by sammyg2

The guy did not get shot because he was texting. he got shot because he physically attacked an old man.
To those that get it, good.

To those that don't get it or refuse to admit the truth because it makes the voices angrry, seek professional help.

Sometimes, conciseness brings fresh air into the room.

This is one of those times.

Originally Posted by URY914

It would seem that up until the point that Gramps pulled the trigger, he had done everything correctly.

The hot head (he's friends term not mine) texter ramped it up.

Did he deserve to die? Of course not, but he is not blameless here.

More fresh air.

It's like being on vacation in the Carribbean.

To those who want to stay in a dark alley in a bad part of town whining and grumbling, you are invited to wise up and smell the cocoa butter.

[EMJ]

Originally Posted by AFC-911

How many here would act like a little ***** and start throwing popcorn over someone asking them to put their phone away?

The argument got very heated and the popcorn flew. Douche move, yes, but not justified in being murdered over. The "unidentified" object the old man felt hit his head was a buttered up popcorn kernel.

[foxpaws]

Reading all these posts I am struck with something - age 'vision'.

It appears that most people who are under 35 or so feel that the older gentlemen 'went too far' in killing someone for texting. Most of those older than 55 or so seem more often to side with the older gentleman, he was somehow 'justified' in killing this 'azzhat' for throwing popcorn (protecting himself and his wife from some perceived deadly assault).

Who do you think will determine the fate of gun ownership/the 2nd amendment in the future?

[Jim Richards]

Originally Posted by fintstone

You guys keep making statements that the fellow was shot because he was texting or because he threw popcorn or because the old dude was mad. Why don't you stick to the facts as we know them. The old guy is the only one who knows why he chose the path he did...and has testified that it was because he was struck by an unknown object and was afraid. Unless he has admitted something else to you...that he knew it was only a box of popcorn or that he was really not afraid of the younger man who aggressively jumped up, confronted him and and was being restrained by his wife...then you are speculating.

It was a BAG, not a box. Bags of popcorn are soft. I know this. I've been to a theater. The witnesses that have been reported by the press say no physical altercation happened. Just a deadly BAG of popcorn.

This guy is going to die in prison. Count on it.

[70SATMan]

Originally Posted by krichard

Guaranteed if the texter had been the one who shot the old man, the same lot defending the old man would be defending the texter saying he was threatened and within his right to defend himself and his wife. They can't see a situation for what it is, only that there was a gun involved and the one that pulled the trigger must be justified.

Not me...

I guess I don't find popcorn all that threatening.

At that point, I'd have gone back to management and explained the texter's behavior again and demanded he be escorted out.... Loudly. It is their job to enforce their policies to include requesting security or cops.

Next time you get popcorn thrown at you call 911 and see what kind of a reaction you get..and there are those that talk of manliness...

As for those that suggest that the texter should have shut his mouth as to not provoke the crazy old dude, the same could be said of the ex cop who should have years of experience and wisdom to temper his judgement. I hold him to a higher standard of conduct.

There is a time and a place to stand up to rule breakers I agree but, if I spent my time policing every one I come across I'd be dead already. How about we take this to the "parking space" thread.

There are bigger problems in the world than *****ing at texters at a movie. It's really sad that "old guy" couldn't let it go.

[fintstone]

EMJ
Why do you believe it was a single kernel of popcorn and.not a box?

[Jim Richards]

Originally Posted by foxpaws

Reading all these posts I am struck with something - age 'vision'.

It appears that most people who are under 35 or so feel that the older gentlemen 'went too far' in killing someone for texting. Most of those older than 55 or so seem more often to side with the older gentleman, he was somehow 'justified' in killing this 'azzhat' for throwing popcorn (protecting himself and his wife from some perceived deadly assault).

Who do you think will determine the fate of gun ownership/the 2nd amendment in the future?

I'm over 55 and a multiple-gun owner. I think the old guy should spend the rest of his life behind bars, being Bubba's boy-toy.

[Heel n Toe]

Originally Posted by EMJ

The argument got very heated and the popcorn flew. Douche move, yes, but not justified in being murdered over. The "unidentified" object the old man felt hit his head was a buttered up popcorn kernel.

Awesome. You da man. Circles.