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]