FL Retired cop, shoots texting wanker

[Heel n Toe]

Originally Posted by stuartj

No-one has the full story, and to a large extent, it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter how aggrieved the shooter was, it doesn't matter how big an areshole the victim was, it doesn't matter who did what do whom first, it doesn't matter how much popcorn got thrown (seriously?).

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.

Originally Posted by stuartj

The known facts appear to be that a minor dispute over a triviality escalated and some one got shot and killed at the pictures in front of a room full of people.

Appear to be?

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

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

[stuartj]

Originally Posted by Heel n Toe

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.

[fintstone]

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).

[19-911-65]

Originally Posted by fintstone

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"?

[Shaun @ Tru6]

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

[fintstone]

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.

[fintstone]

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

Originally Posted by Shaun 84 Targa

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

[19-911-65]

Originally Posted by fintstone

65
1. At least with a bag if popcorn

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??

[fintstone]

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

[genrex]

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

[Rick Lee]

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.

[foxpaws]

Originally Posted by Heel n Toe

According to at least one report linked or quoted fairly early in this thread IIRC, he was not ignored by management.

He was told by a staff member that the manager or person he wanted was busy with someone else.

It's not a stretch to assume that the person he did talk to said the manager would come into the theatre when he finished with the other person.

If not, the person he did speak to would have probably gone back to his seat with him.

So he went back to his seat instead of waiting in the lobby, hallway, etc. so as not to miss any more of the trailers (or the beginning of the movie).

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.

[foxpaws]

Originally Posted by fintstone

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.

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

[19-911-65]

Originally Posted by fintstone

...if he reasonably believes

"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??

[foxpaws]

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.

[johnsjmc]

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"

[EMJ]

Originally Posted by Heel n Toe

There's no waiting going on here.

I had a pretty good hunch you wouldn't even try to respond substantively.

I've seen your type all too often. Bloviation with no substantiation.

It's quite clear who is tap dancing, and it's you.

You wanted to attack me, so you made an assertion, but it's one you can't back up with evidence in a reasoned manner.

I called you on it, and you didn't like that.

You have made... what... how many replies (guessing 8 or so), now trying to weasel out of it by asking me questions having nothing to do with your assertions?

And you lamely continue your farcical pursuit by falsely claiming I'm the one who's tap dancing?

So, I called you out for attempting to use deflection, and you don't like that either.

If it wasn't so pathetic, it would be funny.

Either way, you should remember that in order to be taken seriously, you need to back up your claims.

I'm guessing you're not used to being taken seriously by thinking adults with whom you disagree.

If you even tried, it would be a start.

I'm guessing you're not gonna make the effort.

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.

[fintstone]

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.

Originally Posted by 19-911-65

"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??

[mreid]

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.

[fintstone]

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

Originally Posted by foxpaws

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