Guess he wanted to sit with his wife. That does not really seem all that odd to me. Who would have thought he would be attacked?

Dude is going to get the chair. Thats how we deal with people like this.

Again - source on restraining - no excuses - source?

Plus, you do have to remember they were in different rows in the theater with stadium seating and high back seats - the texter, on the lower level, would have had to leap over really high seats and onto an upper level to 'reasonably' get to the older guy.

This isn't about 'reasonably fearing for your life'.

This was assumed by the media...no witnesses were quoted. Chances are slim that she was quick enought to reach around her husband and catch a bullet. She was restraining him...because he was acting like a fool.

I have never seen theater seats where a tall man (standing) could not strike another in the next row. Otherwise, people in the next row would not be able to see the screen around the seat back.

Hmmm. We'd need a medical report on which way the bullet went through her hand.

But again, this whole thing is stupid.

Speeder is right, it is a blatant attempt by our media to make the US look stupid.

Un-subscribing.

Ridiculous. "The media" didnt shoot someone over a triviality. The media did what the media does. Its just a local news story.

If the US looks ridiculous- (youre suggestion) ...well, you work it out.

Fint, honestly, you really feel that the shooter had no recourse but to defend himself with deadly force? Seriously? I don't care to convert you but I'm genuinely interested. If you think legally he was within bounds, okay. But morally, he had no other recourse? How about pulling out the gun and telling the texter to stop what he's doing? That would've ended it, no? There would be consequences, yes, but at least he would be safe, if indeed his "safety" was his concern. He didn't do that, he pulled his weapon and fired.

This will be one of those things that will come out at some point.

Did the bullet pass through the back of her hand and exit palm or the other way around?

The former would certainly be a strong indicator for restraint, the later could go either way.

Also her position, if she were standing to husbands left and took the bullet through the back of her left hand her body is turned and that would most definitely be restraint.

So many little details make such a huge difference in what we as yet don't know.

Woops, James already covered that.

Again - source on the restraining? She could have seen the weapon pulled and was pushing her husband down away from the weapon, there are many, many reasons for her hand to be in the position it was.

I certainly have been in many theaters which have stadium seating where a tall man standing in one row isn't going to be able to strike an almost equally tall man in the row behind him with any force at all. The idea is to get over 18" of height difference between the seat levels, as well as decent leg room, I think that goes against 'reasonable' if the older guy felt threatened at all. The things that are working against this 'ex-cop' is his past history as a decorated police officer, witnesses, prior behavior, and physical location, all which point against the 'reasonable' part of the equation.

The shooter was there with his wife as well and behaving like this?

I really want to hear this more information since some people seem to think they know it all and were there.

Does anyone have a diagram of the theater? I have heard they were in the back rows. Behind everyone else.

Fox...I don't believe any witnesses have been quoted either way.,.but I know for sure "The Daily Beast " and lots of other websites have reported it...much as the responding LE stated their belief. Personally, I don't believe the woman was fast enough to teach around her husband and catch a bullet. That only happens in movies like the Matrix...so I tend to believe the latter until someone testifies.

I don't think she was trying to catch the bullet - I think she was pushing him down and away from the muzzle of a .38 - just as reasonable as the restraint.

Again - you don't really have any source on restraint - just some speculation from the 'Daily Beast' (tell me you don't get any real information from the 'Beast').

No excuses for either of these stupid people ending their stupid lives, BUT, everytime I have seen people who are argumentative the wives/girlfriends are usually tying to ease the situation. Not stick their hands in front of a real gun, Daffy Duck style.

Again, dark theater. The dude that got shot didn't even know he got shot. Maybe didn't see the gun.

Off topic but I thought the US wasn't using the electric chair for executions anymore.

Am I wrong?

The chair is not used. He is not even close to a crime that would call for execution. That is for first degree murder and no one thinks that is the case.

Don't know about all of the US, but the state of FL hasn't been using "Old Sparky" for years. On a related note, I saw the headline where a condemned man gasped for 10 minutes while dying...that's bs imo. Got no problem with capital punishment (NOT in this case for a 2nd degree), but it does need to be done properly...

I agree. This is definitely not a premeditated crime.

To be fair, you were also a part of that endless argument that went round and round.

He only had to think the younger man was about to hit him and potentially seriously injure him. Seems reasonable to feel that way based on what we know now. Personally, I assume he thought that was the case...and consider him innocent until proved otherwise. If he pulled out a gun and threatened the other man, he would have been breaking the law and went to jail. You don't pull the weapon until you feel it is necessary to shoot it.