FL Retired cop, shoots texting wanker

[fintstone]

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

[ossiblue]

Originally Posted by foxpaws

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.

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.

[Shaun @ Tru6]

Originally Posted by speeder

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.

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.

ex-cop will die in prison and no amount of he was afraid for his life, as though a longt-time ex-cop, armed and in a social setting, would ever be afraid or fear for his life, will save him. It just wouldn't happen and everyone knows that. He was experienced, trained, and prepared. nuff said.

[Rusty914s]

I see, you do make some good points and you're right, he does keep a level head without throwing out insults.

Plus...it is entertaining as I sit here trying to work.

This thread is like herpes, nobody wants it but it just keeps on coming back.

Originally Posted by speeder

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.

[fintstone]

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.

[19-911-65]

Originally Posted by EMJ

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.

^^^^^ +100!

The shooter had a chip on his shoulder and was spring loaded in the pissed-off position. "Feared for his life"....BS!

He got up and left (leaving his wife) in a potential life threatening position and then returned into that same life threatening atmosphere...BS!

A lifetime of experience with guns, it doesn't take much to be brave with a concealed loaded gun in a dark/semi-dark room shooting down on an unarmed victim.

He may have feared his ego would be hurt, not his life!

The shooter had 101 different ways to defuse the situation and he chose not to.

He "had to be right"

[Heel n Toe]

..................

Originally Posted by speeder

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.

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

[fintstone]

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.

[KFC911]

Originally Posted by speeder

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.

Finstone is a class act who've I've disagreed with on several occasions over the years in various threads, but he's always had my utmost respect (even when he's wrong ). He reminds me of a fellow I used to work with many years ago...he'd have debated with Big Ben that it was 12 noon all day long just because

[Baz]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[Heel n Toe]

Originally Posted by speeder

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...

Yeah, nice passive-aggressive dig.

Finny is here taking the "wrong" side just because it's a challenge... (your opinion of "wrong").

Originally Posted by Shaun 84 Targa

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.

Shows how blind and biased some people can be if you think his arguments are weak... and another passive-aggressive dig.

Finny's points have been well thought out and substantive and he's attempting to only deal with what we know or have been told or what can be found in the law.

It's others who seem to be throwing out massive amounts of speculation in order to deflect from the salient points he and others are making regarding this incident.

"Someone deserves to die because they threw popcorn???"

Circling... it's not fruitful.

[fintstone]

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.

[Heel n Toe]

Originally Posted by EMJ

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

You roped yourself in when you made a claim (at me) you couldn't back up.

Then you got all defensive when you were called on it.

Funny how that happens, huh?

[foxpaws]

Originally Posted by ossiblue

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.

Did the ex-cop reasonably deduce that the texter was going to do him or others 'great bodily harm' or death. I would image that under these circumstances, along with the witnesses' statements (at least what we have heard to this point) a jury could easily find that there was no 'reasonable' reason to use lethal force. For instance, someone can't kill someone else because they were giving them the 'evil eye' and that caused them to fear for their life - so they shot them (no one would ever go to jail in Florida for murder if this were the case). It has to be a 'reasonable' reason. Is throwing popcorn at someone a reasonable reason - doubtful, if that thrown popcorn was accompanied by 'I'm going to kill you', then that is something 'reasonable'.

I am sure we will find out at some point.

[Baz]

Originally Posted by EMJ

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.

Story in the local news about a female police officer who ran a stop sign - rammed a civilian SUV. No one killed but fact remains all the training she received didn't preclude the incorrect driving technique she exhibited.

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

I see it every day.

[Shaun @ Tru6]

if only this thread were texting in a movie theater.

[foxpaws]

Originally Posted by Baz

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.

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.

[Baz]

Originally Posted by URY914

If he had only just shot him in the back of the head when he saw him texting to begin with. It would have saved us a lot of typing.

That's exactly what I was thinking........

[19-911-65]

Originally Posted by fintstone

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.

Agreed, however the dead guy never "struck" the shooter.

Its good to know you now believe he was "accosted and not assaulted". You still want to support the fact the shooter was a frail old man with one foot in the grave...thats fine by me. He was strong enough to kill a man and that is what this whole discussion is about and that is why the shooter is sitting in jail right now.

Hypothetical:

In the event the shooter could rewind the clock, would he make the exact same choice again?

[EMJ]

Originally Posted by Baz

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

Agree. Especially when anger is clouding their judgment and training. Yes.