FL Retired cop, shoots texting wanker

[KFC911]

Originally Posted by Shaun 84 Targa

if only this thread were texting in a movie theater.

Are you dense or just lack reading comprehension?























This thread needs to throw some popcorn

[Heel n Toe]

Originally Posted by foxpaws

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.

Ugh. Why can't you "hear" Baz?

Below... offered as evidence of continued circling... and Foxy, why is it so difficult to deal with what Baz has been continually trying to say about texter dude's responsibility in this incident? Is it because of the death? Why can't you acknowledge that the texter had a massive part in the cause of the tragedy?

Originally Posted by foxpaws

See - this is what I mean - you consistently draw out things the texter could have done to avoid the situation, however, you don't give 'equal' time to ways the older guy could have avoided the situation. It appears that you always 'blame' the texter when you do this. "The texter could have done this or that or maybe something else", while never using this same reasoning for the older man. However, you now have stated that you believe that it wasn't 'equal' but you still just use the texter as the 'only if he had done this' example.

Originally Posted by Baz

Correct - I have mentioned on several occasions that the texter could have avoided a confrontation in the first place had he extended the shooter a little common courtesy.

There I said it again.

I think it's important to stress how not extending common courtesy to fellow humans - is all too often the cause of deaths in our society

Aside from this situation - how about all the road rage incidents....resulted in a deaths.

Mostly because of the "me first" personality.

Does not the common courtesy portion of this story deserve mention?

If we do not discuss it.....what does that say about preventing future deaths due to certain personalities who are prone to violence?

Can anyone disagree with anything I just wrote above?

[fintstone]

65
Why would "accosted" preclude "assaulted". Of course he was assaulted.

Physical condition and age are important...if one is to ascertain if it is reasonable that he would fear an attack from the younger man.

Given the same information, why would he make a different decision? Would the tester?

[EMJ]

Originally Posted by 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.

Fin, I think we're on to you.

[Baz]

Originally Posted by foxpaws

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.

Sorry I only have so much time to post, FP. I'm usually just home getting a cup of soup before heading back out. Have to stand up for etiquette where I can, you know.

I can only type about what I feel the most strongly about.

It may not appear to be "fair play" but what in life is?

Maybe when a transcript becomes available we can continue this discussion.

Thanks for your reply and thoughts...

[Baz]

Originally Posted by Heel n Toe

Ugh. Why can't you "hear" Baz?

Below... offered as evidence of continued circling... and Foxy, why is it so difficult to deal with what Baz has been continually trying to say about texter dude's responsibility in this incident? Is it because of the death? Why can't you acknowledge that the texter had a massive part in the cause of the tragedy?

Thanks John - enjoy your cogent postings as well!

I have no agenda - except to always champion the concept of common courtesy.

[Heel n Toe]

Originally Posted by Shaun 84 Targa

if only this thread were texting in a movie theater.

I would like to speculate that perhaps someone could, in fact, be participating in this thread by texting in a movie theatre.

If such is the case, I find your behavior reprehensible, inconsiderate, and inflammatory.

[foxpaws]

Originally Posted by Heel n Toe

Ugh. Why can't you "hear" Baz?

Below... offered as evidence of continued circling... and Foxy, why is it so difficult to deal with what Baz has been continually trying to say about texter dude's responsibility in this incident? Is it because of the death? Why can't you acknowledge that the texter had a massive part in the cause of the tragedy?

Because even throwing popcorn at someone isn't 'massive'. No one gets shot, dead, for throwing popcorn, no one dies because of being rude. There is no 'responsibility' here - no one gets killed for doing these things, period. Just throwing popcorn isn't a death threat, and we know very, very little of what transpired verbally between these two people, however, it seems that you want to place 'massive' blame on the texter, even if you don't know the facts.

I can 'hear' Baz just fine - it appears he continually states that the texter, because he was impolite, escalated the situation, just as you are, and has the bulk of the responsibility here. First off, we don't know that the shooter wasn't impolite to begin with, that he may have been the 'instigator' of all this. Texting during the previews isn't a criminal offense, nor is it even against the 'rules', and, currently is accepted behavior by most people who go to movies. Add to that we don't know what the ex-cop told the texter initially. Was it 'if you don't put that cell phone away I am going to make you sorry you took it out', did the texter reply with 'Sorry, just finishing up, I'll make sure it doesn't bother you again'. Wow - that would change everything wouldn't it? At that point who has the 'massive' part in the cause of all this? The guy that threatened the other one, the one that left the theater and came back, disgruntled that management was too busy to deal with his all important cell phone matter, and willing to take matters into his own hands?

The whole thing against Baz and now you, is you don't know - you are assuming that the texter was somehow 'first' to the rude starting line. After reading about the 'priors' that this older man has regarding cell phones in theaters, I would certainly say that the older guy has at least a 50/50 chance of being the first to the 'rude' threshold.

[fintstone]

Fox
I have not seen anything in the news that would imply Mr Reeves is rude..or any accounts of him being rude (other than to politely ask folks to be a bit more considerate. What "priors" do you refer to?

[EMJ]

Originally Posted by fintstone

Fox
I have not seen anything in the news that would imply Mr Reeves is rude..or any accounts of him being rude (other than to politely ask folks to be a bit more considerate. What "priors" do you refer to?

She's referring to the incident a few weeks ago verified by another couple he had reported for texting in I believe the same theater. The lady told CNN that he "glared" at them for the entire movie and didn't even watch the movie. She was there with her husband and three kids. This is why most here believe he was a ticking time bomb.

[intakexhaust]

This is how it MIGHT play out in a court. Even the judges are nutcases.
Charles Diez Gets 120 Days for Shooting Cyclist in the Head | Streetsblog New York City

Firefighter shoots a bicyclist in the head. FF gets a slap on the wrist as the judge thinks the perp is a stand-up guy that just had a bad day.

[fintstone]

EMJ
Staring at someone who is/was rudely using their phone in a theater hardly seems rude.

[Heel n Toe]

Originally Posted by foxpaws

Because even throwing popcorn at someone isn't 'massive'.

Foxy, Baz has been asserting that the texter's part in the incident began with the texting and after being asked to stop... refusing to do so.

Forget the popcorn, please... it looks silly to keep focusing on that. It comes off as failed hyperbole... or at the very least, sidestepping and dissing what Baz has to say about common courtesy.

No one gets shot, dead, for throwing popcorn, no one dies because of being rude. There is no 'responsibility' here - no one gets killed for doing these things, period. Just throwing popcorn isn't a death threat, and we know very, very little of what transpired verbally between these two people, however, it seems that you want to place 'massive' blame on the texter, even if you don't know the facts.

I can 'hear' Baz just fine - it appears he continually states that the texter, because he was impolite, escalated the situation, just as you are, and has the bulk of the responsibility here. First off, we don't know that the shooter wasn't impolite to begin with, that he may have been the 'instigator' of all this. Texting during the previews isn't a criminal offense, nor is it even against the 'rules', and, currently is accepted behavior by most people who go to movies. Add to that we don't know what the ex-cop told the texter initially. Was it 'if you don't put that cell phone away I am going to make you sorry you took it out', did the texter reply with 'Sorry, just finishing up, I'll make sure it doesn't bother you again'. Wow - that would change everything wouldn't it? At that point who has the 'massive' part in the cause of all this? The guy that threatened the other one, the one that left the theater and came back, disgruntled that management was too busy to deal with his all important cell phone matter, and willing to take matters into his own hands?

The whole thing against Baz and now you, is you don't know - you are assuming that the texter was somehow 'first' to the rude starting line. After reading about the 'priors' that this older man has regarding cell phones in theaters, I would certainly say that the older guy has at least a 50/50 chance of being the first to the 'rude' threshold.

50/50.

Okay.

And even that is speculation.

Since all of us probably agree that we're "churning" in our discussion here, when would be a good time to say, "Hey, maybe now is a good time to just wait and see what pops up during trial"?

Please... could you maybe try to find Baz's emphasis on the texter's contribution to the tragedy less "objectionable" just because you don't think he gives "equal time" to your emphasis on the shooter?

Can we get that trial moved up somehow?

I can't imagine we'd want to churn until it comes up on the docket.

[EMJ]

Originally Posted by fintstone

EMJ
Staring at someone who is/was rudely using their phone in a theater hardly seems rude.

I believe he confronted them and reported them to theater manager as well. Then glared at them all movie long. Same scenario minus the popcorn throwing, and you know, the killing and all.

[fintstone]

I would do the same...ask them to stop, report them if they did not, and then glare at them until the movie was over unless they made an apology...or at least seemed to regret their bad behavior.

[70SATMan]

Originally Posted by 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.

OK, with just the briefest of perusals, it appears to me that the best one could claim is assault, not battery. Since I think the assault would be classified as a "misdemeanor assault", this would not be "aggravated assault" so would not be reclassified as a felony under the 7804.08. That statute specifically lists "aggravated assault".

This hinges on our opinions of battery. The statute states "Actually and intentionally touches or strikes another person against the will of the other".

At best a felony of the third degree if battery is applied and the age taken into account.

Really though, this is not about charging a dead guy.... In the end, whether he committed a misdemeanor or a third class felony seconds before he was shot is I think picking at nits (even though we like to do it)

Does a first class misdemeanor against anyone technically under the age of 65 warrant a response using deadly force?

Does a third class felony against anyone who is a day over 65 warrant a response using deadly force?

[EMJ]

Originally Posted by fintstone

I would do the same...ask them to stop, report them if they did not, and then glare at them until the movie was over unless they made an apology...or at least seemed to regret their bad behavior.

Again, we're onto you.

[70SATMan]

Originally Posted by 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.

I wonder if it was the first time he had taken a life with a weapon. Could have been shock just as easily.

[19-911-65]

Originally Posted by fintstone

65
Why would "accosted" preclude "assaulted". Of course he was assaulted.

Physical condition and age are important...if one is to ascertain if it is reasonable that he would fear an attack from the younger man.

Given the same information, why would he make a different decision? Would the tester?

Accosted was your definition and description, not mine and they carry two different definitions. One being more severe then the other.

"If"...I would much rather deal in fact then fanciful make believe.

And last but not least...its a no brainer!

[EMJ]

Okay, Fin, let's be honest and put aside all of the contrarian stuff. If this was a loved one, and they behaved like the victim, would you defend the actions of the shooter? Actually, let's make the texter your son. Honest answer.