FL Retired cop, shoots texting wanker

[scottmandue]

Originally Posted by Baz

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

POOPYHEAD!

[fintstone]

Satman
The legal argument was regarding if striking the older man was assault (yes) and a felony (yes...because he was actually struck which equals battery). Simple battery is a felony if committed on a person 65 or older (protected class).
Stand your ground allows deadly force if the person reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent great bodily harm or imminent commission of a forcible felony (which includes the use or threat of physical force or violence against an individual).

[70SATMan]

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.

I think if we are going to state that glaring at someone is not rude then having additional words for a tattletale is not "accosting".

[fintstone]

No. I did not use the words interchangeably...they are events that happened sequentially.

Incidentally, how do you "deal in fact" when determining "state of mind" or "fear" of another unless you either assume based on the actions they took or what they stated they felt? Mind readers?

Originally Posted by 19-911-65

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!

[Tobra]

Originally Posted by EMJ

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

You seem to have a habit of thinking your opinion is fact, even without any support.

Originally Posted by EMJ

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.

yet again, you don't seem to know the difference between what you think and what is

Originally Posted by 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.

His son would never act like that, never.

If the shooter could turn back the clock, knowing what he knows now, I am fairly certain he would have just gone home when the guy was texting in the theater and did not stop when asked. If any of you are confused about whether or not the texter committed assault and battery on the guy before he got shot, yes, he did. If you think otherwise, you need a better understanding of what "assault and battery" means.


Oh and Shaun, it sure as heck is not the "pro gun control liberals" that are failing to place all the blame on the shooter. Where do you come up with this stuff?

[fintstone]

I agree...it was not "accosting" until he stood and raised his voice.

Originally Posted by 70SATMan

I think if we are going to state that glaring at someone is not rude then having additional words for a tattletale is not "accosting".

[70SATMan]

Originally Posted by fintstone

Satman
The legal argument was regarding if striking the older man was assault (yes) and a felony (yes...because he was actually struck which equals battery). Simple battery is a felony if committed on a person 65 or older (protected class).
Stand your ground allows deadly force if the person reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent great bodily harm or imminent commission of a forcible felony (which includes the use or threat of physical force or violence against an individual).

You are not taking into account the differences between simple assault and battery and aggravated assault/battery.

The statute clearly delineates between the two.

"In the case of battery, from a misdemeanor of the first degree to a felony of the third degree.
(d) In the case of assault, from a misdemeanor of the second degree to a misdemeanor of the first degree."

Unless the victim had previous convictions, it is misdemeanor battery at best and one would question that because of the intent to do "violent harm". Would I (if on a jury) consider someone throwing popcorn did so in the hopes of causing violent harm??? No.

How about a head fake instead of a bag of corn puffs???? Ridiculous right? Yet, he could be just as frightened and fired according to you.. Reasonable??

However as meek as the man must be in your scenario, he actually had the gumption to confront the man firstly (we'll find out how politely), complain to management (again I'm sure it was with the kindest of dispositions) and then go have words with the dude again because he couldn't get management to act fast enough to suit him.

Couple that with the fact that he was carrying. This doesn't present an easily scared fellow to me.

[70SATMan]

Originally Posted by fintstone

I agree...it was not "accosting" until he stood and raised his voice.

I didn't catch a report that he was the first one to raise his voice... Was it merely raised, elevated or screaming when he asked if Reeves had reported him??

Did Reeves not raise his voice at all during the entire exchange?

I have at least four distinct levels to my voice without trying. Don't know when one would consider it elevated or merely pointed questioning.

[EMJ]

Originally Posted by Tobra

You seem to have a habit of thinking your opinion is fact, even without any support.

yet again, you don't seem to know the difference between what you think and what is

His son would never act like that, never.

If the shooter could turn back the clock, knowing what he knows now, I am fairly certain he would have just gone home when the guy was texting in the theater and did not stop when asked. If any of you are confused about whether or not the texter committed assault and battery on the guy before he got shot, yes, he did. If you think otherwise, you need a better understanding of what "assault and battery" means.


Oh and Shaun, it sure as heck is not the "pro gun control liberals" that are failing to place all the blame on the shooter. Where do you come up with this stuff?

Simmer down there. I never stated any of my opinions are fact. Witnesses mentioned he was very upset during the entire exchange. This is a fact and it's been confirmed. And I don't care what his son would and would act like. My question is a hypothetical. Why don't you let him answer the question (If he so wishes to)?

And yes, it's a fact that anger taints our judgment. Accept it or don't, it's true.

And it's already been established Fin is just being contrarian. I don't believe he believes what he's arguing for. Just trying to get an honest answer but it doesn't really matter.

[70SATMan]

Originally Posted by scottmandue

POOPYHEAD!

Hopefully his pint was only drawn from the tap!

[Shaun @ Tru6]

Originally Posted by 70SATMan

Hopefully his pint was only drawn from the tap!

OK, that was the funniest thing I've read all month long. Well done!

[Shaun @ Tru6]

Just writing that you want popcorn thrown is grounds for being shot. Any jury would back that that up.

Originally Posted by KC911

Are you dense or just lack reading comprehension?























This thread needs to throw some popcorn

[Heel n Toe]

Originally Posted by EMJ

...it's already been established Fin is just being contrarian. I don't believe he believes what he's arguing for.

Exactly where has that been "established?"

Are you referring to speeder's and shaun's passive-aggressive digs at Finny?

If so... that... is "established" in your mind?

[bivenator]

Don't have much to add to this except that if popcorn was used to commit the crime then it would be a salt and buttery.

Tobra, a very perceptive post.

[Shaun @ Tru6]

When popcorn is outlawed, only outlaws will have popcorn.

[fintstone]

Sat man
I fail to see how reporting someone for texting or even carrying a gun would make anyone less afraid of being injured if struck/punched. Having something in your pocket make the pain go away...or create some kind of force field?

[EMJ]

Don't have much to add to this except that if popcorn was used to commit the crime then it would be a salt and buttery.



Tobra, a very perceptive post.

Of course it was. YOUR post is very nice passive aggressive, too. Don't confuse facts for opinions. My opinions are opinions - facts are facts. And I know the difference. Good luck defending your shooter guy. Very honorable.

[fintstone]

Sat man
Read it again. The FL law is very clear regarding battery on anyone over 65. It is indeed a felony.

[fintstone]

EMJ
How is it not honorable to defend the shooter based on the premise of innocent until proved guilty? In fact, why is it not honorable to argue most anything one has an opinion on?

[Baz]

Originally Posted by EMJ

---snip---The lady told CNN that he "glared" at them for the entire movie and didn't even watch the movie. ---snip---

Are you saying neither one saw the whole movie?

Him for glaring at her - she for watching him glare at her?

These people need to get a life!