FL Retired cop, shoots texting wanker

[fintstone]

Originally Posted by foxpaws

...Again, I find it very hard to believe that there are so many here that seem to be stating, in one form or another, that the older man may have had even the slightest justification for killing someone in this case. It really amazes me.

If the old man thought he was being attacked and needed to defend himself...why would he not use a weapon...especially after being struck by the younger man? Must he wait until he is on the ground and the younger, larger man is pounding his head on the concrete? Seems a bit late to try to dig the gun out then.

[EMJ]

The hypocrisy of the old man is endless. He brings a gun to a movie theater - forbidden - and ends up murdering someone with that gun because the guy was texting? The old man was getting his way one way or another. Control freak at its finest. Even if knocked in the face by the texter, there is no way he could justify shooting him. Murder 2 - no question. The texter was inconsiderate, yes. But certainly not worth being murdered. I can imagine his poor wife putting her hand in front of him to protect him and getting a hole shot through it. Pretty terrible stuff.

[70SATMan]

Originally Posted by Rick Lee

The difference between a no guns sign and a no cell phone use sign is that no one will know you have a gun if you keep it concealed and they won't be bothered by it.

You mean not getting caught....

That is not justification for breaking rules.. You are assigning priorities to their policies based on your own bias.

[Heel n Toe]

Originally Posted by 70SATMan

We aren't talking about LAWS unless there is a law against texting in a movie theater.

You brought up POLICY posted by a theater and somehow assigned relevance to the policy of texting.

I am not surprised that you dodged the POLICY posted by the same theater about guns.

You're the one who changed the discussion by asking me how I'd respond to a POLICY.

I responded by saying my response would be based on the CCP laws of the state.

Get it? I can still be asked to leave, but if I'm not breaking a law, I won't be prosecuted.

And as Rick said, if the gun is concealed, it won't offend anyone.

[Heel n Toe]

Originally Posted by EMJ

The hypocrisy of the old man is endless. He brings a gun to a movie theater - forbidden -

Apparently, it's not forbidden, according to Florida law.

[fintstone]

Originally Posted by EMJ

...I can imagine his poor wife putting her hand in front of him to protect him and getting a hole shot through it. Pretty terrible stuff.

It has been reported that her hand was in front of her husband because she was trying to restrain him (contrary to earlier silly speculation that she was attempting to catch a bullet).

Seesm that if the younger, larger man needed to be restrained...he was being pretty agressive. The older guy was not required to flee and had every right to defend himself. The younger man should have stayed in his seat, shut up (since he was clearly in the wrong), and turned off his phone. The older guy would have done the same (as he was doing before the incident)..

[70SATMan]

Originally Posted by Heel n Toe

You're the one who changed the discussion by asking me how I'd respond to a POLICY.

I responded by saying my response would be based on the CCP laws of the state.

Get it? I can still be asked to leave, but if I'm not breaking a law, I won't be prosecuted.

And as Rick said, if the gun is concealed, it won't offend anyone.

So why don't you respond in like regarding the laws of the state for texting in a movie theater?

[foxpaws]

Originally Posted by Heel n Toe

He did proceed to get management involved. I agree he should not have shot the texting guy given the information we have now.

Re: waiting to see if the texting would have continued during the movie, he probably figured why should he have to miss part of the movie to go get management at that point, better to try to get it taken care of during the previews.

Remember, "texting guy" had already refused the guy's requests to turn off the phone (more than once, I think)... so he had every reason to believe it would continue.

If we knew exactly what each man said (and their tone), before the ex-cop went to look for management, that would probably go a long way towards showing us how this all happened.

I don't know if you've read this whole thread, but it was posted here that someone came forward and said "texting guy" was known as a hot head.

Again, not defending the shooter here. Both obviously contributed to this insanity and tragedy.

The old guy went to get management, but he didn't wait to talk to them.

And it doesn't matter again if the texting guy was terribly rude, a hot head, and even texting during the movie, it doesn't invite a death sentence by anyone. Being rude, yelling, throwing popcorn, texting, although not great behavior isn't cause for killing anyone.

[Heel n Toe]

Originally Posted by 70SATMan

So why don't you respond in like regarding the laws of the state for texting in a movie theater?

I don't think there is a law regarding texting in a movie theatre.

Your point?

[fintstone]

Originally Posted by foxpaws

... Being rude, yelling, throwing popcorn, texting, although not great behavior isn't cause for killing anyone.

And no one, including the older guy...have claimed it was...so why do you keep making that argument?

[EMJ]

Originally Posted by fintstone

Must he wait until he is on the ground and the younger, larger man is pounding his head on the concrete? Seems a bit late to try to dig the gun out then.

Oh this argument again? There was zero justification for this shooting. Witnesses have confirmed that there was no physical confrontation. As Fox stated, the guy with the gun has the responsibility to diffuse the situation. To find another seat. Not let it escalate. When you have the power to end a confrontation with the pull of a trigger in seconds, you have to be a bigger person. No one would expect to be shot over such a trivial incident.

[Rick Lee]

Quote de Rick Lee

The difference between a no guns sign and a no cell phone use sign is that no one will know you have a gun if you keep it concealed and they won't be bothered by it.

You mean not getting caught....



That is not justification for breaking rules.. You are assigning priorities to their policies based on your own bias.

Not at all. Breaking any rule is grounds for a trespassing cite IF you make fuss once asked to leave. That's all that can happen. Since there's no chance of anyone seeing a gun on my belt, there's no chance of anyone being made uncomfortable by it. The same can't said for cell phone use, loud talking, gum chewing or anything else, which, by definition, entails making noise in a place where it would normally bother people. As it is, I ignore gun busters signs because they don't have the force of law and, if someone made me and then asked me to leave, I would cheerfully take mu business elsewhere.

[fintstone]

Originally Posted by EMJ

Oh this argument again? There was zero justification for this shooting. Witnesses have confirmed that there was no physical confrontation. As Fox stated, the guy with the gun has the responsibility to diffuse the situation. To find another seat. Not let it escalate. When you have the power to end a confrontation with the pull of a trigger in seconds, you have to be a bigger person. No one would expect to be shot over such a trivial incident.

It was a dark theater...so most witnesses probably saw nothing There is at least one witness that claims it was physical. Others claim that the younger man was being restrained by his wife, etc. The guy with a gun has zero responsibility to flee and can "stand his ground" if attacked.

[70SATMan]

Originally Posted by Heel n Toe

I don't think there is a law regarding texting in a movie theatre.

Your point?

I'd be surprised if there was a law.

I'm glad you aknowledge that neither the texter nor the old man broke the law. They only broke theater policies of texting and carrying.

Would you rate one over the other in terms of severity of offense, the possibility of misuse, etc?

[Jim Richards]

Texting in a movie theater is rarely fatal.

[70SATMan]

Originally Posted by Rick Lee

Not at all. Breaking any rule is grounds for a trespassing cite IF you make fuss once asked to leave. That's all that can happen. Since there's no chance of anyone seeing a gun on my belt, there's no chance of anyone being made uncomfortable by it. The same can't said for cell phone use, loud talking, gum chewing or anything else, which, by definition, entails making noise in a place where it would normally bother people. As it is, I ignore gun busters signs because they don't have the force of law and, if someone made me and then asked me to leave, I would cheerfully take mu business elsewhere.

I ignore texting signs in theaters because they don't have the force of the law.

[70SATMan]

Originally Posted by Jim Richards

Texting in a movie theater is rarely fatal.

Jim, aint it a shame that you were forced to use the word "rarely" in your statement???

[EMJ]

Originally Posted by fintstone

....The older guy was not required to flee and had every right to defend himself. The younger man should have stayed in his seat, shut up (since he was clearly in the wrong), and turned off his phone. The older guy would have done the same (as he was doing before the incident)..

An therein lies the rub. The old man was not at risk of death based off of what transpired. He wasn't physically assaulted, stabbed, shot at, threatened, etc. He overreacted. Here's a thought: he could've simply walked away. Honestly, the words "I'm texting with my 3-year-old daughter" should've been enough to diffuse the situation. That and the fact that the victim was clearly being difficult. A police captain should know better.

[stomachmonkey]

Originally Posted by foxpaws

I find this extremely disturbing. 'Not likely' means that there is some scenario that it could be likely.......

Again, I find it very hard to believe that there are so many here that seem to be stating, in one form or another, that the older man may have had even the slightest justification for killing someone in this case. It really amazes me.

LOL, don't take everything so literally.

I'm not shooting anyone over texting in a movie theater. I'm not going to give the behavior a pass either. I'm not going to escalate it and will look for ways to resolve it in a non violent way because you just don't know who you are dealing with or what they are capable of. Something the texter should have been thinking about. He let his ego and "machismo" control his actions and unfortunately it cost him because he did not expect to run into someone with the same personality traits.

I was not there and don't know the specifics so whether there was justification or not is not something I feel qualified to weigh in on. I don't believe a simple disagreement of this nature should ever end in one losing their life.

Both parties made poor choices at varying points.

[Heel n Toe]

Originally Posted by EMJ

Oh this argument again? There was zero justification for this shooting. Witnesses have confirmed that there was no physical confrontation. As Fox stated, the guy with the gun has the responsibility to diffuse the situation. To find another seat. Not let it escalate. When you have the power to end a confrontation with the pull of a trigger in seconds, you have to be a bigger person. No one would expect to be shot over such a trivial incident.

Let's not be trying this case on a message board. YukYukYukYukYuk