FL Retired cop, shoots texting wanker

[EMJ]

Originally Posted by fintstone

What does that have to do with anything? He should know who has a gun and who does not...so he can target folks to attack that way? The only consideration should be if the older man believed the younger one was physically attacking him and he feared for his safety.

My point was that the old man knew he could use lethal force and was the one that should have diffused the situation. Period. Obfuscating this with irrelevant points won't change this fact. The man tossed popcorn at him - he didn't pull out a Sig or a switchblade.

[Baz]

Especially if you are behind them and a little elevated...for better target positioning...rather than using a deadly weapon...whack!

[stomachmonkey]

Originally Posted by EMJ

We actually don't need to have been there to know what happened since there were plenty of witnesses. And I disagree that the texter's "escalation" cost him his life as he apparently had no idea that the shooter had a gun and would kill him over the situation. CNN reported that the victim said, and I paraphrase, "I can't believe I've been shot." Very telling.

So it's acceptable to be a douche as long as the other guy does not have a gun? Sorry but that's f'd up.

The texter "escalated" because he was younger and stronger than the old guy and thought he had the power of intimidation on his side.

That's a bully in my book.

A reasonable person would have apologized (because he was wrong) and taken his phone out of the theatre.

End of situation.

My 70 year old father with the prostate cancer who was on Dialysis for failed kidneys in addition to an inoperable lateral aortic aneurism was not likely to and did not beat the ever living crap out of a guy less than half his age and more than twice his size because the young guy was inconsiderate and parked his car in the lane in a parking lot blocking my father in his spot.

Had the young guy apologized for his inconsiderate actions and moved his car so my father could be on his way that would have been the end of it.

My father was also not likely to and did not beat the ever living crap out of the young guy when he got in my fathers face and launched into a tirade of verbal abuse peppered with racial epitaphs.

Still, had the young guy apologized for his inappropriate actions and moved his car so my father could be on his way that would have been the end of it.

My father was however highly likely to and certainly did render the young guy unconscious with a broken jaw and needing 20 stitches in his face for making the mistake of taking a swing at my father and breaking my fathers favorite pair of glasses.

And that was the end of that.

[EMJ]

Originally Posted by stomachmonkey

So it's acceptable to be a douche as long as the other guy does not have a gun? Sorry but that's f'd up.

The texter "escalated" because he was younger and stronger than the old guy and thought he had the power of intimidation on his side.

That's a bully in my book.

A reasonable person would have apologized (because he was wrong) and taken his phone out of the theatre.

End of situation.

My 70 year old father with the prostate cancer who was on Dialysis for failed kidneys in addition to an inoperable lateral aortic aneurism was not likely to and did not beat the ever living crap out of a guy less than half his age and more than twice his size because the young guy was inconsiderate and parked his car in the lane in a parking lot blocking my father in his spot.

Had the young guy apologized for his inconsiderate actions and moved his car so my father could be on his way that would have been the end of it.

My father was also not likely to and did not beat the ever living crap out of the young guy when he got in my fathers face and launched into a tirade of verbal abuse peppered with racial epitaphs.

Still, had the young guy apologized for his inappropriate actions and moved his car so my father could be on his way that would have been the end of it.

My father was however highly likely to and certainly did render the young guy unconscious with a broken jaw and needing 20 stitches in his face for making the mistake of taking a swing at my father and breaking my fathers favorite pair of glasses.

And that was the end of that.

Totally understandable reaction by your pops - self defense. I'm waiting for the part where he pulled out his gun and shot the punk dead when he got in his face.

[19-911-65]

There were no winners at that theater on Monday, its tragic and unacceptable! Not only was a life taken unnecessarily, the quality of live for both families has been forever changed, it will never be the same.

If one cannot abide by the rules, regulations and policies set forth by an establishment...then don't go in! Both parties were equally at fault. Both men failed to take care of themselves and their families, now it is time to pay the piper.

Monday morning quarterbacking is pretty easy and I am amazed at "some" of the post here. I can see how things like this happen with some of the attitudes...and we "ALL" feel like we are justified to support our own position...do we not?

Both men made equally bad decisions, it takes two to tango and now the families will have to live with those decisions the rest of there natural lives. Senseless killing and untold anguish.

The thought of that three year old girl (and other family members) having to carry the burden of those selfish idiotic men is quite overwhelming, unjustified to say the least.

[70SATMan]

Originally Posted by hardflex

When does the sacred viewing time start, at the start of the previews or the start of the actual movie? it seems like during the previews people are still moving around, taking their seats, and talking. Then when the actual 'main attraction' starts everyone goes quiet and attentive.

Pummeling is allowed while the commercial ads are running. Once the previews start, Tazing is allowed to come into play. Gun play is not allowed until the feature film starts.

Clearly the cop violated "policy".

[stomachmonkey]

Originally Posted by EMJ

Totally understandable reaction by your pops - self defense. I'm waiting for the part where he pulled out his gun and shot the punk dead when he got in his face.

Pops was not carrying.

He tended to use whatever he had on hand anyway.

Like the time he caught someone who had broken into his garage and was stealing stuff. Pop knocked him out with an acetylene torch.

My father used to use a live potted evergreen as his Christmas tree and after the season would plant it on his property. My older brother was "feeling his oats" and got into it with my father. My father turned around, picked up the tree and started beating my brother with a fully decorated potted Christmas tree. Funniest thing I'd seen in my life. My poor brother just stood there stunned while his friend and I were laughing our asses off.

Pop was very resourceful.

Point of the parking lot story was don't ever assume you are the only badass in the room.

It could end badly for you.

If you are wrong, apologize and move on.

[foxpaws]

Originally Posted by stomachmonkey

So it's acceptable to be a douche as long as the other guy does not have a gun? Sorry but that's f'd up.

The texter "escalated" because he was younger and stronger than the old guy and thought he had the power of intimidation on his side.

That's a bully in my book.

A reasonable person would have apologized (because he was wrong) and taken his phone out of the theatre.

End of situation.

You are assuming many things here - first of all that the texting guy was wrong. He was texting before the feature film started, something a lot of people do, and the warnings in the theater usually have to do with not texting during the film. People are moving around, talking and texting a lot before the feature film starts, and that behavior is usually quite acceptable, and usually not 'banned' by theater management. He could have very well felt his behavior fell well within the 'norms' of movie goers.

Again you are assuming that the younger man escalated this because he was stronger and younger. He very well could have escalated because he believed he was 'in the right'. Many people do that, with no regard to size or age. The 'right' factor is a pretty convincing argument that people have a tendency to defend. Your conclusion that he was a 'bully' could be way off the mark. He could have just been standing up for what he felt was his 'right' to text his babysitter and check up on his 3-year-old daughter before the film started. He was considerate enough to do it with plenty of time before the film started so he wouldn't be bothering the other patrons during the feature film.

Your assumptions could be very wrong.

[AFC-911]

Foxpaws,

How hard was it to be the bigger man and say "I'm just checking up on my daughter. Let me just send a quick message and I'll put the phone away?"

There is nothing inherently wrong with texting before the movie, just like there is nothing wrong with asking someone not to do so.

It's when neither backed down is where the problem is.

And for the record, it's not his assumption that the young guy escalated things, it was reported in the news.

[fintstone]

Originally Posted by Jim Richards

Fint, your wild, wild west philosophy is totally off-base. If he was annoyed, he certainly had the option to move seats, instead of escalating the conflict. It was all within his control. Suffering fools vs. killing them. That's the difference between the 21st and the 19th centuries.

He did not escalate the conflict, the texter did. While he may not have been wise, he was in no way obligated to take a seat elsewhere...and in fact, I appreciate the fact that he stood up to the bully. "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing".

It is too bad it turned out the way it did.

[19-911-65]

Originally Posted by fintstone

The guy with a gun has zero responsibility to flee and can "stand his ground" if attacked and fears for his safety. It doesn't matter if the attack comes from a douche who insists upon texting in a theater or a street gang.

The key word here is "if attacked", he wasn't....so its a mute point!!! I dare say there is a court in the country that will call it an even fight...38 against a bag of popcorn.

[70SATMan]

Originally Posted by EMJ

My point was that the old man knew he could use lethal force and was the one that should have diffused the situation. Period. Obfuscating this with irrelevant points won't change this fact. The man tossed popcorn at him - he didn't pull out a Sig or a switchblade.

Hey, there could have been unpopped kernals! He could have had an eye put out!!!

"Stand your ground"..... Puleeeeze.

I'm sure the cop was level headed through the entire incident and was suprised at the texters reaction...

I bet the cop was on the verge of popping a vessel after getting no love from the lobby.

As to taking a side because the old man said he felt threatened???

He's either a liar or a pussy. Of course he's going to say he was in fear for his life. He just gunned down a guy weilding a bag of buttered popcorn.

Just think of the damage the texter could have done if he'd been eating licorice whips.

[AFC-911]

Originally Posted by foxpaws

He was considerate enough to do it with plenty of time before the film started so he wouldn't be bothering the other patrons during the feature film.

If he was considerate, the old guy wouldn't have to ask him multiple times.

How many texts does it take to check in with your babysitter?

[fintstone]

Originally Posted by krichard

Fint lives in an imaginary world where old guys with guns make the rules and everyone who stands up to those old bullies are threatening their life so lethal force is justified. He should consider a career in writing fiction.

Why would you seek to make a polite discussion into a personal attack? IS that the world were you live?

Obviously, the younger man was the bully. He was imposing his wants (against the rules) upon everyone else in the theater. He was banking upon the fact that no one would have the nerve to call a big guy like him on it. As he said himself...he never thought he would get shot. Obviously he believed that he could intimidate everyone into taking his crap.

[70SATMan]

Originally Posted by fintstone

He did not escalate the conflict, the texter did. .

I think the fact that the cop went from the lobby directly back to the guy to do some "home style policin" escalated it.

[VaSteve]

This argument is so much like the last Florida shooting case it's not even funny.

Point of the parking lot story was don't ever assume you are the only badass in the room.

How true.

[stomachmonkey]

Originally Posted by foxpaws

You are assuming many things here - first of all that the texting guy was wrong. He was texting before the feature film started, something a lot of people do, and the warnings in the theater usually have to do with not texting during the film. People are moving around, talking and texting a lot before the feature film starts, and that behavior is usually quite acceptable, and usually not 'banned' by theater management. He could have very well felt his behavior fell well within the 'norms' of movie goers.

Again you are assuming that the younger man escalated this because he was stronger and younger. He very well could have escalated because he believed he was 'in the right'. Many people do that, with no regard to size or age. The 'right' factor is a pretty convincing argument that people have a tendency to defend. Your conclusion that he was a 'bully' could be way off the mark. He could have just been standing up for what he felt was his 'right' to text his babysitter and check up on his 3-year-old daughter before the film started. He was considerate enough to do it with plenty of time before the film started so he wouldn't be bothering the other patrons during the feature film.

Your assumptions could be very wrong.

Or they could be right.

But yes, it does depend on when the texting was happening, during the advertising / entertainment portion when the lights are still on and you would barely notice a phone or was it during the trailers directly preceding the main feature when the lights are turned down which is the signal that the show is starting and also the time when the bright light of a cell phone is distracting.

1st thing I do when I get in my seat is to silence my phone and remind my wife to silence hers because she always forgets. I freely admit to using mine while the advertisement portion is running but the second the lights go down it goes away.

[krichard]

Originally Posted by fintstone

Why would you seek to make a polite discussion into a personal attack? IS that the world were you live?

Obviously, the younger man was the bully. He was imposing his wants (against the rules) upon everyone else in the theater. He was banking upon the fact that no one would have the nerve to call a big guy like him on it. As he said himself...he never thought he would get shot. Obviously he believed that he could intimidate everyone into taking his crap.

Lol, you are too funny. You have it all figured out don't you. For a minute I actually thought you believed what you were writing, but it's obvious your just trying to make statements to get people fired up. Have fun playing with yourself....

[fintstone]

Originally Posted by 19-911-65

The key word here is "if attacked", he wasn't....so its a mute point!!! I dare say there is a court in the country that will call it an even fight...38 against a bag of popcorn.

If a larger man attacks me in a dark theater...I likely would not wait to see if he is hitting me with a bag of popcorn or a set of brass knuckles. I would act to defend myself and my wife as best I could. Waiting for a second blow could be too late.

It doesn't have to be an "even fight"...that is the whole idea about carrying a defensive weapon.

[BlueSkyJaunte]

Originally Posted by fintstone

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing".

Holy crap.

Guys like the ex-cop (and fint, apparently) are the reason people should carry a gun in the movie theater.