FL Retired cop, shoots texting wanker

[Heel n Toe]

Originally Posted by EMJ

Sorry, Heel. Pretty clear who the bully was in this case. The guy with the gun always has the upper hand. He can use lethal force without much effort. All of this "logic" talk and you haven't even considered that the wife was shot and other innocents could have been shot as well. Clearly the victim was a hothead - a trained and retired police captain would know to leave this situation if he wasn't looking for trouble.

I don't believe he was looking for trouble.

Please attempt to defend your assertion.

Look, both parties could have made different choices.

However, if you are not willing to admit that from what we know at this point, the texter could have easily defused the whole situation by not acting like an azzhat to begin with...

...you might be ignoring his role in initiating the entire incident.

Look back at my three points in post #458.

The texter began the entire incident.

Doesn't the bully initiate things in the vast majority of cases/confrontations involving bullies?

Just think about it.

[speeder]

The guy texting could have been a complete jerk, rude, etc., but that is not justification for killing him. Hence, murder in the 2nd degree according to the law and the charging authorities.

Unfortunately for the old guy, when there is an altercation and you had the opportunity to retreat to safety but instead stayed, (or returned), and then shot the other guy, you're fk'ed legally speaking.

I think they teach this in CCW classes. This was an avoidable conflict. The answer to the question of "why should he have to change seats?" is that he was carrying a gun and if the argument continues, he might have to shoot an unarmed jerk in the movie theater.

[Jim Richards]

^^^this.

To paraphrase slackjaw, that old guy is going to spend the rest of his life getting butt-raped in prison. Seems to me texting during the previews at the theater is a lot more tolerable.

[Heel n Toe]

Originally Posted by krichard

it was a ridiculous point to show how ridiculous it is to defend the old man. I don't expect anyone to support it.

You failed in your attempt. Your "example" did not work.

At all.

Originally Posted by krichard

Now for another point. The solution to avoiding the confrontation was completely the old mans responsibility. He chose not to avoid it. Instead he confronted the guy that was annoying him, he let his internal rage start a fight. He had every opportunity to get up, leave the theater and demand a refund because the theater didn't enforce their policies. He chose the path he new he could win because he had a gun hidden and it gave him the upper hand.

BS.

I wonder how many people agree with you on this.

No responsibility for the texter?

That, sir, is one of the most ridiculous assertions anyone could make in light of what we know now about this incident.

Maybe we should put exactly that point in a poll.

I hope you would see how close to alone you are in that viewpoint.

Wow. Just wow.

I see the concept of "personal responsibility" is a foreign concept to you.

Good luck in life... you're gonna need it.

[AFC-911]

No said the killing was justified. I'm pretty sure everyone agrees on that.

What people don't agree on is that they both had an equal part in what happened.

We all agree they both could have made better decisions leading up to this mess.

[Rick Lee]

I think they teach this in CCW classes. This was an avoidable conflict. The answer to the question of "why should he have to change seats?" is that he was carrying a gun and if the argument continues, he might have to shoot an unarmed jerk in the movie theater.

Yes, they do teach this, but don't mistake a legal CCW'er for a retired cop who doesn't need a permit. I always hear cops are trained to de-escalate situations, but I don't see it much. I think a non-LEO with a legally carried gun would have not even thought about drawing his weapon in this situation. I know I wouldn't have. Even if the guy had pulled a knife on me, I'd rather back down and walk away than risk gunplay in a crowded area when walking away is a realistic option.

[EMJ]

Originally Posted by speeder

The guy texting could have been a complete jerk, rude, etc., but that is not justification for killing him. Hence, murder in the 2nd degree according to the law and the charging authorities.

Unfortunately for the old guy, when there is an altercation and you had the opportunity to retreat to safety but instead stayed, (or returned), and then shot the other guy, you're fk'ed legally speaking.

I think they teach this in CCW classes. This was an avoidable conflict. The answer to the question of "why should he have to change seats?" is that he was carrying a gun and if the argument continues, he might have to shoot an unarmed jerk in the movie theater.

Bingo!

[AFC-911]

Originally Posted by speeder

Unfortunately for the old guy, when there is an altercation and you had the opportunity to retreat to safety but instead stayed, (or returned), and then shot the other guy, you're fk'ed legally speaking.

He returned because I'm assuming his wife is still in the same seat. It was Mr. Popcorn that wouldn't let it go.

[krichard]

try to use more colors in your response this time.

Using your fancy logic, how does the scenario play out if the old guy doesn't say anything to the texter?

Originally Posted by Heel n Toe

You failed in your attempt. Your "example" did not work.

At all.



BS.

I wonder how many people agree with you on this.

No responsibility for the texter?

That, sir, is one of the most ridiculous assertions anyone could make in light of what we know now about this incident.

Maybe we should put exactly that point in a poll.

I hope you would see how close to alone you are in that viewpoint.

Wow. Just wow.

I see the concept of "personal responsibility" is a foreign concept to you.

Good luck in life... you're gonna need it.

[Jim Richards]

Originally Posted by AFC-911

No said the killing was justified. I'm pretty sure everyone agrees on that.

What people don't agree on is that they both had an equal part in what happened.

We all agree they both could have made better decisions leading up to this mess.

Actually, some here (finstone, et al) are arguing that it was justified.

[speeder]

And I don't know what it is about movie theaters that really brings out the worst in rude or anti-social people. Maybe that everyone is in the dark? Speculating...

A couple years ago, some thug assaulted someone really badly when the victim complained about his phone ringing in the theater. I think that guy was answering the phone, etc.

I remember being at a movie about 20 years ago with a friend. There were a couple of dudes right behind us, one of them kept opening and closing a zippo lighter.

"Click/click/click/click."

My friend, a small and bookish-looking guy, turned around and shot them a look. One of them said, "What's your problem?" So I said, "his problem is that fking noise you're making. Stop doing it."

After a few minutes of quiet, the guy started doing it again. So I turned in my seat and asked, "are you having fun?" He said yes. So I said, "good...we'll have some fun after the movie." When the lights came on, I turned and they were gone. I guess they changed seats or just left. And I never heard the clicking after the the last exchange.

My friend said that I came off as a contract killer and they just decided not to chance it.

[EMJ]

Originally Posted by Heel n Toe

Doesn't the bully initiate things in the vast majority of cases/confrontations involving bullies?

Just think about it.

Yes, and the old man started and ended this whole mess and shot the texter's wife, too. Obviously she deserved a round, too? How about addressing that? The texter was obviously very annoyed at the old man and was a jerk, yes. A hothead, yes. Pissed. Yes. A brutal popcorn assailer. Yes. A real "bully."

A real bully wouldn't be held back by his wife or flung popcorn.

[EMJ]

Originally Posted by AFC-911

What people don't agree on is that they both had an equal part in what happened.

Equal part? One threw popcorn, one fired a round through the hand of one victim that landed in the chest of another victim and killed him. How can you possibly fathom these were equal parts?

[AFC-911]

Originally Posted by EMJ

Equal part? One threw popcorn, one fired a round through the hand of one victim and shot the other in the chest and killed him. How can you possibly fathom these were equal parts?

It takes two to tango. Had either of them backed down, both would still have a life.

They both played a part leading up to it. One of them just ended it.

For every action, there's a reaction. Even if the reaction was a bit extreme...

This is not a senseless massacre. They provoked each other.

[EMJ]

Originally Posted by AFC-911

---snip---- Even if the reaction was a bit extreme...

A "bit" huh. Shooting two people and killing one over texting in a movie theater is I'd say a little more than a "bit extreme."

[Heel n Toe]

Originally Posted by krichard

try to use more colors in your response this time.

Using your fancy logic, how does the scenario play out if the old guy doesn't say anything to the texter?

The colors are supposed to help you keep up.

Still running, I see.

I'm not discussing fantasy scenarios.

If you're trying to weasel around and attempt to say that the old man initiated things by asking the texter to turn his phone off, you failed again.

Thanks for trying. Logic and personal responsibility continue to elude you.

[genrex]

Similarities and differences to the Bernard Goetz case.

Goetz was confronted by 4 thugs on a subway car. None of the thugs was armed, or showed any kind of weapon at any time. One thug said to Goetz, "Give me five dollars."

Goetz pulled out his .38 handgun which was unlicensed and ILLEGAL in New York City at that time, and without saying a word, shot each of the punks. He said in court that he wanted to kill all of them. All 4 thugs were rendered incapacitated by his shots, and one was paralyzed from the waist down (still is).

The prosecutor threw the book at Goetz, but he was only convicted on one charge -- possession of an illegal weapon, and he served 8 months in prison for that. The jury refused to convict him of anything else.

The paraplegic guy won a $ 43 million dollar civil suit against Goetz, but has never received a penny of it. Goetz continues to live comfortably in NYC, he owns a successful electronics business, and he is a local celebrity with much admiration and support.

The same thing will happen to the retired police officer. He will not be convicted of anything. I have no doubt that people will go out of their way to be on his jury, just so he can walk free.

__

[70SATMan]

Originally Posted by Jim Richards

Unlike you, Fint, living in your bucolic country surroundings, I'm right in the heart of the city. I have to contend with all sorts of people 24/7. All I can say is that I'm very glad I don't live in your distopia.

30 round clips are the only answer to rude people in mass numbers.

[EMJ]

Originally Posted by Heel n Toe

The colors are supposed to help you keep up.

If you're trying to weasel around and attempt to say that the old man initiated things by asking the texter to turn his phone off, you failed again.

I'll say it. That's exactly what he did. Pestering the texter three times to stop texting was most definitely "starting things." The previews were on.

[Heel n Toe]

Originally Posted by EMJ

Yes, and the old man started and ended this whole mess and shot the texter's wife, too. Obviously she deserved a round, too? How about addressing that? The texter was obviously very annoyed at the old man and was a jerk, yes. A hothead, yes. Pissed. Yes. A brutal popcorn assailer. Yes. A real "bully."

A real bully wouldn't be held back by his wife or flung popcorn.

The old man started this by asking texter dude to turn off his phone?

The day that you can't ask someone to turn off their phone in a theatre without it legitimately being called "starting an incident," will never come.

Again... fantasy lives inside some of the heads here.