Rightwing gun nut guns down man for texting at movie theater

HEARTLESS wrote: Has anyone seen a size comparison of the people involved? I don't heal like I did when younger and I'm in my late 50s. Waiting until substantial damage has occurred is great for online talk, .

It doesn't matter if the guy was tossing popcorn on a 95 pound old lady, and I'm sorry, but being worried about "substantial damage" is not justification for taking another life, just to hedge your bet. And other than a bag of feathers or cotton balls, I can think of nothing less threatening than popcorn.

Rick, I'm not trying to defend the mans actions, merely stating how these laws work. You clearly haven't read the Colorado Revised Statutes regarding use of force and deadly force as you pick out terminology that is in our laws.
Also assault of senior citizens is a felony crime in Florida. Assault is normally defined as an intentional act by one person that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent harmful or offensive contact.

Rick wrote:

HEARTLESS wrote: Has anyone seen a size comparison of the people involved? I don't heal like I did when younger and I'm in my late 50s. Waiting until substantial damage has occurred is great for online talk, .

It doesn't matter if the guy was tossing popcorn on a 95 pound old lady, and I'm sorry, but being worried about "substantial damage" is not justification for taking another life, just to hedge your bet. And other than a bag of feathers or cotton balls, I can think of nothing less threatening than popcorn.

Great post Rick...

This is what you get from the Goerge Zimmerman verdict. I just hope one of my loved ones doesn't get killed by some coward with a gun

pineinthegrass wrote: PrintSmith, you worry me at times with your reasoning.

And now it seems you are defending someone for killing a person who only threw popcorn at him? I know it's early and we don't know all the facts yet.

Based on we know so far, the texting guy was a total a$$hole. And I'll agree the ex-cop did the right thing at first by complaining to management (and the movie theater manager was probably in the early 20's and not making much), until he shot and killed the a$$hole.

How is that justified?

I don't know that it was, all I am saying is that is was possible that it was. The younger man was clearly out of control and he was the one who initiated the shouting match according to all the reports.

As you yourself have noted, the retired cop did everything right. He asked the other man to stop his behavior and when he didn't he went to the theater management to address the issue. The man who got shot, on the other hand, did nothing right. He refused to be courteous when given the opportunity to do so, he instigated a verbal confrontation with the retired cop about his going to the theater management and then escalated a verbal exchange into a physical one by hurling an object at the retired cop. So we have one person doing everything one would expect and the other doing nothing that is expected. What makes you think that pattern changed pine? Why so quick to presume that the person who had been doing everything right all of a sudden stopped their established pattern of behavior?

As I noted earlier, with my history I would have believed the popcorn to be a diversion from what was to follow it and I would have acted accordingly. I can see where a retired police officer, who has seen and experienced much more than I have, might have believed the same thing, especially when he was being accosted by what was clearly an enraged man. The man who got shot knew he was in the wrong, so why get angry and taunt an elderly man instead of apologize? And beyong taunting him, be so out of control over the matter, so blinded by his rage, that he hurled whatever happened to be in his hand at the time? I mean really, who gets that angry and upset about an old man complaining to the theater staff who doesn't have anger management issues to begin with? And what is someone with anger management issues capable of doing once their temper is given free reign over their actions? Are you telling me that you know that the popcorn was the worst the man who got shot was going to do and that getting shot didn't stop him from hitting the retired cop? I don't think you can do that pine precisely because not one of us knows what a man who gets that angry over such a little thing is truly capable of doing next.

Every account I have read thus far gives me nothing on which to substantiate the actions of the man who got shot. He was wrong to be texting in the theater to begin with, wrong to not stop or remove himself from the theater when asked, wrong to taunt the elder man for reporting him and wrong to hurl an object in anger at the elder man. Everything I see points in one direction here, the man who got shot was trying to intimidate the elder man, make him afraid of him. Seems to me like he succeeded in that endeavor.

I'm only slightly older than the guy who was texting, but I wouldn't dream of treating someone my parents' age so disrespectfully, especially when I was the one who clearly was in the wrong from the outset. Had to be something wrong with this guy that he would get so angry over being asked to stop doing what he knew he shouldn't have been doing to begin with that he would start an argument over it and throw things at people instead of apologizing for being so rude.

And why was the wife's hand on her husband's chest? Was she trying to stop him from going all Trayvon Martin on the retired cop? She clearly recognized her husband was out of control, why is it surprising the retired cop reached the same conclusion?

I tend to agree with PrintSmith and await to see this before a jury.

Some posts were split out and moved here: http://mymountaintown.com/forums/the-ring/30632

Apparently the old guy frequented the theater and considered himself the cell phone police. There are people coming forward saying he complained to management about them as well. Sounds like he took himself way too serious and had the gun to prove it. Super Malta is right about this one. The guy's a coward with a gun.

And a trial may well prove that.

towermonkey wrote: Apparently the old guy frequented the theater and considered himself the cell phone police. There are people coming forward saying he complained to management about them as well.

Kind of proves the point I was making, doesn't it? I'm bettng none of them tried to itimidate and frighten an elderly man after he reported them to the theater staff. I mean, it's not like the guy drew his gun and held the man at gunpoint for using his cell phone in the theater, right? Just another indication that the incident was provoked by the man who was shot and not the retired cop, which will only help the retired cop in front of the jury and give more weight to his claim of feeling that he was in danger from an out of control lunatic who thought that being reported to the theater staff justified his assault and battery of an elderly man.

I am always a little surprised at the # of people these kind of things provide inspiration to post. I generally do not comment on the facts of a case not being a witness or a juror. I will make an exception.

As a senior who has never been in a fight, I can imagine an enraged stranger charging me armed with popcorn. I am confident that even though I have a ccw that if he lands the first blow he will be at liberty to kick me to death at his will.

That is why I try to remember to carry pepper spray when I go out armed. I frequently forget. I resolve to to better in the future.