Rightwing gun nut guns down man for texting at movie theater

Not sure how that makes your point PS, but if you can twist it in your convoluted mind to go there, then have at it. Lethal force reaction when he could have and should have walked away will get this guy convicted as it should.

towermonkey wrote: Not sure how that makes your point PS, but if you can twist it in your convoluted mind to go there, then have at it. Lethal force reaction when he could have and should have walked away will get this guy convicted as it should.

That's right, the reason Zimmerman got off was because the defense proved to the jury that Zimmerman was being persued or jumped, then started to kick his ass. The popcorn tosser (from the evidence so far) didn't persue the shooter yet the shooted continued to engage him and then pulled his gun and shot him. The guy wasn't defending his home or loved ones, he went to a movie and thought he would be a hero for stopping a texter, permanently.

We'll see if other evidence comes in, but it will have to be much much more than popcorn and bad words.

towermonkey wrote: Not sure how that makes your point PS, but if you can twist it in your convoluted mind to go there, then have at it. Lethal force reaction when he could have and should have walked away will get this guy convicted as it should.

The point is that if this man has reported numerous other people for using their phones in violation of theater policy and none of them got shot, why was this situation different than any of the others? The difference, of course, is the reaction of the lunatic who was reported this time. This person thought that the proper response to being asked to follow the policy of the theater was to intimidate and frighten an old man by verbally assaulting him and physically battering him. That's what was different this time compared to all the other times, right? This time the elderly man ran into a person who felt rules didn't apply to them, that laws didn't apply to them and who felt completely entitled to bully, intimidate and scare a senior citizen for daring to make an issue out of his boorish behavior.

And how do you know he could have retreated tower? Not that he was legally required to retreat mind you, but how do you know that it was an option for him? Would you turn your back on a raving lunatic who thought that he was entitled to yell, scream and throw objects at other people after failing to follow the policy of the theater? That's not the kind of person I would turn my back on. Do you know for certain where the shooting occurred other than somewhere inside the theater? How close to a wall were they? Were they in the aisles where the elderly man could not move freely? You don't know the answers to that question and neither do I, but a jury will get that information at the trial. Failure to retreat isn't something that is relevant to the situation anyway, he had no duty to retreat even if he had the opportunity to do so, that is made plain in Florida's statutes. That isn't something that a jury can hold against him. All the jury need consider is whether or not a person the age of the retired cop might have been fearful for their safety based on the other man's behavior. Applying Florida statutes if the man hadn't been shot he most certainly could have been arrested for the commission of a foreceful felony on a person aged 65 or older. Simple battery, the throwing of the popcorn, becomes a Class 3 felony when the person who was battered is aged 65 or older, it is an aggravating circumstance under the law. Force, including lethal force, is allowed in situations involving the commission of a forceful felony.

Look, I'm not saying the retired cop was justified in his actions, I'm saying he might have been. You might not think a raving mad lunatic yelling and screaming and throwing objects at other people simply because that person made the theater staff aware of your rude behavior could incite fear in anyone, but that's a leap I'm not willing to make. I'm willing to bet that the majority of people who are over 65 would be a bit fearful of a very aggressive and angry man who was significantly younger than they are directing their anger at them.

PrintSmith wrote: I'm willing to bet that the majority of people who are over 65 would be a bit fearful of a very aggressive and angry man who was significantly younger than they are directing their anger at them.

[/quote]
Here's a 90 year old guy who is being robbed and just pulled the gun but could have easily blown the guy away... he was being robbed and surely expected an assault, but he used his 90 year old brain.
[youtube:9mmcu58n][/youtube:9mmcu58n]

The popcorn shooter will have a little more of a defense if wintesses say he pointed the gun and gave the guy a warning as to what was coming... even the victim's wife got shot through her hand, so it doesn't look likely.

I think we can all agree it will be up to a judge and jury to determine the shooter's fate. And we don't have all the facts which a jury will eventually see.

But I see nothing wrong with discussing the case based on the information we have so far (knowing that information may or may not be correct). For instance, VL claimed the shooter got up, left the building, and retrieved a gun from his car. I haven't seen any report to substantiate that, but if that had happened can we agree that this would be a first degree murder case? You don't leave a threatening situation, get a weapon, then come back to use deadly force since once you left there is no longer a threat to you. Nor would you leave your wife in such a situation while you get up and leave.

Would whoever started throwing the popcorn affect anyone's opinion? I ask because there are claims that witnesses said the shooter was the first to toss the popcorn...

He’s being charged with second degree murder. Curtis maintains that he was attacked, but in court, an attorney called Curtis’ claims “weak” due to the fact that other people in the movie theater saw him throw popcorn first.

http://hollywoodlife.com/2014/01/14/curtis-reeves-movie-theater-shooter-five-things-to-know/

And has been pointed out, the shooter has been involved in similar incidents before, one of which rose to the point where authorities knew about it...

Florida prosecutors have charged Reeves with second-degree murder, citing at least one incident in the past where he confronted a theater texter.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2014/0115/Florida-popcorn-shooting-Are-concealed-guns-about-self-defense-or-power-video

And this story...

The couple said the man complained and they were approached by an usher who told them they would be kicked out of the theater if the texting continued.

“We're law-abiding citizens, my wife was like, OK, we'll put the phone away, it's fine,” Michael Dixon said. “But we noticed at the end of the aisle this guy and he's still talking to the usher and pointing at us and angrily shaking his hands and everything.”

Jamira Dixon said she was bothered by the man's behavior and was tempted to speak to the staff there but didn't.

She also said her son was sick and was shifting a lot in his seat, which also angered the man.

“As the night went on, he just glared and glared and was grumbling the whole, entire night,” Jamira Dixon said.

When the movie ended, Jamira Dixon took the kids to the bathroom and Michael Dixon waited nearby. The man glared at Michael Dixon and did the same as Jamira Dixon came out of the bathroom and waited for the kids to come out, they said. Michael Dixon said it felt as if the man was trying to provoke a fight.

http://tbo.com/pasco-county/pasco-couple-said-they-also-had-texting-run-in-with-curtis-reeves-20140115/

I do see some parallels to the Zimmerman case. In both cases there was/is talk about Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law, although that was never invoked in the Zimmerman case which became a standard self defense case after all the early hysteria about Stand Your Ground. We'll see what happens with this case.

Both the shooter and the victim were in violation of theatre rules; the shooter for carrying a gun into the theatre, and the victim for using a cell phone (although it was during the previews and he was texting, not talking). I don't know if they violated any actual laws. Zimmerman didn't follow the guidelines he was taught as a neighborhood watch person, though as was pointed out in the trial he broke no laws by following Martin (not that it was a good idea).

Martin could of easily gone home but decided to confront Zimmerman instead, and the jury found that the confrontation was serious enough to justify Zimmerman being in fear of his life and use deadly force. I don't think Martin was justified in assulting Zimmerman for following him (and using potential deadly force by banging his head on a sidewalk) any more than I think the shooter in this case was justified in using deadly force for having some popcorn (or a bag of popcorn) tossed at him. But I don't know all the facts at this point and we'll see what a jury decides.

Rick wrote:

PrintSmith wrote: I'm willing to bet that the majority of people who are over 65 would be a bit fearful of a very aggressive and angry man who was significantly younger than they are directing their anger at them.

Here's a 90 year old guy who is being robbed and just pulled the gun but could have easily blown the guy away... he was being robbed and surely expected an assault, but he used his 90 year old brain.
[youtube:8pjssy5t]

[/youtube:8pjssy5t]

The popcorn shooter will have a little more of a defense if wintesses say he pointed the gun and gave the guy a warning as to what was coming... even the victim's wife got shot through her hand, so it doesn't look likely.

Fixed your quote Rick.

Thanks Pineinthegrass. I'd read through all of that already, but obviously, some haven't.

Oops sry TM, fixed it on my post too.

IIRC, some states keep first degree murder for high profile or cases of police being killed. I think John Lennon's killer got a second degree murder charge.

Had a teen texting during a film so I "accidentally" hit him in the back of the head with my foot a couple times. He got the message and sticky hair.

Good thing he didn't turn around and throw popcorn (back) at you...

FredHayek wrote: IIRC, some states keep first degree murder for high profile or cases of police being killed. I think John Lennon's killer got a second degree murder charge.

Had a teen texting during a film so I "accidentally" hit him in the back of the head with my foot a couple times. He got the message and sticky hair.

What exactly is annoying about texting? Does the phone beep with each key stroke?