# Was shooting someone texting in theatre justified?



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

In the news, recently, some old retired police officer shot someone that refused to stop texting during the previews in a theatre. Violence isnât acceptable, howeverâ¦..
We all know of swings in societal norms. Things go too far one way and then swing back. In the 1950s, teachers would grab students, smack them with rulers, and perhaps turn them over their knee. We knew what would happen if we misbehaved, so to avoid that, it didnât happen often, if ever. Today, students know that if a teacher gave more than a scowl, the parent would be demanding the teacherâs termination. In the 1950s, if a person stood on a street corner, with a loud music box on his shoulder, playing songs that were filled with swear words, with baggy pants, underwear showing, it wouldnât take long before someone came along and told him to turn down the noise and pull up his pants. I believe that a refusal might result in pants getting yanked the rest of the way down and the music box smashed. Quickly, that fad would be over. Today, people board public transportation without pants and everyone turns away. We permit profanity and nudity in public places and end up enduring it often. Everyone is willing to accept it, thus promoting it. Have we as a people lost our collective backbone?
Now back to the theatre texting. Iâve had my concentration broken by people texting during a movie. It is rude to do this, yet everyone refuses to act, so the problem gets worse. 
I donât like the fact that he got shot, but I hope that the next thousand people that get asked to turn off their devices in a theatre, ponder the thought that this person might not ask politely the next time. If I ask them to shut down their glaring screen and tap-tap, want them to think that I might be some old coot that might pop a cap in their Smart phone. Because if that were true, no one would get shot by an old coot and everyone would be able to enjoy their movie experience.
How can a society exist when we all act like islands? No one stops to help someone change a tire, no one asks the parents to make their children get out of their face in a restaurant. 
Seems the old dude asked the guy to stop texting. He guy refused and threw popcorn on the old dude. That is what Iâd call a, âYou canât make me behave.â move. Human behavior is fairly predictable. The next reaction to that action is known as âpush comes to shoveâ. Another way to look at it, donât bring a fist to a knife fight, donât bring a knife to a gun fight, or in this case, donât disrespect and toss popcorn on an angry old guy that is packing heat. 
If everyone werenât so afraid to do what is called for, perhaps the old coot could have simply said, â Letâs roll!â and everyone around the texting guy could have drug him out to the Lobby to finish his text.
I saw people rise to the occasion at a College football game, recently. A guy refused to remove his hat during the National Anthem. Someone reminded him, he refused. Six guys turned around and told him to remove the hat or theyâd remove him. He complied and Iâll bet he remembers the incident for a long while and no one will need to remind him.


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

Um during the previews... to his child's babysitter? And since when is being a jerk an offense punishable by death?

To me it just goes to show the mentality of people who are police officers.


----------



## Guest (Jan 15, 2014)

"To me it just goes to show the mentality of people who are police officers." 

WOW he retired n the late 90s and is 71 years old, maybe something else going on in his head at that age.


----------



## MichaelZ (May 21, 2013)

Getting a refund for a ruined movie is justified. 

Reporting the person ASAP so the movie is not ruined. Justified.

Unless the person is in danger of harming someone, violence of any kind is not justified. And certainly not shooting.


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

dlmcafee said:


> "To me it just goes to show the mentality of people who are police officers."
> 
> WOW he retired n the late 90s and is 71 years old, maybe something else going on in his head at that age.


This incident in conjunction with all the other ones out there? Old men beaten to death, mentally ill people shot because 'they don't have time for this.' Yeah I think it's indicative.


----------



## Guest (Jan 15, 2014)

Good for you,, CarterCove,, as a retired PO, I'll keep ya in mind when the SHTF and we need to band together. Broad derogatory generalization of groups a bigot makes.


----------



## AdmiralD7S (Nov 1, 2013)

Haypoint's point wasn't that the shooting was justified. He was pointing out that it would be nice if people actually thought about the results of their actions a little more.

We, as a society, have become so coddled that we don't think about the consequences because the consequences are very rarely significant anymore. Want something? Get a credit card and charge away! Max out your card? Get another one! Don't want a job? Go on unemployment! Can't keep it in your pants and now have a kid? Here's food stamps! Don't like your marriage this month? Get a divorce!

Obviously I'm speaking in generics, but the point is that, in today's society, there is always a bail out for most anything you do. Perhaps if folks had to actually deal directly with the consequences of their actions, we have a little politer society.... Wouldn't that be nice!


----------



## Guest (Jan 15, 2014)

Agree Admiral, but preliminary news reports are not the facts. I do not justify violence for violence sake for sure and if the story holds true, the retired gentleman should face the consequences of HIS actions.


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

dlmcafee said:


> Good for you,, CarterCove,, as a retired PO, I'll keep ya in mind when the SHTF and we need to band together. Broad derogatory generalization of groups a bigot makes.


A bigot is someone who holds their views above all others, so you are incorrect. Also, no one in my neck of the woods is going to be relying on a police force or whatever when the SHTF. Noticing a trend in behavior or that certain lines of work attract certain personalities doesn't seem all that derogatory to me. Kind of like narcissists and sociopaths are attracted to politics.

ETA: the 'keep you in mind' actually sounds pretty threatening in your context.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

I'd donate to the old coot's legal defense fund. Most cops are the most polite people you'll want to meet. They know that often defuses the tension. I don't know what the texter said or did. But the retired cop had a right to defend himself. I'm giving the ex-cop the benefit of doubt. At his age if the younger man was starting to go after him, it sounds justified.


----------



## citilivin (Mar 21, 2006)

Although not correct action, I bet it felt good


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

He left and came back with the weapon... you know, instead of a manager or something? Not feeling very sympathetic.

Actually, been updated: older man left to tell management and younger guy complained at him and threw some popcorn at him.


----------



## Guest (Jan 15, 2014)

"the 'keep you in mind' actually sounds pretty threatening in your context"

not meant that way , more or less to say those of your bias would be the ones I would feel threatened by.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

A human being does not have the right to take another human beings life.

The ONLY time, you can 'justify' taking a life, is when said person, is endangering your life.

Texting in a theater is not life threatening.

People need to calm down.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

CraterCove said:


> He left and came back with the weapon... you know, instead of a manager or something? Not feeling very sympathetic.
> 
> Actually, been updated: older man left to tell management and younger guy bitched at him and threw some popcorn at him.


You know the old saying, " Never bring popcorn to a gun fight.":bouncy:


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Darren said:


> But the retired cop had a right to defend himself.


 Yeah, that popcorn could have taken out an eye. :smack


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

dlmcafee said:


> "the 'keep you in mind' actually sounds pretty threatening in your context"
> 
> not meant that way , more or less to say those of your bias would be the ones I would feel threatened by.


Well, I doubt in a real situation where shtf you'd be coming to my property trying to enforce some used to be law or attempting to force your will upon mine, would you? Only people trying to steal or murder have anything to fear from me.


----------



## Guest (Jan 15, 2014)

you are right ,,, you have no need to expect that


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Tragic situation, but if it gets a few impolite folks to pocket their devices in a theatre, then it had a positive impact.
Recently there was a "movement" to ride public transportation without pants. I guess a lot of people were upset by it. I think it is BS. Why do people do it? Because no one will stop them. People are allowed to impose themselves on civilized citizens without fear of reprisal. Perhaps a bit more reprisal to deviant or abusive behavior would reduce such behavior and make the lives of decent folks more pleasant? 
If I am settled into my seat in a theatre and I have to leave and find some lazy theatre employee and explain what is going on, then return to my seat and get verbally abused and have stuff thrown on me, my evening's entertainment has been tarnished and someone else has had a ball humiliating me. Nope, not this time. Bam!
52 people killed in Flint and over 200 in Detroit last year. Probably a few for a lot less than throwing popcorn and arguing with an old guy. 
deterrent, that's the word. If obnoxious folks thought their victim was packing heat and had an itchy trigger finger, they might conform to civilized norms.


----------



## okiemom (May 12, 2002)

it is a little over the top... can we say "road rage"? There are better ways to deal with incivility than to stoop to it.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

greg273 said:


> Yeah, that popcorn could have taken out an eye. :smack


I saw something like that once. The problem is you don't know what's coming after the popcorn. If you've got something else in mind for show and tell, do you say, "Hold on  while I put my popcorn down."? No you don't. You throw the popcorn to distract them.

My gut tells me what the ex-cop did was instinctual. Saying thank you for the pop corn probably never entered his mind.


----------



## Wendy (May 10, 2002)

While I do not agree that shooting someone was the right thing to do, I do agree with the points that haypoint was making.

People get away with stuff that they would have never thought to even try years ago. Why? Beacause everyone wants to be politically correct. No one wants to hurt anyone's feelings by calling them out on something they shouldn't be doing. There is no black & white anymore. It's all a shade of grey.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Old folks can often be dangerous. These days rolling on the ground with some jerk is out of the question for me. If someone insists... my only defense is to seriously injure them. I honestly don't know how to shoot them without hurting them. :hrm:


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

Texting ?, sinse I don't do this,how does someone get upset about texting,isn't it quiet? Pretty much short of even fidgeting in ones seat. I don't get it.


----------



## homstdr74 (Jul 4, 2011)

"Don't pick a fight with an old man. If he is too old to fight, he'll just kill you."

--John Steinbeck


----------



## countryfied2011 (Jul 5, 2011)

Although I don't agree with the shooting, I do agree with Haypoint and Wendy! I thought the news said he was texting his 3 yr old daughter. What 3 yr old knows how to text and read it? I heard nothing about the babysitter. I can see where texting in a movie theater would be annoying while your trying to watch. Kind of like whispering while others are trying to watch. If it was so important that he needed to talk with his 3 yr old, why not excuse yourself and go into the lobby and not disturb others. The reason is....people don't care about others, only what is of a concerned to them. It is plain rude, just like standing in the grocery line talking loud on the phone, or playing your car radio as loud as it will go while stopped at the red light or leave your car running pumping gas, smoking cigarette and the radio blaring all at the same time! We live in a society of me, me, me and to heck with everyone else. 

This is why DH and I don't have CCW permit. I have seen both us get upset with the mentality of people today especially driving. I could just picture it now...anger building, an altercation arises and someone pulls out a gun without thinking of the consequences. Happens all the time on the news.


----------



## AdmiralD7S (Nov 1, 2013)

7thswan said:


> Texting ?, sinse I don't do this,how does someone get upset about texting,isn't it quiet? Pretty much short of even fidgeting in ones seat. I don't get it.



The problem is the light. If I'm in a dark room and someone starts using their phone to text, it's like a flashlight off to the side. At best, it's distracting. At worst, some of those phones are very bright and it is literally painful to my eyes!


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

It appears that the texting was over by the time the shooter returned to the theater. The arguement seemed to be about him reporting it to management. It is interesting to note that the shooter's son arrived after the incident as he was running late to join his parents. Should he have been barred from entering the theater after the previews started as he would have been equally distracting looking for his parents in a darkened theater during the movie? Maybe he should have been shot if he tried to bully his way in?

To answer the original question-no it was not justified. To justify violent behavior over texting, bad fashion choices, or legally playing music on a public street corner justifies someone using violence in defense of those actions. There are usually many steps available to resolve conficts between its beginning and shooting someone.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Someone I knew was doing something recently while I was reading. He had his phone/computer out and I heard the thing going bip, bip, bip, bip, .......bip, bip, bip, and so, and so forth for quite a while. It was mildly irritating when it happened. I finally asked him what the noise was. He was texting. 

I don't have one of those, never texted before. So I wasn't sure what he was doing. I was reading something on a laptop. I've heard all sorts of things on a laptop including music, the sound tracks of films, etc. So the idea of his hand held making noises wasn't something alien. Just attention getting.

WV recently made hand held cell phone use while driving illegal. You'd think something that would distract you while driving would be one of those common sense things you don't do. Still people do it and I've seen reports of people texting while driving and wrecking..

For one man texting in a movie theater proved fatal. I hope we find out exactly what happened. Was the ex-cop so angry he lost control? That seems to be the conclusion of some. What happened during his employment history? You'd think he'd been through enough training that he could discern whether something was an imminent sign of danger or not. 

People have been shot by officers by accident because, or so they've stated, they thought their lives where in danger. Do we need public safety warnings on ex-law enforcement officers for those who do stupid things that may compromise there life?

I don't make it a practice of arguing with cops that are readily identifiable. But then I don't do that with others either in a public setting.

It'll be interesting to see how this develops.


----------



## itsb (Jan 13, 2013)

countryfied2011 said:


> This is why DH and I don't have CCW permit. I have seen both us get upset with the mentality of people today especially driving. I could just picture it now...anger building, an altercation arises and someone pulls out a gun without thinking of the consequences. Happens all the time on the news.


wise decision,if you cant control your actions:duel:


----------



## itsb (Jan 13, 2013)

O-ya I do agree with haypoint and wendy,but I do need to know more about the way it came down to make my official decision,also some one brough up the point about what come after the popcorn ? was it to be used as a deturnt OR just througing of food:hrm:


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Shooter says he was afraid of being attacked. Did the man's wife have her hand on his chest trying to restrain him from going after the old guy? Was the texter so angry, the ex-cop could have reasonably expected to be attacked?

This may be another situation somewhat similar to the Martin-Zimmerman confrontation that got out of hand. Some sources say Stand Your Ground may come into play.

http://gma.yahoo.com/accused-movie-...ear-being-182255343--abc-news-topstories.html


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Wendy said:


> While I do not agree that shooting someone was the right thing to do, I do agree with the points that haypoint was making.
> 
> People get away with stuff that they would have never thought to even try years ago. Why? Beacause everyone wants to be politically correct. No one wants to hurt anyone's feelings by calling them out on something they shouldn't be doing. There is no black & white anymore. It's all a shade of grey.


Yes, Wendy, you get my point. Wrong to do, but should curb bad behavior.
Interesting that as the story develops, the old guy did go report the texting. No information that it did any good. Just angered the guy that was texting. Guess reporting it so you can enjoy the movie isn't such a simple fix as others have suggested. It resulted in the old guy getting taunted verbally and greasy popcorn thrown on him. If all the other folks that were in that theatre would have joined forces and escorted the nuisance out, this tragedy could have been avoided. But, everyone wants to be politically correct, whatever that's come to mean. More like refuse to respond to difficult situations, ignore the plight of others. 
Personally, I'd rather see people act together as if we lived in a civilization. Like the passengers on 9/11, "Lets roll." But if that isn't possible, people want to cower in silence while civilized behavior goes down the toilet, well, a few unexpected retaliations should put a cork in it for a while.


----------



## countryfied2011 (Jul 5, 2011)

itsb said:


> wise decision,if you cant control your actions:duel:


Honestly, I don't believe it is not a matter of controlling your actions...I am not an angry person neither is DH, I am very tolerant of most things and we mind our own business. But just in the last few years, the lack of manners, rudeness inconsideration etc etc of the human race/public has soared in our society. These actions slowly manifest inside without being conscientious(?) of it..then one day something that may seem minor turns into a mountain. Maybe this is what happened with the PO...I am sure in his tenure he has seen enough scum, goings on etc that the incident in the theater was the icing on the cake...not a justification just an observation. 

I was telling DH when this came on the news yesterday that we have a very angry society, people are stressed, always in a hurry and with the "Me" mentality it is a disaster waiting to happen.

DH and I rarely go to town but when we do there is a small two lane curvy, hilly road that we have to drive to get there. The speed limit is 45, speed tickets run 95.00 to over 100 per ticket, and there have been several that have gotten killed on that road. The drive is 10 miles, it never fails you always have someone that rides right up on your bumper the whole time....so by the time you get to the end of the road and in town...it is hard not to be upset. Passing is nearly impossible unless you want to get yourself killed or someone else--they will try. We have even had them honk their horn...it is very hard not to get angry. This is just one example, Semi just had a thread about jerk waiting in line for gas. I could see where that could have gotten heated and a gun pulled out by someone. 

My bottom line is people are getting tired of it like Haypoint state...shooting someone is not right but I can clearly see what leads up to it.


----------



## gimpy (Sep 18, 2007)

haypoint said:


> ]I saw people rise to the occasion at a College football game, recently. A guy refused to remove his hat during the National Anthem. Someone reminded him, he refused. Six guys turned around and told him to remove the hat or they&#8217;d remove him. He complied and I&#8217;ll bet he remembers the incident for a long while and no one will need to remind him.






If a dying soldier doesn't remove his helmet when somebody blares the star spangled banner out of their tank, does that make him unpatriotic?

Will God refuse to hear the prayers of a car crash victim pinned in the wreckage because their hands aren't folded?

I have never understood this thing that people have posture means anything. Maybe that person was a cancer patient or anemic and immune suppressed and cold. Of the 7 guys in the story you presented he could be the only one who doesn't cheat on his taxes. Who is more patriotic then?

You don't know the whole story and when brutes like them and brutes like the ex-cop go out of their jurisdiction and take it upon themselves to demand other people follow their own rules instead of the rules of society, that is what turns us into a third world nation. The ex cop should have got an usher. It was not his place to do what he did and given his behavior then it would be reasonable to go back and review his file from when he was a cop. It's worth checking to review all cases of resisting arrest and see if he actually was guilty of assault. Are all cops bullies? No. Are some cops bullies? Yes, and they should recheck his record.

He also could have simply moved to a different seat.


----------



## Glade Runner (Aug 1, 2013)

I don't like jerks and if this deters people from that kind of behaviour then so be it. Sounds like the retired officer acted appropriately in reporting the matter and then was attacked for his trouble. One minute it's a bucket of popcorn flying your direction and then it's something more lethal. How do you know? Are you required to wait until someone damages you befor you act? I don't think so. I do try to avoid these situations and I only attend theaters where they will escort people from the building for this kind of stuff so I don't have to shoot someone if there's an altercation.

I completely support the point of view that says people are getting away with unacceptable behaviour because they are pretty sure no one will do anything about it. I also completely agree with Robert Heinlein's words, "An armed society is a polite society."


----------



## gimpy (Sep 18, 2007)

Glade Runner said:


> I don't like jerks and if this deters people from that kind of behaviour then so be it. Sounds like the retired officer acted appropriately in reporting the matter and then was attacked for his trouble. One minute it's a bucket of popcorn flying your direction and then it's something more lethal. How do you know? Are you required to wait until someone damages you befor you act? I don't think so. I do try to avoid these situations and I only attend theaters where they will escort people from the building for this kind of stuff so I don't have to shoot someone if there's an altercation.
> 
> I completely support the point of view that says people are getting away with unacceptable behaviour because they are pretty sure no one will do anything about it. I also completely agree with Robert Heinlein's words, "An armed society is a polite society."


No, actually that's not what the article says
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way...prfacebook&utm_source=npr&utm_medium=facebook
It appears the ex-cop did not complain to employees. Nowhere did it say whose popcorn went flying. It doesn't even say that the popcorn was thrown. It does say that two people were shot, the victim and his wife.


----------



## Glade Runner (Aug 1, 2013)

gimpy said:


> If a dying soldier doesn't remove his helmet when somebody blares the star spangled banner out of their tank, does that make him unpatriotic?
> 
> Will God refuse to hear the prayers of a car crash victim pinned in the wreckage because their hands aren't folded?
> 
> ...


We're already a third world nation. We have a presidential regime that selectively enforces the law and uses the government to reward its friends and punish those who oppose it. That's why you need to look out for yourself.


----------



## gimpy (Sep 18, 2007)

It is also worth noting that the Tampa Police Department also feels what the ex-cop did was inappropriate as he has been charged and has been denied bail


----------



## gimpy (Sep 18, 2007)

Glade Runner said:


> We're already a third world nation. We have a presidential regime that selectively enforces the law and uses the government to reward its friends and punish those who oppose it. That's why you need to look out for yourself.


and you think that the previous administration was better?


----------



## Glade Runner (Aug 1, 2013)

gimpy said:


> No, actually that's not what the article says
> http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way...prfacebook&utm_source=npr&utm_medium=facebook
> It appears the ex-cop did not complain to employees. Nowhere did it say whose popcorn went flying. It doesn't even say that the popcorn was thrown. It does say that two people were shot, the victim and his wife.


Your NPR propaganda is wrong.

From the latest report:

_"Pasco County Sheriff's officials say Reeves initially asked Oulson to stop texting at the theater in Wesley Chapel, a suburb about a half-hour north of downtown Tampa.

Sheriff's Detective Allen Proctor wrote that Reeves spoke to Oulson during the movie previews, then got up and informed management.

When Reeves returned to his seat "additional words were exchanged" and Oulson threw a bag of popcorn at Reeves, the report said.

After officers read him his rights, Reeves told the detective that Oulson struck him in the face with an unknown object, and that's when he removed a .380-caliber gun from his pants pocket. The report said Reeves fired the gun and struck Oulson once in the chest and that he "was in fear of being attacked."_

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/01/1...eater-shooting-over-texting-had-praiseworthy/


----------



## countryfied2011 (Jul 5, 2011)

Gimpy maybe you need to check other sources...CBS tells the story differently. There different scenarios being reported. 




> Reeves and his wife were sitting behind another couple, Chad and Nicole Oulson, when Reeves became upset with Chad Oulson for texting, the Pasco County Sheriffâs Office told CBS affiliate WTSP.
> 
> Pasco County Sheriff's officials say Reeves initially asked Oulson to stop texting at the theater in Wesley Chapel, a suburb about a half-hour north of downtown Tampa.
> 
> ...


http://www.cbsnews.com/news/argument-over-texting-leads-to-fatal-shooting-at-movie-theater/


----------



## Glade Runner (Aug 1, 2013)

gimpy said:


> and you think that the previous administration was better?


Only about a thousand times better. This is the most lawless, dangerous, corrupt presidency in the history of the Republic.


----------



## gimpy (Sep 18, 2007)

Fox News...the best way to describe it is Rupert Murdock's personal toilet paper. It never was credible and it's aroma has only become more potent with age. CBS lost credibility a quarter century ago.


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

Those who don't look at all media points with a jaundiced eye and try to actually claim one is better or worse than another are just looking to be blindsided. 

The only proper way to make a decision about incidents like this is to take in all the data points possible and then use a little common sense and reasoning, knowledge of human behavior and come up with an educated guess.

BTW, who carries their firearm in a pants pocket? What the heck? That makes me think he did indeed leave and get the firearm from his vehicle and shoved it in his pocket. And you want to talk about rude, jerk behavior? Who cares what people are doing during the _COMMERCIALS AND PREVIEWS_ if the behavior carries into the movie I understand but since when are the 15 minutes of previews used for anything but settling in, shuffling about, getting sorted and such?


----------



## Glade Runner (Aug 1, 2013)

gimpy said:


> Fox News...the best way to describe it is Rupert Murdock's personal toilet paper. It never was credible and it's aroma has only become more potent with age. CBS lost credibility a quarter century ago.


I'm sure you find Huffington Post and Democratic Underground completely adequate for your maunderings and so will act appropriately.


----------



## Glade Runner (Aug 1, 2013)

CraterCove said:


> Those who don't look at all media points with a jaundiced eye and try to actually claim one is better or worse than another are just looking to be blindsided.
> 
> The only proper way to make a decision about incidents like this is to take in all the data points possible and then use a little common sense and reasoning, knowledge of human behavior and come up with an educated guess.
> 
> *BTW, who carries their firearm in a pants pocket? What the heck? That makes me think he did indeed leave and get the firearm from his vehicle and shoved it in his pocket. *And you want to talk about rude, jerk behavior? Who cares what people are doing during the _COMMERCIALS AND PREVIEWS_ if the behavior carries into the movie I understand but since when are the 15 minutes of previews used for anything but settling in, shuffling about, getting sorted and such?


I carry a five shot .357 snubby in a pocket holster in my front right pants pocket as do many other people. Very comfortable, readily accessible and completely undetectable other than by metal detector or pat down.


----------



## gimpy (Sep 18, 2007)

CraterCove said:


> Those who don't look at all media points with a jaundiced eye and try to actually claim one is better or worse than another are just looking to be blindsided.
> 
> The only proper way to make a decision about incidents like this is to take in all the data points possible and then use a little common sense and reasoning, knowledge of human behavior and come up with an educated guess.
> 
> BTW, who carries their firearm in a pants pocket? What the heck? That makes me think he did indeed leave and get the firearm from his vehicle and shoved it in his pocket. And you want to talk about rude, jerk behavior? Who cares what people are doing during the _COMMERCIALS AND PREVIEWS_ if the behavior carries into the movie I understand but since when are the 15 minutes of previews used for anything but settling in, shuffling about, getting sorted and such?


Good point, and again the Tampa police force and DA have him held without bail. I tend to believe the entire police force before one ex-cop who shoots two people in a theater


----------



## countryfied2011 (Jul 5, 2011)

> Who cares what people are doing during the _COMMERCIALS AND PREVIEWS_


Just because you don't doesn't mean others dont...I quit going to the movies about 30 yrs ago, so I guess things have changed. Regardless of what was on the screen, people were polite and tried not to bother others even when shuffling around getting situated. When I was growing up it was called common courtesy...which this society is surely lacking a lot of it.

OTOH, I do agree:



> Those who don't look at all media points with a jaundiced eye and try to actually claim one is better or worse than another are just looking to be blindsided.
> 
> The only proper way to make a decision about incidents like this is to take in all the data points possible and then use a little common sense and reasoning, knowledge of human behavior and come up with an educated guess.


----------



## gimpy (Sep 18, 2007)

Glade Runner said:


> I'm sure you find Huffington Post and Democratic Underground completely adequate for your maunderings and so will act appropriately.


Actually, no, they're just as bad as Fox. Again you are wrong.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

gimpy said:


> It is also worth noting that the Tampa Police Department also feels what the ex-cop did was inappropriate as he has been charged and has been denied bail


Given the fallout from the Martin Zimmerman case would you expect the sheriff to do any less? A lot of people had their careers take a hit even though Zimmerman was exonerated later.


----------



## countryfied2011 (Jul 5, 2011)

gimpy said:


> Actually, no, they're just as bad as Fox. Again you are wrong.


Just because it is your opinion...doesn't make him wrong. Where are the facts to prove otherwise? You cant argue opinions, there is nothing to back it up only facts can be argued :duel:


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

Glade Runner said:


> I carry a five shot .357 snubby in a pocket holster in my front right pants pocket as do many other people. Very comfortable, readily accessible and completely undetectable other than by metal detector or pat down.


You are correct, and I am making an assumption because they didn't mention a pocket holster. But then again how many 'reporters' know anything about firearms. They just may not have known to ask or include such information.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

countryfied2011 said:


> This is why DH and I don't have CCW permit. I have seen both us get upset with the mentality of people today especially driving. I could just picture it now...anger building, an altercation arises and someone pulls out a gun without thinking of the consequences. Happens all the time on the news.


It does not happen all the time. First off I'm willing to bet you can't find three cases in the entire US where a CCW holder was charged with using his weapon in a road rage incident. 

Second, if it happened all the time you would not see it in the news. How often do you see news stories on busted street level drug dealers or street hookers? Stories on fatal auto accidents? Ever wonder why you don't see many stories on this? Its because it happens all the time therefore is not news worthy.

Also I feel much safer being in a place, any type of place, which allows people to carry than one which has rules/laws to prevent it. Think about the places where the mass killings have taken place in the last 20 years. What is one thing almost all of them have in common? They were all "gun free" places. IIRC, there is one exception, there was a shooting in a mall which was actually stopped by armed person (can't remember if he was an off duty cop or not though).


----------



## countryfied2011 (Jul 5, 2011)

"Watcher" there are incidents locally, not nationally...sorry my bad. We have had several case in the past few years where altercations(like road rage) where a gun was drawn, but no one shot


----------



## gimpy (Sep 18, 2007)

countryfied2011 said:


> Just because it is your opinion...doesn't make him wrong. Where are the facts to prove otherwise? You cant argue opinions, there is nothing to back it up only facts can be argued :duel:


Did you even read the post?

He insisted that I liked a particular, "news source," when in fact I don't. That is not a matter of opinion.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

CraterCove said:


> Those who don't look at all media points with a jaundiced eye and try to actually claim one is better or worse than another are just looking to be blindsided.
> 
> The only proper way to make a decision about incidents like this is to take in all the data points possible and then use a little common sense and reasoning, knowledge of human behavior and come up with an educated guess.
> 
> BTW, who carries their firearm in a pants pocket? What the heck? That makes me think he did indeed leave and get the firearm from his vehicle and shoved it in his pocket. And you want to talk about rude, jerk behavior? Who cares what people are doing during the _COMMERCIALS AND PREVIEWS_ if the behavior carries into the movie I understand but since when are the 15 minutes of previews used for anything but settling in, shuffling about, getting sorted and such?


Who carries a firearm in their front pocket? Lot's of folks. The gun goes into a pocket holster to keep it from "printing" so someone looking at you can't tell you have a weapon. Lons of firearms even up to .45 have beem designed in recent years that will fit comfortably in a front pocket and not be noticeable. Many are less than an inch thick when you get to smaller calibers like 9mm & .380.


----------



## countryfied2011 (Jul 5, 2011)

> Fox News...the best way to describe it is Rupert Murdock's personal toilet paper. It never was credible and it's aroma has only become more potent with age. CBS lost credibility a quarter century ago.


Sorry Gimpy was referring to this post.


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

countryfied2011 said:


> "Watcher" there are incidents locally, not nationally...sorry my bad. We have had several case in the past few years where altercations(like road rage) where a gun was drawn, but no one shot


And they were CCW permit holders? Also, drawing a weapon can be a deterrent to violence not a threat of violence. It depends upon the situation.

I don't know about anyone else but when I am carrying my situational awareness goes up and I avoid any kind of trouble that is absolutely possible.


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

Darren said:


> Who carries a firearm in their front pocket? Lot's of folks. The gun goes into a pocket holster to keep it from "printing" so someone looking at you can't tell you have a weapon. Lons of firearms even up to .45 have beem designed in recent years that will fit comfortably in a front pocket and not be noticeable. Many are less than an inch thick when you get to smaller calibers like 9mm & .380.


I'll refer you to one of my more recent posts above, after the one you quoted.


----------



## Wanda (Dec 19, 2002)

If the shooter was a 20 year old would every one jump up and defend him for shooting a mouthy 70 year old and his wife? Age does not always bring wisdom.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

gimpy said:


> No, actually that's not what the article says
> http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way...prfacebook&utm_source=npr&utm_medium=facebook
> It appears the ex-cop did not complain to employees. Nowhere did it say whose popcorn went flying. It doesn't even say that the popcorn was thrown. It does say that two people were shot, the victim and his wife.


As with most things like this its best to wait and see. Its been my experience that a large number of "facts" in early news reports are wrong.

As of right now we have no idea of what really happened and the odds are we will never really know. Anyone who has dealt with something like this will tell you that everyone you ask saw something different. I'm willing to bet one saw the younger guy shove the older while another saw the old guy 'just shoot for no reason'.

If the old guy as any smarts the only thing he said to the cops was "I want a lawyer."


----------



## countryfied2011 (Jul 5, 2011)

CC, I dont know if they were or not...I didnt say that folks shouldnt have CCW, I just stated that is the reason why DH and I dont. Alrighty~ Our way of dealing with the craziness in society is staying away from it as much as possible. Only going into town when there is a need. We try to avoid the public and when we do have to go around the general public, we mind our own business, get our errands done and get the heck back to the farm. That might not be an ideal situation for some but it works for us...


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

gimpy said:


> It is also worth noting that the Tampa Police Department also feels what the ex-cop did was inappropriate as he has been charged and has been denied bail


True but why? Was it because of the evidence in the case? Because the shooter lawyered up and refused to answer questions? Because they knew this would be a big PR problem if they didn't arrest him?

Unless it comes out the shooter was mentally unbalanced I'm thinking we will discover there's a LOT more to this story than someone being upset at someone texting.


----------



## gimpy (Sep 18, 2007)

countryfied2011 said:


> Sorry Gimpy was referring to this post.


And yet you didn't jump down his throat and call it opinion for claiming Fox was a good source. That's a bit transparent.


----------



## countryfied2011 (Jul 5, 2011)

Gimpy if you want to discuss the OP then fine...but I dont argue just for the sake of arguing...


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Wanda said:


> If the shooter was a 20 year old would every one jump up and defend him for shooting a mouthy 70 year old and his wife? Age does not always bring wisdom.


As an old guy I can tell you this, what I would have though of as no problem even 20 years ago I would look at as a threat to my life today.


----------



## gimpy (Sep 18, 2007)

watcher said:


> True but why? Was it because of the evidence in the case? Because the shooter lawyered up and refused to answer questions? Because they knew this would be a big PR problem if they didn't arrest him?
> 
> Unless it comes out the shooter was mentally unbalanced I'm thinking we will discover there's a LOT more to this story than someone being upset at someone texting.


Fact: He shot 2 people.
Fact: He is being held without bail.

I've been reading the news probably longer than a lot of you have been alive. I think the last truly good and honest reporter trying to present all the facts was Frank Reynolds. The last good talk show host who didn't try to force their own agenda was Dick Cavet. 

Being held without bail tends to mean one or more of a few things.

1. The accused is a serious flight risk and considered dangerous

2. The accused can not safely be outside of police custody due to the risk of extraneous risks on the accused life. (like a criminal element has a hit on them)

3. The DA has such a slam dunk case in a serious offense that they aren't going going to risk it with bail


----------



## gimpy (Sep 18, 2007)

countryfied2011 said:


> Gimpy if you want to discuss the OP then fine...but I dont argue just for the sake of arguing...


actually you really appear to


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

gimpy said:


> actually you really appear to


IDk, seems to me the poster was trying to stop arguing about the extraneous and you are latching onto it. But that's just my perspective.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

CraterCove said:


> Those who don't look at all media points with a jaundiced eye and try to actually claim one is better or worse than another are just looking to be blindsided.
> 
> The only proper way to make a decision about incidents like this is to take in all the data points possible and then use a little common sense and reasoning, knowledge of human behavior and come up with an educated guess.
> 
> BTW, who carries their firearm in a pants pocket? What the heck? That makes me think he did indeed leave and get the firearm from his vehicle and shoved it in his pocket. And you want to talk about rude, jerk behavior? Who cares what people are doing during the _COMMERCIALS AND PREVIEWS_ if the behavior carries into the movie I understand but since when are the 15 minutes of previews used for anything but settling in, shuffling about, getting sorted and such?


My FIL carrys his in the pocket of his flannel shirt.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

countryfied2011 said:


> CC, I dont know if they were or not...I didnt say that folks shouldnt have CCW, I just stated that is the reason why DH and I dont. Alrighty~ Our way of dealing with the craziness in society is staying away from it as much as possible. Only going into town when there is a need. We try to avoid the public and when we do have to go around the general public, we mind our own business, get our errands done and get the heck back to the farm. That might not be an ideal situation for some but it works for us...


Had a situation two nights ago. I was at a small fairly deserted truck stop around 2300 minding my own business, and getting my errands done and trying to just get back home and into bed. I was out of my truck when a car drove up to me, headlight blinding me so I couldn't tell who or how many people were in it. I had been in a hurry when I left the house so I didn't even have a pocket knife with me, all I had was a metal ink pen I took it out and palmed it and let me jacket sleeve slide down. It turned out to be a young woman asking if I would go into the store with her because she went in to pre-pay and couldn't find any one in the place. So here I went slepping into the store looking for someone (found him in the office). I can tell you this having that pen didn't make me feel invincible but did make me feel more confident that I could solve a problem if one came up.

As I have taught many people over the years; there is only one weapon, your brain, everything else is a tool.


----------



## countryfied2011 (Jul 5, 2011)

The local news yesterday a man was robbed and beaten trying to help someone who was broke down on the side of the road. You just never know! I wont even stop to do that anymore. In my younger yrs I would pick up hitchhickers--go figure~


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

gimpy said:


> Fact: He shot 2 people.
> Fact: He is being held without bail.


You shoot someone and lawyer up and I can assure you that you WILL be arrested and most likely held w/o bail. No matter if the police are sure it was a 'good shooting'. Its the facts of life.




gimpy said:


> Being held without bail tends to mean one or more of a few things.
> 
> 1. The accused is a serious flight risk and considered dangerous
> 
> ...



You skipped one. 4. The case has so much press coverage on it and/or possible PR problems with it.

There are plenty of cases where the only reason bail was denied was #4. Prime example is Casey Anthony. Care to show me where any of your three reasons apply to her? 

Now ask yourself this: What kind of PR storm would have came crashing down on everyone if they had NOT arrested and held a former cop for a shooting like this? The press would have had a feeding frenzy about how cops protect their own even when he's a vicious cold blooded killer of an innocent father.


----------



## gimpy (Sep 18, 2007)

watcher said:


> You skipped one. 4. The case has so much press coverage on it and/or possible PR problems with it..


True, and someone will likely wander by with a number 5.

Was Zimmerman held without bail?


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

We have become a nation of 'me first, my rights trump yours'.
We have become a nation of "sit in front of the idiot box and be consumed by it'.

Here's what I think: I think the government is using experimental drugs that control the mind, and they inject people, and cause them to do things like this so they can get their agenda pushed thru,(gun control-fear mongering) because most of America are sheep and can't see they are being duped.

This is no more insane than the majority of comments in this thread.

ETA: My money says they will 'label' this MENTAL ILLNESS so they can push the agenda that anyone who has a 'mental illness' diagnosis can NOT have a gun (and look how many are on anti-depressants, labeled bi-polar, etc) That's patience. To disarm a nation, it took them DECADES to 'label' the majority.....now, they will pass laws that say 'mental illness' means you cannot have a gun......

I don't care how much pigment the shooter or the victim had or had not.
This is NOT about black and white, yellow and red.
OMG we people simply cannot BE that ignorant.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

gimpy said:


> True, and someone will likely wander by with a number 5.
> 
> Was Zimmerman held without bail?


In retrospect, does the Police department wish they had held Zimmerman without bail?


----------



## MDKatie (Dec 13, 2010)

IMO, there was absolutely no reason whatsoever for this retired cop to shoot the texter. The man was texting his daughter's babysitter. The retired man reported the texting, but from what the article says he came back and then got in an argument with the guy. He should have let the movie theater employees handle it, and not try to argue with the guy. He also could have simply moved away from the texter, to another seat. If the movie theater employees didn't handle the situation appropriately, then he could have asked for his money back and simply gone to see the movie at a later time. 

Now a father is dead, over a text message. The old guy felt threatened, really? Sure sounds like he was the instigator. And even if he did feel threatened, you're not supposed to shoot unless you know exactly where your shot will go, and who is around. It was VERY irresponsible of him to shoot in a movie theater. 

I think he should be charged with murder. I just keep imagining his wife...how horrible for her (the texter's wife, not the murderer's wife).


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

MDKatie said:


> IMO, there was absolutely no reason whatsoever for this retired cop to shoot the texter. The man was texting his daughter's babysitter. The retired man reported the texting, but from what the article says he came back and then got in an argument with the guy. He should have let the movie theater employees handle it, and not try to argue with the guy. He also could have simply moved away from the texter, to another seat. If the movie theater employees didn't handle the situation appropriately, then he could have asked for his money back and simply gone to see the movie at a later time.
> 
> Now a father is dead, over a text message. The old guy felt threatened, really? Sure sounds like he was the instigator. And even if he did feel threatened, you're not supposed to shoot unless you know exactly where your shot will go, and who is around. It was VERY irresponsible of him to shoot in a movie theater.
> 
> I think he should be charged with murder. I just keep imagining his wife...how horrible for her (the texter's wife, not the murderer's wife).


BOOM Sha-ka-la-ka!
This is it.
Absolutely brilliant.
This is it.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

gimpy said:


> True, and someone will likely wander by with a number 5.
> 
> Was Zimmerman held without bail?


The Zimmerman shooting wasn't a PR problem at the start. Zimmerman wasn't a white guy, he wasn't a current or former cop, there was clear evidence to show he was attacked and most importantly he didn't lawyer up.


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

I tried to read this whole thread, but got to skimming in places.. 

A couple things... yes, the guy evidently left the theater, but to go find a manager supposedly. There's no proof he left the building, or left to get a gun. If I have a CCW, I'm not leaving my gun in the car. It will always be on me... Especially in a theater where it would be legal unless there's a sign.

What I've read is they are saying the old man felt threatened. I could see that. If a person is angry enough to throw what ever he has in his hands at you, whether it's a bag of popcorn, or a hand full of rocks, what''s his next move? Will he lunge at you to start choking you? He's become a threat by throwing something.. He's become violent and aggressive.. 

All I know is it's going to be a really interesting trial if it goes there, and I'd imagine it will since a self defense claim is already being made.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

MDKatie said:


> IMO, there was absolutely no reason whatsoever for this retired cop to shoot the texter. The man was texting his daughter's babysitter. The retired man reported the texting, but from what the article says he came back and then got in an argument with the guy. He should have let the movie theater employees handle it, and not try to argue with the guy. He also could have simply moved away from the texter, to another seat. If the movie theater employees didn't handle the situation appropriately, then he could have asked for his money back and simply gone to see the movie at a later time.


This thinking is why we are where we are. Years ago if someone did something inappropriate they were called out on it. Today we are taught to just run away and let someone else handle it. Everything from out of control kids to loud mouth swearing jerks to drug dealers. We just let it go because its someone else's problem to deal with. That has worked really well hasn't it?





MDKatie said:


> Now a father is dead, over a text message. The old guy felt threatened, really? Sure sounds like he was the instigator. And even if he did feel threatened, you're not supposed to shoot unless you know exactly where your shot will go, and who is around. It was VERY irresponsible of him to shoot in a movie theater.


Ah. . .so if someone is trying to kill you in a crowed place you just just let them kill you rather than possibly harming someone else. Got ya.




MDKatie said:


> I think he should be charged with murder. I just keep imagining his wife...how horrible for her (the texter's wife, not the murderer's wife).


We don't know all the facts but I'm willing to bet when we do we will find out the texter wasn't an angel.


----------



## pax6 (Feb 7, 2013)

watcher said:


> Ah. . .so if someone is trying to kill you in a crowed place you just just let them kill you rather than possibly harming someone else. Got ya.


Tried to kill him with popcorn? :shrug:


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

According to the CNN reports the shooter never actually addressed his complaint to a manager. There is also a breaking report that he he became upset and threatened another couple at this same theater two weeks earlier for the same offense.


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

pax6 said:


> Tried to kill him with popcorn? :shrug:


As I said in my post just above this... The man because aggressive and violent. His reaction to anger was to throw what ever was in his hands at another person. A cop is trained to take aggression as a threat to their lives.. I do to. If a person is stooping to throwing something at you, what is his next step going to be? Rush you? strangle you? pull out a knife or gun?

Throwing anything, popcorn included is considered battery. If this guy would have thrown it at a cop in uniform, he would have either been stunned, tackled, or who knows, maybe shot if he didn't end it with that. A cop isn't going to stand around and see what the guy does next. The threat will be taken out.


----------



## MDKatie (Dec 13, 2010)

watcher said:


> This thinking is why we are where we are. Years ago if someone did something inappropriate they were called out on it. Today we are taught to just run away and let someone else handle it. Everything from out of control kids to loud mouth swearing jerks to drug dealers. We just let it go because its someone else's problem to deal with. That has worked really well hasn't it?


Run away and let someone else handle it? Haven't theaters historically had ushers to handle unruly people? Now they don't have ushers stationed in the theater, so you go tell them if you have an issue. It's their JOB.




> Ah. . .so if someone is trying to kill you in a crowed place you just just let them kill you rather than possibly harming someone else. Got ya.


Trying to kill you? Really? In a movie theater with a big crowd of people? What'd the old guy think, the other guy was going to pull a gun on him or something? Oh wait, HE was the one who did that!!! 



> We don't know all the facts but I'm willing to bet when we do we will find out the texter wasn't an angel.


No, we don't know the facts. Could have been the old guy was harassing the texter and the texter said, "I'm communicating with my babysitter over something very important, I'll be done in a minute." Could be the old guy didn't want to let it go. We do know one thing though, they were both breaking the rules, but only one of them is dead. "On the theaters' website is a list of prohibited items and actions. Among them: No cell phone use, including texting, in the theater auditorium. And no weapons allowed."

CNN article


I guess we learned a lesson. If you're going to confront someone, make sure you have a gun so you can shoot them when they argue back. That's a great way to take care of people doing unimaginably rude things....like texting in a movie theater.


----------



## pax6 (Feb 7, 2013)

He could have thrown his phone if he wanted to try and harm the shooter.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

pax6 said:


> Tried to kill him with popcorn? :shrug:


If I'm going to attack you one of the first things I'd do would be to distract you. Tossing popcorn in your face would be a very good way to distract you while I either attacked you or accessed a weapon to attack you.

Talking and waving my hands will keep you distracted while I set up to kick you in the knee or crotch.

You seem to think street fighters follow the Marquess of Queensberry rules.


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

pax6 said:


> He could have thrown his phone if he wanted to try and harm the shooter.


The guy threw what he had in his hand. It was aggression. It was anger and rage. It was an action. It wasn't a thought out reaction. I bet if he would have had his phone, he would have thrown that.

A person who loses their temper and throws the first thing they can at another person is a threat in my eyes. It means they aren't thinking rationally or thinking of consequences. It means they are a loose cannon and a threat to me or others around.

And what watcher said.. When it comes to fighting and aggression, there are no rules, other than make sure you come out alive..


----------



## joseph97297 (Nov 20, 2007)

So the guy shot was texting, not talking? What, was the old man bothered by the sound of the click clack of the man's thumbs?

The last time I went to a movie theater, around 15 years or so, the sound was so loud you couldn't hear the people talking two rows up, never less the click clack of a phone being used.

Was the old man bothered by the light of the phone??

I'm just at the stage of trying to figure out what got the old guy's panties into a twist.

As noted, what if the situation was reversed? An old guy driving, young man gets out at a stop sign to complain about how slow he is traveling, the old guy throws a bunch of AARP brochures at the young fella and the young guy whips out a pistol and shoots him, cause he feared for his safety........

people can talk about civility and such, but the fact remains, unless physical harm is being done to you or will be imminent why does your right trump others? As to the OP, if I was present in your scenario (guy wearing hat during Anthem) I would have told them other 6 to pack it up. I served in the Corps to protect that gentleman's right to wear the hat, I may not like it, but I respect it.


----------



## gimpy (Sep 18, 2007)

simi-steading said:


> yes, the guy evidently left the theater, but to go find a manager supposedly. There's no proof he left the building, or left to get a gun..


Is there any evidence that he didn't leave the building? Is there any evidence that he was already carrying the weapon when he bought his ticket? Have any employees or the manager come forward to say that he actually did complain to them?

Undoubtedly the theater has told its employees to only talk to police and lawyers at this point so we will have to wait until the trial to learn more.


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

Yep.. all we can do is speculate, but you also have to look at reason.. 

An ex-cop is more than likely always going to be carrying. They have all their life, and it's what makes them feel secure.

For me, I carry, and I never leave it in the car. If I feel I need to take it out of the house, then I feel it needs to be with me. I also don't want to risk it getting stolen if my car is broke into.

We all know, more than likely, he had it with him the whole time. Common sense points to it.. .especially if you're a person who carries, you'd understand why it stands to reason he had it the whole time.

Like I said, I can't wait until the trial to see how this plays out, and to see what common people in a jury feel is reasonable reason to suspect your life is in danger.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

Just another distraction to keep our eyes glued to nonsense while they pass laws that strip us of our rights.

Hook? Meet line and sinker.


----------



## gimpy (Sep 18, 2007)

Question: If a business posts, "no firearms allowed," does that trump a concealed carry permit?

I'm guessing that it varies by state?


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

Here in VA they have no force of law, unless the place is written into the gun laws. Places such as courts, state building, schools and such.

You can legally carry it into a theater if they have a no gun sign, but it's not the responsible thing to do. If they see your gun, and they ask you to leave, you must leave. However, you can't be arrested for being there with a gun unless you refuse to leave. Then it would be trespassing..


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

MDKatie said:


> Run away and let someone else handle it? Haven't theaters historically had ushers to handle unruly people? Now they don't have ushers stationed in the theater, so you go tell them if you have an issue. It's their JOB.


Seems to me the msg I responded to said the old guy should have either moved to another seat or got his money back and see the movie later. Is that not running away?




MDKatie said:


> Trying to kill you? Really? In a movie theater with a big crowd of people? What'd the old guy think, the other guy was going to pull a gun on him or something? Oh wait, HE was the one who did that!!!


Who knows what someone will do today. Also as I pointed out things that you young people don't think much about can cause a LOT of damage to use older types. Think about it, if you trip and start to fall which worry pops into your mind; A) if anyone is watching and will make fun of me or B) will I break a bone?




MDKatie said:


> No, we don't know the facts. Could have been the old guy was harassing the texter and the texter said, "I'm communicating with my babysitter over something very important, I'll be done in a minute." Could be the old guy didn't want to let it go. We do know one thing though, they were both breaking the rules, but only one of them is dead. "On the theaters' website is a list of prohibited items and actions. Among them: No cell phone use, including texting, in the theater auditorium. And no weapons allowed."


Could be. BTW, I don't know about the state or city but in a lot of places current and retired LEOs are allowed to carry weapons at all times, including places which state no weapons allowed.




MDKatie said:


> I guess we learned a lesson. If you're going to confront someone, make sure you have a gun so you can shoot them when they argue back.


That's always a good lesson. Just like if you are going to drive a car you should wear your seat belt in case you are hit by another driver. 




MDKatie said:


> That's a great way to take care of people doing unimaginably rude things....like texting in a movie theater.


If more people were not scared that person texting might be someone who will beat you for asking him to act civilized we might just have a more civilized society. I've seen civility go down the toilet in my life time. Not that long ago if a male (I won't call him a man) was standing on a parking lot screaming obscenities at a woman it would have been a matter of seconds before before a man or three showed up to put an end to it. Today he could be slapping her around and most people would just walk by w/o even saying a word. Why? Several reasons but one is they know he might be illegally armed and attack them and being law abiding citizens they are unable to defend themselves.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

this isn't about CCW laws or creating another law to force on theatres. It is an over reaction to disrespectful behavior. I think that we as a people should react to disrespectful or dangerous behavior. All too often, people turn away and just tolerate it.
A few years back, I was in a Burger King, with DW and both DS. Three guys, late teens/early 20s came in and sat down with their food, 20 feet away from me. The place was full of customers eating. These guys started a burping contest. The teenage girl, behind the counter wasn't going to do anything. Several people shook their heads in disgust. No one did anything.
So, I walked over to them and told them that they had to stop that disgusting behavior or leave, as I wasn't going to put up with it. Everyone was watching. They shut up, finished their meal and left, flipping me the bird on their way out. Several people came over to me to thank me for addressing the problem. I would have preferred that everyone stood up and ordered the guys out. But no one wants to get involved. So we put up with it and it just gets worse. Perhaps, a few people will be able to enjoy their movie experience without the violators and their cell phone addictions.
But, this is just one case. Lots of bad behavior gets accepted because no one will step up and do something, anything. Perhaps we are headed back to an era of responsibility for your actions.

For those that don't see popcorn throwing as assault, would a squirt gun squirting water on the guy texting be acceptable? Not MORE acceptable, acceptable?


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

I think honor duels should be allowed. I think calling someone out for a fist fight should be allowed. If your actions have consequences then maybe one thinks about their actions a little more?


----------



## gimpy (Sep 18, 2007)

CraterCove said:


> I think honor duels should be allowed.


My money is on Andrew Jackson


CraterCove said:


> I think calling someone out for a fist fight should be allowed.


 But then the bullies almost always win and it quickly is a, "Might makes Right," situation.


CraterCove said:


> If your actions have consequences then maybe one thinks about their actions a little more?


Theoretically at least we have a system in place that is supposed to not involve vigilantiism.


----------



## MDKatie (Dec 13, 2010)

watcher said:


> Who knows what someone will do today. Also as I pointed out things that you young people don't think much about can cause a LOT of damage to use older types. Think about it, if you trip and start to fall which worry pops into your mind; A) if anyone is watching and will make fun of me or B) will I break a bone?


SO maybe it would be prudent for elderly people to not pick fights with others, don't you think? How about some personal responsibility? I guess he felt he was invincible since he had a weapon and could just claim he felt his life was threatened. I don't see it as "running away" to tell the ushers there's a disruption, I see it as utilizing services that are specifically for that purpose.


----------



## Wanda (Dec 19, 2002)

haypoint said:


> this isn't about CCW laws or creating another law to force on theatres. It is an over reaction to disrespectful behavior. I think that we as a people should react to disrespectful or dangerous behavior. All too often, people turn away and just tolerate it.
> A few years back, I was in a Burger King, with DW and both DS. Three guys, late teens/early 20s came in and sat down with their food, 20 feet away from me. The place was full of customers eating. These guys started a burping contest. The teenage girl, behind the counter wasn't going to do anything. Several people shook their heads in disgust. No one did anything.
> So, I walked over to them and told them that they had to stop that disgusting behavior or leave, as I wasn't going to put up with it. Everyone was watching. They shut up, finished their meal and left, flipping me the bird on their way out. Several people came over to me to thank me for addressing the problem. I would have preferred that everyone stood up and ordered the guys out. But no one wants to get involved. So we put up with it and it just gets worse. Perhaps, a few people will be able to enjoy their movie experience without the violators and their cell phone addictions.
> But, this is just one case. Lots of bad behavior gets accepted because no one will step up and do something, anything. Perhaps we are headed back to an era of responsibility for your actions.
> ...



So if they thought you were being aggressive when you confronted them, it would have been appropriate for one of the group to shoot you?


----------



## unregistered358967 (Jul 17, 2013)

haypoint said:


> Lots of bad behavior gets accepted because no one will step up and do something, anything. Perhaps we are headed back to an era of responsibility for your actions.


Agreed. I don't have a gun, but I do have a mouth which sometimes gets me yelled at by people. But I really don't care. If I see something wrong going on, yes, I will speak up and I've taught my kids to do the same *if the situation is safe to do so*.


----------



## Glade Runner (Aug 1, 2013)

MDKatie said:


> SO maybe it would be prudent for elderly people to not pick fights with others, don't you think? How about some personal responsibility? I guess he felt he was invincible since he had a weapon and could just claim he felt his life was threatened. I don't see it as "running away" to tell the ushers there's a disruption, I see it as utilizing services that are specifically for that purpose.


And that is why jerks rule in society today. The nation has become supine, feminized and gutless and therefore more readily subject to bullies as well as a rapacious, totalitarian government.


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

Glade Runner said:


> And that is why jerks rule in society today. The nation has become supine, feminized and gutless and therefore more readily subject to bullies as well as a rapacious, totalitarian government.


What ever happened to the manly men like Bruce Lee, John Wayne, Clint Eastwood... Bet no one would have thrown popcorn in their faces for telling them to turn off their phone..


----------



## Glade Runner (Aug 1, 2013)

mmoetc said:


> There is also a breaking report that he he became upset and threatened another couple at this same theater two weeks earlier for the same offense.


"He kept staring at us and giving us dirty looks," said Dixon."

Wow, he ought to get 20 to life for that. So convenient that she recognized him a week after an incident in a dark theater and by hearing about it on the radio. Amazing things radios, never new they provided pictures.


----------



## Glade Runner (Aug 1, 2013)

simi-steading said:


> What ever happened to the manly men like Bruce Lee, John Wayne, Clint Eastwood... Bet no one would have thrown popcorn in their faces for telling them to turn off their phone..


There's a concerted effort to remove them from society because the sheeple feel threatened and/or jealous.


----------



## Harry Chickpea (Dec 19, 2008)

I am copying some of what I wrote elsewhere with a few revisions:

I worked in the industry for many years. When cell phones began to be popular, the circuit that I was with tried to draw a hard line on cell phone use in the theatres (Miami area). Other theatre circuits were not even attempting to control the problem and that noble effort came to naught. 

Combinations of factors - economics/public sentiment/television have combined to make a movie experience completely different than it used to be. When I started out as an usher, I was assigned to one AISLE in an auditorium, another usher was assign the second aisle, we were expected to remain there the entire movie and walk the aisle every fifteen minutes. There was a doorman who policed the lobby and checked in on us from time to time. If there was anything above a murmur that disturbed the audience, we were right there at the seat within fifteen seconds. If there was a repeat offense, the person was removed from the theatre. 

Compare that to today. People who are used to carrying on conversations over a television, people who could not live a day without a cellphone attached to the ear, and kids who have never known the concept of discipline are the new audience. Instead of a staff peppered with mature adults, the average theatre has a staff largely of minimum wage part-timers biding time while looking for real work. That doesn't promote excellence or grace through experience. The standard response in many circuits is "if there is a complaint, paper the person with free passes to make it go away."

The changes in the industry are what they are, and attendance as a percentage of adults is down tremendously, but it is the studios, distributors, and circuits that have set up the situations that have driven away many customers, and disgruntled many others to the movie-going "experience."

I find the use of this event as a sounding board for pro and anti gun factions. What I wrote above was fact. However, if you want to speculate, here are a few "what if..." comments.

Is the behavior of using the phone in the auditorium somehow acceptable, or is it completely insensitive and strange in its own right? Someone who disrupts numbers of other people is going to get stared at. It is called social pressure. Learn from it.

The wife of the shot man was apparently shot through the hand. If the shot went through the back of her hand to the palm and then into her husband, she was likely attempting to hold her husband back from aggressive movements. That supports a self defense response by the retired LEO. If the hand was shot through the palm first, that could indicate the aggression didn't come from her husband but from the retired LEO. A jury is going to be interested in that difference.

That the retired LEO sought out staff AND was reported to have had an earlier problem with a cell phone user could indicate a problem at the theatre in audience supervision and staff training. OR it could mean that he had successfully diffused situations before by having management take care of the offender and fully expected this to be a non-violent situation - one that suddenly exploded out of control.



For the anti-gun folks, here is a point to ponder. If the person behind bars in this incident had been in the auditorium at Aurora, the Aurora massacre would likely not have happened or would have been stopped immediately. The ex-LEO would be hailed a hero. Yes I KNOW they are different incidents - put away your blinders for a moment and recognize that the idea of having an armed LEO (retired or not) in a theatre is not a threat as much as it is a protection. If you don't believe that, explain the reasoning behind armed air marshals on flights. 

For the pro-gun folks (I have a CC permit myself) that concept of "weapon of last defense" has to hold to protect you legally and morally. It is your duty (and the law in Alabama) to seek ANY non-violent alternative before opening fire.

IF the cell phone user began getting aggressive with a staff member present, after being instructed to stop texting, to the point of being restrained by the spouse, then that person was out of control, pure and simple. 

How you or I might react to someone in an adrenaline rush turning violent is going to relate to context and proximity. If I'm ten feet away and there is a barrier of chairs, I might not feel endangered. If the distance is three feet and the person is charging over those chairs while trying to blind me with a thrown soda or popcorn while he attacks, I'm going to react much differently.

The evidence will all have to come out. The event was sad and tragic, but everyone would be wise to remember that the _*millions*_ of other movie-goers who have a brain and don't text or call within an auditorium never get shot or thrown out, and don't end up in fist fights. Why? - because they recognize the social rights of others in a group and act like adults.

As an aside, before I left Florida I had a similar situation with a jerk using a cell phone DURING the movie. I also went out, got a staff member who was reluctant and ineffective, giving the user a "warning" that was more a plea than anything. I reported the incident to the corporate office, got fed back to the district manager who did not see a problem at all with their policy. I never set foot in that circuit's theatres again. I have no need to pay $10 to have a jerk ruining my viewing of a movie and then have the hassle of dealing with incompetence and complacency from the top of a corporation on down.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Wanda said:


> So if they thought you were being aggressive when you confronted them, it would have been appropriate for one of the group to shoot you?


Sure, after they notified employees, came back and I threw food on them.


----------



## CountryWannabe (May 31, 2004)

simi-steading said:


> What ever happened to the manly men like Bruce Lee, John Wayne, Clint Eastwood... Bet no one would have thrown popcorn in their faces for telling them to turn off their phone..


If I remember correctly Bruce Lee got murdered, John Wayne is dead and Eastwood is reduced to rambling, incoherent speeches when he doesn't read the script. So you are correct. I doubt anyone will be throwing popcorn in any of their faces. 

Mary


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Harry Chickpea wrote, " Someone who disrupts numbers of other people is going to get stared at. It is called social pressure. Learn from it." 

That's it! Now I see where the problem starts. Parenting. Parents that think an angry stare will result in improved behavior of their children. Spank? Oh, heavens no. Then, teachers that can't do anything but give an angry stare. But with a childhood of no consequences, beyond the stare, these folks couldn't care less about interrupting a group's theatre experience. Angry stare? Is that all you have? 

Perhaps the NEWS media picked up on this because it is upsetting to many people and a growing problem as the text addiction grows. Perhaps others have imagined a world with such swift justice?


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

CountryWannabe said:


> If I remember correctly Bruce Lee got murdered, John Wayne is dead and Eastwood is reduced to rambling, incoherent speeches when he doesn't read the script. So you are correct. I doubt anyone will be throwing popcorn in any of their faces.
> 
> Mary


Well I wasn't so much talking about them specifically, but rather that our society doesn't put many tough men out there in movies and shows like they used to.. 

Now we get people like those on Parks and Recreation, James Parsons from Big Bang Theory, and even Johnny Depp is losing out to wimpier people..

Don't forget the old saying.. An armed society is a polite society... I'm gonna add, for the most part...


----------



## Oggie (May 29, 2003)

Jeez.

I don't even know where to start.

So, I'll just correct the notion that Bruce Lee was murdered. He wasn't.


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

What I was trying to get at was, people sticking up for their selves and confronting those that aren't following social norms is long gone. The tough men we all wanted to be like aren't around any more, and the film industry isn't putting many of them out there any more... So less and less people i think are not standing up for their selves.. 

Yeah, I may be off on a tangent, but I've noticed that any more it's the weaker kinds of people that are becoming the hero's of the film industry.. people who run and hide behind others.. 

It's like we're being taught to be sheepish... to not confront problems, to let others deal with it.. 

I'm the kind of person that believes if you have a problem, get rid of it... don't ask others to do your dirty work... Dirty Harry did his own..


----------



## Oggie (May 29, 2003)

It's a fairly odd coincidence that this whole incident happened right before the scheduled showing of "Lone Survivor," a movie about new-age sensitive men.


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

I knew nothing about what the movie was about.. I just watched the trailer. Yep, they should have sucked it up and killed the kid.. They wimped out and it cost them. It's called war, not love...


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

simi-steading said:


> What ever happened to the manly men like Bruce Lee, John Wayne, Clint Eastwood... Bet no one would have thrown popcorn in their faces for telling them to turn off their phone..


I bloody well would if it was during the PREVIEWS. 

I don't care how 'manly' you look or try to act. If you are a jerk, you'll hear about it from me.

Not that I would ever call David Lee Roth a manly man, but I did slap his face with a cold pizza in 1984, he deserved it. :hysterical:


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

MDKatie said:


> SO maybe it would be prudent for elderly people to not pick fights with others, don't you think? How about some personal responsibility? I guess he felt he was invincible since he had a weapon and could just claim he felt his life was threatened.


When the young big strong males in a crowd are so whimpy they don't even have the intestinal fortitude to tell someone they need to act civilized when out in public someone has to do it or let society fall farther down the sewer. Either old people or scrappy ladies. And since society has fallen down so far already you can expect the rude to feel they have no fear of consequences neither from others nor the law and are willing to beat you, if you stand up you better be ready.

If you want to see what I mean google "old marine attacked on bus" and watch the video then read the story of what happened. 





MDKatie said:


> I don't see it as "running away" to tell the ushers there's a disruption, I see it as utilizing services that are specifically for that purpose.


From your post (#82 in this thread) I quote:
_
He also could have simply moved away from the texter, to another seat. If the movie theater employees didn't handle the situation appropriately, then he could have asked for his money back and simply gone to see the movie at a later time._

Do you say this is NOT running away from the problem?


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

Glade Runner said:


> And that is why jerks rule in society today. The nation has become supine, feminized and gutless and therefore more readily subject to bullies as well as a rapacious, totalitarian government.


I've noticed 'feminized' is the right wing buzzword of the week as an excuse for men acting like jackwagons.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Less-is-more said:


> Agreed. I don't have a gun, but I do have a mouth which sometimes gets me yelled at by people. But I really don't care. If I see something wrong going on, yes, I will speak up and I've taught my kids to do the same *if the situation is safe to do so*.


Care to tell me when that is? Would you tell you kids to keep their mouths shut and move along if they saw a muscular 6' 6" guy loudly berating and swearing at a 5' 2" woman in a parking lot? 

What if it were an average sized guy doing it?


----------



## unregistered358967 (Jul 17, 2013)

watcher said:


> Care to tell me when that is?


I was referring to things/situations at their schools. They're not that old. I've told them to use their best judgement at school and if the situation warrants it, yes, speak up and say something or get an adult to take care of it.


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

Well.. about all I can say about the whole deal is, A decent "citizen" would have been courteous enough to turn his phone off as soon as entering the viewing area. 

Since he wasn't polite enough to at least do that, then he should have respected the wishes of the others that paid to see the show too. When asked to please stop, he should have said sorry, and either got up or put it away... It's the only polite thing to do.. 

Instead the guy decided to get upset because he was disturbing others in a theater.. 

Karma took it's path... Your life is what you make it.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

simi-steading said:


> Karma took it's path... Your life is what you make it.


 Yep, and killing people for something as ignorant as this should land this jerk in prison. Karma is a , well, you know.


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

Who knows what the cop got away with before he retired? .....paths intersected.... 

Sadly lives are ruined. I believe things happen for reasons. Who knows what the future would have held if it wouldn't have stopped here.


----------



## countryfied2011 (Jul 5, 2011)

The whole situation is a tragedy, but I am afraid it is just the beginning of what is in store for the future.


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

After seeing what I see daily in a city full of government drones and arrogant lawyers, it's a wonder we don't have a whole lot more stories of people snapping over something so trivial..


----------



## MDKatie (Dec 13, 2010)

Harry Chickpea said:


> The wife of the shot man was apparently shot through the hand. If the shot went through the back of her hand to the palm and then into her husband, she was likely attempting to hold her husband back from aggressive movements.


Not necessarily. She could have been trying to push her husband away from the crazed man with the gun. And I believe it's already been said in articles that people (like the wife or wives) were trying to get the two men to stop arguing. 






watcher said:


> From your post (#82 in this thread) I quote:
> _
> He also could have simply moved away from the texter, to another seat. If the movie theater employees didn't handle the situation appropriately, then he could have asked for his money back and simply gone to see the movie at a later time._
> 
> Do you say this is NOT running away from the problem?


You and I obviously have differing views on this. I see no reason to continue this discussion since we're not going to make any progress either way.


----------



## Shrek (May 1, 2002)

I cannot understand why in a world when pocket sized short range cellphone and wifi jammers are available for under $100 why anyone has to be disturbed by cellphone use in a 30 foot circle of themselves.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

countryfied2011 said:


> The whole situation is a tragedy, but I am afraid it is just the beginning of what is in store for the future.


One thing's for sure, the shooter's future will be in prison. He'll never see the outside in his lifetime.

I can't imagine where a retired cop got the idea to do something like this. He's ruined his own future, and also advanced gun control a decade.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Shrek said:


> I cannot understand why in a world when pocket sized short range cellphone and wifi jammers are available for under $100 why anyone has to be disturbed by cellphone use in a 30 foot circle of themselves.


Cool! What should I look for on Amazon, brand name?:rock:


----------



## Harry Chickpea (Dec 19, 2008)

Shrek said:


> I cannot understand why in a world when pocket sized short range cellphone and wifi jammers are available for under $100 why anyone has to be disturbed by cellphone use in a 30 foot circle of themselves.


We investigated this option in the theatres. The FCC has stated that they are ILLEGAL. The fact that they are available does not help a business, which has to avoid the possibilities of legal entanglement. If they are available on the open market and someone wants to buy and use one, fine, THEIR problem.

A few theatres are naturally passive blockers of cell phone signals. Don't even get me started on the construction issues in theatres.

MDKatie - your idea is certainly possible. I had a boss that was subject to something called "flooding." With flooding, all reason takes a back seat to a set path of action. It is quite amazing to watch, and bystanders and friends often have to pick up the pieces.


----------



## Raymond James (Apr 15, 2013)

Guns do not kill cell phones do. 

Actually who cares we just had the 20th school shooting since Newtown. Why do these shootings even make the news? We have kids killed everyday in America by gun violence that barely get a mention on the news. What is so special about this guy and the old man? Kansas city will have some one killed this week end and I bet you never hear anything about it? 

Gun deaths are the cost of freedom and Guns don't kill, people do . The NRA tells me that the old man if he did not have a gun would have used the popcorn to kill the guy.


----------



## thesedays (Feb 25, 2011)

dlmcafee said:


> Good for you,, CarterCove,, as a retired PO, I'll keep ya in mind when the SHTF and we need to band together. Broad derogatory generalization of groups a bigot makes.


I was thinking that this statement applies to haypoint too.

And the answer to the question is NO.


----------



## thesedays (Feb 25, 2011)

haypoint said:


> Harry Chickpea wrote, " Someone who disrupts numbers of other people is going to get stared at. It is called social pressure. Learn from it."
> 
> That's it! Now I see where the problem starts. Parenting. Parents that think an angry stare will result in improved behavior of their children. Spank? Oh, heavens no. Then, teachers that can't do anything but give an angry stare. But with a childhood of no consequences, beyond the stare, these folks couldn't care less about interrupting a group's theatre experience. Angry stare? Is that all you have?
> 
> Perhaps the NEWS media picked up on this because it is upsetting to many people and a growing problem as the text addiction grows. Perhaps others have imagined a world with such swift justice?


So, because some parents use discipline methods other than hitting their children, it's now OK for people to shoot someone for texting during previews? :runforhills:


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

The shooter is quite different from Zimmerman having been a police captain. I don't think the man snapped based on his history. I find it interesting that many of us have already made up our minds. Also interesting, there's a statement his firearm jammed. Might be good info for those who want a reliable handgun for more than one shot. 

Some have a bias against smaller calibers. Now we have two instances of one shot kills in self defense situations. I'm wondering how most cops would react to popcorn being thrown at them in a dark theater. I'm also curious how well a 71 year old's eyes would have adapted to the dark having just returned from a lighted area.

Info on the shooter:

"Reeves retired in 1993 as a captain with the police department in nearby Tampa. He also was director of security at Busch Gardens until 2005, a spokesman told CNN. Police told CNN that Reeves was instrumental in establishing the police department's first tactical response team.


Records released by the department indicate that* he was often praised for his work ethic and leadership. Negative remarks were rare, *such as a 1979 evaluation that said he had shown a temper when dealing with supervisors."

http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/14/justice/florida-movie-theater-shooting/


----------



## homstdr74 (Jul 4, 2011)

Darren said:


> The shooter is quite different from Zimmerman having been a police captain. I don't think the man snapped based on his history. I find it interesting that many of us have already made up our minds. Also interesting, there's a statement his firearm jammed. Might be good info for those who want a reliable handgun for more than one shot.
> 
> Some have a bias against smaller calibers. Now we have two instances of one shot kills in self defense situations. I'm wondering how most cops would react to popcorn being thrown at them in a dark theater. I'm also curious how well a 71 year old's eyes would have adapted to the dark having just returned from a lighted area.
> 
> ...


Altho' you'd think a retired LE officer would know better, he may have had a Jimenez, hence the jam. 

The comment about the eyesight issue interested me, also, since there have been numerous shootings over the years by younger LE officers who thought that they saw something in low light that turned out to not be as they had thought. People reaching for something and/or pulling it out of their coat, kids with toys, in general refuseniks who usually will not comply with the initial request and then do something stupid like throw something or grab for something or clown around like it's all a joke and pretend they are doing something, not realizing how that appears to the officer. Although those shootings are almost always condemned by the general public, the officers are most often exonerated after an investigation. The big difference here is that the shooter is not currently an LE officer.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

No one in the media picked up on the eyesight issue. Most folks as they get older have poorer vision at night. The guy he shot doesn't look like a little man either. You'd think as an adult he'd be beyond throwing popcorn. I've seen that before and the assailant was quickly kicked out. Security wasn't putting up with any of that BS. Times have changed. You can't count on assaulting someone with impunity.


----------



## countryfied2011 (Jul 5, 2011)

I definitely think there is more to the story than what is being reported in the news...


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

I'd say the victim's last words indicate his shock that the old man had taken things in the direction he had. Also, may I remind people that the old man shot the guy's wife too? There is no _good_ excuse for what happened. And by the time we hear anything from the former law officer his words will have time to be carefully crafted for him.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

*The retired cop fired one shot* which went through the woman's hand and into her husband's chest. Then the gun jammed or is not reported as having jammed depending on what you read. Journalists seem to be uninformed about firearms. Two calibers have now been mentioned, a .38 or a .380. I don't expect a .38 would jam.

Likewise there seems to be two stories, depending on the source. The one that makes the most sense is that the woman was trying to calm/restrain her husband. The word calm is my interpretation. Some articles say restrain. Putting her hand on his chest to protect him doesn't make sense. 

What he said last or some variant isn't that unusual for people who have been shot. In his situation, I can't imagine him saying something like, :I'll text if I want to. :Censored: old man." after being shot. 

The retired cop didn't shoot him in the arm or in the leg. Or in the air. He shot center mass as trained. His lawyer, of course claims self-defense. Nothing in the news so far convinces me otherwise.

He didn't empty the firearm into the guy. Nor was he throwing punches at the man. From the witnesses, the dead man escalated the argument first. I don;t think the retired cop would have shot unless he felt he was in danger, especially after the adult act of throwing popcorn.

Another thing to watch for is whether the firearm was brandished to intimidate the texter. So far the firearm seems to be a surprise to everyone in the theater that witnessed the confrontation. No one knew the retired cop had a firearm. That's another reason I think it was self-defense.


----------



## MDKatie (Dec 13, 2010)

simi-steading said:


> Instead the guy decided to get upset because he was disturbing others in a theater..
> 
> Karma took it's path... Your life is what you make it.


I think losing your life over texting in a theater (during the previews, no less) is a big much for karma, don't you think?




Darren said:


> He didn't empty the firearm into the guy.


Because the gun jammed, which means he obviously tried to shoot more than once. We don't know how many shots he would have fired had the gun not jammed.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

thesedays said:


> So, because some parents use discipline methods other than hitting their children, it's now OK for people to shoot someone for texting during previews? :runforhills:


Parents are disciplining their children? Really? Where? I see far too many people that have been raised without discipline, that have no respect for others. IMHO, this guy was asked to pocket his phone, refused. The old guy, within his rights alerted theatre staff. The texter then got verbal with the guy for snitching, threw popcorn on him. That seems to display a lack of respect for those that came to enjoy the movie, previews and all.

Not alright to shoot some aggressive self centered loud mouth. But I hope that others with the same disrespect for others sees the possibilities and lets me enjoy my movie, previews and all.


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

Mostly you won't see anyone discipline a child publicly. Most parents are fearful, and rightfully so of what busybodies and cat ladies will do to them if they object. If you don't want cps knocking on your door you best be afraid when you child threatens to tattle on you to some one too. Suddenly taking the tablet away for not paying attention to chores can turn into something else and everyone in the family is ruined.


----------



## Glade Runner (Aug 1, 2013)

MDKatie said:


> I think losing your life over texting in a theater (during the previews, no less) is a big much for karma, don't you think?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


He didn't lose his life for texting. He lost his life for being a moron and for atacking someone.

You clearly know nothing about firearms so I'd refrain from commenting on that aspect of this discussion.


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

MDKatie said:


> I think losing your life over texting in a theater (during the previews, no less) is a big much for karma, don't you think?


Who knows,, ,maybe he's been a real idiot and it's been piling up for years?




MDKatie said:


> Because the gun jammed, which means he obviously tried to shoot more than once. We don't know how many shots he would have fired had the gun not jammed.


A jam does not mean he tried to fire more than once. It could have been he fired once, and only had the intention to fire once. It could be the gun stove piped, or rather the empty casing got stuck sticking out of the ejection port, or it could be it only half way chambered a new round.. 

It could be he fired, put the gun down, or what ever, but when the police found it or took it, they saw it was jammed.. Being jammed does not mean he tried to fire more than once. It just means it was unfunctional after taking a shot.


----------



## unregistered41671 (Dec 29, 2009)

MDKatie said:


> Because the gun jammed, which means he obviously tried to shoot more than once. We don't know how many shots he would have fired had the gun not jammed.


 It does not mean he tried to shoot more than once. Once he fired the first shot, the gun jammed while another round was being loaded into the chamber. A semi automatic pistol, if working correctly with the right ammo loads the next round into the chamber for you, if not , it jambs. The person holding the pistol then has the option of pulling the trigger again. 

That does not mean that he intended to fire again.


----------



## MDKatie (Dec 13, 2010)

Glade Runner said:


> You clearly know nothing about firearms so I'd refrain from commenting on that aspect of this discussion.


Attacking someone? With popcorn? We don't know what Reeves said back to him when he came back from *not* telling the manager.

Excuse you, but I *do* shoot. I'm no expert, but when I have had a gun jam on me before (both a .22 AND a 45 caliber) it has been when I tried to fire. 


And this article sure makes Reeves seem like an old grouch who likes to complain about everything. For him to be grumbling all the way through the movie is crazy since the lady put her phone away after that. If someone is so miserable around other people, he should not go to public theaters.


----------



## okiemom (May 12, 2002)

simi-steading said:


> What ever happened to the manly men like Bruce Lee, John Wayne, Clint Eastwood... Bet no one would have thrown popcorn in their faces for telling them to turn off their phone..


do realize that all of those men are from Hollywood, right?! Disney and Hollywood are not real.


----------



## MDKatie (Dec 13, 2010)

simi-steading said:


> Who knows,, ,maybe he's been a real idiot and it's been piling up for years?


Ok, that gave me a little chuckle. 




> A jam does not mean he tried to fire more than once. It could have been he fired once, and only had the intention to fire once. It could be the gun stove piped, or rather the empty casing got stuck sticking out of the ejection port, or it could be it only half way chambered a new round..
> 
> It could be he fired, put the gun down, or what ever, but when the police found it or took it, they saw it was jammed.. Being jammed does not mean he tried to fire more than once. It just means it was unfunctional after taking a shot.





Possum Belly said:


> It does not mean he tried to shoot more than once. Once he fired the first shot, the gun jammed while another round was being loaded into the chamber. A semi automatic pistol, if working correctly with the right ammo loads the next round into the chamber for you, if not , it jambs. The person holding the pistol then has the option of pulling the trigger again.
> 
> That does not mean that he intended to fire again.


Thank you both for that explanation, instead of just rudely commenting I knew nothing, like the other person did.

But it still doesn't tell us whether he intended to fire again or not. Only Reeves knows that.


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

okiemom said:


> do realize that all of those men are from Hollywood, right?! Disney and Hollywood are not real.


Don't go ruining my reality.. :nana:


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

MDKatie said:


> Because the gun jammed, which means he obviously tried to shoot more than once. We don't know how many shots he would have fired had the gun not jammed.


We don't know that for sure. The Zimmerman gun was widely reported as having failed to feed a cartridge after it was fired. There was nothing in the ballistic report to indicate it failed. When it was tested to confirm it was the firearm associated with the killing, it worked fine. Did you find an article that quoted the deputy who took control of the firearm?

I'm wondering if we're not reading the result of ignorance on the part of the original journalist. Meaning, because more than one shot wasn't fired, it must have jammed. Everyone knows when you shoot someone, you empty the gun. Then reload and do it again. I'm being sarcastic of course. I'm surprised someone didn't call it an automatic pistol. 

None of the witnesses reported an attempt to shoot more than once. The retired cop didn't try to clear the weapon either.

That's another reason I think the retired cop reacted to perceived danger. After he fired once he stopped. He didn't empty the gun in rage. His reaction afterwards seems to indicate someone who acted instinctively based on experience and training and then went into withdrawal after the incident. He wasn't bouncing around and yelling afterwards.

I wouldn't be surprised if he wasn't shocked by what happened when instincts and muscle memory took over.

The difference in this case is that there were many witnesses to the incident. I haven't read anything yet, that shows it was anything other than self defense. None of us can know what went through the old man's mind when the pop corn was thrown. As far as I can tell the reaction was immediate. That's another thing to look for. How much time elapsed after the pop corn until he gun was fired?


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

I can pretty much safely say, that if I were to ask someone to please stop interrupting the movie and he turned around and got smart with me, then stood up and threw something , anything, in my direction, there's gonna be a heck of a ruckus... I'd probably have my gun out instantly too, because I'd be in fear he was getting ready to do more...


----------



## MDKatie (Dec 13, 2010)

simi-steading said:


> I can pretty much safely say, that if I were to ask someone to please stop interrupting the movie and he turned around and got smart with me, then stood up and threw something , anything, in my direction, there's gonna be a heck of a ruckus... I'd probably have my gun out instantly too, because I'd be in fear he was getting ready to do more...


I'd be thankful for the extra popcorn! Have you seen how high movie popcorn is? It's $6 for a "large" at our local theater!


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

MDKatie said:


> You and I obviously have differing views on this. I see no reason to continue this discussion since we're not going to make any progress either way.


I asked a very simple question: is moving to another seat or leaving the theater thus allowing the texter to continue texting running away from the problem or not?

Why do you feel the need to avoid answering?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> One thing's for sure, the shooter's future will be in prison. He'll never see the outside in his lifetime.


I say its too early to tell. A lot of people would have said the same thing before the OJ trial.




Nevada said:


> I can't imagine where a retired cop got the idea to do something like this. He's ruined his own future, and also advanced gun control a decade.


I have said for years cops should not be allowed to carry firearms. The stats, at least the last time I checked, show more are killed by THEIR weapons than anything else.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

haypoint said:


> Cool! What should I look for on Amazon, brand name?:rock:


You won't find one on Amazon, they are illegal to even possess much less use in the US.


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

MDKatie said:


> I'd be thankful for the extra popcorn! Have you seen how high movie popcorn is? It's $6 for a "large" at our local theater!


LOL.. yeah.. that popcorn isn't cheap, but I guess you've not been in many bars.. I've seen way too many fights start with a drink being thrown, or a cigarette being flicked.. Something being thrown at you with aggression is usually just the beginning..


----------



## MDKatie (Dec 13, 2010)

watcher said:


> I asked a very simple question: is moving to another seat or leaving the theater thus allowing the texter to continue texting running away from the problem or not?
> 
> Why do you feel the need to avoid answering?


Because I like horses, even when they're dead, and I don't like beating them. 

But, since you simply cannot accept my not answering your question, no I don't see it as running away from a problem. I see it as solving a problem. Person in the theater is annoying me? Move! Problem solved! :grin: And nobody is dead. 




simi-steading said:


> LOL.. yeah.. that popcorn isn't cheap, but I guess you've not been in many bars.. I've seen way too many fights start with a drink being thrown, or a cigarette being flicked.. Something being thrown at you with aggression is usually just the beginning..


But people in bars are normally drunk or working on getting there, which makes them act stupidly. AND, might I add, that it's usually men who get in bar fights, because men are too proud to walk away.


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

Oh trust me.. I've seen women get in some of the nastiest knock down fights.. 

I've also seen very sober people in bars get into them... 

I spent years working in bars and basically living in them... never underestimate people... I've seen the most aggressive people walk away from fights, and I've seen some of the most quiet take out several people at once.

If you think someone throwing anything at you is the end of it on their part, I think you'll be in for a rude awakening if you ever find yourself in a similar situation as happened here..


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

There are too many scenarios to even begin to make logical assumptions on what happened.

I can come up with several which would make the shooting a good legal shooting and several others which would make it a crime. All based on what we "know" from the reports out there.

It seems to me people here are picking a scenario which fits their view on CCW and/or how to deal with rude people and ignoring the fact the 'facts' could just as easily disprove their view.

There are several things we do not know yet. One is any info on the personalities of the people involved. Was the LEO known to be a bully in blue or was he Officer Friendly? Was the texter a saintly doting father or a wantabe MMA fighter with a history of violence? 

At this time I'm not quite willing to assume (I know) that a retired LEO with years of training and experience dealing with confrontations went from peacefully waiting for a movie to start to a blind killing rage over some guy texting during the previews. Unless someone can show mental issues it just isn't logical.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

simi-steading said:


> Oh trust me.. I've seen women get in some of the nastiest knock down fights..
> 
> I've also seen very sober people in bars get into them...
> 
> ...


I never understood what kind of idiot thinks its a good idea to put a pool table in a bar. When you have booze, competition and a lot of times betting (even if its only loser buy next round) it tends to lead to fights. Is it really smart to have a game where they have heavy sticks to play with?


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

Makes you wonder don't it? The balls make some pretty good weapons too..


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

There you have it. Go for the balls every time.


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

Of course, I've seen bottles, mugs and pitchers used as weapons too... Bars just aren't the best place to get into a fight...


----------



## homstdr74 (Jul 4, 2011)

watcher said:


> .
> *I have said for years cops should not be allowed to carry firearms. The stats, at least the last time I checked, show more are killed by THEIR weapons than anything else*.


Unless you're being facetious, how can you logically explain that position that LE shouldn't have firearms? 

Perhaps some officers do get injured by firearms or by having their firearms taken away by the bad guys, but those are few and far between. Check the FBI reports of "Assaults against LE officers". Many of those assaults could have turned out differently had the LE officer not had his weapon with him.


----------



## thesedays (Feb 25, 2011)

CraterCove said:


> Mostly you won't see anyone discipline a child publicly. Most parents are fearful, and rightfully so of what busybodies and cat ladies will do to them if they object. If you don't want cps knocking on your door you best be afraid when you child threatens to tattle on you to some one too. Suddenly taking the tablet away for not paying attention to chores can turn into something else and everyone in the family is ruined.


Discipline is about training and teaching, not punishment. The people I've known personally who were afraid of CPS had some very good reasons to feel that way. Honestly, if you're such a wimp that you're going to cave just because the kid threatens to call CPS on you, you have no business parenting.

I see people disciplining their children in public all the time! They might gently pull a child away from something they shouldn't have gotten into, or tell them not to run off, or whatever. You DO NOT have to hit a child to discipline them.

Having been raised in a home where "discipline" was defined by my mother as "visible injuries", this is a very sensitive subject for me. Children should not be afraid of their parents, or they won't respect them. They'll just get better at not getting caught, or they will figure that they're going to be punished for something anyway, so why not misbehave?


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

thesedays said:


> Discipline is about training and teaching, not punishment. The people I've known personally who were afraid of CPS had some very good reasons to feel that way. Honestly, if you're such a wimp that you're going to cave just because the kid threatens to call CPS on you, you have no business parenting.
> 
> I see people disciplining their children in public all the time! They might gently pull a child away from something they shouldn't have gotten into, or tell them not to run off, or whatever. You DO NOT have to hit a child to discipline them.
> 
> Having been raised in a home where "discipline" was defined by my mother as "visible injuries", this is a very sensitive subject for me. Children should not be afraid of their parents, or they won't respect them. They'll just get better at not getting caught, or they will figure that they're going to be punished for something anyway, so why not misbehave?


It's unfortunate you know so many scum bags... or maybe some people are just too righteous in their own lives that everyone around them seems like scumbags.


----------



## thesedays (Feb 25, 2011)

Does anyone see an inconsistency here? It's OK for a retired elderly cop to shoot someone for texting in a theater, but it's not OK for people to go into a school, or a grocery store, or whatever, and shoot random people there?


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

While texting was prohibited, I'd bet money that texting isn't a capital offense. Assault and battery, while also not a capital offense, can be grounds for self defense. Did the retired cop have reason to believe he was in danger? 

That's what the jury will have to decide after they hear the evidence.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

simi-steading said:


> Makes you wonder don't it? The balls make some pretty good weapons too..


I deliberately didn't mention that because I knew someone would just HAVE to say something naughty.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

homstdr74 said:


> Unless you're being facetious, how can you logically explain that position that LE shouldn't have firearms?
> 
> Perhaps some officers do get injured by firearms or by having their firearms taken away by the bad guys, but those are few and far between. Check the FBI reports of "Assaults against LE officers". Many of those assaults could have turned out differently had the LE officer not had his weapon with him.


Another time when you can twist stats. Its true, or at least used to be, that most officers killed by their own weapon than any other thing. The devil in the detail is those numbers count suicides in which LEOs almost always use their service weapon.

Therefore by looking purely at the numbers, which is what a lot of people pushing an agenda do, its clear to save police officers lives we must take their firearms from them.

IIRC, there is/was some place which required officers to leave their weapons at the station when they got off duty.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

thesedays said:


> Does anyone see an inconsistency here? It's OK for a retired elderly cop to shoot someone for texting in a theater, but it's not OK for people to go into a school, or a grocery store, or whatever, and shoot random people there?


The difference is there might have been a good reason the cop shot the guy.


----------



## countryfied2011 (Jul 5, 2011)

People keep saying He got shot for "texting", makes it sound like the PO just walked up... saw someone texting and shot them(typically what is done in the mall shootings etc) There actually was a confrontation and until all these details are known and there is a trial. No one has an idea what happened except the ones that were there. Including the news media :whistlin:


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

If it were under different circumstances, would you feel differently? 
Let's assume that the old guy told the dude to shut off the phone, the light and tap tap tap was distracting, but the dude responded with, "Aww, shut up old man." The old guy reported the cell phone usage to Management. After the old man returned, the dude "went off on him" verbally and perhaps aggressive stance (we know he was standing up) and intimidation by throwing popcorn on the old guy. 
I don't know how many people were in that theatre at the time. Group intervention would have stopped it way before it got out of hand. But the sheple sat, afraid to get involved.

A couple months ago, at a college football game, a dude left his hat on during the National Anthem. Everyone else removed their hats, they always do. So someone asked the dude to remove his hat, he refused. A group of fans surrounded him and told him to remove his hat or leave. There was a strong sense that they'd help him leave. It didn't have to get violent. Peer pressure works.

People are so unwilling to help or get involved. So situations escalate, when a bit of peer pressure would have stopped it.

Sorry to hear about people that had parents that beat them. But I have a far different take on it. Sometimes it is all in the remembering. When we moved up north, all our friend from back home came to visit. Most had children. I saw a variety of parenting styles. The worst behaved, most unhappy children were the ones that the parents let them express themselves, basically ignored their disruptive behavior if you ask me. Next were the yelling parents, yell and threaten to spank, threaten to make sit in a corner, but never followed through, so they yelled all the time and the children were unhappy. But the best behaved children that had, at some time been punished after the first warning. The punishment, spanking or "time out" was swift and consistent. But after that initial pattern was established, they didn't have to yell, they didn't have to threaten and they didn't have to spank. 
I would think that if you misbehaved and got a serious beating, the normal child would straighten up and further beatings would be unnecessary. Could be you had a crazy mother. But could be your awful wild and unruly behavior had driven her to extreme measures. 

I think that we, as a society have lost something valuable. We would stop to help change a tire for someone, if we knew that everyone would stop if it were a setup. We could pick up a teenage hitch hiker if we knew that the rest of the drivers on that road would help us if it were a robbery.
But if it doesn't involve us, we turn away. I think that was how Hitler took over Germany.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

countryfied2011 said:


> People keep saying He got shot for "texting", makes it sound like the PO just walked up... saw someone texting and shot them(typically what is done in the mall shootings etc) There actually was a confrontation and until all these details are known and there is a trial. No one has an idea what happened except the ones that were there. Including the news media :whistlin:


I'm a little beside myself over the 'wait and see' attitude here. There has been no legal justification for the shooting alleged. Clearly, the fact that the victim was being rude isn't legal justification to use deadly force, and even if there was an argument the victim was unarmed.

While I think the shooter deserves a fair trial, I'm not sure what we're waiting to learn about this incident.

As I said earlier, this incident sets gun rights way back.


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

Not usually the biggest fan of Nevada but I stand with him on this one.


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

I see people here complaining that we've become a nation of wimps. 

You know what's wimpy? Considering having popcorn thrown at someone assault and battery.

SMH.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> I'm a little beside myself over the 'wait and see' attitude here. There has been no legal justification for the shooting alleged. Clearly, the fact that the victim was being rude isn't legal justification to use deadly force, and even if there was an argument the victim was unarmed.
> 
> While I think the shooter deserves a fair trial, I'm not sure what we're waiting to learn about this incident.
> 
> As I said earlier, this incident sets gun rights way back.


It won't do anything to gun rights! The ex cop had a mental issue and he snapped. Most cops are like that! I had a cop "friend" (lapd) tell me to my face that my Constitutional rights ended at his badge! That conversation didn't end well for him! It will be shown that this rogue ex cop went to his car and retrieved the weapon, came back, and shot the guy and his wife!

He was unstable and had a gun! It's not the guns fault!


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

People thought Martin-Zimmerman was going to set gun rights back. Same with Newtown. Most politicians understand the reality of the second amendment. The ones that don't and survive are from areas where they don't have to be concerned about being re-elected. Our newest senator, Joe Manchin, got the shakes when he started collaborating with gun control aficionados in Congress. He about :----ed: himself when people here reacted. I don;t keep up with the NRA other than knowing normally their ratings of politicians come out immediately before elections. Maybe they made an exception for Manchin. Maybe not. They did slam him in an off year. Previously Manchin was golden. Not any more.

Odd how things catch your attention. According to a book I started reading today by an ex-military type, it takes your eyes 30 minutes to fully adjust when entering a dark area from an area that's lit. I don't know if that varies as you get older. The retired cop's eyes couldn't have adjusted enough to see what was going on when he had the pop corn thrown at him.

I think that's the critical factor. The ex-cop went on automatic when he was faced with assault. He had no clue what was coming. If the younger man had confronted anyone except an ex-cop, it might have resulted in a different outcome. Older combined with the man's law enforcement experience turned out to be a lethal combination.

Of course the younger guy didn't expect to not survive a night out with his wife. Nor did Trayvon expect when he trash talked the man watching him to his friend that he would be on a slab that night.

There are lessons for all of us in this. Hopefully we'll all learn something that ups our chances of survival.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Tiempo said:


> I see people here complaining that we've become a nation of wimps.
> 
> You know what's wimpy? Considering having popcorn thrown at someone assault and battery.
> 
> SMH.


I've never been in law enforcement. The closest I came was pulling shore patrol duty in the Navy. Most of the times it was boring as hell until you had to control drunk sailors who could turn violent. I had more than my share of "exciting" times. I can never truly emphasize with what a cop has to deal with. I've gotten an ugly glimpse though.

Cops see the worse of society and it's their job to deal with it. You don't turn the instinctual reactions and experience off at the end of the day or when you retire. It's ingrained. It had to be for them to survive to retirement. 

I think text dude triggered his own death,


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Eye witnesses report "Noisily texting" By the way, he was texting his three year old daughter at day care. She needs to be reading Daddy's text messages? She has a cell phone? I know, beside the point. But it wasn't as if it was something important.

Others reported, " It got verbal, then physical, then he was shot." Got physical? Who?


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

Darren said:


> I've never been in law enforcement. The closest I came was pulling shore patrol duty in the Navy. Most of the times it was boring as hell until you had to control drunk sailors who could turn violent. I had more than my share of "exciting" times. I can never truly emphasize with what a cop has to deal with. I've gotten an ugly glimpse though.
> 
> Cops see the worse of society and it's their job to deal with it. You don't turn the instinctual reactions and experience off at the end of the day or when you retire. It's ingrained. It had to be for them to survive to retirement.
> 
> I think text dude triggered his own death,


My father in law is a retired under sheriff and Vietnam vet. I can't in a million years imagine him doing what this man did.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

I thought I'd see the latest news on this as witnesses get interviewed and more pieces of this puzzle come together, but this report has me stunned. So, tell me is this news or a prosecution drumming up sympathy? http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...ting-of-texting-moviegoer-end-in-tragedy.html


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

haypoint said:


> I thought I'd see the latest news on this as witnesses get interviewed and more pieces of this puzzle come together, but this report has me stunned. So, tell me is this news or a prosecution drumming up sympathy? http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...ting-of-texting-moviegoer-end-in-tragedy.html


Both!


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

haypoint said:


> I thought I'd see the latest news on this as witnesses get interviewed and more pieces of this puzzle come together, but this report has me stunned. So, tell me is this news or a prosecution drumming up sympathy? http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...ting-of-texting-moviegoer-end-in-tragedy.html


The Popcorn Defense? Seriously, it's hard to believe that this guy is a retired cop.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

The writer of the article has done something interesting. Other reports say the wife was trying to restrain or calm her husband. Following the incident she sought privacy. How does the writer know the wife's reason for placing her hand on her husband's chest was to protect him?

Thanks makes no sense at all. There's no mention of the retired cop brandishing the weapon to give the wife any chance to protect her husband by throwing her hand up. There's no doubt there were two angry men involved at a time when both of their wives were with them. Did either feel the need not to back down with their wife present?

I think text dude's wife knew her husband was out of control. The hand on his chest was meant to calm him down. It'll be interesting to see how the testimony of everyone including the two wives compares.

The writer got too inventive trying to explain the wife getting shot in the hand. I'm wondering if the wife even saw the firearm before the shot.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

I guess the city of Sanford wishes they had jailed Zimmerman when the whole thing started. Perhaps this city wanted to keep the old guy locked up until the witnesses had a change to be interviewed. 
The ex-cop has quite a long list of achievements. Maybe he is a nut case or maybe he knows the law better than most, we don't have all the pieces to the puzzle. 
There are a few that I'd like to have knit me a sweater out of a six inch piece of yarn. They have the case complete and the old guy doing life and we haven't heard from 4 of the 25 eye witnesses.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> I'm a little beside myself over the 'wait and see' attitude here. There has been no legal justification for the shooting alleged. Clearly, the fact that the victim was being rude isn't legal justification to use deadly force, and even if there was an argument the victim was unarmed.


Being rude isn't but if the guys manner and actions were preceded as a threat to the old guy he's well within his rights to use deadly force. A young health 20 or 30 something can do 'grievous bodily harm' to a 70 y.o. with nothing more than his fist. As I have stated if you are going to attack someone throwing something, in this case popcorn, in their face is a good way to get them off guard.

Think about this. You have someone who is loud and aggressive toward you. His words are implied threats and his actions are clearly meant to be intimidating. Suddenly he throws popcorn in your face and reaches toward his waist. Are you going to assume he's just being a nice guy and putting his cell phone away or are you going to assume he's reaching for a weapon?

Remember the shooter isn't some young guy who has just passed his required 8 hour course and gotten his CCW permit. He's a retired LEO who through his career has had many hours of training and real life experience dealing with confrontations.




Nevada said:


> While I think the shooter deserves a fair trial, I'm not sure what we're waiting to learn about this incident.


Simple, if a "reasonable man" on the jury was in the shooter's place would he have felt he was in danger of being attacked. If so the shooter walks.




Nevada said:


> As I said earlier, this incident sets gun rights way back.


Didn't you say the same about the Zimmerman shooting? I just read that FL is trying to change their law to allow a permit holder to 'brandish' or even fire a warning shot to end a situation. To me that's a relaxing of the law because now you don't have to feel in "immediate" threat which meant if you pull it you better shoot someone or you'll most likely face jail time.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Tiempo said:


> I see people here complaining that we've become a nation of wimps.
> 
> You know what's wimpy? Considering having popcorn thrown at someone assault and battery.
> 
> SMH.


If we are arguing and I want to attack you, you can bet I'd throw popcorn or my phone or something at you first. While you are distracted by that I'm going to grab you and pull you over the back of my row of seats and proceed to drive my knee into your face and my elbow into the back of you head. Or I may push you over the back of your row and climb on top of you and pound my elbow into your face.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

If you are knowledgeable about one piece of the news reports and it is screwed up, can we assume that there are mistakes in the hundred or so "facts" already reported? Cop told reporter that the old cop was dressed in a sort of flack jacket. Nonsense. He is in jail. They didn't bring him to court. He is in jail. They have him dressed in a suicide gown. It is like a heavy nylon quilt. Made so someone can't use it to hang themselves. To have him appear before the court dressed like that is despicable. 

The eye witness stated, " The argument turned from verbal to physical, then boom." Physical? There was a moment of physical contact, then boom? Did the old guy attack the dude, then shoot him? The old guy was pretty big, when he was a younger man, but unless the dude's wife is very, very short, the dude is a big guy. Not accustom to an old man that won't back down.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

The instructions we got from the station shore patrol lead at Gitmo would appall most folks today. We were told in no uncertain terms how to deal with a threat. Of course that was the military. However, the man on the end of the treatment would have had problems the rest of his life. We weren't there to be nice or even try to detension the situation. We had one job that was to deal with them and get them back to their ship one way or another. 

If there was a problem we were on! Same with the retired cop. Text dude mistakenly threatened the man and made him feel he was in danger. Bang! the only difference between the retired cop and us was we didn't have guns. We had night sticks and were ordered to apply them as needed. Same thing. See a threat. Bang!


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Darren said:


> The instructions we got from the station shore patrol lead at Gitmo would appall most folks today. We were told in no uncertain terms how to deal with a threat. Of course that was the military. However, the man on the end of the treatment would have had problems the rest of his life. We weren't there to be nice or even try to detension the situation. We had one job that was to deal with them and get them back to their ship one way or another.
> 
> If there was a problem we were on! Same with the retired cop. Text dude mistakenly threatened the man and made him feel he was in danger. Bang! the only difference between the retired cop and us was we didn't have guns. We had night sticks and were ordered to apply them as needed. Same thing. See a threat. Bang!


That right there is the problem. See a threat. Bang! What happened to the old days when the cops actually had to be shot at or physically attacked before they could respond with deadly force? Now, they just open up with fully automatic weapons! (Dorner )


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Fully automatic weapons? Don't you mean evil pistols that corrupt and force their owner to murder someone?


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

Tiempo said:


> I see people here complaining that we've become a nation of wimps.
> 
> You know what's wimpy? Considering having popcorn thrown at someone assault and battery.
> 
> SMH.


Dudes, what the heck? I am agreeing with Tiempo and Nevada. I just don't see how you can realistically say a mocking, hey, you ratted me to the management, and toss some food at a person is a kill worthy event.


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

JeffreyD said:


> That right there is the problem. See a threat. Bang! What happened to the old days when the cops actually had to be shot at or physically attacked before they could respond with deadly force? Now, they just open up with fully automatic weapons! (Dorner )


Just like to point out that Dorner was a card carrying liberal. So was Lanza. Although, I actually can see Dorner's side. He was trying to do good and put corruption to light and was messed over for it. He sought to uphold justice and was crucified and made a criminal for it.


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

I have a passionate husband. He speaks his mind and loudly at times. He says things that in calmer moments he hangs his head in shame. I support him, especially publicly because it's supposed to be that way, us against the world. But that doesn't mean that when some holier than thou old dude calls one of us down for texting our babysitter before a movie I don't recognize both the -------s at large here.

Why do I think wife of old dude and text dude were making eye contact thinking to each other, "this is wack." Old dude's wife may have had a hand on his arm while text dude's wife had a hand on his chest being like, "Is this really how we want to spend our sacred together time?" 

It does not mean that text dude was really intent upon violence. It does mean that everyone, including text dude, paid for a movie and the movie wasn't on, and as the parent of three crazy boys, I want some kind of check in and confirmation that the house is not burned down and no one is killed before I relax into a movie.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Darren said:


> Fully automatic weapons? Don't you mean evil pistols that corrupt and force their owner to murder someone?


Haha, no! I meant fully automatic AR15's. 104 rounds to be exact! Many, many rounds went into people's homes and cars! The cops also shot at a guy in a pickup they rammed. The poor surfer guy was lucky that the cop who was shooting at him from 15 feet away was a horrible shot! That cop used his service piece! All the cops here have full auto weapons! They're trained to get scared at the slightest twitch and just open up on whoever they think deserves to be shot at. Notice I said shot at, not shot! They think volume over accuracy! !!

If you think I'm anti gun, think again!


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

CraterCove said:


> Just like to point out that Dorner was a card carrying liberal. So was Lanza. Although, I actually can see Dorner's side. He was trying to do good and put corruption to light and was messed over for it. He sought to uphold justice and was crucified and made a criminal for it.


Yup, exactly. One lapd "friend" told me they were told to shoot to kill and that whatever happened, Dorner wasn't to be taken a live, which turned out to be true!


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

CraterCove said:


> I have a passionate husband. He speaks his mind and loudly at times. He says things that in calmer moments he hangs his head in shame. I support him, especially publicly because it's supposed to be that way, us against the world. But that doesn't mean that when some holier than thou old dude calls one of us down for texting our babysitter before a movie I don't recognize both the -------s at large here.
> 
> Why do I think wife of old dude and text dude were making eye contact thinking to each other, "this is wack." Old dude's wife may have had a hand on his arm while text dude's wife had a hand on his chest being like, "Is this really how we want to spend our sacred together time?"
> 
> It does not mean that text dude was really intent upon violence. It does mean that everyone, including text dude, paid for a movie and the movie wasn't on, and as the parent of three crazy boys, I want some kind of check in and confirmation that the house is not burned down and no one is killed before I relax into a movie.


One thing tho, old dude did this before at the same theater, to a woman! He obviously didn't shoot her though! He has a history of issues like this! It will all come out as the trial nears, and maybe, just maybe, we'll find out what really happened!!!


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

It seems to me that the gun rights cause is promoted best by convincing the powers-that-be and the public that gun owners show restraint and good judgment. All this tough talk about artful interpretations of what might be justification to use deadly force is going to set gun rights back.

One thing's for sure, if people carrying guns don't use restraint on their own then they should expect to be restrained with gun laws. That's just how it works.

Gun owners should be the first to condemn the unjustified use of deadly force. It's their own gun rights that are at stake.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> It seems to me that the gun rights cause is promoted best by convincing the powers-that-be and the public that gun owners show restraint and good judgment. All this tough talk about artful interpretations of what might be justification to use deadly force is going to set gun rights back.
> 
> One thing's for sure, if people carrying guns don't use restraint on their own then they should expect to be restrained with gun laws. That's just how it works.
> 
> Gun owners should be the first to condemn the unjustified use of deadly force. It's their own gun rights that are at stake.


I want to wait until his trial to hear the truth! Most every single person who carries a gun, never use it! Millions, carry everyday with no issue!


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

CraterCove said:


> I have a passionate husband. He speaks his mind and loudly at times. He says things that in calmer moments he hangs his head in shame. I support him, especially publicly because it's supposed to be that way, us against the world. But that doesn't mean that when some holier than thou old dude calls one of us down for texting our babysitter before a movie I don't recognize both the -------s at large here.
> 
> Why do I think wife of old dude and text dude were making eye contact thinking to each other, "this is wack." Old dude's wife may have had a hand on his arm while text dude's wife had a hand on his chest being like, "Is this really how we want to spend our sacred together time?"
> 
> It does not mean that text dude was really intent upon violence. It does mean that everyone, including text dude, paid for a movie and the movie wasn't on, and as the parent of three crazy boys, I want some kind of check in and confirmation that the house is not burned down and no one is killed before I relax into a movie.


I think this whole thing will be decided over fine details. Right now we don't even have a clear picture of what happened. With that in mind, I'd like you to back up a bit. Dude wasn't texting the babysitter. His daughter wasn't at home with the babysitter. It was early afternoon. His daughter was in daycare, as per her normal schedule. Dude was texting his daughter while she was in day care. News reports stated witnesses reported, " He was texting noisily." 
When the lights go down in a theatre, I'm being entertained. I want to see the previews of upcoming movies. The notice on the movie screen to shut off cell phones has already been shown.
If I am intent on watching the feature movie uninterrupted, I want to be sure the texting dude in front of me is shutting the cell phone off. I don't want to be walking the lobby, looking for staff to do their job, while the movie is playing.
By the way, the next time your husband starts in on his uncivilized verbal behavior, he might be rattling the cage of another version of uncivilized behavior. Unless you are willing to take a bullet for your man, perhaps you should be encouraging him to shut up instead of excepting his out of control temper? 
The old man asked the dude a couple times to shut it off. Then left the area and came back. What sort of long drawn out communication is required with a 3 year old at day care? If it was so important, yet upsetting to those that were watching the previews, couldn't the dude step out of the theatre and into the lobby?


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

Nevada said:


> Gun owners should be the first to condemn *the unjustified use of deadly force. It's their own gun rights that are at stake.*


Sorry, have to disagree. The misuse of firearm by one person does not put my rights at stake. Some politician might try and use an incident to their advantage and create more control but my fundamental rights are not in fact at stake because I won't allow them to be.


----------



## MDKatie (Dec 13, 2010)

Darren said:


> * How does the writer know* the wife's reason for placing her hand on her husband's chest was to protect him?
> 
> The hand on his chest was meant to calm him down.


How do _you_ know that?



watcher said:


> A young health 20 or 30 something can do 'grievous bodily harm' to a 70 y.o. with nothing more than his fist.


The victim was in his 40's...not some young kid.



haypoint said:


> By the way, the next time your husband starts in on his uncivilized verbal behavior, he might be rattling the cage of another version of uncivilized behavior. Unless you are willing to take a bullet for your man, perhaps you should be encouraging him to shut up instead of excepting his out of control temper?



Were you one of the ones talking about how it's the duty of everyone to speak up and voice their opinions and let people know when they're doing something wrong or "rude"? To keep society in check....or to make people behave? How do you know her husband isn't doing that? But now you're saying he should shut up?


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

And yeah... when my husband opens his mouth and gets passionate about something it's pretty much always to point out ill behavior or someone not being treated as they should be. ~shrug~ He's perhaps not as subtle about it as I might like...


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

The old guy needed to get himself a trunk monkey.
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4JYYY7jd0I[/ame]


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

So apparently there was another cop involved. A guy named Hamilton was who got the gun from Reeves and the judge denied bail because the judge is convinced Reeves murdered the man that self defense does not fit the description of what happened.

Hamilton risked his own life getting the gun away from Reeves. Also, Reeves nearly followed a lady into the women's restroom some days earlier over a similar incident, followed her and hounded her. Reeves sounds a wee bit unstable at this point.


----------



## Glade Runner (Aug 1, 2013)

Nevada said:


> I'm a little beside myself over the 'wait and see' attitude here. There has been no legal justification for the shooting alleged. Clearly, the fact that the victim was being rude isn't legal justification to use deadly force, and even if there was an argument the victim was unarmed.
> 
> While I think the shooter deserves a fair trial, I'm not sure what we're waiting to learn about this incident.
> 
> As I said earlier, this incident sets gun rights way back.


You were completely wrong about Zimmerman and I suspect you'll be completely wrong about this as well.


----------



## Glade Runner (Aug 1, 2013)

JeffreyD said:


> One thing tho, old dude did this before at the same theater, to a woman! He obviously didn't shoot her though! He has a history of issues like this! It will all come out as the trial nears, and maybe, just maybe, we'll find out what really happened!!!


Earlier incident was in no way similar and is probably bogus to boot if you read the actualy account.


----------



## itsb (Jan 13, 2013)

I will wait for all the details to come out before I get all worked up, but for thoughes that wander about throughing of popcorn as a thrit,take this short TEST! go out at nite and find a LEO in a dark alley and get mouthey with him while you are with in a few feet of him, then instantly through said popcorn in his face as your moving your hands:bouncy: now see how the next few seconds of YOUR life changes:stars:
rember this is just a test,dont try this at home!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

CraterCove said:


> So apparently there was another cop involved. A guy named Hamilton was who got the gun from Reeves and the judge denied bail because the judge is convinced Reeves murdered the man that self defense does not fit the description of what happened.
> 
> Hamilton risked his own life getting the gun away from Reeves. Also, Reeves nearly followed a lady into the women's restroom some days earlier over a similar incident, followed her and hounded her. Reeves sounds a wee bit unstable at this point.


Risked his life? Reeves sat down after the shot was fired, laid the gun on his thigh. 

To me texting in a theatre is rude. In broad daylight, in a public place, walking behind a person as they head towards the restroom is, at worst, rude. Follow to the car at night or follow her into the restroom, that's unstable.
When people act disrespectful to others, without actually breaking the law, they should expect that others might be disrespectful, also without breaking the law, to them, but in other ways.

Silly example. I'm in a parking lot, at an exit. Making a right turn. There is a car coming from my left. Good visibility. Just as they get to me, they turn into the parking lot. I was left waiting for them to go by, they failed to use their turn signal. Quickly, I drop my window, wave my hand and point at the front of their car. They stop, drop their window, wondering what's wrong with their car that I'm pointing at. I respond, " Your turn signal isn't working!". They know they didn't use their turn signal, but reply, " Oh, thanks." They made me wait, I held them up and they had to lie to a stranger. I'm hoping that in the future they realize they should use their turn signal in a similar situation. My point is that bad behavior should not be ignored.
25 people in the theatre, refusing to get involved, is what led to the death. If 23 others had joined in in complaining about the loud texting, it would have been settled. When the dude got loud when the old guy returned, everyone should have stood up and told him to shut up. Perhaps the old guy wouldn't have felt so threatened, with the support of others? "Oh, I don't want to get involved, he isn't threatening me." Shameful!


----------



## MDKatie (Dec 13, 2010)

itsb said:


> go out at nite and find a LEO in a dark alley and get mouthey with him while you are with in a few feet of him, then instantly through said popcorn in his face as your moving your hands:bouncy: now see how the next few seconds of YOUR life changes:stars:
> rember this is just a test,dont try this at home!!!!!!!!!!


A dark alley isn't the same as a movie theater with LOTS of people around, and Reeves was not an active duty cop.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

itsb said:


> I will wait for all the details to come out before I get all worked up, but for thoughes that wander about throughing of popcorn as a thrit,take this short TEST! go out at nite and find a LEO in a dark alley and get mouthey with him while you are with in a few feet of him, then instantly through said popcorn in his face as your moving your hands:bouncy: now see how the next few seconds of YOUR life changes:stars:
> rember this is just a test,dont try this at home!!!!!!!!!!


Ezactly!
But it doesn't have to be a LEO. Try it with anyone. You don't have to report back with the results, I'll watch it on the news.

I think there is a memo going out to most movie theatres about responding to customers complaints about cell phone use. They are so worried about people re-filming movies from their phones, how about a little customer service?


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Based on the description of the retired cop afterwards, the deputy wasn't dealing with a crazed shooter. I got the impression the retired cop was in something like a state of shock afterwards. It's a shame the deputy didn't get involved if he heard the commotion. 

I'm trying to figure out what happened immediately before the shooting along with if anything being written is bogus. We know text dude and wife were sitting in front of the retired cop and his wife. When I go to a movie there's a few spots I like. It makes sense both couples liked where they sat since there weren't that many in the theater. A few have wondered why someone didn't move.

We know text dude had turned around when he was shot. To watch the movie he would have had to face the other way. I still don't know where the journalists got the notion the wife was trying to protect her husband with her hand on his chest. *She hasn't made a public statement. *The hand protection seems to be an invention to explain how both husband and wife were shot with the same bullet. The wife placing her hand on her husband's chest to calm him makes more sense without a public statement.

Try to envision the positions of the text dude and his wife. Throwing up both hands is a protective instinct to an oncoming danger. That would have been awkward for the wife. The hand on the chest is using touch. We touch people for many reasons. Touching him to protect him makes no sense.

I haven't seen anything that says anyone was standing up at that point. The autopsy report will show the bullet track. Witnesses will know if text dude had gotten up from his seat. 

We haven't read anything about the ex-cop doing anything like show and tell with his firearm. It seems as soon as the firearm was drawn from the pocket it was aimed and fired. That indicates to me the retired cop felt he was in danger.

Remember the ex-policeman's eyes could not have fully adjusted to the dark. *His vision was impaired at the point when the popcorn was thrown at him.* I doubt if text dude would have been shot if the retired cop's vision had adjusted to the dark. In other words, his trip out to complain to the manager made the situation more deadly. I doubt he would have willingly compromised his vision if he had an inkling of what was coming.

Text dude had no way of understanding how his inconsiderate texting to the day care center set him up.


----------



## homstdr74 (Jul 4, 2011)

Tiempo said:


> My father in law is a retired under sheriff and Vietnam vet. I can't in a million years imagine him doing what this man did.


Exactly what did he do?, I mean, really. We don't know any more than what "the media" has told us he did.


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

So the other cop, Hamilton, is lying then, about the altercation between himself and Reeves over the gun?


----------



## homstdr74 (Jul 4, 2011)

JeffreyD said:


> One thing tho, *old dude did this before at the same theater, to a woman*! He obviously didn't shoot her though! He has a history of issues like this! It will all come out as the trial nears, and maybe, just maybe, we'll find out what really happened!!!


Or so she *SAYS*. Has anyone investigated this woman and her statement?


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

homstdr74 said:


> Or so she *SAYS*. Has anyone investigated this woman and her statement?


I am sure they are.


----------



## homstdr74 (Jul 4, 2011)

CraterCove said:


> I am sure they are.


 Someone besides those who stand to profit from propaganda, that is.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

MDKatie said:


> A dark alley isn't the same as a movie theater with LOTS of people around, and Reeves was not an active duty cop.


Lots of similarities between an alley and a group of sheeple that refuse to get involved. Doesn't have to be a LEO, pick anyone that is concerned about their safety enough to carry a gun, then add a stand your ground law. 
Women are raped and beaten in apartments within ear shot of dozens of people that refuse to respond, "I don't want to get involved." 
A number of years back a mass murder on a commuter train, near NY, while everyone just watched. We'll never know, but perhaps 9/11 could have been prevented if those that slammed into the WTT had done what the passengers did over PA, remember, "Let's roll!" ?
I'll bet the old guy has, in his long career in Police work and later as Security Officer, had hundreds of people anger him, get in his face. So where is the list of fatalities?
I don't want to release or convict anyone. But I do see too much unwillingness to correct bad behavior or help those in need. We are not islands.


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

homstdr74 said:


> Someone besides those who stand to profit from propaganda, that is.


You mean like the police? obviously the DA is going to follow that little nugget up.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

CraterCove said:


> So the other cop, Hamilton, is lying then, about the altercation between himself and Reeves over the gun?


What altercation?

"A man sitting next to the suspect was an off-duty deputy from another county, and he grabbed the gun out of Reevesâ hand. Reeves did not attempt to get away, Charles said."

http://nypost.com/2014/01/14/shooting-victim-was-texting-daughters-daycare/


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

yes, he did not run.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

CraterCove said:


> So the other cop, Hamilton, is lying then, about the altercation between himself and Reeves over the gun?


Sgt. Steve Greiner, the first Pasco County deputy to encounter Reeves, said the suspect was very calm as he sat in his chair. He had an almost distant stare toward the screen, Greiner said.


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

I would expect he might be a little despondent after murdering someone.


----------



## homstdr74 (Jul 4, 2011)

CraterCove said:


> You mean like the police? obviously the DA is going to follow that little nugget up.


Obviously? Might have been "obvious" to me before the Zimmerman-Martin debacle, but after that nonsense that the Prosecutor pulled there, it's no longer so "obvious", and if it is, it might not be as good as you seem to believe.

Look, I don't carry, but I don't oppose the laws that allow others to carry. I'm not an advocate of people shooting each other for any reason. But in this case, as in so many others, trial by media is just plain wrong, whether it's promoted by the media owners or the prosecution. 

There will be a trial. Many, if not most, of the facts of the case will become known *at that time*, but are not known now. Speculation about who did what to who and why does not make for anything approaching justice, if we still care anything about that rather obscure word and its meaning.


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

Getting hit by popcorn in a theater is just maybe a smidge different from being beaten in the face. But heck, to each their own, right?


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

A key witness, seated two seats away, stated that he didn't know which person threw the popcorn. What would you be doing in a theatre, two seats away, during a heated, loud argument, that you wouldn't know who threw the popcorn? Witness to what? The tops of his shoes? Sounds like he didn't want to be involved until the dude fell on his lap. But he knew that the old guy looked mad when he returned to his seat?


----------



## MDKatie (Dec 13, 2010)

Darren said:


> I'm trying to figure out what happened immediately before the shooting along with if anything being written is bogus.


We don't know how long Reeves was back in the theater before the shooting took place, nor do we know what he replied to the texter when asked if he "tattled on him" (my words). Reeves could have replied with some really nasty words, and could have escalated things further. It doesn't make sense to me that the texter would just immediately throw popcorn on him. 



> We know text dude had turned around when he was shot. To watch the movie he would have had to face the other way.


I got the notion from the reports that they were standing up facing each other? Were they really seated? If so, that makes no sense. Why would you shoot someone if he's seated?



> I still don't know where the journalists got the notion the wife was trying to protect her husband with her hand on his chest. *She hasn't made a public statement. *The hand protection seems to be an invention to explain how both husband and wife were shot with the same bullet. The wife placing her hand on her husband's chest to calm him makes more sense without a public statement.Try to envision the positions of the text dude and his wife. Throwing up both hands is a protective instinct to an oncoming danger. That would have been awkward for the wife. The hand on the chest is using touch. We touch people for many reasons. Touching him to protect him makes no sense.


A statement would be nice, but if I saw someone pull a gun and point it at my husband you'd be sure I'd try to pull him back/push him back/protect him any way possible. Touching him to protect him makes total sense to me.

Text dude had no way of understanding how his inconsiderate texting to the day care center set him up.[/QUOTE]

If the husband/wife who had also been glared at and followed by Reeves are telling the truth (and I'm not sure why they'd lie), it sounds like Reeves was a grumpy old fart who purposely went out to public places looking for a reason to get upset. Sounds like he had a personal vendetta with anyone who texts at all in a theater, going so far as to follow ladies to the bathroom. How creepy is that?



haypoint said:


> But I do see too much unwillingness to correct bad behavior or help those in need. We are not islands.


Yeah, because many people are worried about getting shot or hurt also...it's human nature to want to protect one's self, and it takes a certain kind of person to be able to override those instincts/fears and take action. Blaming everyone and saying society is nothing but sheeple is not fair. Yes, people should take action if they see an injustice, but sometimes they just can't or don't know how.


----------



## MDKatie (Dec 13, 2010)

haypoint said:


> A key witness, seated two seats away, stated that he didn't know which person threw the popcorn. What would you be doing in a theatre, two seats away, during a heated, loud argument, that you wouldn't know who threw the popcorn? Witness to what? The tops of his shoes? Sounds like he didn't want to be involved until the dude fell on his lap. But he knew that the old guy looked mad when he returned to his seat?


Eye witness testimony is not always accurate. People forget things, don't see everything, or can't remember correctly.


----------



## homstdr74 (Jul 4, 2011)

CraterCove said:


> Getting hit by popcorn in a theater is just maybe a smidge different from being beaten in the face. But heck, to each their own, right?


Media stuff. You don't know what happened, unless you were there. Even then, law enforcement rarely trusts eyewitness reports.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

CraterCove said:


> I would expect he might be a little despondent after murdering someone.


Talk to anyone who has had to take a life and you'll discover its not like in the movies.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

MDKatie said:


> Eye witness testimony is not always accurate. People forget things, don't see everything, or can't remember correctly.


Study after study after study has shown that eye witness testimony is the most unreliable evidence there is.


----------



## homstdr74 (Jul 4, 2011)

watcher said:


> Talk to anyone who has had to take a life and you'll discover its not like in the movies.


My Brother-in-law was a patrolman called to a supermarket where a would-be robber was holding a knife to the throat of the checkout clerk, demanding this and that until my BIL, who used a .357 and knew how to shoot it, shot the guy in the head from 20 feet away. Of course that shot killed the would-be robber. No other damage to anyone or anything, but my BIL was never the same after that. He finally had to quit the job.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

MDKatie said:


> We don't know how long Reeves was back in the theater before the shooting took place, nor do we know what he replied to the texter when asked if he "tattled on him" (my words). Reeves could have replied with some really nasty words, and could have escalated things further. It doesn't make sense to me that the texter would just immediately throw popcorn on him.
> 
> *The retired cop was not able to talk to a manager since they were involved with another customer. He apparently wasn't angry enough to impolitely break in. Instead he went back.*
> 
> ...


It takes 20 to 30 minutes for the eyes to adjust to the dark. If the retired cop is found not guilty, I think it will be because that is demonstrated to the jury.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=experts-eyes-adjust-to-darkness


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

CraterCove said:


> Getting hit by popcorn in a theater is just maybe a smidge different from being beaten in the face. But heck, to each their own, right?


A comparison for understanding might be looking at the differences between a lion and a house cat. You'd pet the cat. You know better than try to pet the lion. The retired cop was trained to be lethal under the proper circumstances. He was a "lion" in a comparative sense even though retired. Text dude had no way of knowing who he was assaulting. Whether the popcorn constitutes battery, may be up to the jury. I don't know how Florida defines battery.


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

Darren said:


> A comparison for understanding might be looking at the differences between a lion and a house cat. You'd pet the cat. You know better than try to pet the lion. The retired cop was trained to be lethal under the proper circumstances. He was a "lion" in a comparative sense even though retired. Text dude had no way of knowing who he was assaulting. Whether the popcorn constitutes battery, may be up to the jury. I don't know how Florida defines battery.


Um... okay so with that training he is _more_ at fault, he needs to be more careful because he knows how better to be lethal. You try arguing that a marital artist should not be held more responsible than the average untrained joe when they hurt someone severely or kill someone in a fist fight.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

I'm not sure he could have been more careful. The devil in the details is the man was trained to react fast while evaluating the situation. Once the popcorn was thrown before his eye sight had adjusted, he couldn't just set there. Especially since his wife was there. Men act differently when women are involved. I'm not saying there was ego involved. It's more of a protective matter. If text dude stood up that in itself was another threatening move besides the diversionary popcorn throw.

Text dude did everything wrong. His daughter was at a daycare facility so the unknowns associated with a babysitter didn't come into play. I don't know of any reason he couldn't have stopped texting when asked. Then he poked the lion. Text dude screwed up. We'll have to wait for the jury's opinion to see if the retired cop screwed himself up.


----------



## thesedays (Feb 25, 2011)

JeffreyD said:


> I want to wait until his trial to hear the truth! Most every single person who carries a gun, never use it! Millions, carry everyday with no issue!


Most police officers never use their gun either, and when they do, it's usually to shoot an injured animal.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

So, throwing popcorn on someone is no big deal. Right? Then maybe we should encourage people to dump popcorn on people that interrupt the movie, texting? You support that?
I wish the guy had left the theatre to do his texting. (actually I find it a bit creepy that dad is texting 3 year old daughter at day care, while out on a movie date with his wife, and insistent about it, too.)
I wish the guy would have signed off when the guy behind asked him to put it away. (Seems reasonable, since there is a universal rule about device usage in movie theatres)
I wish the guy would have put the phone away the second time he was asked ( the reports said repeatedly, but let's just go with twice)
I wish the Manager would not have been too busy to respond (how long do you expect wait, the movie was about to start?)
I wish the texting had stopped by the time the old guy returned. (not that a 70 something guy rushed out and rushed back)
I wish the texting guy would have stayed seated ( takes a bit of effort to stand, refold the seat, turn and face the person behind you)
I wish the texting guy would have accepted that his texting was rude and kept quiet. (making a scene in front of your wife and 23 others is another aggressive action)
I wish the texting guy would not have thrown his hands toward the old guy ( can't throw popcorn without moving your hands in that direction)
I wish the old guy hadn't felt threatened ( don't know what frightened him most, popcorn in the face, the guy thrusting his hands towards him, the thought that the guy was going to grab him and throw him over the seats?)
I wish the guy wasn't killed (a part of me wishes he would have gotten shot in both texting thumbs)


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

While all of us may dream of shooting rude people, most of us aren't dumb enough to do it. This guy has no defense and and if it went down as being reported needs to be convicted of 2nd degree murder


----------



## MDKatie (Dec 13, 2010)

haypoint said:


> I wish the guy would have signed off when the guy behind asked him to put it away. (Seems reasonable, since there is a universal rule about device usage in movie theatres)


Even if he had put the phone away Reeves would have likely continued to give him the stink eye and harass him, like he did the woman a week prior.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

It seems strange that a man who wanted no distractions in a movie theater would continue the distraction afterwards. For a man with his meritorious service, I think that would have been the end of it. Texter dude had to confront Reeves when he returned. 

He looked/glared at the woman earlier. FWIW, she did put her phone away when asked by management.


----------



## MDKatie (Dec 13, 2010)

Darren said:


> It seems strange that a man who wanted no distractions in a movie theater would continue the distraction afterwards. For a man with his meritorious service, I think that would have been the end of it. Texter dude had to confront Reeves when he returned.
> 
> He looked/glared at the woman earlier. FWIW, she did put her phone away when asked by management.


She said he glared at her during the entire movie, and doubted he saw much of the movie. He also followed her to the bathroom (according to her). Who knows. 

And Reeves could have ignored texter when he returned...but who knows what he said to him.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

MDKatie said:


> Even if he had put the phone away Reeves would have likely continued to give him the stink eye and harass him, like he did the woman a week prior.


Since you seem to know Reeves so well, what's his favorite football team? If you can predict his actions, you'd have to know him quite well.

We can assume that the woman was self centered because she was doing something commonly known to irritate movie goers. Based on what we know, is it safe to assume she expects no repercussions for bad behavior? Did Reeves break any laws? Was the woman concerned enough to report it to the ever vigilant Movie Theatre Staff?

I saw a video that showed a bunch of people getting on a Mass transit Bus, right after it was in an accident. When the police arrived, they filed injury reports. They wanted to get in on the action, the free money. Could this woman want to pile on Reeves, because she didn't like being told to behave, plus get some attention? I do not know.

Some folks want to make the old guy the aggressor. Can you open your mind that he was frightened and felt alone here? 
Every step of the way, he was doing what everyone should do. He asked the guy to follow the rules. He did it at least once more, to no avail. He then, as the screen instructs us to do, report it to Management. Are you going to miss out on the opening of the movie, waiting for the Manager to get done with another customer? I wouldn't, I want to see all the movie, plus I've already been distracted through the previews that I wanted to watch. We all would have returned to our seats. He gets back to his seat and silently sits down. We should act that way, right? But the guy in front of you turns around and threatens you verbally. What do you do? Get up and leave? Perhaps the old guy got up to leave, maybe he stayed put. So far what has he done wrong? Nothing. Text book perfect. 
But now, with the 40 something guy facing him, it becomes clear to a man with years of tactical experience, that it would be easy for the dude to grab him and throw him over the seat. That is a real concern.
Now the next part is still a bit foggy. Some witnesses say it want from verbal to physical, some say the dude was throwing popcorn on him, some don't know who threw the popcorn.
We do know that the rest of the people were seated, apparently watching the movie, in near darkness, choosing not to get involved. So the old guy was on his own. Something happened. A single shot was fired. Either the old guy was grabbed, thought he was about to be grabbed or suddenly became a nutcase.
So we can agree that up until the gun was pulled and fired, the old guy acted as people in a civilized society should act. We would all hope that people, including ourselves, acted in this manner, in similar situations.
Right?
Any of us want to support the actions and behaviors of texting dude? Do I need to list the uncivil and rude actions? Then it becomes clear that, up until the old guy fired, he was acting appropriately, while the texting dude was being a jerk.
That makes the second between when the popcorn was thrown and shot fired, in the small space between two men, a row apart in a darkened theatre, with surround sound blasting out noise, music, dialog, critical to this case. Ironically, this makes the old guy, the Lone Survivor. History is written by the victors. Just as the thug in Sanford wasn't able to explain why he was creeping around other people's homes at night in the rain, texting guy won't be able to deny that he grabbed the old guy.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

MDKatie said:


> She said he glared at her during the entire movie, and doubted he saw much of the movie. He also followed her to the bathroom (according to her). Who knows.
> 
> And Reeves could have ignored texter when he returned...but who knows what he said to him.


I think Reeves did ignore the texting dude when he returned. It was reported, that the texting dude started the argument with something about snitching.


----------



## MDKatie (Dec 13, 2010)

haypoint said:


> Since you seem to know Reeves so well, what's his favorite football team? If you can predict his actions, you'd have to know him quite well.


I said "likely". Did you miss that word?



> Was the woman concerned enough to report it to the ever vigilant Movie Theatre Staff?


 She was concerned enough to remember his face so she'd be able to identify him in case she needed to file a report. Did you read that report?




> Can you open your mind that he was frightened and felt alone here?


I have a very hard time seeing how he was so frightened he needed to shoot a man in a populated place. 

You are assuming Reeves must have politely asked him to stop texting and the texter was the only one with the attitude. I'm assuming, from what I've read, that Reeves was the first one to get an attitude, and was rude from the get-go. If he was THAT bothered by the texting, he would have waited for the manager. Who knows what kind of language was used, but I'm not going to assume the texter was the only one being rude. 

Yes, texter shouldn't have been texting in the first place, and he could have ignored Reeves when he came back in the theater, but we have no idea what Reeves said or did at all...nobody has said one word about what was actually spoken. I think it really depends on that. 

I think, just like with the Martin Zimmerman case, that a man felt all big and bad because he was carrying and decided he was invincible because he had a gun. POPCORN is no reason to shoot someone, and from what I've read I simply cannot side with him right now. Even if texter deliberately threw popcorn at him, I would not side with the shooter. 

Would Reeves have acted differently had he not been carrying? Does he think it was all worth it? Is your quest to have zero texting in the theater really worth harassing people (the woman) and do you really feel so strongly about it that you can't just simply change seats? And if you feel so strongly about it, why not wait to talk to the manager? Or any employee?!


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

It's ridiculous to get snitty. We are all making guesses based on our personal experience and the information at hand. To suggest that some people are pretending like they know Reeves is just belittling and doesn't actually make your points more salient.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

Sometimes it's less hassle to just move to another seat.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

thesedays said:


> Most police officers never use their gun either, and when they do, it's usually to shoot an injured animal.


Except in Los Angeles!!!


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

As a police officer, Reeves regularly received outstanding evaluations and numerous letters of commendation for his leadership skills and the frequent trainings he led for other agencies on gun safety and other topics. He was lauded for leading the tactical response team for Vice President George H.W. Bush's visit to Tampa in 1987. 
He was often praised for his problem solving abilities to manage stressful situations. 
"Captain Reeves not only has the ability to act decisively when necessary but has the foresight to initiate the proper course of action to avoid conflict," a supervisor remarked in one job performance review. http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=news/national_world&id=9391843
Known for avoiding conflict? 
Reeves retired in 1993 as a captain with the police department in nearby Tampa. He also was director of security at Busch Gardens until 2005, a spokesman told CNN http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/14/justice/florida-movie-theater-shooting/

I'd say dealing with the Busch Garden crowd, he has gotten some good people skills.

When Reeves returned, witnesses and authorities said that Oulson asked him if he had gone to tell on him for texting. Oulson reportedly said, in effect: I was just sending a message to my young daughter. http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/14/justice/florida-movie-theater-shooting/
So we know that it was Oulson the started the argument when Reeves returned to his seat


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Paumon said:


> Sometimes it's less hassle to just move to another seat.


It is, you are right. It is less hassle to let the guy text and just move. If others are texting, just move again, less hassle.
That goes for lots of things. If you have a bad employee, less hassle to let the good workers pick up the slack, firing is a hassle. If your children misbehave, less hassle to ignore them. Lots of things are less hassle. But is it always a solution? No. In hindsight would that have been a better choice this time? Absolutely! But why is it that the person following the rules must be the one to be inconvenienced?


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

CraterCove said:


> It's ridiculous to get snitty. We are all making guesses based on our personal experience and the information at hand. To suggest that some people are pretending like they know Reeves is just belittling and doesn't actually make your points more salient.


Quite a bit is known about Reeves. He had an exemplary career. He was well thought of by his neighbors. Same as the text dude. We now know Reeves served in the Navy. He worked a few other jobs before becoming a policeman. He was not someone who had previous episodes that showed a need for anger management training.

"The shooting stunned Reeves' friends, neighbors and former colleagues on the force, who said he never showed any sign of a short fuse" 

""In my opinion, he was the best of the best, I don't know what caused this to happen," Helms, 59, said. "I think Curtis is a good man.""


http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...eater-slaying-article-1.1578945#ixzz2qgnwz0VO


​


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

If the old guy thought he was about to be grabbed, the instant the dude jerked, what were his options? If he waited to see if the dude was going to pull him over the seat, it would be too late to get the gun out.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

haypoint said:


> If the old guy thought he was about to be grabbed, the instant the dude jerked, what were his options? If he waited to see if the dude was going to pull him over the seat, it would be too late to get the gun out.


Then the two would have used their fists! Although Reeves, at 275, and being trained in self defense would have had the upper hand! Cops know self defense techniques that don't require the use of a gun! The lapd gets Krav Maga training!


----------



## countryfied2011 (Jul 5, 2011)

Just another "what if"

The whole thing could have been avoided if the "Text Dude" had follow the rules and procedures of the theater. 

I ask this question earlier...what is a 3 yr old doing with a phone


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

JeffreyD said:


> Then the two would have used their fists! Although Reeves, at 275, and being trained in self defense would have had the upper hand! Cops know self defense techniques that don't require the use of a gun! The lapd gets Krav Maga training!


Sure, on the level, in daylight and 30 years ago. There isn't much defense for a 70 year old guy getting pulled over a theatre seat.

I've been involved in plenty of take-downs. People that don't know what they are talking about when they see five cops taking down one man, " Heck, they should be able to take down an assailant with two cops, what are they? Weak?" I've taken plenty of self-defense training. Most of it is getting away stuff. Live to fight another day. I'm not going to go toe to toe with some stranger half my age in a dark room.

When you get to be in your 70s and tracking near 300 pounds, I'll send you a 40 year old guy that does Moto-Cross every weekend and is over six feet tall and have you go a few rounds. Is that what you are asking grandpa to do?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

haypoint said:


> When you get to be in your 70s and tracking near 300 pounds, I'll send you a 40 year old guy that does Moto-Cross every weekend and is over six feet tall and have you go a few rounds. Is that what you are asking grandpa to do?


Yeppers, in my younger days I wasnt a bit afraid to swap blows with some jerk.... today however I am in no condition to be scuffling around with some punk kid.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

CraterCove said:


> Sorry, have to disagree. The misuse of firearm by one person does not put my rights at stake.


Sure it does. We have laws because of exceptions. Some people are always going to abuse a good thing, and the rest of us pay for that.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

haypoint said:


> It is, you are right. It is less hassle to let the guy text and just move. If others are texting, just move again, less hassle.
> That goes for lots of things. If you have a bad employee, less hassle to let the good workers pick up the slack, firing is a hassle. If your children misbehave, less hassle to ignore them. Lots of things are less hassle. But is it always a solution? No. In hindsight would that have been a better choice this time? Absolutely! But why is it that the person following the rules must be the one to be inconvenienced?


I get your point but I did say _Sometimes it's less hassle to just move to another seat. _Meaning in a movie theatre and not talking about all those other things you mentioned, which I don't think are relevant to the theatre incident.

I don't go to movie theatres because there are too many assaults on my senses that spoil the movie for me. They're crowded. The seats are too close. Some people smell bad - too much farting or burping or too much perfume and just generally bad BO. Some breathe or sneeze or cough or talk or laugh too loud. Some push on the seat back and spill things on other people and on the floor when they bump into other people as they shove by them. Some talk or text on their silly devices that should have been turned off. Some people complain to the manager because other people are doing those things or they harrass the people who are doing those things. Some people shoot other people in theatres.

That's the way it is in movie theatres and people who pay good money to be entertained in them also have to expect they're going to be assaulted by all of those distractions when they're in the theatre. Pay your money and take your chances knowing full well what you're going to be dealing with. If you don't like the assaults you can find another seat or leave the theatre.

I think the cop was wrong for shooting the texting cretin but I do sincerely sympathize with his frustration. Frustration can make some people become enraged or go into panic mode. The cop had other options that he didn't choose, he became enraged instead and went over the edge and killed a texter. So the cop has a really serious problem with his frustration levels and whatever triggers them, no?

To be perfectly honest, if it had been me in the cop's place and if the money paid and the movie was really important enough to me and I couldn't choose another seat, I might easily have been frustrated enough to do something unreasonable to the texter myself. I can see me snatching the phone out of his hand and stomping on it to destroy it or maybe even busting him hard over the head with it then take my chances with the consequences of that action. (Grey haired decrepit old lady here, 5'2", 110 lbs. - doesn't stand much good chance with the consequences).

I despise how cel phones and texting abuse has degraded and corrupted society and continues to degrade society increasingly with every new app. I despise and DESPAIR for the non-self-disciplined brain-washed society that is willingly, happily letting itself become corrupted day by day by them - it's 10 times worse and more rapid than what the TV culture has done to society. I really understand the cop's frustration and although I think him killing that man was going too far I totally relate to why he lost his cool with the texter.

_Sometimes it's less hassle to just move to another seat. _I choose the option of not going to theatres.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Paumon said:


> I think the cop was wrong for shooting the texting cretin but I do sincerely sympathize with his frustration. Frustration can make some people become enraged or go into panic mode. The cop had other options that he didn't choose, *he became enraged instead and went over the edge and killed a texter. So the cop has a really serious problem with his frustration levels and whatever triggers them, no?*


The answer to that is No! The retired cop doesn't have a history of out of control anger or rage. Texter dude started the confrontation again after the retired cop returned from trying to talk to the manager. Texter dud then somehow unknowingly signed his own death warrant.


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

countryfied2011 said:


> Just another "what if"
> 
> The whole thing could have been avoided if the "Text Dude" had follow the rules and procedures of the theater.
> 
> I ask this question earlier...what is a 3 yr old doing with a phone


It was during the PREVIEWS, why should anyone care? I can't stand when people are disruptive in the movies, but a text during the previews wouldn't bother me at all.

He was texting his child's caregiver, not the child.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

Darren said:


> The answer to that is No! The retired cop doesn't have a history of out of control anger or rage. Texter dude started the confrontation again after the retired cop returned from trying to talk to the manager. Texter dud then somehow unknowingly signed his own death warrant.


I disagree. I think there is something deeper rooted in the cop that made him go for his gun. That's not the point though. He had other options. He couldn't speak to the manager because the manager wasn't available. That means he knew the texter would still be sitting in front of him and the problem would still not be resolved. His path of least resistance is he could have moved to another seat after returning from trying to see the manager. He also could have taken the phone away from texter or smacked the texter with his gun instead of shooting him - yadda yadda yadda and etc. etc. - there were still other options that would not have involved him losing his cool and another family man being killed and a 3 y.o. losing her daddy.

Imagine that. All that over a stupid little electronic device that the family man was addicted to and willing to disrupt another man's peace of mind for it and even to die for it.


----------



## FeralFemale (Apr 10, 2006)

Let me start by saying that, without more facts, it is pretty obvious the shooter was wrong. The situation, as we know it now, didn't warrant deadly force.

However, having been one of those dreaded observers for the past few decades, I totally see how it escalated. I have witnessed on many occasions and with increasing frequency incidents where someone is very politely called out on their rude actions and responds by cussing the other person out, flipping them off, or otherwise trying to start something. I'm sure we have all seen the same thing, or even experienced it ourselves. 

Person A politely says, "Excuse me, but would you mind [insert request to do or stop doing something that is infringing on Person A in some manner]?

And, instead of Person B saying, "Oh, I'm sorry. I [insert explanation or acknowledgment along with complying with request]" Person B says, "NO! Bleep you! [insert personal insult, etc]"

Now, being rude shouldn't get you shot. In fact, no one knows what Texter might have had going on in his life at the time. He might usually be a good guy and acted out of character, but, from the facts we know so far, we do know that he reacted to the Shooter's request in a rude manner.

There are a lot of people who are fed up with the way society is going. And you will see more incidents like this as time goes on and the nutjobs start to reach their breaking points. A polite and civilized society isn't just a 'nice' thing. It is necessary in order to maintain a society, eslewise, this type of thing is what happens.

BTW, polite and civilized also means not allowing the rude person to drag you to their level or below. Which is what Shooter, here, allowed to happen.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

FeralFemale said:


> BTW, polite and civilized also means not allowing the rude person to drag you to their level or below. Which is what Shooter, here, allowed to happen.


I agree. Moreover, I believe this is another case where the presence of a gun resulted in a death, when there almost certainly wouldn't have been a death if no gun were present.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Paumon said:


> I disagree. I think there is something deeper rooted in the cop that made him go for his gun. That's not the point though. He had other options. He couldn't speak to the manager because the manager wasn't available. That means he knew the texter would still be sitting in front of him and the problem would still not be resolved. His path of least resistance is he could have moved to another seat after returning from trying to see the manager. He also could have taken the phone away from texter or smacked the texter with his gun instead of shooting him - yadda yadda yadda and etc. etc. - there were still other options that would not have involved him losing his cool and another family man being killed and a 3 y.o. losing her daddy.
> 
> Imagine that. All that over a stupid little electronic device that the family man was addicted to and willing to disrupt another man's peace of mind for it and even to die for it.


I'm not sure the three year old lost much. Maybe mom can find a replacement that understands respect for others.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

I agree with what Feral Female just said - every word of it.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I'm not sure the three year old lost much. Maybe mom can find a replacement that understands respect for others.


Justified or not, this incident was still a tragedy.


----------



## unregistered41671 (Dec 29, 2009)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I'm not sure the three year old lost much. Maybe mom can find a replacement that understands respect for others.


Maybe not the best daddy in the world, but her *only* one. That is enough.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

Warning! Hit and run comment coming.

eep:


I think America needs to become more Canadianized. :teehee:

eep:



Frustrated Canadian now running away to find another seat.

:run:


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Nevada said:


> Justified or not, this incident was still a tragedy.


I agree. Its a tragedy on several levels.... an innocent man will now have to defend himself in court... the taxpayers will have to foot the bill for prosecuting him due to public outrage based on emotional reactions... and the gun control freaks will once again place the blame on an innocent tool used to dispatch an idiot. Sad all around.


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I'm not sure the three year old lost much. Maybe mom can find a replacement that understands respect for others.


Wow. Usually you are one of my favorite commentators.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> gun control freaks will once again place the blame on an innocent tool used to dispatch an idiot.


Just because someone owns a handgun doesn't mean he's not also an idiot. The question is whether idiots should be armed at all, and how we might disarm them.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

It is a tragedy. As another remarked, I don't understand the necessity of texting a three year old at a daycare center and then getting bent out of shape when someone asks you to quit. Testosterone poisoning? The acting out was uncalled for. Especially for a man of the text dude's age. Did that justify death? Did the retired cop feel he was going to be attacked? If so, like it or not, the killing may be justified. In that case it's not murder.

It's going to be up to the jury to figure out what went through the retired cop's mind and reach a verdict accordingly.


----------



## MDKatie (Dec 13, 2010)

There was a report saying the child had been bitten by a dog recently, and the parents were still shaken from that incident. They chose to go to a movie during the day so they could leave her with her normal daycare provider instead of hiring a babysitter. I can see how a nervous father would be interested in texting the daycare to make sure everything was ok before the movie started.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Just because someone owns a handgun doesn't mean he's not also an idiot. The question is whether idiots should be armed at all, and how we might disarm them.


Idiots also use knives and mass killing devices like pressure cookers! How are you going to stop those? A gun is just a tool!!

Who determines who is an idiot?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> A gun is just a tool!!


Yes, a tool designed to make killing easy. If anything ever cried-out for regulation it's a tool designed to kill people.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

MDKatie said:


> There was a report saying the child had been bitten by a dog recently, and the parents were still shaken from that incident. They chose to go to a movie during the day so they could leave her with her normal daycare provider instead of hiring a babysitter. I can see how a nervous father would be interested in texting the daycare to make sure everything was ok before the movie started.


The family's dog bit her.


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

Darren said:


> The family's dog bit her.


And that changes the incident how, exactly?


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Yes, a tool designed to make killing easy. If anything ever cried-out for regulation it's a tool designed to kill people.


I would say the government cries out for regulation! So guns were made for killing, say it ain't so!!!! :bored:
20000 laws aren't enough? What's your Solution? Mine is to let anyone who passes a simple background check and a safety class carry anywhere, just like the Constitution says! Don't forget what the 2nd amendment says, the right to keep and bare arms, shall not be in fringed!


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

CraterCove said:


> And that changes the incident how, exactly?


Inconsistencies catch my attention. It's like tracking something. You look for subtleties besides obvious tracks. The text dude was obviously concerned about his daughter. She'd recovered from the dog bite but something was going on at the day care center. Did that have any bearing on his reaction to the retired cop? Was there psychological baggage from the dog bite? Did the text dude throw the pop corn because in a sense, he subconsciously felt the retired cop was interfering with that baggage.

That's a stretch to try to understand what happened. Throwing pop corn is not the act of an adult. There's nothing in the man's background that indicates previous anger issues. Why the outburst in the theater?


----------



## MDKatie (Dec 13, 2010)

Darren said:


> Throwing pop corn is not the act of an adult. There's nothing in the man's background that indicates previous anger issues. Why the outburst in the theater?


My guess would be he reacted to what Reeves was saying.


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

Darren said:


> Inconsistencies catch my attention. It's like tracking something. You look for subtleties besides obvious tracks. The text dude was obviously concerned about his daughter. She'd recovered from the dog bite but something was going on at the day care center. Did that have any bearing on his reaction to the retired cop? Was there psychological baggage from the dog bite? Did the text dude throw the pop corn because in a sense, he subconsciously felt the retired cop was interfering with that baggage.
> 
> That's a stretch to try to understand what happened. Throwing pop corn is not the act of an adult. There's nothing in the man's background that indicates previous anger issues. Why the outburst in the theater?


Good points and valid... and for a second there I was just thinking you were using it as a strike against text dude.  I should have known better.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Darren said:


> Whether the popcorn constitutes battery, may be up to the jury. I don't know how Florida defines battery.


I think in FL it would fall more under assault than battery:

_[SIZE=-1]784.03&#8195;Battery; felony battery.â(1)(a)&#8195;The offense of battery occurs when a person:1.&#8195;Actually and intentionally touches or strikes another person against the will of the other

[SIZE=-1]784.011&#8195;Assault.â(1)&#8195;An âassaultâ is an intentional, unlawful threat by word or act to do violence to the person of another, coupled with an apparent ability to do so, and doing some act which creates a well-founded fear in such other person that such violence is imminent.
[/SIZE]



[/SIZE]_A lot of things will come into play. The most important two I can think of is how the texter was acting before he tossed the popcorn and how cops see things differently, based on their training and experience dealing with bad guys, than your average citizen.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

MDKatie said:


> I think, just like with the Martin Zimmerman case, that a man felt all big and bad because he was carrying and decided he was invincible because he had a gun. POPCORN is no reason to shoot someone, and from what I've read I simply cannot side with him right now. Even if texter deliberately threw popcorn at him, I would not side with the shooter.


Have you EVER been in a situation where you felt your safety was threatened by another person? Ever been in or even see a street fight? If so you would know that ignoring having ANYTHING thrown in your face could lead to you being severely beaten. While you and distracted and your ability to see clearly is reduced by the popcorn the thrower could be doing all kinds of things. He could be reach for a weapon he is carrying. He could be advancing to attack you physically. Or he could be getting ready to break into a very well choreographed dance routine. 

Your view of "I wouldn't have worried about having _popcorn_ thrown at me." view seems to be based on the fact you have never been in such a situation. Your actions clearly would have been different than someone who has been. Do you know a cop? If so one of these times walk up behind him and surprise him by grabbing him in a bear hug and tell us if he reacts differently than you would. I can tell you if you are acting upset at me and you toss ANYTHING at me, much less in my face, I'm going to take that as the first step in your attack plan and I will act accordingly. 

As horrible as it sounds and whether you like it or not the old guy maybe facing a trial but he not in the hospital or the morgue which could have easily happened it he had NOT had a weapon with him at the time.




MDKatie said:


> Would Reeves have acted differently had he not been carrying? Does he think it was all worth it?


Who knows.




MDKatie said:


> Is your quest to have zero texting in the theater really worth harassing people (the woman) and do you really feel so strongly about it that you can't just simply change seats? And if you feel so strongly about it, why not wait to talk to the manager? Or any employee?!


More of the 'someone is doing something but Heaven forbid *I* do something about it' thinking. Remember the guy used to be a cop, he's used to be the one people go to when there is a problem. Maybe he should whipped out his cell phone and called the tactical team in rather than try to deal with a rude jerk himself.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> I agree. Moreover, I believe this is another case where the presence of a gun resulted in a death, when there almost certainly wouldn't have been a death if no gun were present.


Probably not but there could have easily have been a crippled 70 y.o. man. Unless there's something big which hasn't came out yet this seems to be a clear case of a punk going too far when called out.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Justified or not, this incident was still a tragedy.


How so?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Possum Belly said:


> Maybe not the best daddy in the world, but her *only* one. That is enough.


Sorry but being genetic linked to someone doesn't really mean much. I know several people who would have been more than happy if someone had shot their "daddy" when they were 3 y.o.

I know others who's male in their life has no genetic link to them at all but are still their "daddy".

If this guy was the kind who would be willing to throw popcorn in the face of a 70 y.o. man just because the old guy 'tattled' on him I have to wonder what kind of 'daddy' he would have been.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Just because someone owns a handgun doesn't mean he's not also an idiot. The question is whether idiots should be armed at all, and how we might disarm them.


There are more sane people than idiots therefore the wisest thing to do is to all everyone to carry w/o any restrictions. That way the idiots at least know the odds are fairly high they are facing another armed person.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

MDKatie said:


> There was a report saying the child had been bitten by a dog recently, and the parents were still shaken from that incident. They chose to go to a movie during the day so they could leave her with her normal daycare provider instead of hiring a babysitter. I can see how a nervous father would be interested in texting the daycare to make sure everything was ok before the movie started.


Let me see if I have this. The kid is bitten by a dog so you take the afternoon off to see a movie rather than be with the kid at home?

Its bad enough the "parents" don't care enough for the kid to raise it themselves but to dump a traumatized child at a kiddy prison so they can watch a movie is despicable!


----------



## homstdr74 (Jul 4, 2011)

Nevada said:


> Just because someone owns a handgun doesn't mean he's not also an idiot. The question is whether idiots should be armed at all, and how we might disarm them.


Selective reasoning. How, exactly, do you determine who should own weapons? Certainly not by some liberal idea of who is intelligent and who is not. 



JeffreyD said:


> Idiots also use knives and mass killing devices like pressure cookers! How are you going to stop those? A gun is just a tool!!
> 
> Who determines who is an idiot?


Firearms played no part in these and other similar tragedies:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster

"The *Bath School disaster* is the historical name of the violent attacks perpetrated by Andrew Kehoe on May 18, 1927, in Bath Township, Michigan, that killed 38 elementary school children and six adults in total, and injured at least 58 other people.[Note 1] Kehoe first killed his wife, fire-bombed his farm and set off a major explosion in the Bath Consolidated School, before committing suicide by detonating a final explosion in his truck. It is the deadliest mass murder in a school in United States history"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Land_fire

"The *Happy Land fire* was an arson fire that killed 87 people trapped in an unlicensed social club named "Happy Land", at 1959 Southern Boulevard in the West Farms section of the Bronx in New York City on March 25, 1990. Most of the victims were young Hondurans celebrating Carnival.[1] Unemployed Cuban refugee Julio GonzÃ¡lez, whose former girlfriend was employed at the club, was arrested soon afterward and ultimately convicted of arson and murder."


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Yes, a tool designed to make killing easy. If anything ever cried-out for regulation it's a tool designed to kill people.


Has history taught you nothing? Take a look at two nations here in North America. Both have very, very strong firearm regulation. One of those have very few gun crime related deaths (0.5 per 100K). AH HA proof that regulations saves lives, right? Yet the other has gun homicide rate of 10.00 per 100K

Now if regulation works why aren't both nations rates at least close instead of a 20,000% (if my math is right) difference?

We could do the same with different US states and even different cities.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

CraterCove said:


> Good points and valid... and for a second there I was just thinking you were using it as a strike against text dude.  I should have known better.


The dog bite incident may be and it might not be. I can understand an older man possibly feeling threatened by someone. The retired cop doesn't have a history of anger issues we know of so far. His service may have been before anger issues were recognized and defined. His friends and neighbors have been supportive and complimentary in their statement.

Text dude likewise has no apparent history of anger. He gave up motocross because of the birth of jis daughter. The man is in his forties with a three year old daughter. Not exactly unusual, but the man isn't that young. I'm curious when he got married and was there a previous marriage.

Maybe the couple has been married twenty years. That doesn't feel right to me. I'm curious about the wife's age. Is the text dude a boy in a man's body that was self involved until recently?

Does the retired cop have any medical issues? If he's overweight, probably, along with being up in years is something going on there. does he have diabetes? 

I've always found human nature intriguing and puzzling. Something about this incident doesn't make sense. I'm still leaning toward self defense even if mistaken. Meaning at the time the retired cop really thought he was in danger and text dude wasn't going to do more than throw popcorn. We don't know what went through the ex-cops mind other than what his defense lawyer said. 

What's left is to figure out if anything's missing.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

watcher said:


> Has history taught you nothing? Take a look at two nations here in North America. Both have very, very strong firearm regulation. One of those have very few gun crime related deaths (0.5 per 100K). AH HA proof that regulations saves lives, right? Yet the other has gun homicide rate of 10.00 per 100K
> 
> Now if regulation works why aren't both nations rates at least close instead of a 20,000% (if my math is right) difference?
> 
> We could do the same with different US states and even different cities.


Or different movie theaters. It is interesting how quickly facts are assumed by
both sides without direct evidence to support them. The rude people deserve to die side assumes the retired officer was all sweetness and light in dealing with the texter. Is it not equally likely that after not getting his satisfaction from theater management he came back even more disgruntled? The other side assumes popcorn throwing couldn't possibly be a threat. There were more than a few witnesses including at least on who is trained to observe. His testimony and that of the wives will be interesting and telling. It probably won't change any minds here, as many seem to want to believe what they will.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Nevada said:


> Just because someone owns a handgun doesn't mean he's not also an idiot. The question is whether idiots should be armed at all, and how we might disarm them.


It seems pretty simple to me.... take their guns away while arresting them for committing a violent crime. That system worked quite well for a couple hundred years in this country.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> It seems pretty simple to me.... take their guns away while arresting them for committing a violent crime. That system worked quite well for a couple hundred years in this country.


If an idiot is found not guilty he's still an idiot. Zimmerman was found not guilty, but I've never been comfortable with him owning a gun.


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

Nevada said:


> If an idiot is found not guilty he's still an idiot. Zimmerman was found not guilty, but I've never been comfortable with him owning a gun.


Well, it's not about making you comfortable. Maybe you'd feel better knowing you and other responsible people around you were armed?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Nevada said:


> If an idiot is found not guilty he's still an idiot. Zimmerman was found not guilty, but I've never been comfortable with him owning a gun.


Perhaps the jury was privy to evidence/information that you were not. He was found not guilty by the jury. I saw no evidence during his many news appearances to indicate that he was an idiot. Fer what its worth, I own several guns, both long barrel and handguns. Some folks right here on this forum prolly think I am not "qualified" to own one either. Thats one of the beauties of living in the good ol USA... we are considered innocent and sane until proven otherwise.... at least so far.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Perhaps the jury was privy to evidence/information that you were not. He was found not guilty by the jury.


I watched the entire trial. I agree with the verdict, in that the prosecution didn't make its case. I would have voted not guilty also if I had been on the jury. But that doesn't make me feel any better about Zimmerman owning a gun.

Zimmerman has a way of finding trouble. It's a repeating pattern of domestic violence, and it always involves a gun in some way. It's going to land him in prison some day too. But someone else is probably going to have to be shot to put him there. I'll tell you today that it's avoidable if he could be unarmed.


----------



## thesedays (Feb 25, 2011)

watcher said:


> Let me see if I have this. The kid is bitten by a dog so you take the afternoon off to see a movie rather than be with the kid at home?
> 
> Its bad enough the "parents" don't care enough for the kid to raise it themselves but to dump a traumatized child at a kiddy prison so they can watch a movie is despicable!


Kiddy prison?!? Maybe she ENJOYED going there. Lots of children go to preschool, even if both parents do not work outside the home.


----------



## Wollett (Jan 21, 2013)

The shooter gets what is coming to him, this man lost his life because of choice yes maybe a bad one but it hasn't be illegal to test in public.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Nevada said:


> I watched the entire trial. I agree with the verdict, in that the prosecution didn't make its case. I would have voted not guilty also if I had been on the jury. But that doesn't make me feel any better about Zimmerman owning a gun.
> 
> Zimmerman has a way of finding trouble. It's a repeating pattern of domestic violence, and it always involves a gun in some way. It's going to land him in prison some day too. But someone else is probably going to have to be shot to put him there. I'll tell you today that it's avoidable if he could be unarmed.


So you agree with the jury, Zimmerman was not guilty of a crime, and yet you seem to want to have him disarmed. So please tell us oh sayer of sooth... what will keep him from using a knife? or a rock? or some other handy dandy tool to do in his next victim?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> So you agree with the jury, Zimmerman was not guilty of a crime, and yet you seem to want to have him disarmed. So please tell us oh sayer of sooth... what will keep him from using a knife? or a rock? or some other handy dandy tool to do in his next victim?


Because he's a gun nut...

If you can't tell, his gun defines him.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Because he's a gun nut...
> 
> If you can't tell, his gun defines him.


What makes you think he's just not a nut? He did live most of his life without incident! Which gun defines him?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> What makes you think he's just not a nut? He did live most of his life without incident! Which gun defines him?


Which gun? Take your choice, the cops found 4 guns with him the last time he was taken away in handcuffs. But seriously, he gets arrested a lot.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Which gun? Take your choice, the cops found 4 guns with him the last time he was taken away in handcuffs. But seriously, he gets arrested a lot.


You said gun nut, not a nut for guns, so he must be a nut for a certain type. How many times is a lot?


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

I went to a movie theatre today. When it was over, I folded my seat and turned around. I could see that from that position that I could pull a person towards me, throw them off balance. It wouldn't matter how heavy he was. I have seen it happen,when I was a teenager at basketball games. Theaters are banked so much, such a fall is likely to cause serious injury or death. Everyone has a comfort zone. Within arms reach is within my comfort zone.


----------



## Deeplines (Dec 7, 2013)

What I find amazing in all this was only 23 people were at that movie, Even if it was in the day time. Tampa is a pretty big town.

Darren - I really enjoyed reading your post on this subject. Must be the Navy thought process but it is right along with yours, and yes I read every post on all 11 pages.

I'm in the wait and see crowd also, just like the Zimmerman case. Reason is there is no journalism today. What you hear on the news is spit out so quick they never check for the accuracy of anything they report. 

I can't believe a 40 yr old threw popcorn in an old mans face, no matter what. I was taught to get up and walk away from someone like that. You can't win in that situation because of the age difference plus I was taught to respect my elders. To do this that would have put the responsibility on me to move, not the old man.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

haypoint said:


> I have seen it happen,when I was a teenager at basketball games. Theaters are banked so much, such a fall is likely to cause serious injury or death.


If he is counting on that for his justification to use deadly force, I think it's pretty weak.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> If he is counting on that for his justification to use deadly force, I think it's pretty weak.


You and I have no idea of how he felt in that moment. I am clear that it would be easy to yank someone over the top of my seat the way the rows are stacked in a movie theatre. I'd never given it much thought. Perhaps someone more aware of their surroundings would have a better assessment of the risk? 
Generally, being elevated places you at an advantage, but with a seat back between you, the lower person has the advantage due to the power of gravity.
Old guy returns to his seat, next to his wife. Text dude, stands, turns around and starts yelling at him. Old guy stands and argue back. I think we can agree the old guy hasn't exceeded his rights. It is also true that the texting guy could have moved to another seat. I think that the aggressive actions, verbal, were seen as an escalation to the old guy. I think he was anticipating, perhaps preparing for, an escalation that included being assaulted. Perhaps turning to escape wasn't easily done without turning his back on this aggressive, angry man. Perhaps he thought his wife would be caught up in this impending assault? Perhaps, in a state that allowed standing your ground, he felt he had the law on his side? No need to turn and run. 
What you and I don't know is what happened next. We believe corn was thrown. But it isn't clear if the corn was thrown or if corn was thrown at the old guy as the texting dude, holding the popcorn thrust his long arms (he looks to be over six feet tall) at the old guy. All that needs to be shown is if the old guy thought he was about to be assaulted and if a reasonable person would draw the same conclusion.
Take your average 70 something man, standing in a steeply sloped theatre, in near darkness, threatened by a much younger man, surrounded by people that are ignoring the fight, and see if thrusting arms and popcorn cause alarm.
If old guy would have had a Taser, would using it be justified? If old guy had not feared being toppled over would you approve of shoving the texting guy away from old guy after the pop corn assault? The fact is, he had no other protection available to him. We are a society of laws. That society has permitted him to carry a weapon and to protect himself with it when a reasonable person feels threatened with serious injury or death.
If everyone would have expressed their support of the old guy from the beginning, perhaps as much as standing up and yelling, "shut it off, it is the rule.", or as little as saying"please shut it off." In unison. But those folks didn't want to get involved, let someone else handle it. We want civilized behavior but we don't want to openly support it.


----------



## Wanda (Dec 19, 2002)

Why are so many people referring to the ''old guy'' like he is 90 years old. Using the argument that he ''could'' have been pulled over the seat does not hold much water. I can not shoot a person walking down the street because they are younger and could trip me! Folks are grasping at some small straws to try and make a case. Is the ''young punk popcorn thrower'' over the legal age of consent?


----------



## Glade Runner (Aug 1, 2013)

Nevada said:


> Just because someone owns a handgun doesn't mean he's not also an idiot. The question is whether idiots should be armed at all, and how we might disarm them.


There's absolutely no evidence that this retired, commended law officer is an idiot.


----------



## Glade Runner (Aug 1, 2013)

MDKatie said:


> My guess would be he reacted to what Reeves was saying.


Well my guess is that the jerk was continuing to act like a jerk. Seems pretty obvious from narrative.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Glade Runner said:


> There's absolutely no evidence that this retired, commended law officer is an idiot.


 Other than the fact that he discharged a firearm inside a theater because someone insulted him.


----------



## Glade Runner (Aug 1, 2013)

greg273 said:


> Other than the fact that he discharged a firearm inside a theater because someone insulted him.


As usual, a leftist cannot resist absolute fabrication and disinformation. Not one shred of evidence that this event was related to an insult but I expect nothing else from your political persuasion.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

There's no evidence at this point from the eye witnesses, the two men were calling each other names. I don't consider an assault and possibly battery to be an insult. Are you saying the aggressive act by the text dude was an insult instead of battery?


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Glade Runner said:


> As usual, a leftist cannot resist absolute fabrication and disinformation. Not one shred of evidence that this event was related to an insult but I expect nothing else from your political persuasion.


 So no words were exchanged between the two? I confess, I am scarce on the details, I am mostly gathering info from this thread...
Do you not consider getting popcorn thrown at you an insult? I would.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Darren said:


> There's no evidence at this point from the eye witnesses, the two men were calling each other names. I don't consider an assault and possibly battery to be an insult. Are you saying the aggressive act by the text dude was an insult instead of battery?


 Popcorn kernels are 'battery'??.... I should probably refrain from more comments until I have read all the details of this incident... I only know from past threads that you Mr. Darren seem to favor the 'shoot first, ask questions later' line of reasoning that I find issue with.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

greg273 said:


> Popcorn kernels are 'battery'??.... I should probably refrain from more comments until I have read all the details of this incident... I only know from past threads that you Mr. Darren seem to favor the 'shoot first, ask questions later' line of reasoning that I find issue with.


I have heard its better to be judged by 12 than to be carried by 6.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I have heard its better to be judged by 12 than to be carried by 6.


I don't know, Raul Rodriguez got 40 years for an unjustified shooting.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/raul-ro...bor-after-claiming-stand-your-ground-defense/

He'll live a miserable life and will almost certainly die in prison.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Nevada said:


> I don't know, Raul Rodriguez got 40 years for an unjustified shooting.
> 
> http://www.cbsnews.com/news/raul-ro...bor-after-claiming-stand-your-ground-defense/
> 
> He'll live a miserable life and almost certainly die in prison.


Yep, his life is changed, but he isn't dead. Of the two options I like being alive better than dead.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

greg273 said:


> Popcorn kernels are 'battery'??.... I should probably refrain from more comments until I have read all the details of this incident... I only know from past threads that you Mr. Darren seem to favor the 'shoot first, ask questions later' line of reasoning that I find issue with.


 You can't turn off learned behavior with a switch. Paramedics and EMTs don't call a time out to think about what to do next. They're on automatic evaluating the patient and starting care. Firefighters are much the same. When they roll up on a scene the size up has started and each man goes into action. No one asks questions. They respond based on training. A lot of things happen without thinking. 

Same with law enforcement like the retired cop. He's been trained to react to clues about what's coming next to serve and protect which includes his own life. Text dude chose to continue the confrontation after the retired cop returned from his attempt to talk to management. 

How stupid was that? Was he worried about getting sent to stand in a corner? 

Then at a time when the retired cop's eyes could not have acclimated to the dark, text dude lost control and threw popcorn at him which is a known diversionary tactic prior to an attack. Text dude did everything right to trigger a defensive response from a trained retired cop or any law enforcement officer. 

[FONT=&quot]Did text dude deserve to die? No. Was the killing justified? So far with the known information, that's my opinion. I don't favor penalizing someone for an action that society has insisted he be trained for to protect them.

Unless there's negligence involved, the man is not guilty IMO. We'll see what the jury decides.
 [/FONT]


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I have heard its better to be judged by 12 than to be carried by 6.


 Yes, and I agree. But murder is still murder.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Murder is always killing, but killing isn't always murder.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Darren said:


> Murder is always killing, but killing isn't always murder.


 Obviously, that, but killing someone for NO GOOD REASON is murder. Getting into an argument, or getting pelted with a few kernels of popcorn, is not reason enough to fire a weapon in a public space with innocent bystanders. 
I don't like your line of reasoning, that anytime someone feels afraid they are justified in taking someones life. What if you had a fear of clowns?? Are you justified to kill all the clowns you meet? A persons individual fears may vary, but the law remains the same, kill someone and you will answer for it, possibly with your own life. It makes no difference if you're a former cop, firefighter,sniper,garbage man or CEO.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

thesedays said:


> Kiddy prison?!? Maybe she ENJOYED going there. Lots of children go to preschool, even if both parents do not work outside the home.


I'm sure there are some kids who like going, such as those with abusive parents, but I don't think there are many. Most kids want to be with mom and/or dad. 

Think about it. The kid is gotten out of bed and taken to the prison in time for one of the non-parents to get to work on time. Then they are there for the eight hours plus the time it takes for them to get from work to the prison. Then they grab the kid and rush home to be fed, bathed and put to bed to start the entire thing again tomorrow. The kid sees the non-parent for MAYBE 3 hours a day while they the child care provider, for 9-10. Who is really raising the kid?

If you treated a puppy that way who do you think it would bond to?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> If he is counting on that for his justification to use deadly force, I think it's pretty weak.


As I have pointed out there are several reasonable things he could use to show he showed fear of grievous bodily harm. One big fact is he's old. Its a medical fact that older people are more susceptible to injuries. Just as a 5' 1" 98# female could justifiably use deadly force if a 6' 200# unarmed male attacker while a 6' 6" 230# male probably could not.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

greg273 said:


> Obviously, that, but killing someone for NO GOOD REASON is murder. Getting into an argument, or getting pelted with a few kernels of popcorn, is not reason enough to fire a weapon in a public space with innocent bystanders.
> I don't like your line of reasoning, that anytime someone feels afraid they are justified in taking someones life. What if you had a fear of clowns?? Are you justified to kill all the clowns you meet? A persons individual fears may vary, but the law remains the same, kill someone and you will answer for it, possibly with your own life. It makes no difference if you're a former cop, firefighter,sniper,garbage man or CEO.


As I said earlier, artful interpretations for justification to use deadly force will only result in tighter laws. When more restrictive gun laws are enacted, gun rights advocates who support artful interpretations will only have themselves to blame.

If you like your 'stand your ground' laws, I suggest that you use them conservatively.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

greg273 said:


> Obviously, that, but killing someone for NO GOOD REASON is murder. Getting into an argument, or getting pelted with a few kernels of popcorn, is not reason enough to fire a weapon in a public space with innocent bystanders.
> I don't like your line of reasoning, that anytime someone feels afraid they are justified in taking someones life. What if you had a fear of clowns?? Are you justified to kill all the clowns you meet? A persons individual fears may vary, but the law remains the same, kill someone and you will answer for it, possibly with your own life. *It makes no difference if you're a former cop,[/ b] firefighter,sniper,garbage man or CEO.*


*

That's where you and I disagree Greg. I believe he is a retired cop, his eyesight was impaired and the text dude did something that in accordance with LEO training might be considered battery and consequently a threat.

Eliminate any of the three and it's my belief text dude wouldn't have been shot. The fact he was killed by a retired police officer demonstrates that such a person is highly likely not to respond in a way that an untrained civilian would. A civilian, if attacked by text dude, might have ended up like Zimmerman on his back instead. That was Zimmerman's problem. He allowed Martin to get the upper hand. 

Cops can't do that. Cops can't take that chance. They face too many of those situations to roll the dice. They have to react if they plan on going home to their families.*


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Wanda said:


> Why are so many people referring to the ''old guy'' like he is 90 years old. Using the argument that he ''could'' have been pulled over the seat does not hold much water. I can not shoot a person walking down the street because they are younger and could trip me! Folks are grasping at some small straws to try and make a case. Is the ''young punk popcorn thrower'' over the legal age of consent?


We aren't talking about walking down the street, are we? This discussion is about a tall muscular angry man confronting the old retired guy in a darkened theatre. Those of us that have dealt with critical situations with angry strangers, evaluate escape routes, methods of response and defensive options. Personal space is an important part of this. Getting attacked in a parking lot in daylight is different than being attacked on a balcony. Do you see the difference? To be positioned as the old guy was, it should have been clear to him that he was in a very vulnerable position. One grab and it is over for him. He should have been thinking, "if he grabs for my coat, I'm going to be unable to defend myself."
None of use were there. At this point, we don't know what happened at the moment before the shot was fired. Apparently, most of the people in the theatre were either watching the movie or otherwise trying not to get involved, perhaps looking at the tops of their shoes. So, they didn't see anything. But this whole mess hangs on that critical moment.
The neighbors of Jeffery Dolmer said he was a perfect neighbor, as he filled his fridge with human body parts. But the old guy has a documented life history. He has credentials that stand head and shoulders above most average citizens. He was known to defuse critical situations and taught that to many others. As Head of Security at Busch Gardens, do you think he had to deal with unruly visitors? I think so, maybe every day. Yet no sign that he was a loose cannon or provoked easily. Day in and day out, for decades, acting under the scrutiny of the public and his supervisors, showing firmness tempered with patience.
Because of this long run of controlled behavior, I am going to believe in that one or two critical seconds, in that small space between him and the texting dude, the old guy, understanding his rights and appraising the situation, fired the gun as the other guy lunged his hands towards him
Ever see two guys arguing, face to face and one of the guys jerks a hand up, causing the other to jump back in fear? Like in a football game when a lineman jumps forward just an inch or two, drawing the other guy off sides? Could pitching popcorn be seen by the old guy as one of those moments. You think the guy is going for you, but he was just trying to startle you? 
But we know so little. Could be the dude grabbed the old guy's popcorn. Reaching for my popcorn would look like reaching for me, in a darkened room.
It just doesn't fit that he it's a trigger happy kook, apt to shoot over texting as some like to believe. Fill in those two seconds and two feet as you want, but I lean towards a well trained, patient retired cop doing what he knows is legal.

There have been a few boxers still boxing into their 40s, but none in their 70s. Know why? No, he wasn't 90. I doubt he'd seen the inside of a gym in at least a few decades, if ever. He weighed 275 pounds. The texting dude was competitive in motocross motorcycle racing, said to be every weekend. Anyone know if you have to be in good shape to do that?
So, please bear with me when I refer to the 70 plus fat guy as the old guy.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

And I see an angry old man, used to getting his way as a cop and head of security, being stood up to because he had no authority to throw around this time, frustrated by theater management not jumping to his whim, overreacting and causing the death of another human being. It has been speculated that his eyesight was impaired by the conditions in the theater which would, in my opinion be another strike against him. If you cannot see and assess the threat and especially what may be in the field of fire you shouldn't be firing a weapon.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Darren said:


> That's where you and I disagree Greg. I believe he is a retired cop, *his eyesight was impaired* and the text dude did something that in accordance with LEO training might be considered battery and consequently a threat.
> 
> Eliminate any of the three and it's my belief text dude wouldn't have been shot. The fact he was killed by a retired police officer demonstrates that such a person is highly likely not to respond in a way that an untrained civilian would. A civilian, if attacked by text dude, might have ended up like Zimmerman on his back instead. That was Zimmerman's problem. He allowed Martin to get the upper hand.
> 
> Cops can't do that. Cops can't take that chance. They face too many of those situations to roll the dice. They have to react if they plan on going home to their families.


I don't know how his eye sight was. I don't know if his years of LEO training and duty kicked in. I hang it all on my belief that he knew precisely the moment that he had the legal right to shoot, at what point a reasonable person would perceive a threat. 3,2,1,ignition,we have liftoff. 
We have seen here, all of us with the same news reports, reach far different conclusions. The trial will depend on the mindset of those in the theatre as what they saw will be filtered by their experiences and biases. Likewise, the verdict of the jury will depend on the mindset of each juror.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

mmoetc said:


> And I see an angry old man, used to getting his way as a cop and head of security, being stood up to because he had no authority to throw around this time, frustrated by theater management not jumping to his whim, overreacting and causing the death of another human being. It has been speculated that his eyesight was impaired by the conditions in the theater which would, in my opinion be another strike against him. If you cannot see and assess the threat and especially what may be in the field of fire you shouldn't be firing a weapon.


Are you saying he had no right to defend himself against a perceived threat?


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> And I see an angry old man, used to getting his way as a cop and head of security, being stood up to because he had no authority to throw around this time, frustrated by theater management not jumping to his whim, overreacting and causing the death of another human being. It has been speculated that his eyesight was impaired by the conditions in the theater which would, in my opinion be another strike against him. If you cannot see and assess the threat and especially what may be in the field of fire you shouldn't be firing a weapon.


Oh, that reminds me, I haven't watched "Cool Hand Luke" in a long time, ahh, the good old days when cops had immunity to act as they wanted. How did you miss both the 1960s and1970s?:smack


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Darren said:


> Are you saying he had no right to defend himself against a perceived threat?


I'm saying we all have different levels of threat perception. I don't know how serious the threat was. I don't know what words were exchanged or what threats were made. I don't know that the shooter didn't say something so egregious that it caused the victim to stand and turn suddenly accidentally flinging the popcorn he was holding into the air. A lot of you seem to know way more than I. It will likely be up to a jury to decide if the threat he percieved in any way justified his taking another human being's life. It will be interesting if it goes to trial whether he or his wife will testify under oath.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

haypoint said:


> Oh, that reminds me, I haven't watched "Cool Hand Luke" in a long time, ahh, the good old days when cops had immunity to act as they wanted. How did you miss both the 1960s and1970s?:smack


Well, we certainly have a failure to communicate around here sometimes...


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

haypoint said:


> Oh, that reminds me, I haven't watched "Cool Hand Luke" in a long time, ahh, the good old days when cops had immunity to act as they wanted. How did you miss both the 1960s and1970s?:smack


I didn't. I love the movie. I also recognize that this gentleman was of an era where if a cop was disrespected he knew how to inflict damage without leaving evidence. It only serves to bolster my feeling that he wasn't a man used to being talked back to and may have let his frustation with being so allow this situation to escalate.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

mmoetc said:


> *I'm saying we all have different levels of threat perception. * I agree! That is one reason I'm not criticizing the retired cop.
> 
> I don't know how serious the threat was. I don't know what words were exchanged or what threats were made. I don't know that the shooter didn't say something so egregious that it caused the victim to stand and turn suddenly accidentally flinging the popcorn he was holding into the air. A lot of you seem to know way more than I.* It will likely be up to a jury to decide if the threat he percieved in any way justified his taking another human being's life.* I agree again!
> 
> It will be interesting if it goes to trial whether he or his wife will testify under oath.


There are plenty of witnesses to the incident including the man and his son that were sitting alongside text dude. I don't think the jury will have to "imagine" what happened.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Did you read the news accounts where the angry old man didn't talk to management because they were taking care of another customer. He is old and he was probably angry but he had the decency not to interrupt the manager. Somehow tthat reads like someone with respect for others unlike text dude.

Instead of being concerned about assessing the threat would have you prefer the retired cop defer to text dude and take what ever text dude wanted to hand out?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

To assume that he was more frustrated by not having his needs met by management is an equally valid assumption as yours that he took it in stride. Without knowing what was said by either man when he returned I can't judge as definitively as you what should have happened. If the shooter was sitting there grumbling loudly to his wife about the rudeness of texters and how if he were in charge he'd handle it would not the victim have been within his rights to turn and ask him to be quiet. There are a while lot of scenarios that are possible supported by a whole lot of unfounded speculation.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

There you have it, speculation. That's all we can do at this point without the rest of the story. Depending on which news source you read, now the ex-cop also threw popcorn. Some witnesses weren't sure who threw what. Earlier ones indicated the text dude did. 

What I find interesting is given the range of variance that developed days afterwards, where did the later articles get their facts? I haven't seen any more info from witnesses. None were quoted by name or anonymously. There appears to be some confusion out there based on the journalists' bias.

As they say, you can have your own opinion, you can't have your own facts. The who, what, why, where & when seems to be a rarely used artifact these days.

I'm still wondering how the retired cop with a stellar career did that if it wasn't self defense. Given his training I'm not buying the "he snapped" scenario. I still think the text dude's actions complicated by the retired cop's eyesight which hadn't adapted to the dark after returning from the attempt to talk to the manager played a critical part. FWIW, age slows that adaption.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Darren said:


> There you have it, speculation. That's all we can do at this point without the rest of the story. Depending on which news source you read, now the ex-cop also threw popcorn. Some witnesses weren't sure who threw what. Earlier ones indicated the text dude did.
> 
> What I find interesting is given the range of variance that developed days afterwards, where did the later articles get their facts? I haven't seen any more info from witnesses. None were quoted by name or anonymously. There appears to be some confusion out there based on the journalists' bias.
> 
> ...


You seem to like your "fact" about his eyesight being diminished. I'd say if this were true it would be one more reason he shouldn't have pulled his weapon and fired at a threat and a background he could not properly assess. People with diminished night vision are prohibited from operating motor vehicles at night because they might be a danger to themselves or others. Reporters have sources. It's what they do if they're any good. I'm not saying he "snapped" but he may well have overreacted.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

That's were his years of training are relevant. You or I, I'm assuming you're not a LEO, don't have the advantage of that training and, as it may turn out in his case, a disadvantage if he reacted as he was trained.

His attorney needs to bring that out along with the eyesight issue. If he can't put the jury in the old guy's shoes, he's going to jail. Of course Zimmerman was headed there too according to the media. That case gave me pride in our jury system. All of the women, including the mothers didn't give into the media blitz.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Darren said:


> That's were his years of training are relevant. You or I, I'm assuming you're not a LEO, don't have the advantage of that training and, as it may turn out in his case, a disadvantage if he reacted as he was trained.
> 
> His attorney needs to bring that out along with the eyesight issue. If he can't put the jury in the old guy's shoes, he's going to jail. Of course Zimmerman was headed there too according to the media. That case gave me pride in our jury system. All of the women, including the mothers didn't give into the media blitz.


Im not a LEO but I know more than a few. Part of a LEO's training is to to make sure of a threat before using deadly force. If his eyesight was diminished, as you want to insist it was, he was in no position to accurately assess the threat in front of him and shouldn't have pulled his weapon and fired. I don't fire at movement or sound in the woods even though I can be almost 100% sure that it is being caused by the same deer I saw entering the woods heading my way.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

It is up to the prosecution to prove, beyond a reasonable shadow of a doubt that the old guy did not perceive a threat. Then the standards of the stand your ground law must be met. You may think that having a guy threatening you and perhaps throwing something at you or perhaps grabbing towards you would not frighten you, but that doesn't matter. The facts must prove that old guy had a reasonable perception of threat. 
If the old guy saw the dude grab at him, but others did not see that, does not mean it didn't happen. Old guy was closest and had the best vantage point. That weakens the statements of others, with a less clear view. This wasn't broad daylight.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

I'm not sure stand your ground applies. Zimmerman's defense never used it. Regardless The retired cop had a right to defend himself against * what he perceived as a threat.* The jury still has to see that. I was impressed by Zimmerman's lawyers. Not so much so far by the retired cop's attorney.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

haypoint said:


> It is up to the prosecution to prove, beyond a reasonable shadow of a doubt that the old guy did not perceive a threat. Then the standards of the stand your ground law must be met. You may think that having a guy threatening you and perhaps throwing something at you or perhaps grabbing towards you would not frighten you, but that doesn't matter. The facts must prove that old guy had a reasonable perception of threat.
> If the old guy saw the dude grab at him, but others did not see that, does not mean it didn't happen. Old guy was closest and had the best vantage point. That weakens the statements of others, with a less clear view. This wasn't broad daylight.


In order for Stand Your Ground to be used the defendant is the one who has to provide evidence of a legitimate threat and prove he could not have escaped the situation safely. This is one of the reasons Zimmerman didn't testify. His doing so would have opened him up to more questions. The most telling testimony if this goes to trial will likely be from the wive(s). They heard whatever was said and likely saw exactly what happened. How their stories support each other or differ and who is found more believable will likely be what this trial hinges on.


----------



## Glade Runner (Aug 1, 2013)

I wonder if the difference in opinion displayed here has something to do with whether a person has been in a seriously life threatening situation themselves? Cleary those on the political left seem to always come down on the Kumbaya, lets all get along and you should never take personal action side of the equation. I just wonder how many of them have had their life actually threatened by another party or parties. I have, more than once, I know that I'm probably going to be on my own when something like this happens either because there's no one there or because other people don't want to be involved, and I'm pretty sure it colors my opinion in these matters. Personally, had I been in this particular situation I would not have shot the guy at that particular point but use of lethal force would have been on my response menu if things had gone much further.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Glade Runner said:


> I wonder if the difference in opinion displayed here has something to do with whether a person has been in a seriously life threatening situation themselves? Cleary those on the political left seem to always come down on the Kumbaya, lets all get along and you should never take personal action side of the equation. I just wonder how many of them have had their life actually threatened by another party or parties. I have, more than once, I know that I'm probably going to be on my own when something like this happens either because there's no one there or because other people don't want to be involved, and I'm pretty sure it colors my opinion in these matters. Personally, had I been in this particular situation I would not have shot the guy at that particular point but use of lethal force would have been on my response menu if things had gone much further.


Lots of truth here. I've been life threatening situations in my job at a prison, and in my personal life. 
Sort of off topic, but here's a story.
On my nightly drive home, I had to take a car ferry. A car pulled onto the ferry and I was directed to park on the ferry, next to him. After the ferry crossing, the attendant directed me to drive off. The lone other car pulled off behind me. There is a causeway of about a mile long and this was winter, near midnight, so no traffic and none expected. Outside temps about 10F. The car following me so closely that I couldn't see headlights. There is no road shoulder, but I slowed down and pulled to the right. The driver refused to pass. I stopped to let him pass. He stopped. I waited. I did not know what the problem was. I got out and walked back to him to see why he was not going around. He was drunk and angry that I had pulled out ahead of him. He got out of the car. The road was icy. He started throwing punches. There was no one around to help. I was too far from my vehicle to run. In this weather, if he got me down, I might freeze to death before found. My choices were limited. In hindsight, I should not have gotten out of the car. But, like the old guy that had no idea that the texting dude would confront him, I was in a situation with few choices. It isn't like I had a variety of choices. Let's see... Maybe a stick isn't enough, a gun too much, perhaps a framing hammer or a tire iron. I was alone with nothing. I managed to get a few punches in and eventually knock him down and escape to my vehicle. Often I carried hand cuffs. If I had them, would I have used them? But if cops couldn't respond, my cuff keys were at work, he'd have to stay cuffed to his door handle. Lots of choices to make in an instant. 
If I'd had a gun, I would have made a run for my car and shot him if he caught me. I did not want to die that night, dispute my poor choice of getting out of the car.
Back to the theatre, the old guy might have hit the texting guy, when he felt in danger, with a hammer. But he didn't have a hammer. Would those that felt he went too far, prefer he stabbed the dude with a knife? Is that a less violent response? What if old guy defended himself with an ink pen stab? If a gun was too much, what were his other choices in that instant.
Three or four of the top ten most violent cities are in Michigan. Threats to your life can turn into losing your life in seconds. Violent acts also happen quiet communities. Often you have scant little information to evaluate the intent of an aggressive stranger. You want "he took the wait and see approach to a threat" on your tomb stone?


----------



## homstdr74 (Jul 4, 2011)

Darren said:


> There you have it, speculation. That's all we can do at this point without the rest of the story. Depending on which news source you read, now the ex-cop also threw popcorn. Some witnesses weren't sure who threw what. Earlier ones indicated the text dude did.
> 
> What I find interesting is given the range of variance that developed days afterwards, where did the later articles get their facts? I haven't seen any more info from witnesses. None were quoted by name or anonymously. There appears to be some confusion out there based on the journalists' bias.
> 
> ...


Something else about the eyesight issue that might be relevant is where did the salted popcorn land? On or near the eyes? I know that when I have had salt or seasonings on my fingers and get them on or near my eyes the effect is startling, to say the least. So I would think that some of that landing on his eyes would have an even more startling effect and might make it seem as if the textguy was trying to blind him. 

Actually, even with stinging and watering eyes, often it's fairly easy to identify the mass of the target.

I'm about the same age as the "oldguy", and I have trouble with low light and with things such as dust or particles in the eye; but those things, even though tremendously aggravating and while they may take away some clarity, don't prevent me from perceiving most of what is going on, or I would give up driving (which I plan to do if and when my doctor, my wife, and I determine I should).


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Wanda said:


> Why are so many people referring to the ''old guy'' like he is 90 years old. Using the argument that he ''could'' have been pulled over the seat does not hold much water. I can not shoot a person walking down the street because they are younger and could trip me! Folks are grasping at some small straws to try and make a case. Is the ''young punk popcorn thrower'' over the legal age of consent?


The guy was old, 70+. And you have to have situational awareness. If you are in a bar with your rear end against a pool table you are in a much more dangerous situation than if you are standing on a sidewalk. Your ability to retreat is reduced, your ability to take defensive actions is limited. 

If I'm on the street and you toss popcorn at me my first action is to move back and to one side to increase the distance between us (in combat distance is your friend). If I'm in a theater that option is removed from me. On the street if you push me I can give ground, grab your arm and use your momentum against you, in a theater that option is not there. In the street if you grab me and pull me forward I can step into you and use your pulling to increase the force of my head strike. In a theater I can't do that.

Again I have to ask; have you ever been involved in or even seen a street fight? It ain't like you see on TV and in the movies. You don't take five punches to the face then come back and beat the other guy down because you are the good guy. In the last three years in this area there have been two young men (25 and 23) killed in fights. Not shot, not stabbed but killed by blows from fist and feet.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

greg273 said:


> Other than the fact that he discharged a firearm inside a theater because someone insulted him.


You were there and saw what happened? Please tell us what was said. Also tell us was the texter moving forward after he threw the popcorn in the old cop's face. 

Unless you were there you don't know what happened. Because there's be no trial you don't even know what MIGHT have happened because all the 'evidence' we have seen is from the press. We all know how accurate the press is when it comes to info. Remember the Atlanta Olympics bombing?

Given what we "know" and a little common sense you have to lean more toward this being a 'good shooting'. The shooter was a retired cop with what seems to be a long outstanding record. AFAIK there isn't a single civilian complaint against him, that really says something. That also means he has received "shoot-don't shoot" training as well as conflict resolution and how to deescalate situations. And I'm willing to bet during his career he was involved in many confrontations and, again AFAIK, felt the need to shoot anyone.

You have to push common sense to think he suddenly decided that the way to stop theater texting was to just shoot someone.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

greg273 said:


> Popcorn kernels are 'battery'??.... I should probably refrain from more comments until I have read all the details of this incident... I only know from past threads that you Mr. Darren seem to favor the 'shoot first, ask questions later' line of reasoning that I find issue with.


Yep. Popcorn, marshmallows, or anything else you can think of when thrown at and it hits another person is either assault or battery depending on how your city or state defines it.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> As I said earlier, artful interpretations for justification to use deadly force will only result in tighter laws. When more restrictive gun laws are enacted, gun rights advocates who support artful interpretations will only have themselves to blame.
> 
> If you like your 'stand your ground' laws, I suggest that you use them conservatively.


Did I point out that FL is actually looking to relax their stand your ground law? They are considering allowing a person to legally to "brandish" a firearm or fire a shot in order to end a conflict. You have to wonder if this situation might have been different if the LEO could have legally drawn his weapon w/o having to fire it.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Darren said:


> There are plenty of witnesses to the incident including the man and his son that were sitting alongside text dude. I don't think the jury will have to "imagine" what happened.


Again I have to point out that people see what they want or expect to see. There have been plenty of studies showing this.

This isn't a good example of that but it does show you how your brain "sees" what it wants not what the eyes show it.

[YOUTUBE]oJIQTf5UpRU[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> In order for Stand Your Ground to be used the defendant is the one who has to provide evidence of a legitimate threat and prove he could not have escaped the situation safely.


Ah. . .you might want to check again. The very thing that SYG laws are based on is the fact a person is NOT required to escape even if escape is possible. Its the old laws which said/say that you can ONLY used deadly force when escape is completely impossible.




mmoetc said:


> This is one of the reasons Zimmerman didn't testify. His doing so would have opened him up to more questions. The most telling testimony if this goes to trial will likely be from the wive(s). They heard whatever was said and likely saw exactly what happened. How their stories support each other or differ and who is found more believable will likely be what this trial hinges on.


Another thing you need to check, Zimmerman never even brought the SYG law into the case. Only the press did. Zimmerman's case was a straight up case of using deadly force when faced with an attack which could have resulted in death or grievous bodily harm.


----------



## emdeengee (Apr 20, 2010)

What a ridiculous question. There is no justification at all for shooting someone who is texting - unless of course you know that they are texting to set off a bomb. 

Texting in a movie theatre is not a crime. Certainly not deserving the death penalty. It is bad manners.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

emdeengee said:


> What a ridiculous question. There is no justification at all for shooting someone who is texting - unless of course you know that they are texting to set off a bomb.
> 
> Texting in a movie theatre is not a crime. Certainly not deserving the death penalty. It is bad manners.


The problem is the guy wasn't shot because he was texting, he was shot because he made an armed man think a physical attack was about to happen.

If a man climbs over a fence and charges at a sleeping lion he doesn't wind up dead because he climbed the fence. He winds up dead because he made the lion think it was about to be attacked. It doesn't matter if the fence climber just wanted to give the big fuzzy kitty a hug, what does matter is what the lion though when he saw the guy running at him.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

watcher said:


> The problem is the guy wasn't shot because he was texting, he was shot because he made an armed man think a physical attack was about to happen.


Where did you learn that? Did the shooter or police say it?


----------



## FunnyRiverFarm (May 25, 2010)

Maybe the reason the texter threw his popcorn is because the old man was coming at HIM. Maybe HE was the one acting in self defense.


----------



## emdeengee (Apr 20, 2010)

watcher said:


> The problem is the guy wasn't shot because he was texting, he was shot because he made an armed man think a physical attack was about to happen.
> 
> If a man climbs over a fence and charges at a sleeping lion he doesn't wind up dead because he climbed the fence. He winds up dead because he made the lion think it was about to be attacked. It doesn't matter if the fence climber just wanted to give the big fuzzy kitty a hug, what does matter is what the lion though when he saw the guy running at him.


That is the defense spin but not at all what the witnesses say. The man who took the gun away from the shooter and was sitting right next to him was an off duty deputy from another county. A good witness.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

FunnyRiverFarm said:


> Maybe the reason the texter threw his popcorn is because the old man was coming at HIM. Maybe HE was the one acting in self defense.


At any rate, the judge is very clear in her belief that thrown popcorn does not justify drawing a gun and shooting someone in the chest.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iG36MPiVCV0

He's obviously fighting an uphill battle in that courtroom. And unlike Zimmerman, bail has been denied.

****Edited to Add****

For those who don't youtube, here's a text version of what the judge said.

_In explaining why Reeves qualified for the second-degree murder charge, Judge Tepper quoted the requirements for the charge from legal guidelines. "&#8230;'perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to another', I guess that would be pulling a gun, and 'evidencing a depraved mind regardless of human life'. The only description I have is that he was struck by an unknown object not by a hard object, not that he was knocked around," said Tepper. "*An unknown object doesn't equal taking out a gun and firing it at somebody's chest*. In addition that certainly would have been to effect the death. The court is finding that there is more than sufficient probable cause of second-degree murder," she continued._
http://m.christianpost.com/news/ret...nds-bible-study-regularly-says-lawyer-112720/


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

watcher said:


> Yep. Popcorn, marshmallows, or anything else you can think of when thrown at and it hits another person is either assault or battery depending on how your city or state defines it.


 So if a guy in a big loud diesel truck is idling while I am standing on a sidewalk, and I end up breathing in those fumes, I am being 'assaulted'? And now I can, in your mind, legally shoot this person??

How about confetti?? Can I draw my pistol at a party and shoot the host?
How about those annoying automatic air fresheners that spray when you walk past them? Can I find the maintenence guy responsible and shoot him for that?


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

emdeengee said:


> That is the defense spin but not at all what the witnesses say. The man who took the gun away from the shooter and was sitting right next to him was an off duty deputy from another county. A good witness.


Where did you get that information? From the reports I read, the off duty cop " rushed over" but nothing that he was seated next to or even near the incident. 
If the old guy was making a scene or the two were arguing, why didn't the cop try to de-fuse the situation? Either is wasn't much of a disagreement or the cop didn't want to get involved. No one wanted to get involved. To me, that is the problem here. Why does the 72 year old guy have to stand alone in getting someone to stop being disrespectful to the rest of the people watching the movie. 
If the texting dude was concerned about his daughter, he could step out to the nearby area where texting is allowed. When texting dude argued with the old guy, why couldn't the 23 others show their support for following the rules?


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

greg273 said:


> So if a guy in a big loud diesel truck is idling while I am standing on a sidewalk, and I end up breathing in those fumes, I am being 'assaulted'? And now I can, in your mind, legally shoot this person??
> 
> How about confetti?? Can I draw my pistol at a party and shoot the host?
> How about those annoying automatic air fresheners that spray when you walk past them? Can I find the maintenence guy responsible and shoot him for that?


No, no, maybe,no, no, and no. Simple assault only requires contact, or fear of contact. Laws are different in different states. 

The question is, will 12 old folks (peers) in Florida, understand the fear the 72 year old felt in a dark theatre when a tall young man got verbally loud and threw something at him? That's all your Honor.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

No one is mentioning the old guys son who met them there just as Reeves shot texter dude! He was with Reeves when the off duty cop came over. Why didn't off duty cop intervien? Did he think there wasn't much to it at first?


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

haypoint said:


> No, no, maybe,no, no, and no. Simple assault only requires contact, or fear of contact.


 In every instance I gave as an example, contact was made. 

If 'fear' is the only defense,then I am sorry,but one mans fear does not mean he gets to kill with no repercussions.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Where did you learn that? Did the shooter or police say it?


Touche, I should have said I think based on the evidence. Because if he was going to shoot him for texting you'd think he'd just shot him in the back of the head while he was in the act.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> At any rate, the judge is very clear in her belief that thrown popcorn does not justify drawing a gun and shooting someone in the chest.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iG36MPiVCV0
> 
> ...


Really doesn't matter what the judge thinks. What matters is what at least one juror thinks.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

greg273 said:


> So if a guy in a big loud diesel truck is idling while I am standing on a sidewalk, and I end up breathing in those fumes, I am being 'assaulted'? And now I can, in your mind, legally shoot this person??


Nope. He's not throwing anything at you. I posted parts of the FL code look it up. 




greg273 said:


> How about confetti?? Can I draw my pistol at a party and shoot the host?
> How about those annoying automatic air fresheners that spray when you walk past them? Can I find the maintenence guy responsible and shoot him for that?


Deadly force can be used any time you feel you are in danger of death or grievous bodily harm. If someone is calling you names and seems to be in a rage or has said he intends to cause you harm then suddenly tosses confetti in your face then yes you could justifiably use deadly force. That means you could shoot him or stab him with the cake knife.

But you'll notice nowhere has anyone tried to say that you can use deadly force anytime you are assaulted.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

greg273 said:


> In every instance I gave as an example, contact was made.
> 
> If 'fear' is the only defense,then I am sorry,but one mans fear does not mean he gets to kill with no repercussions.


In the law there is some dude called the "reasonable man", never met him myself but they talk about him a lot. He's the guy who gets to decide if you go to jail or go free. Would a reasonable 70+ y.o. man would have felt he was in danger of death or as I have posted several times, grievous bodily harm at the time deadly force was used? If that guy says yes then the shooter walks. If he says no then its off to jail.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

watcher said:


> Really doesn't matter what the judge thinks. What matters is what at least one juror thinks.


It appears that they'll be relying on the thrown popcorn for justification to use deadly force. If that turns out to be their primary defense then I think it's going to be a hard sell to any jury.

Tell me honestly, if someone threw a bag of popcorn at you would you shoot to kill?


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Nevada said:


> It appears that they'll be relying on the thrown popcorn for justification to use deadly force. If that turns out to be their primary defense then I think it's going to be a hard sell to any jury.
> 
> Tell me honestly, if someone threw a bag of popcorn at you would you shoot to kill?


It depends on the circumstances. If it's at a partry with friends and a food fight develops, No. If confronted by an unknown stranger at close quarters, followed by the popcorn, might happen. Depends on the neighborhood and the lighting along with other factors such as accomplices, etc.

We know the text dude had turned around. Some accounts, but not all, suggest he stood up, Wife's hand on the text dude was hit first by the bullet before in entered the man's chest. Whether the man stood up or simply twisted in his seat may also be relevant to the retired cop's need to defend himself.

Text dud was not shot in the back. That could be a critical point. I'm curious what buliet track the autopsy report will show. If it's straight through from front to back and indicates the text dude was standing up, that would indicate more of a potential threat.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

When all is said and done, this will probably be a simple case of 2nd degree murder. An argument developed, words were exchanged, one man overreacted and shot another man in the chest. There it is. Do your time and accept the consequences. 
Seriously, do we now live in a world where a mere argument is justification for murder?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> It appears that they'll be relying on the thrown popcorn for justification to use deadly force. If that turns out to be their primary defense then I think it's going to be a hard sell to any jury.
> 
> Tell me honestly, if someone threw a bag of popcorn at you would you shoot to kill?


It depends. I'll ask you the question others have refused to answer about themselves. Have you ever been in or even seen a street fight?

As I have stated before throwing something at the head of an opponent is a fairly common way to distract them from your attack. Think about it, if I throw a bag of popcorn at your face what is going to be your first reaction? For most people it would be to close their eyes, turn their head away from the direction of the incoming popcorn and bring their hands up toward their face. In the few tenths of seconds it takes you to do that, in my younger days, I could have easily injured you to the point all you could do is go fetal and hope I stopped beating you before I crippled or killed you.

And that's in the open and if you were a youngish man. Being old and in a confined space with bad lighting your alert level should be even higher.

So yeah there are times where I'd be willing to used deadly force if you threw popcorn at my head.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

watcher said:


> So yeah there are times where I'd be willing to used deadly force if you threw popcorn at my head.


 And then you'd probably, justifiably, end up in prison.


----------



## Glade Runner (Aug 1, 2013)

watcher said:


> And that's in the open and if you were a youngish man. Being old and in a confined space with bad lighting your alert level should be even higher.
> 
> So yeah there are times where I'd be willing to used deadly force if you threw popcorn at my head.


The confined space issue is a very good point which I hadn't thought about. I was one time trapped against a truck with the door open in a confrontational event and I had real limited response options. Having to shuffle sideways in the limited space between the seats with limited vision in a theater could become very difficult when a younger, fitter assailant is in your face. One miss step and you're done.


----------



## Wanda (Dec 19, 2002)

I think if you are in a setting such as a theater with other people around you are not in much danger of being beaten to death. That makes comparisons with a dark alley and a deserted road at night just a bit of a stretch! :shrug:


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

> Why does the 72 year old guy have to stand alone in getting someone to stop being disrespectful to the rest of the people watching the movie.
> If the texting dude was concerned about his daughter, he could step out to the nearby area where texting is allowed. When texting dude argued with the old guy, why couldn't the 23 others show their support for following the rules?


Perhaps because they weren't offended because the movie HADN'T STARTED YET???

Perhaps grumpy old murderer dude was the only one with a problem?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

greg273 said:


> And then you'd probably, justifiably, end up in prison.


All depends. The legal use of deadly has a lot to do with circumstances and that reasonable man I have talked about. There are many cases where unarmed people have legally had deadly forced used against them.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Glade Runner said:


> The confined space issue is a very good point which I hadn't thought about. I was one time trapped against a truck with the door open in a confrontational event and I had real limited response options. Having to shuffle sideways in the limited space between the seats with limited vision in a theater could become very difficult when a younger, fitter assailant is in your face. One miss step and you're done.


There is also the fact that being pulled or pushed over a theater seat would put you in a position where you could not defend yourself as well as causing injury.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Wanda said:


> I think if you are in a setting such as a theater with other people around you are not in much danger of being beaten to death. That makes comparisons with a dark alley and a deserted road at night just a bit of a stretch! :shrug:


I don't get your point. Are you saying just because you are in a public place you can't be beaten bad enough to justify the use of deadly force?


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

watcher said:


> I don't get your point. Are you saying just because you are in a public place you can't be beaten bad enough to justify the use of deadly force?


I think Wanda is saying that in a public place the surrounding population would jump into action to save your life, before you were at risk. Sort of like in the theatre where no one so much as moved a muscle or uttered a sound.
If no one is going to help, many claim to not have seen anything, don't want to be involved, he might as well been in a deserted alley, instead of a dark theatre surrounded by the statues of human citizens. For me, not the courts, that is the real crime here. The refusal to stand up for basic rules of society. 
I hope everyone that refused to take a stand gets to sit next to a texter on a 4 hour flight, wishing "someone" would do "something".


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

For every person that thinks he over reacted, I'd like you to stand one row above me in a theatre, while I stand below you. As I easily topple you forward, how many will suddenly think, " Gee, I have no way to defend myself now. I should have recognized the danger before he rendered me helpless. I could die from such a fall." 
For those that haven't entered a theatre since they were nearly level, either go to a theatre built in the last 25 years or imagine a football stadium.


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

haypoint said:


> For every person that thinks he over reacted, I'd like you to stand one row above me in a theatre, while I stand below you. As I easily topple you forward, how many will suddenly think, " Gee, I have no way to defend myself now. I should have recognized the danger before he rendered me helpless. I could die from such a fall."
> For those that haven't entered a theatre since they were nearly level, either go to a theatre built in the last 25 years or imagine a football stadium.


OR He could have kept his big cranky gob shut about someone texting before the movie even started and minded his own darned business and avoided the whole sad affair.


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

If it would have been a government employee getting the popcorn thrown at him, the government would charged the guy with propelling a missile... We all know missiles are dangerous objects. With that in mind, then the old man was justified in protecting himself..


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

haypoint said:


> For every person that thinks he over reacted, I'd like you to stand one row above me in a theatre, while I stand below you. As I easily topple you forward, how many will suddenly think, " Gee, I have no way to defend myself now. I should have recognized the danger before he rendered me helpless. I could die from such a fall."
> For those that haven't entered a theatre since they were nearly level, either go to a theatre built in the last 25 years or imagine a football stadium.


Simple solution. Sit down. Harder for someone a row below you in a stadium seating arrangement to reach up and across seats to assault you if your sitting down.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

greg273 said:


> When all is said and done, this will probably be a simple case of 2nd degree murder. An argument developed, words were exchanged, one man overreacted and shot another man in the chest. There it is. Do your time and accept the consequences.
> Seriously, do we now live in a world where a mere argument is justification for murder?


by charging second degree murder the prosecutor is headed for the same dead end that the Zimmerman prosecution hit head on. Depraved mind. If they can't prove that, it's not second degree murder. The prosecutor over charged.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Tiempo said:


> OR He could have kept his big cranky gob shut about someone texting before the movie even started and minded his own darned business and avoided the whole sad affair.


Ever been in a movie theatre in the past decade? Prior to the movie starting there are advertisements, Coke, Pepsi, TV Shows, even the local Health Spas, stuff like that. Then the ads for popcorn and candy. Then there are a couple notices about silencing and turning off your electronic devices. It is also announced that failure to do so will be cause for ejection. Up until then, the cranky gob should button his lip.
But after the announcement, the lights go down and the entertainment begins. Note that I didn't say the movie starts. I paid for more than the movie. I paid to see the previews of all the upcoming movies. So, as far as I'm concerned, the dude is disrupting my entertainment. No, I'm not going to shoot him. I'd simply tell him that he should shut the thing off. Bright screen, tappy tap tap right in front of me is an interruption. 
What indication did the old guy have that the dude would start following the rules when the movie started? None. Does the old guy have reason to suspect that such impolite disturbance will continue, perhaps into the movie? Should he wait and see, wait until his movie experience is soiled and then leave the theatre, miss more of the movie and hunt down an employee? I don't think so. Perhaps if he can sacrifice seeing the previews and get management to do their job, the problem will be over before the movie starts. If I were him waiting my turn to talk to the manager, it might occur to me that by the time I tell the manager and he goes to that theatre, the dude will be done texting and nothing will be done, except me missing the previews and possibly the beginning of the movie.
But upon my return to my seat, texting dude is all worked up, "What did you do, did you snitch on me? Hey, I was texting my daughter. That is important to me." seems a likely quote. The texting guy was standing, facing towards the old guy. I don't know if the old guy had sat down yet. I don't think I'd sit down while a stranger is arguing with me. Remember, the lights are off, except the exit signs and the led strips by the steps. Often times angry men point their fingers at people, before they actually hit or grab them. 
Previews or perhaps the start of the movie would be loud and add to the confusion. 
Would it be different to you if the texting guy said "I'm going to grab you and throw you over this seat."? Because, the texting dude's actions may have said that to the retired cop.
Anyone that has witnessed assaults, knows that it is common to distract just prior to a sucker punch. That is the essence of a sucker punch. That is how it got its name. An unexpected first strike rendering your victim unable to respond. Tipping a table, throwing water or, perhaps, tossing a tub of popcorn at someone.


----------



## Glade Runner (Aug 1, 2013)

Wanda said:


> I think if you are in a setting such as a theater with other people around you are not in much danger of being beaten to death. That makes comparisons with a dark alley and a deserted road at night just a bit of a stretch! :shrug:


You evidently don't read the news because people get assaulted, raped, killed and the bystanders don't get involved.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

haypoint said:


> I think Wanda is saying that in a public place the surrounding population would jump into action to save your life, before you were at risk. Sort of like in the theatre where no one so much as moved a muscle or uttered a sound.
> If no one is going to help, many claim to not have seen anything, don't want to be involved, he might as well been in a deserted alley, instead of a dark theatre surrounded by the statues of human citizens. For me, not the courts, that is the real crime here. The refusal to stand up for basic rules of society.
> I hope everyone that refused to take a stand gets to sit next to a texter on a 4 hour flight, wishing "someone" would do "something".


The problem is by the time someone gets there to help it maybe too late. You can deliver a lot of elbow blows in just a few seconds and it only takes one strike to the head to do a LOT of damage.

It seems to me most people here are thinking the fight would have been fought under the Marquess of Queensberry rules.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Tiempo said:


> OR He could have kept his big cranky gob shut about someone texting before the movie even started and minded his own darned business and avoided the whole sad affair.


Or he could have jumped up and screamed "SIR you need to put THAT back in your pants!"


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> Simple solution. Sit down. Harder for someone a row below you in a stadium seating arrangement to reach up and across seats to assault you if your sitting down.


True but its also much more difficult to escape or defend yourself while seated.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Darren said:


> by charging second degree murder the prosecutor is headed for the same dead end that the Zimmerman prosecution hit head on. Depraved mind. If they can't prove that, it's not second degree murder. The prosecutor over charged.


Good grief! They are going for 2nd degree? Seems to me its another political court case. Its going to be next to impossible to prove that in this case which seems to say they don't really want to convict the guy.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

watcher said:


> Good grief! They are going for 2nd degree? Seems to me its another political court case. Its going to be next to impossible to prove that in this case which seems to say they don't really want to convict the guy.


Evidently the judge doesn't agree with you.

_"The court is finding that there is more than sufficient probable cause of second-degree murder"_
[from my link above]


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

watcher said:


> True but its also much more difficult to escape or defend yourself while seated.


Since he made no effort to escape and his weapon would have still been available it is actually a much more defensable position. Anyone attacking from a row down would have to climb over a seat to reach him leaving that person much more vulnerable to defensive measures including being shot as that would constitute a threat.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> Since he made no effort to escape and his weapon would have still been available it is actually a much more defensable position. Anyone attacking from a row down would have to climb over a seat to reach him leaving that person much more vulnerable to defensive measures including being shot as that would constitute a threat.


I don't know how he was carrying his weapon but in most cases its VERY difficult to draw a firearm while sitting.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Evidently the judge doesn't agree with you.
> 
> _"The court is finding that there is more than sufficient probable cause of second-degree murder"_
> [from my link above]


The judge had to agree that there was PC to trial Zimmerman on the same charge or the case would have been tossed. The problem is proving ALL the necessary items beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury. 

In the Zimmerman thread I posted the FL code which stated what the state must prove to get a conviction on 2nd murder. It is going to have a much more difficult time proving all of that in this case. 


Let's look at the Florida law on second degree murder. To get a conviction for second degree murder the state must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt. It must prove all of them, two out of three means it loses.


_1. (Victim) is dead._
_2. The death was caused by the criminal act of (defendant)._
_3. There was an unlawful killing of (victim) by an act imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind without regard for human life._


We find that "depraved mind&#8221; is defined by Florida&#8217;s jury instructions. 


_Three elements must be present:_

_* A &#8220;person of ordinary judgment&#8221; would know the act, or series of acts, &#8220;is reasonably certain to kill or do serious bodily injury to another&#8221;;_
_
* The act is &#8220;done from ill will, hatred, spite, or an evil intent&#8221;; and_
_
* The act is &#8220;of such a nature that the act itself indicates an indifference to human life.&#8221;

_The major problem here, as with Zimmerman, is the part where the state must prove the shooting was _&#8220;done from ill will, hatred, spite, or an evil intent&#8221;. 
_


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

watcher said:


> The major problem here, as with Zimmerman, is the part where the state must prove the shooting was _âdone from ill will, hatred, spite, or an evil intentâ. _


The shooter did not draw the weapon to use for intimidation, because he shot. The weapon was also not drawn to disable the attacker, since he shot him square in the chest. He shot to kill, yet sufficient provocation to use deadly force did not exist.

It's the shooter who has a problem in this case. I haven't heard a single thing in this case to indicate reasonable justification to use deadly force. I'm willing to wait for the facts, but so far we haven't even heard a reasonable theory from the defense to justify the shooting.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> Since he made no effort to escape and his weapon would have still been available it is actually a much more defensable position. Anyone attacking from a row down would have to climb over a seat to reach him leaving that person much more vulnerable to defensive measures including being shot as that would constitute a threat.


Climb over? 

Please go to a modern movie theatre seat and stand up, turn around. The seat bottom folds up, automatically. Any average person can reach the person standing behind them. The seats are arranged to offer about a 7 to 8 inch height advantage to someone wanting to use gravity to pull someone over. 
Next look at the news reports that show the texting dude standing. Is he a tall man? Does he have average length or would you say long arms? 
Can you accurately visualize the small spaces between them?

What if the texting dude slugged the old man? Would you agree that meets justification to defend himself with a gun? In your judgment if the texting dude had pulled the old guy over the seat, got him on the floor and smashed his head to the point of drawing blood (aka Zimmerman) should the old guy have fired his gun to protect himself? 
I'm trying to see where you draw the line in the sand, when is gun violence permissible, in your mind?


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Lately the judges involved in the high profile incidents in Florida haven't been impressive. How many did Zimmerman's attorneys go through. The sheriff in this case is another question mark. Attention whore came to mind.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Deleted


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

duplicate post


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

watcher said:


> The major problem here, as with Zimmerman, is the part where the state must prove the shooting was _âdone from ill will, hatred, spite, or an evil intentâ. _


The shooter did not draw the weapon to use for intimidation, because he shot. The weapon was also not drawn to disable the attacker, since he shot him square in the chest. He shot to kill, yet sufficient provocation to use deadly force did not exist.

It's the shooter who has a problem in this case. I haven't heard a single thing in this case to indicate reasonable justification to use deadly force. I'm willing to wait for the facts, but so far we haven't even heard a reasonable theory from the defense to justify the shooting.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

duplicate post


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

double post.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

haypoint said:


> What if the texting dude slugged the old man? Would you agree that meets justification to defend himself with a gun?


Since when could we settle fist fights with a gun? Is there a legal precedent for that?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

haypoint said:


> Please go to a modern movie theatre seat and stand up, turn around. The seat bottom folds up, automatically. Any average person can reach the person standing behind them. The seats are arranged to offer about a 7 to 8 inch height advantage to someone wanting to use gravity to pull someone over.
> Next look at the news reports that show the texting dude standing. Is he a tall man? Does he have average length or would you say long arms?
> Can you accurately visualize the small spaces between them?
> 
> ...


Which is why I said sit down. The average seat back is 35" inches tall and 22" wide with the seat folded up( the interweb is a wonderful tool). Couple that with the aisle and unless one is facing the average NBA power forward, it would be difficult for someone standing an aisle below to inflict much damage. There are situations where deadly force is appropriate. This case may yet prove to be one of them. But for every scenario put forward to defend the shooter, there are equally valid scenarios to prosecute him. Right now I'm giving the cops and judge, who have already seen more evidence than any of us, the benefit of the doubt that they have enough information to go forward.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> The shooter did not draw the weapon to use for intimidation, because he shot.


In every state I know of its illegal to draw a weapon for the purpose of intimidation. If you are not in enough danger to use deadly force you better keep the weapon where it is.




Nevada said:


> The weapon was also not drawn to disable the attacker, since he shot him square in the chest.


Seems to me a shot "square in the chest" disabled him quite well. Unlike in your Roy Rodger's movies if your life is in danger you don't try shooting them in the hand or shoulder. Police are TRAINED to shot "center mass" and to keep shooting until there is no longer any threat. 




Nevada said:


> He shot to kill, yet sufficient provocation to use deadly force did not exist.


You were there? You have talked to the shooter to know if he felt there was a threat of grievous bodily harm or death?

But none of this shows that the shooter was "_demonstrating a depraved mind"_ which the state must prove to get a 2nd degree conviction.




Nevada said:


> It's the shooter who has a problem in this case. I haven't heard a single thing in this case to indicate reasonable justification to use deadly force. I'm willing to wait for the facts, but so far we haven't even heard a reasonable theory from the defense to justify the shooting.


I don't think we've heard a thing from the defense have we? 

I don't know the facts either but I'm having a very hard time believing that a guy with a record in and out of LE suddenly overrode all his training and shot someone just because he was mad at them.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> Which is why I said sit down. The average seat back is 35" inches tall and 22" wide with the seat folded up( the interweb is a wonderful tool). Couple that with the aisle and unless one is facing the average NBA power forward, it would be difficult for someone standing an aisle below to inflict much damage. There are situations where deadly force is appropriate. This case may yet prove to be one of them. But for every scenario put forward to defend the shooter, there are equally valid scenarios to prosecute him. Right now I'm giving the cops and judge, who have already seen more evidence than any of us, the benefit of the doubt that they have enough information to go forward.


But I so wanted you to answer the questions in my last paragraph. Where is the line, for you?

The thickness of a seat back. The aisle you speak of is less than a foot. If you don't believe me, get off the interweb and take a look for yourself. Please. I just did it. It is smaller and people sit closer than you might imagine.


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

I sure have been looking a this all wrong... I wonder if theaters would be interested in purchasing Kevlar seat backs.

You know someone is going to think of it.. might as well be me that gets rich.. 

Our society sure is twisted is about the only true conclusion I can come to...


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Since when could we settle fist fights with a gun? Is there a legal precedent for that?


A long time and yes. If you are not physically able to prevent someone from severely injuring you with their fist you have the full right to use a firearm to stop them from attacking you. 

Example. Say there's a fender bender. One driver is a 6' male the other is a 5' 2" female. The male is upset that his car is bent and angrily approaches the female. The female would have the legal right to use deadly force if she feels the male is going to physically attack her.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

watcher said:


> A long time and yes. If you are not physically able to prevent someone from severely injuring you with their fist you have the full right to use a firearm to stop them from attacking you.
> 
> Example. Say there's a fender bender. One driver is a 6' male the other is a 5' 2" female. The male is upset that his car is bent and angrily approaches the female. The female would have the legal right to use deadly force if she feels the male is going to physically attack her.


I'm thinking of a fist fight in a bar. During the course of the fight one party starts losing, so he draws his weapon and shoots. He then claims self defense because the other guy hit him.

You see where that takes us, don't you? I don't think anyone wants that, including you.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> Which is why I said sit down. The average seat back is 35" inches tall and 22" wide with the seat folded up( the interweb is a wonderful tool). Couple that with the aisle and unless one is facing the average NBA power forward, it would be difficult for someone standing an aisle below to inflict much damage. There are situations where deadly force is appropriate. This case may yet prove to be one of them. But for every scenario put forward to defend the shooter, there are equally valid scenarios to prosecute him. Right now I'm giving the cops and judge, who have already seen more evidence than any of us, the benefit of the doubt that they have enough information to go forward.


I'm a below average height guy and a quick check with a tape shows that from my chest to the tip of my fingers is about 27". That means standing upright with my thighs against the folded seat I could easily grab a hold of someone standing in front of the seat behind me.

I don't see it as much of a stretch to say once I had a hold of you I could brace my legs against the seat and pull you forward causing you to lose your balance and fall over the seat back. At that point you would be completely defenseless. I could then move slightly to one side and drive my knee into your face or my elbow into the back of your head. Or I could move a bit farther away and give you a few good kicks to the side of your head. Any of that would cause quite a bit of damage to you without any weapon. Introduce a weapon into the mix, even something as unassuming as an ink pen, and the damage which could be done goes up dramatically.

Might not something like this have gone through a retired cop's mind if someone threw the popcorn into his face during an argument?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> I'm thinking of a fist fight in a bar. During the course of the fight one party starts losing, so he draws his weapon and shoots. He then claims self defense because the other guy hit him.
> 
> You see where that takes us, don't you? I don't think anyone wants that, including you.


Depends. If someone starts swinging and you think you can defend yourself without a weapon and start fighting back. Then you discover the guy out classes you and he's beating the stuffing out of you I think you should have the right to escalate the amount of force used to defend yourself. Up to and including deadly force.

The key words to remember are defend, defense and defending yourself. Using your logic if some guy in a bar starts a fight with me I'm supposed to just let him beat me and hope I don't get hurt to badly.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

haypoint said:


> But I so wanted you to answer the questions in my last paragraph. Where is the line, for you?
> 
> The thickness of a seat back. The aisle you speak of is less than a foot. If you don't believe me, get off the interweb and take a look for yourself. Please. I just did it. It is smaller and people sit closer than you might imagine.


And neither one of has measured the distances in the theater in question so we'll just have to disagree. I can't say exactly where that point is for me. I've been in my share of fights, even had a pool cue swung at me a time or two. I've worked in big city bad neighborhoods. I've stepped between a man and woman in a restaurant parking lot at three in the morning. Is there a line? I'm sure there is. I just haven't had to cross it.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

watcher said:


> I'm a below average height guy and a quick check with a tape shows that from my chest to the tip of my fingers is about 27". That means standing upright with my thighs against the folded seat I could easily grab a hold of someone standing in front of the seat behind me.
> 
> I don't see it as much of a stretch to say once I had a hold of you I could brace my legs against the seat and pull you forward causing you to lose your balance and fall over the seat back. At that point you would be completely defenseless. I could then move slightly to one side and drive my knee into your face or my elbow into the back of your head. Or I could move a bit farther away and give you a few good kicks to the side of your head. Any of that would cause quite a bit of damage to you without any weapon. Introduce a weapon into the mix, even something as unassuming as an ink pen, and the damage which could be done goes up dramatically.
> 
> Might not something like this have gone through a retired cop's mind if someone threw the popcorn into his face during an argument?


Once again, that's why I said sit down. Now try to reach me without bending forward over a waist high obstacle without losing leverage and leaving yourself vulnerable.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

watcher said:


> Depends. If someone starts swinging and you think you can defend yourself without a weapon and start fighting back. Then you discover the guy out classes you and he's beating the stuffing out of you I think you should have the right to escalate the amount of force used to defend yourself. Up to and including deadly force.


That's troubling. Remember, we're trying to reduce the number of shootings.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> And neither one of has measured the distances in the theater in question so we'll just have to disagree. I can't say exactly where that point is for me. I've been in my share of fights, even had a pool cue swung at me a time or two. I've worked in big city bad neighborhoods. I've stepped between a man and woman in a restaurant parking lot at three in the morning. Is there a line? I'm sure there is. I just haven't had to cross it.


A pool cue swung past you is scary. Did you know that if swung with enough force, impacting a man's head at near midpoint on the pool cue, can break the cue and result in a sound similar to a rifle shot? Yup. I've been an eye witness to it. I, too, have broken up a fight between a man and a woman after the bars closed, only to be attacked by the woman after I subdued the attacker. 
Imagine a waist high fence. You on one side, standing on an 8 inch high concrete block, me, 6 foot 3 inches tall, slim but somewhat muscular. My straight outstretched arms extend to your breast pockets. I can lean against the fence, but the fence catches you just above the knees. To pull my hands off you, your balance must move forward. Can I topple you?
You, lime many others haven't had to contemplate when and where that line is. From my 27 years working around those convicted felons from those bad neighborhoods you know, I assess situations, I am aware of my personal space, the safe distance from potential threats. I evaluate escape routes and determine my flight vulnerability. I know that jumping up and kicking a bad guy in the face is Hollywood fantasy. In my younger days, I could hold my own in a street fight. As years pass, I could generally defend myself for awhile. But at 72 years old, knowing through careful evaluation of this specific situation's hazards and knowing that my self defense toolbox is basically empty, I'd be scared. Perhaps too scared to move. Frozen in fear. With popcorn in one hand the angry man reaches towards me in the darkened theatre. In the only instant I have before being tossed to my death, I deployed the only legal defense available to me. Within that instant, witness saw popcorn flying, heard a shot, saw a man fall over. But they didn't see much. They were in a dark room looking at a bright screen, amid a booming sound tract. They were not expecting to be witness to a national media spectacle. 
Everyone witnessed a man die. That is always horrific. Human nature dictates that the first reaction is, "He went too far.". Perhaps half the witnesses deplore all guns. We have been witness to many senseless murders in schools, and theatres, in nightly news reports. All this plays a part in creating what we believe we saw.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> That's troubling. Remember, we're trying to reduce the number of shootings.


Really? I thought we were trying to reduce murders.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

haypoint said:


> Really? I thought we were trying to reduce murders.


Do you really believe that introducing guns into fist fights is a good idea?


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Despite all your talk of physics haypoint, this is probably going to end up being a pretty simple case. 
I have no doubt the younger man was somewhat intimidating to shooter. But like I have said, the shooters misinterpretation of the threat level does not automatically grant him a waiver to murder someone with no repercussions. 
The jury will do their best. I hope they can reach a fair, just verdict.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Do you really believe that introducing guns into fist fights is a good idea?


No, I'd rather be beat to death, defenseless. Wouldn't you? :facepalm:


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

haypoint said:


> A pool cue swung past you is scary. Did you know that if swung with enough force, impacting a man's head at near midpoint on the pool cue, can break the cue and result in a sound similar to a rifle shot? Yup. I've been an eye witness to it. I, too, have broken up a fight between a man and a woman after the bars closed, only to be attacked by the woman after I subdued the attacker.
> Imagine a waist high fence. You on one side, standing on an 8 inch high concrete block, me, 6 foot 3 inches tall, slim but somewhat muscular. My straight outstretched arms extend to your breast pockets. I can lean against the fence, but the fence catches you just above the knees. To pull my hands off you, your balance must move forward. Can I topple you?
> You, lime many others haven't had to contemplate when and where that line is. From my 27 years working around those convicted felons from those bad neighborhoods you know, I assess situations, I am aware of my personal space, the safe distance from potential threats. I evaluate escape routes and determine my flight vulnerability. I know that jumping up and kicking a bad guy in the face is Hollywood fantasy. In my younger days, I could hold my own in a street fight. As years pass, I could generally defend myself for awhile. But at 72 years old, knowing through careful evaluation of this specific situation's hazards and knowing that my self defense toolbox is basically empty, I'd be scared. Perhaps too scared to move. Frozen in fear. With popcorn in one hand the angry man reaches towards me in the darkened theatre. In the only instant I have before being tossed to my death, I deployed the only legal defense available to me. Within that instant, witness saw popcorn flying, heard a shot, saw a man fall over. But they didn't see much. They were in a dark room looking at a bright screen, amid a booming sound tract. They were not expecting to be witness to a national media spectacle.
> Everyone witnessed a man die. That is always horrific. Human nature dictates that the first reaction is, "He went too far.". Perhaps half the witnesses deplore all guns. We have been witness to many senseless murders in schools, and theatres, in nightly news reports. All this plays a part in creating what we believe we saw.


You're scenario, while compelling, is unsupported by the shooter's own initial statement as reported in the press. There was no mention of the victim reaching towards the shooter. His entire expressed reason for being in fear for for his life was that he was struck by an unidentifed flying object. If the flinging of popcorn was the precursor to attack that many of you claim shouldn't the victim have been moving forward and attacking immediately over this short distance? The shooter must have some great reflexes for a 72 year old to reach into his pocket, draw a weapon, acquire his target and assess his target background and fire before this man standing two feet from him, intent on attack, can lay a finger on him. A jury will hear and see more than we have here and render their verdict.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

We don't know how the retired cop carried his gun. It may have been in a more easily accessed holster instead of his pocket which meant using his thumb to lift his shirt while removing the gun. The retired cop's reflexes and training obviously kicked in based on his years of training and experience. When the text dude renewed the confrontation, the ex-policeman went to a higher alert condition and probably had his hand down by his side close to the gun.

The amount of time involved to draw and fire is a few seconds at that point. I doubt the text dude saw the gun before he was shot. Once he made the motion towards the retired cop with his hand and launched what turned out to be popcorn, he'd blown past any chance of not getting shot. 

Maybe a younger more physically fit cop would have blocked his defense reflex. The retired cop obviously didn't. that's where "depraved mind" comes in. If a trained defensive reflex is considered having a depraved mind, every cop who shoots someone in Florida does so with a depraved mind.

The prosecutor blew his case by charging second degree murder. The prosecutor may be thinking about running for higher office. What better way with the publicity this case will garner since it's gotten national attention. None of the media has mentioned they wished the retired cop had been at one of the mass theater shootings.


----------



## Wanda (Dec 19, 2002)

It seems odd that at one point the old retired cop is fearful of being killed with popcorn, but a split second later lightning fast reflexes let him asses,acquire and fire at the target in an occupied space with others within an arms length of the target.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Darren said:


> We don't know how the retired cop carried his gun. It may have been in a more easily accessed holster instead of his pocket which meant using his thumb to lift his shirt while removing the gun. The retired cop's reflexes and training obviously kicked in based on his years of training and experience. When the text dude renewed the confrontation, the ex-policeman went to a higher alert condition and probably had his hand down by his side close to the gun.
> 
> The amount of time involved to draw and fire is a few seconds at that point. I doubt the text dude saw the gun before he was shot. Once he made the motion towards the retired cop with his hand and launched what turned out to be popcorn, he'd blown past any chance of not getting shot.
> 
> ...


It's interesting that you know it was the "text dude" who escalated the argument. It's equally likely that the shooter said something that caused "text dude" to react by standing and turning around. That's why the testimony of the wives will be interesting. The popcorn flying could easily be the accidental result of standing and turning rapidly while holding a bucket of popcorn. The overcharging by the prosecutor isn't that problematic. There's plenty if time to revise the charges downward prior to trial. That would be the essence of the system. Higher charges give more leverage when plea agreements are negotiated and the dirty little secret of the judicial system is that prosecutors would rather avoid trials. They cost money and there's always the chance they won't win. Both bad outcomes for the politically minded.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Wanda said:


> It seems odd that at one point the old retired cop is fearful of being killed with popcorn, but a split second later lightning fast reflexes let him asses,acquire and fire at the target in an occupied space with others within an arms length of the target.


How long does it take to asses, acquire and shoot general mass? A second o two, tops. Remember the texting guy had the superior position and superior view. The Movie screen was at the dude's back, he was looking away from the screen, the old guy would be better illuminated. But the old guy was facing the screen. The illumination around him and over the shoulder's of the dude, would go bright and dark as the movie changed, but the area directly in front of him would be quite dark.

But in reality, we know very little of what happened. Wouldn't it be wild if we later discover that the gun belonged to the dude and the old guy saw the gun, pitched the popcorn and grabbed the gun and it accidently discharged as he recovered it?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Darren said:


> We don't know how the retired cop carried his gun. It may have been in a more easily accessed holster instead of his pocket which meant using his thumb to lift his shirt while removing the gun. The retired cop's reflexes and training obviously kicked in based on his years of training and experience. When the text dude renewed the confrontation, the ex-policeman went to a higher alert condition and probably had his hand down by his side close to the gun.
> 
> The amount of time involved to draw and fire is a few seconds at that point. I doubt the text dude saw the gun before he was shot. Once he made the motion towards the retired cop with his hand and launched what turned out to be popcorn, he'd blown past any chance of not getting shot.
> 
> ...





haypoint said:


> How long does it take to asses, acquire and shoot general mass? A second o two, tops. Remember the texting guy had the superior position and superior view. The Movie screen was at the dude's back, he was looking away from the screen, the old guy would be better illuminated. But the old guy was facing the screen. The illumination around him and over the shoulder's of the dude, would go bright and dark as the movie changed, but the area directly in front of him would be quite dark.
> 
> But in reality, we know very little of what happened. Wouldn't it be wild if we later discover that the gun belonged to the dude and the old guy saw the gun, pitched the popcorn and grabbed the gun and it accidently discharged as he recovered it?


How long does it take to fling popcorn at another and follow that up with reaching across a couple of feet, grabbing that person and beginning to administer that "beat down"? Only one thing happened and that was the shooting.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

There is a lot we do not know, much of what we think we know is subject to change. But with that said, I think we can answer, "It's interesting that you know it was the "text dude" who escalated the argument." From all eye witness accounts, when the old guy returned from his quest for management, the dude started in on him for "snitching" I didn't read any exact quote from witnesses, but that was their general theme, the text guy was angry.
Throughout this lengthy thread I have sought to include additional facets to this incident. People's attitude towards cops and guns. The fact that society has stopped joining in when trouble erupts. Let me add another one.
In an attempt to paint texting guy as a good father, justifying his rule violation about texting, I read that he generally calls home to either tell his 2 year old that he loves her or instructs the care giver to tell her, "Daddy loves her." A couple times a day is average. To a point, that's nice, but at the frequency he was operating at and to a 2 year old, my "creepy" alarm is going off. From one of the photos of him, I see a large tattoo on his right shoulder. I hope it isn't a portrait of his daughter.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> How long does it take to fling popcorn at another and follow that up with reaching across a couple of feet, grabbing that person and beginning to administer that "beat down"? Only one thing happened and that was the shooting.


You are right. Odd. Generally it takes longer to get a shot off than to drop your popcorn as you lunge your long arms at an old man. Guess the old guy got lucky.


----------



## DryHeat (Nov 11, 2010)

As a bit of secondary information, I lived in Tampa before leaving for college out-of-state. It sounds like the retired officer was likely a patrolman there in the time frame just before I left. I have a vivid memory of one of my buddies' fathers laying out how one's lawyer would handle many sorts of criminal cases, money would be paid as bribes to cops and judges. My family was never in a position, fortunately, to have to assess the accuracy of that sort of characterization, but certainly Tampa was known as one of the cities with a serious Mafia presence with overtly corrupt entrenched political machines. It was also a place in the 60s and 70s with about zero intellectual infrastructure, U of S Fla on its north side was just a few new buildings on the middle of a tract of palmetto scrub when I moved away. I've since traveled driving on business staying in most US cities over the decades since then and would surely still think it likely Tampa's police force would be in a grouping including those of New Orleans, Chicago, and Houston... in other words, ones to avoid any and all interaction with whether a visitor or resident. Therefore, my suggestion would be *not* to assign this fellow a level of training and merit-based advancement that you might reflexively think of as typical of many good police departments in medium-sized cities.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Wanda said:


> It seems odd that at one point the old retired cop is fearful of being killed with popcorn, but a split second later lightning fast reflexes let him asses,acquire and fire at the target in an occupied space with others within an arms length of the target.


I'm not sure if the retired cop knew what was thrown. One of the posts on HT about Target knowing when women are pregnant even at times when they and/or their families don't know led me to a book. It's literally the answer to something I've wondered about for ages. It's called habit. It's what makes a great athlete and anyone good at something that involves repetitive motion after they trained over and over again. Do you think that world class gymnasts think through everything they're doing? One of the examples is gambling with a story about a woman who had it under control. Actually made money. But then lost it all once it became habit.

*A habit requires no conscious thought.* There was an experiment with a man who lost the use of part of his brain after being hospitalized with a high fever. The man no longer had short term memory nor the ability to remember anything other than what he knew before he got sick. 

Yet he was learning things that were action related. It was one of those fortuitous moments for science which lead to experiments with rats. The learned habits reside in the basal ganglia and require no conscious thought to be activated. Only a recognition of the clue by the thinking brain which turns off in a sense, and the basal ganglia takes over automatically. 

The retired cop never consciously thought through his actions that night. The text dude's actions triggered a self defense "habit". My guess is that the cop was stunned by what happened. He may have not thought about pulling the gun out.

Ex-military who have been through traumatic circumstances when they may have to immediately fight for their lives are sometimes people you don't want to wake out of a sound sleep. The reaction can be violent. That's another response of the basal ganglia.

The book explains a lot of things where you'd think logic applies but it doesn't. Unless the defensive reaction or habit of policeman is judged to be a depraved mind, the man is innocent. I doubt he knows why he shot the guy that day because he's thinking about what he saw.

The retired cop was probably surprised as much as the text dude was after getting shot.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

haypoint said:


> You are right. Odd. Generally it takes longer to get a shot off than to drop your popcorn as you lunge your long arms at an old man. Guess the old guy got lucky.


Or he was dead wrong.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

haypoint said:


> In an attempt to paint texting guy as a good father, justifying his rule violation about texting, I read that he generally calls home to either tell his 2 year old that he loves her or instructs the care giver to tell her, "Daddy loves her." A couple times a day is average. To a point, that's nice, but at the frequency he was operating at and to a 2 year old, my "creepy" alarm is going off. From one of the photos of him, I see a large tattoo on his right shoulder. I hope it isn't a portrait of his daughter.


You hit something that caught my attention. Text dude was 43. How long had he been married? How old is the wife? She looks young. The constant checking is curious. It may be due to the little girl getting badly bitten by the family's dog. There's possibly some guilt associated with that since daddy wasn't there in a sense to prevent the attack.

The other thing that crossed my mind was pedophile. That was an early thought that surfaced from an overall impression based on his age and one picture of his wife. After learning about the dog attack, I eliminated that.

There's still something about text dude that's coming across as a red flag.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Darren said:


> I'm not sure if the retired cop knew what was thrown. One of the posts on HT about Target knowing when women are pregnant even at times when they and/or their families don't know led me to a book. It's literally the answer to something I've wondered about for ages. It's called habit. It's what makes a great athlete and anyone good at something that involves repetitive motion after they trained over and over again. Do you think that world class gymnasts think through everything they're doing? One of the examples is gambling with a story about a woman who had it under control. Actually made money. But then lost it all once it became habit.
> 
> *A habit requires no conscious thought.* There was an experiment with a man who lost the use of part of his brain after being hospitalized with a high fever. The man no longer had short term memory nor the ability to remember anything other than what he knew before he got sick.
> 
> ...


He may well not be guilty of Second Degree Murder but Manslaughter charges may well stick. I would not advise using instincts and not being in complete control of one's thoughts or actions as a defense to causing the death of another.


----------



## MDKatie (Dec 13, 2010)

Darren said:


> The other thing that crossed my mind was pedophile. That was an early thought that surfaced from an overall impression based on his age and one picture of his wife. After learning about the dog attack, I eliminated that.


It's sad that a dad can't call his daughter (or his daughter's caregiver) without being thought of as a pedophile. And his wife doesn't look that much younger to me. 


And yes, Reeves is 71 but he doesn't look like some feeble old man. He's a fairly big guy himself, it looks like.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

mmoetc said:


> He may well not be guilty of Second Degree Murder but Manslaughter charges may well stick. I would not advise using instincts and not being in complete control of one's thoughts or actions as a defense to causing the death of another.


Most people cannot control a habit, whether it's an athlete or a retired cop. The book explains how new habits can be learned but under the right circumstances the old habit can take charge and reassert itself. The basal ganglia is part of th primitive brain which is responsible for the fight or flight response. Text dude had the misfortune of activating the retired cop's reptilian brain.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

MDKatie said:


> *It's sad that a dad can't call his daughter (or his daughter's caregiver) without being thought of as a pedophile.* And his wife doesn't look that much younger to me.
> 
> 
> And yes, Reeves is 71 but he doesn't look like some feeble old man. He's a fairly big guy himself, it looks like.


I don't reach conclusions without a lot of thought. As I said I blame the excessive texting and calling on guilt from the dog attack which became a habit. Text dude's habit triggered retired cop's habit. This conversation has opened another question. 

If you're aggravated by someone's comments about your behavior, is a habit involved? We may be looking at a situation where the two men's reptilian brains were activated. 

At worse the retired cop may be guilty of involuntary manslaughter.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Darren said:


> Most people cannot control a habit, whether it's an athlete or a retired cop. The book explains how new habits can be learned but under the right circumstances the old habit can take charge and reassert itself. The basal ganglia is part of th primitive brain which is responsible for the fight or flight response. Text dude had the misfortune of activating the retired cop's reptilian brain.


Since there isn't a long trail of dead bodies or even reports that the retired officer was in the habit of drawing his weapon I think you're stretching in an effort to justify his behavior.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Darren said:


> Most people cannot control a habit, whether it's an athlete or a retired cop. The book explains how new habits can be learned but under the right circumstances the old habit can take charge and reassert itself. The basal ganglia is part of th primitive brain which is responsible for the fight or flight response. Text dude had the misfortune of activating the retired cop's reptilian brain.


 Sorry, but 'reptile brain' is not a good defense. The shooter will have plenty of time in prison to ponder how his 'reptile brain' got the rest of his body locked up for murder. 
You're really expending some mental energy trying to come up with excuses for this guy... And now apparently thinking the texter was a pedophile??? Maybe he was texting his daughter instructions on how to make drugs from skittles and watermelon ice tea. Does that sound about right?


----------



## tiffnzacsmom (Jan 26, 2006)

Texting during a movie is rude, during previews not as bad but could be annoying. Arriving at a theater without all of your party can be annoying, making way for a new arrival is also rude. According to a few news stories I read these were both former military and both behaving in a manner that could be annoying but not quite rude. It is not cause for a shooting. If Reeves' attorney is smart they will get him diagnosed with dementia and request him being assigned to a lock down unit in a nursing home as it would be safer for him and cheaper than prison for tax payers.

For those wondering the couple was married for seven years.


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

There only thing I'm wondering until the trial is what comments has Obama made about this tragedy.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

I've been interested in why smart people do stupid things for a long time. I'm a believer in science and logic. When things don't make sense, I try to understand why. If I was stretching I would have blamed the text dude getting killed on guilt over the dog attack. The dog attack may have set off his constant checking on the child. He had a history of calling her often through day and when he couldn't talk to her, he always asked the person to tell the daughter he loved her. At some point doing that constantly becomes obsessive. It's become habit.

Read _The Power of Habit. Why We Do What We Do In Life and Business_.

On the surface to many the incident looks like it was a premeditated, cold blooded killing. It was cold blooded only in that it involved the portion of the brain we have no conscious control over, the reptilian brain.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

greg273 said:


> Sorry, but 'reptile brain' is not a good defense. The shooter will have plenty of time in prison to ponder how his 'reptile brain' got the rest of his body locked up for murder.
> You're really expending some mental energy trying to come up with excuses for this guy... And now apparently thinking the texter was a pedophile??? Maybe he was texting his daughter instructions on how to make drugs from skittles and watermelon ice tea. Does that sound about right?


Greg, read the book. The science is proven and accepted. It was a breakthrough in understanding memory. Also check out how obsessive the text dude was in frequently calling his daughter. Until I read about the dog attack, it didn't make sense to me for someone to call a kid as many times a day as he did. That also explains why he didn't stop texting when asked. He couldn't help himself anymore than the retired cop could stop his automatic reaction. Each triggered the other.

It I hadn't read the book this week, I wouldn't have responded with anything other than training. Now I know it's deeper than that. Next time you're involved in anything close to an argument, understand logic doesn't always apply.

I'm sure you've heard about people's alligator mouth getting themselves in trouble their chicken  can't cover. There's a lot of truth in that statement based on observation that science recently found how the reason. It's all about the alligator in all of us.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

tiffnzacsmom said:


> Texting during a movie is rude, during previews not as bad but could be annoying. Arriving at a theater without all of your party can be annoying, making way for a new arrival is also rude. According to a few news stories I read these were both former military and both behaving in a manner that could be annoying but not quite rude. It is not cause for a shooting. If Reeves' attorney is smart they will get him diagnosed with dementia and request him being assigned to a lock down unit in a nursing home as it would be safer for him and cheaper than prison for tax payers.
> 
> *For those wondering the couple was married for seven years.*


Thanks for that!


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Darren said:


> I've been interested in why smart people do stupid things for a long time. I'm a believer in science and logic. When things don't make sense, I try to understand why. If I was stretching I would have blamed the text dude getting killed on guilt over the dog attack. The dog attack may have set off his constant checking on the child. He had a history of calling her often through day and when he couldn't talk to her, he always asked the person to tell the daughter he loved her. At some point doing that constantly becomes obsessive. It's become habit.
> 
> Read _The Power of Habit. Why We Do What We Do In Life and Business_.
> 
> On the surface to many the incident looks like it was a premeditated, cold blooded killing. It was cold blooded only in that it involved the portion of the brain we have no conscious control over, the reptilian brain.


There are worse bad habits than doting on your child. I don't recall anyone here calling this a "premeditated cold blooded killing." I do think the shooter was involved in a verbal altercation with another human being. What exactly was said and who may have escalated things is only speculation until more facts come out. The shooter reacted to a perceived threat that there is no evidence as of yet really existed. This reaction caused the death of another human being. If you're going to carry and be willing to use a deadly weapon you should be able to always be in control of your "reptile brain" so tragic mistakes like this don't happen. That would be the personal responsiblity part of exercising your rights.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

haypoint said:


> No, I'd rather be beat to death, defenseless. Wouldn't you? :facepalm:


Beat to death? What reason do we have to believe that the shooter was in danger of being struck at all, let alone be beat to death?


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

mmoetc said:


> There are worse bad habits than doting on your child. I don't recall anyone here calling this a "premeditated cold blooded killing." I do think the shooter was involved in a verbal altercation with another human being. What exactly was said and who may have escalated things is only speculation until more facts come out. The shooter reacted to a perceived threat that there is no evidence as of yet really existed. This reaction caused the death of another human being. If you're going to carry and be willing to use a deadly weapon you should be able to always be in control of your "reptile brain" so tragic mistakes like this don't happen. That would be the personal responsibility part of exercising your rights.


Doting on your child isn't a problem. When it becomes obsessive to the point of interfering with others, the habit needs to be examined.

You may not call it premeditated or cold blooded, but that's how I perceive not accepting it as an act of self defense. If it wasn't self defense, what was it? Do you believe the retired policeman decided, actually consciously made the decision to shoot? I don't think he thought about it. 

There was no premeditation if he didn't think about it. Because the basal ganglia controlled the cop's reaction in a sense, it was cold blooded because the reptilian brain was involved. It was not cold blooded from a calm non emotional point of view. Neither, IMO, was the shooting hot blooded.

You can only control the conscious part of your brain meaning your thoughts. Once the basal ganglia takes over, it's not conscious since no thought is involved. Text dude probably would not have been shot by a non-LEO CCW holder unless they had undergone the same defensive training required of Law enforcement. Most CCW training is about the law and firearm safety.

This is not an isolated incident. Unfortunately cops accidentally shoot people all of the time when the person does something that triggers the cop's training. There's an important lesson for all of us here. Most of us can recognize what we potentially see as a viscous dog. We need to recognize we run a similar risk with others in our society that we have given the responsibility to protect us. We expect they will have the training to do their job in situations that may endanger their lives. It's what we pay them to do. 

That training and the habits it instills is a double edged sword. The question here is do we penalize the retired cop for something society expected him to do to perform his job and survive? The retired cop is guilty of involuntary manslaughter at worse. I'm arguing against that since it was society that required him to be the way he was.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Nevada said:


> Beat to death? What reason do we have to believe that the shooter was in danger of being struck at all, let alone be beat to death?


I think the question should be more along the lines of "what did the shooter believe the threat level was?"


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Darren said:


> The retired cop is guilty of involuntary manslaughter at worse. I'm arguing against that since it was society that required him to be the way he was.


 I get your point of view here Darren. Yes, the cop was trained to shoot to kill, that does not grant him a waiver to do that to settle an argument. Would you use that same excuse when a violent thug criminal kills someone? After all, they're just using their reptile brain! Lol... nope, we are all responsible for our actions, and we all must answer for them.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I think the question should be more along the lines of "what did the shooter believe the threat level was?"


The question isn't so much what he believed the threat to be but whether he can convince a jury that the mythical reasonable person would have believed the threat rose to such a level as to justify deadly force.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

There's a difference between a thug and a trained civil servant. After the Twinkie defense opened up another area of defense, who knows what juries have seen? I think I understand how each man over reacted. It was a feedback situation controlled by habit that neither man could consciously control. I don't believe vengeance should play a part in our point of view. IMO calling for the cop to be punished is going back to the Solomon Code of an eye for an eye. We should be better than that now,

Both men made a mistake. The retired cop will suffer enough going through the trial. He'll have to live with the killing the rest of his life. Beyond that, unless it was premeditated, I'd find him not guilty.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

greg273 said:


> I get your point of view here Darren. Yes, the cop was trained to shoot to kill, that does not grant him a waiver to do that to settle an argument. Would you use that same excuse when a violent thug criminal kills someone? After all, they're just using their reptile brain! Lol... nope, we are all responsible for our actions, and we all must answer for them.


We have to hold cops to the same standard as the rest of us. In fact there is justification for holding them to even a higher standard. But there's no logical reason to give them a pass.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Darren said:


> There's a difference between a thug and a trained civil servant. After the Twinkie defense opened up another area of defense, who knows what juries have seen? I think I understand how each man over reacted. It was a feedback situation controlled by habit that neither man could consciously control. I don't believe vengeance should play a part in our point of view. IMO calling for the cop to be punished is going back to the Solomon Code of an eye for an eye. We should be better than that now,
> 
> Both men made a mistake. The retired cop will suffer enough going through the trial. He'll have to live with the killing the rest of his life. Beyond that, unless it was premeditated, I'd find him not guilty.


The difference is, he'll get to live with his mistake. Without more information about what was actually said between the two men, I'll withhold final judgement.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Nevada said:


> We have to hold cops to the same standard as the rest of us. In fact there is justification for holding them to even a higher standard. But there's no logical reason to give them a pass.


Prosecutors have a history of giving them a pass. At least now there's a scientific basis for that other than being a cop. While the book provides the way to make new habits, scientific research shows the old habit is still there and can reassert itself.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> Once again, that's why I said sit down. Now try to reach me without bending forward over a waist high obstacle without losing leverage and leaving yourself vulnerable.


True but you are then limited in your ability to react to an attack. And as I have pointed out its dang hard to draw a weapon while seated.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> That's troubling. Remember, we're trying to reduce the number of shootings.


We are? News to me. I'm trying to make sure fewer attacked people wind up injured, crippled or dead.

History has shown passing laws and regulations have very little effect on criminals. Did you read my post about how even both have very strict gun control laws Mexico has a lot more shootings than Canada? To me that's a very clear example of gun control laws have next to no effect on gun deaths.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Do you really believe that introducing guns into fist fights is a good idea?


Would you want to face an upset 30 something year old 6' 5" 280# with a prison weightlifting body angry man with nothing but your fist? If so I think you might wind up a lot more injured than if you had the ability to 'introduce a gun' into the fist fight.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

greg273 said:


> Despite all your talk of physics haypoint, this is probably going to end up being a pretty simple case.
> I have no doubt the younger man was somewhat intimidating to shooter. But like I have said, the shooters misinterpretation of the threat level does not automatically grant him a waiver to murder someone with no repercussions.
> The jury will do their best. I hope they can reach a fair, just verdict.


The very basic part of a self defense defense is what the shooter felt at the time. The other part is that reasonable man guy.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

watcher said:


> True but you are then limited in your ability to react to an attack. And as I have pointed out its dang hard to draw a weapon while seated.


I'll take my chances that I can defend myself better from a seated than a standing position in this case. My goal is not to have to draw a weapon and kill kill someone.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Wanda said:


> It seems odd that at one point the old retired cop is fearful of being killed with popcorn, but a split second later lightning fast reflexes let him asses,acquire and fire at the target in an occupied space with others within an arms length of the target.


Its called training and muscle memory. There are things you are trained and trained and trained to do because when it comes time to do it for real you will not have time to think only do.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

watcher said:


> Its called training and muscle memory. There are things you are trained and trained and trained to do because* when it comes time to do it for real you will not have time to think only do.*


:goodjob: There you have it! Text dude never saw it coming. Neither did the retired cop.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> He may well not be guilty of Second Degree Murder but Manslaughter charges may well stick. I would not advise using instincts and not being in complete control of one's thoughts or actions as a defense to causing the death of another.


I might agree for the average person but a retired cop or a combat vet it is a good defense and has worked in the past.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Beat to death? What reason do we have to believe that the shooter was in danger of being struck at all, let alone be beat to death?


Stay in context that was a response to your talking about not bring a gun to a fist fight.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

watcher said:


> Its called training and muscle memory. There are things you are trained and trained and trained to do because when it comes time to do it for real you will not have time to think only do.


Some things, maybe, but shooting wouldn't be one of them. All police department train their officers with pop-up targets with random good guys & bad guys. They are scored on how quickly the distinguish between good guys & bad guys. The purpose in doing that is to train them to think before they shoot.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

greg273 said:


> I get your point of view here Darren. Yes, the cop was trained to shoot to kill, that does not grant him a waiver to do that to settle an argument. Would you use that same excuse when a violent thug criminal kills someone? After all, they're just using their reptile brain! Lol... nope, we are all responsible for our actions, and we all must answer for them.


From the reports we have, as sparse as they are, the shooting was not done to "settle an argument" as you suggest. The shooting was done because the shooter was hit in the head with an unknown item which lead to him thinking he was under attack. At that point you don't have time to think. You react according to your training. 

Different but close is a martial arts trained person. If you come up to them and throw a jab at their face they are not going to think: Well they are punching straight at me therefore the best thing to do is sweep block their punch with my weak hand, pin their arm under mine and palm strike them in the face. They are going to do that w/o thinking because that's what their training has taught them.

Want a better example go on youtube and look for videos of where pranks have gone wrong. There's a good one where a guy is sitting on his porch dressed as stuffed scarecrow and when people come up he jumps out and scares them. Well it all goes fairly well until one of the parents with a kid reacts INSTANTLY by punching the guy in the face. You can tell by the time between the action and reaction there was no thought process going on in the puncher mine. In this case do you think the puncher should have been charged with aggravated assault because he didn't take time to think about what was going and realize there was no danger?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> We have to hold cops to the same standard as the rest of us. In fact there is justification for holding them to even a higher standard. But there's no logical reason to give them a pass.


But as a society we also have to take responsibility for what we make them. We take them, train them on how to use deadly force as efficiently as possible to keep themselves alive, then we daily put them in situations where they have to deal with the scum of society who tend to have no value for human life. Then expect them to act like "normal" people when they are out of uniform.

That's like training a dog to fight to the death in the pits then expecting to have him act like Benji when he's not 'on the job'.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> I'll take my chances that I can defend myself better from a seated than a standing position in this case. My goal is not to have to draw a weapon and kill kill someone.


My goal is to keep breathing and have all my body parts functioning.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Some things, maybe, but shooting wouldn't be one of them. All police department train their officers with pop-up targets with random good guys & bad guys. They are scored on how quickly the distinguish between good guys & bad guys. The purpose in doing that is to train them to think before they shoot.


Put a cop through this and have a pigtailed little girl target pop out and toss popcorn at the cop and see how many round he puts into her.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

watcher said:


> But as a society we also have to take responsibility for what we make them. We take them, train them on how to use deadly force as efficiently as possible to keep themselves alive, then we daily put them in situations where they have to deal with the scum of society who tend to have no value for human life. Then expect them to act like "normal" people when they are out of uniform.
> 
> That's like training a dog to fight to the death in the pits then expecting to have him act like Benji when he's not 'on the job'.


What are you suggesting we do? Allow cops, off-duty cops, and retired cops to kill with impunity?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> What are you suggesting we do? Allow cops, off-duty cops, and retired cops to kill with impunity?


No but we treat them differently. Would you have any problem with a 98 pound female shooting an unarmed person if that person was male, was twice her size and she had been raped before? Or would you look at the circumstances and give her more leeway than a large martial arts trained man facing the same person?

I can not defend myself today the way I could 40, 30 or even 20 years ago. I would expect a jury to take my age and physical condition into consideration if I were put into a situation where I needed to and used more than my bare hands.

In the same way I would expect a jury to take a cop's training and experiences into consideration.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Some things, maybe, but shooting wouldn't be one of them. All police department train their officers with pop-up targets with random good guys & bad guys. They are scored on how quickly the distinguish between good guys & bad guys. The purpose in doing that is to train them to think before they shoot.


Missed this the first time. . . When it comes to life or death if you think before you act you are going to lose.


----------



## unregistered5595 (Mar 3, 2003)

watcher said:


> But as a society we also have to take responsibility for what we make them. We take them, train them on how to use deadly force as efficiently as possible to keep themselves alive, then we daily put them in situations where they have to deal with the scum of society who tend to have no value for human life. Then expect them to act like "normal" people when they are out of uniform.
> 
> That's like training a dog to fight to the death in the pits then expecting to have him act like Benji when he's not 'on the job'.


We, a society, expect everyone to act appropriately to their surroundings and I don't give him a pass just because he is an officer.
We expect children of divorce to live in two different homes, two sets of rules, two different ways. We as children learn that the rules at church and the library, and we must be very quiet there. We can yell and play on the playground or backyard. If children can learn not to have tantrums when they are 3, not to be violent, surely an adult can do that as well.

The officer (retired) wasn't approaching a crime in progress, he was at a movie theater. Laughter, cheering, chewing popcorn noise, people coming and going, all those things could have set him off.

It seems like quite a stretch to compare a retired officer to a dog.


----------



## countryfied2011 (Jul 5, 2011)

I dont think if my husband was just shot last week that I would be doing interviews with anyone except the police--especially not Inside Edition

http://www.insideedition.com/headli...ie-theater-shooting-victim-breaks-her-silence


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

watcher said:


> No but we treat them differently.
> 
> In the same way I would expect a jury to take a cop's training and experiences into consideration.


 The jury will consider many things, but the law is the same for everyone.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Feather In The Breeze said:


> We, a society, expect everyone to act appropriately to their surroundings and I don't give him a pass just because he is an officer.
> We expect children of divorce to live in two different homes, two sets of rules, two different ways. We as children learn that the rules at church and the library, and we must be very quiet there. We can yell and play on the playground or backyard. If children can learn not to have tantrums when they are 3, not to be violent, surely an adult can do that as well.
> 
> The officer (retired) wasn't approaching a crime in progress, he was at a movie theater. Laughter, cheering, chewing popcorn noise, people coming and going, all those things could have set him off.
> ...


The brain of a dog and the primitive brain, the basal ganglia, of a person have the exact same functions. When actions ocurr at that level it's subconscious.


----------



## unregistered5595 (Mar 3, 2003)

Darren said:


> The brain of a dog and the primitive brain, the basal ganglia, of a person have the exact same functions. When actions ocurr at that level it's subconscious.


Sure, and inhibition and hibition is controlled in our brains as well. Are you saying he, the officer, was lacking that, he was somehow acting subconsciously? Or that he was old and showing signs of dementia or alzheimers and exploded like a bomb?

I don't believe theaters let dogs in to watch movies for a reason.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

countryfied2011 said:


> I dont think if my husband was just shot last week that I would be doing interviews with anyone except the police--especially not Inside Edition
> 
> http://www.insideedition.com/headli...ie-theater-shooting-victim-breaks-her-silence


Now we know Chad, the text dude was 6' 4", and, according to the article, stood up. If Chad had stayed put in his seat, it's likely the retired cop wouldn't have reacted. Standing up, turning around, and throwing popcorn in one motion was asking for it.

As his wife said, it happened in the blink of an eye. Neither man was thinking. Each was reacting. Chad from anger, the retired policeman from training.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

About 25 people were in the theater at the time and witnesses said they heard an argument between two men at the back of the room moments before.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ting-movie-Florida-theater.html#ixzz2rAj6Bmz7 
So much for witnesses. Imagine that a retired cop wants to enjoy the movie with no one behind him. Us Corrections Officers and ex cops aren't so comfortable with strangers behind us. Imagine that texting dude chooses a place near the rear so he can text without most of the other 25 people seeing him. The disrespect had a narrow focus. Both men had a reason to sit where they did and wouldn't move to seats that were inferior for the above reasons.


----------



## countryfied2011 (Jul 5, 2011)

Here is another article about the interview

http://www.tampabay.com/news/public...-expected-to-speak-at-news-conference/2162148


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Feather In The Breeze said:


> Sure, and inhibition and hibition is controlled in our brains as well. Are you saying he, the officer, was lacking that, he was somehow acting subconsciously? Or that he was old and showing signs of dementia or alzheimers and exploded like a bomb?
> 
> I don't believe theaters let dogs in to watch movies for a reason.


 Any inhibition comes from the higher brain which thinks. What I have said for several posts which is backed by research is the text dude inadvertently triggered a subconscious habit of the retired cop. That habit is the same as athletic performance. Athletes repeatedly train to get it right. Cops train to be able to neutralize threats. *The training becomes a habit which does not require thought. *Habits are not controlled by thought.

As I've said before, I think the retired cop was in as much shock after he shot the text dude as the text dude was at getting shot. As the wife said, everything happened in the blink of an eye.

Text dude jumped up, turned around, threw the popcorn at the retired cop and bang. There's no way that wasn't aggressive. You don't play cutesy games with people that go to work and face life or death situations.

If you're stopped by law enforcement while driving, turn on the overhead light if it's dark, get your license, registration, etc. out and place both hands on the steering wheel where the cop can see them as he walks up. You'll notice they will address you while standing behind your door. Don't make any sudden moves like you're reaching for something. If you need to reach for something, tell the officer first and then do it slowly, trying to keep everything visible to the officer.

This country has changed for the worse because of the war on drugs. We've always had a criminal element. Long ago many criminals wouldn't think of killing a cop. It's a different time now.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

A few months ago, in a sleepy little community in mid-Michigan, there was a touch of road rage. A mile down the road, both cars turned into the parking lot of a car wash. They each got out, argued briefly and while family members in each car watched, pulled their legally held hand guns and shot each other dead.
I think each one felt threatened, no one knows who drew first. Since it is very uncommon to have a CCW permit, I suspect each person thought they had either the upper hand or at least control of the situation. I doubt either thought they were about to die or perhaps neither thought they'd have to shoot. 

Likewise, the texter dude had no reason to expect that the old guy had the upper hand in this. The dude was free to exploit the old man any way he chose, or so he thought.
Perhaps if the old guy would have simply explained, " I came here to watch the movie, uninterrupted by you and your loud texting. Further, it is none of your business if I was out in the Lobby snitching on your rudeness. I have a gun. Turn around, shut up and sit down or leave. Any fast moves and I may be the Lone Survivor in this movie theater." Does everyone approve of that non-violent approach?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Darren said:


> As I've said before, I think the retired cop was in as much shock after he shot the text dude as the text dude was at getting shot. As the wife said, everything happened in the blink of an eye.


To be clear, I consider what's got to happen to the cop to also be a tragedy. I suspect he'll die in prison, never walking free for the rest of his life due to his advanced age. That's tragic in itself.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

I don't think the retired cop could mention the gun without it being perceived as a threat. Is that something the laws that apply to CCW allow?


----------



## countryfied2011 (Jul 5, 2011)

Nevada said:


> To be clear, I consider what's got to happen to the cop to also be a tragedy. I suspect he'll die in prison, never walking free for the rest of his life due to his advanced age. That's tragic in itself.


Whatever happen to "innocent until proven guilty" do we not have this concept anymore..:shrug:


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Aside from the shooting, what kind of a person continues to text when it is against theatre rules and a person asks you to stop? What kind of person, after he suspects the old guy reported his actions, gets confrontational. Wouldn't most folks shut off the phone and remained seated and silent, watching the screen? What kind of crazy person throws a bucket of pop corn on an old man because he didn't want to follow the rules? Is that a string of odd ball, anti-social behavior? 
I may sound mean, but texting or calling his 22 month old daughter two or three times every day while she is in daycare is odd.
For those of you with the texting addiction, go ahead, I don't care if you text until your thumbs fall off, just don't do it when driving the same roads I drive and don't go to the movie theatre if you can't be without it for a couple hours.
But now I know that dumping pop corn is no big deal, I may just do that if I can't get management to toss you out.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Darren said:


> I don't think the retired cop could mention the gun without it being perceived as a threat. Is that something the laws that apply to CCW allow?


Yes, you are correct. So, that is another tool that the old guy couldn't use, the use of a gun had to be a surprise.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

countryfied2011 said:


> Whatever happen to "innocent until proven guilty" do we not have this concept anymore..:shrug:


I have no obligation to consider anyone innocent until proven guilty. The court has to, but I don't.


----------



## countryfied2011 (Jul 5, 2011)

Nevada said:


> I have no obligation to consider anyone innocent until proven guilty. The court has to, but I don't.


Glad your not on the jury...because you already have the man tried and convicted..:whistlin:


----------



## countryfied2011 (Jul 5, 2011)

> What kind of crazy person throws a bucket of pop corn on an old man because he didn't want to follow the rules? Is that a string of odd ball, anti-social behavior?


That right there seems like an anger-management problem in itself, might not be grounds to shoot someone...but maybe the old man thought the text dude was psycho.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

countryfied2011 said:


> Glad your not on the jury...because you already have the man tried and convicted..:whistlin:


OJ was acquitted of murder, but how many people do you know who still believe he's guilty? The point is that we're free to form our own opinions before, during, or even after a trial.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

countryfied2011 said:


> That right there seems like an anger-management problem in itself, might not be grounds to shoot someone...but maybe the old man thought the text dude was psycho.


Ah yes, the old 'the victim had it coming' argument.


----------



## countryfied2011 (Jul 5, 2011)

Nevada I dont have a favorite to win in this thread...I think both were at fault, and both were victims and I feel sorry for their wifes and children. Like I said several posts many pages back, I think this is just the beginnings for the future of this country. :shrug:

I dont attend many public venues just for reasons like this...


----------



## unregistered5595 (Mar 3, 2003)

Darren said:


> Text dude jumped up, turned around, threw the popcorn at the retired cop and bang. There's no way that wasn't aggressive. You don't play cutesy games with people that go to work and face life or death situations.


Did the officer wear his uniform, how was the texter to know he was a fragile individual and to be wary of him? Did he identify himself? Your assumption that he knew he was a retired officer is false if he didn't identify himself or tell the texter he had a gun.



> If you're stopped by law enforcement while driving, turn on the overhead light if it's dark, get your license, registration, etc. out and place both hands on the steering wheel where the cop can see them as he walks up. You'll notice they will address you while standing behind your door. Don't make any sudden moves like you're reaching for something. If you need to reach for something, tell the officer first and then do it slowly, trying to keep everything visible to the officer.


This is not part of the law. I am very respectful of the law, what you are suggesting is well beyond that. Maybe you could publish it as an ebook on what to do if Darren stops you in a traffic stop. You will have to identify yourself as Darren and having a gun.

The general public shouldn't have to walk on egg shells, be wary of fragile police officers (because they are not all fragile), be wary of officers acting in an non thinking manner in every place they go.


----------



## MDKatie (Dec 13, 2010)

> Chad texted their daughter's babysitter to find out how the little girl was doing because she was sick. That's when she said retired police Captain Curtis Reeves, who was sitting behind them, lost it. He told Chad to stop and even kicked his chair.


Oh, poor old man Reeves...so innocent in all this. (that's sarcasm, by the way)


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

countryfied2011 said:


> That right there seems like an anger-management problem in itself, might not be grounds to shoot someone...but maybe the old man thought the text dude was psycho.


Are you a reasonable person? If a reasonable person thinks he is being confronted by a violent psychotic person, would a reasonable person fear for their life?

From the news media interview with the widow, did anyone expect in her well coached statements that she would blurt out, " I got my hand shot trying to get that egotistical maniac of a husband to shut up and sit down. But, noooooo, he had to toss six bucks of popcorn on the guy."


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

MDKatie said:


> Oh, poor old man Reeves...so innocent in all this. (that's sarcasm, by the way)


"Chad texted their daughter's babysitter to find out how the little girl was doing because she was sick. That's when she said retired police Captain Curtis Reeves, who was sitting behind them, lost it. He told Chad to stop and even kicked his chair. "

I think that the story about the sick child is rationalization at its finest. It was also reported that she might have been sick. But Daddy dearest calls his little sweetheart two or three times every day, " Daddy loves you." I think that he either has the common form of texting addiction or an odd relationship with a 22 month old.
Kicked the chair? I hadn't heard that. Where was that quote from?
Maybe texting dude can be excused from his aggressive and assaultive behavior due to the numerous head concussions he took while motocross motorcycle racing? Concussion is all the rage these days.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Feather In The Breeze said:


> Did the officer wear his uniform, how was the texter to know he was a fragile individual and to be wary of him? Did he identify himself? Your assumption that he knew he was a retired officer is false if he didn't identify himself or tell the texter he had a gun.
> 
> 
> This is not part of the law. I am very respectful of the law, what you are suggesting is well beyond that. Maybe you could publish it as an ebook on what to do if Darren stops you in a traffic stop. You will have to identify yourself as Darren and having a gun.
> ...


The texter had no idea the 70+ year old man behind him was a retired cop. That wasn't the point. When I first started driving the advice was when stopped to get out and go back to tallk with the officer. There was a psychological reason for that. I was never told to get back in the car in those years. Later as the war on drugs progressed, Things got edgier and cops didn't like it when people got out. It was then viewed as aggressive behavior.

In the 70s while sitting in the shore patrol shack waiting to go on duty, I was reading though the warnings. One informed law enforcement officers that someone had fastened a shotgun inside a car door behind a hole so that when the door was opened the shotgun was aimed at anyone approaching from the rear. If stopped by a cop the driver simply opened the door as the cop came up and pulled a wire that fired the shotgun. 

Cops today don't know what they're facing when they approach a car they've stopped. There're plenty of videos on youtube to get an idea if you think cops' days are filled with fun and games. I've seen the changes as time as passed. What I wrote was what to do to put an officer at ease and ensure your safety as well. It's just common sense if you think about it. If you like being blinded by the cop's super flashlight, set there in the dark as he walks up. Otherwise make it easier on everyone by turning on the overhead light.

When your hands are visible on the wheel, the cop knows you don't have a gun in hand waiting for them.

Put yourself in the cop's shoes if he stops someone at night. He may have some information based on the license plate. That's no assurance he won't face an attempt to kill him in the next few minutes. Anything you can do to remove any concerns is well advised.

Don't get stupid with cops. Make their job easier. You know they'll want to see your license, registration and insurance card. Why make them wait? Help them and they'll appreciate it. I've been thanked by officers before because I've made their job easier and less apprehensive.

It's not about cops being fragile, *it's about your safety being tenuous if you get stupid.* People have been shot when cops thought a cellphone in their hand was a weapon. Same with a pack of cigarettes.

It doesn't matter who you are, what you think, or how many rights you have, get stupid with a cop and you may be signing your death warrant. Cops are trained to survive lethal encounters. They've been conditioned to pickup on things to the point their actions are automatic and done without conscious thought. It's the best chance they have of going home at the end of their shift to their families.

Text dude got stupid and got killed.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> What are you suggesting we do? Allow cops, off-duty cops, and retired cops to kill with impunity?


It is unfortunate that seems to be the case. Cops just don't seem to be found guilty of obvious crimes.......Kelly Thomas comes to mind! Cops know this and use it to their advantage!


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

JeffreyD said:


> It is unfortunate that seems to be the case. Cops just don't seem to be found guilty of obvious crimes.......Kelly Thomas comes to mind! Cops know this and use it to their advantage!


Sure. Cops want to kill people, they look for a chance to kill because they like it. Protecting the public or themselves is just a coverup. Glad you can see throught this scam.:umno:


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

I find it interesting. Throughout this lengthy discussion, I have brought up different fasets of this situation. Here's another one. No one seems to question what makes the news and what doesn't. Zimmerman got into the news because he was "white" and shot a black person. This got the news because it was over the ever popular texting in a movie theatre. It doesn't make national news when it is a common ordinary homicide. This stry is kept in the news with daily updates, widow released from hospital, widow has press confrence, etc. Last year over 300 people nurdered in Detroit, 51 in Flint, 30 in Saginaw. Did you hear about any? Why? Not so interesting? I don't think that is it.
Yesterday, in Detroit, a woman was kidnapped, stripped naked and a blow torch used on her, giving her 2nd and 3rd degree burns. She managed to escape by stabbing the assailant in the eye with a screwdriver. Police on the lookout for man fitting that discription. But you did not hear about it because you were getting an update over how Mrs texting dude's hand was healing up.


----------



## MDKatie (Dec 13, 2010)

haypoint said:


> Kicked the chair? I hadn't heard that. Where was that quote from?


It's from the article posted a few back, from the wife's interview. 



I just came across this video on Youtube, posted on FB. It shows that cops are not always right. It's possible for cops to overreact and act badly. I have never had an issue with the police, and I'm very respectful of them, and I know they have tough jobs...BUT, I also don't think they are always in the right.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

MDKatie said:


> It's from the article posted a few back, from the wife's interview.
> 
> 
> 
> I just came across this video on Youtube, posted on FB. It shows that cops are not always right. It's possible for cops to overreact and act badly. I have never had an issue with the police, and I'm very respectful of them, and I know they have tough jobs...BUT, I also don't think they are always in the right.


Give me enough video clips and I can edit it enough to make anyone look bad. When I worked in a Prision, we video taped everything. I was involved with breaking up dozens of fights and over a hundred cell rushes. Sadly we often did not film what led up to the actions and audio often comes off garbled. I watched the video. I am convinced that it was either staged as some sort of training video or editted so bad you don't know what really happened. Like the guy on the bridge. At first they were arresting him, then the film is cut and they are wrestling with him. What was cut. The protesters on the street, asked to move along, refused, then filmed being moved. What did I do officer? What did I do? Oh, come on, he knew why, just you don't know why. Video clips from Police owned cameras? You'd have to be crazy to believe that was the whole story or that people didn't lose their jobs. 
I have always warned my staff that beyond doing what is right, we have to insure that it loooks right to the uneducated public, too. People don't know what happens in a prision and we always operated in a way that everything we did was justified if viewed by any educated citizen. That is hard to do. Impossable when cut into dramatic clips.
In the video, the first clip. What do you see? We don't know why at least three officers and a K-9 are here to take this guy into custody. Did you see the guy cock back that black rod with the silver T handle and attempt to strike the officer? Were shots really fired or were they added for effect? Was it rubber bullets? Had the guy just beat people to death with that stick? Sure didn't look like he needed it for a cane.


----------



## Wanda (Dec 19, 2002)

Should this thread be put on hold while we wait for the next ''cops enter wrong home and kill someone''? I think that we all should agree that not all cops are bad but on the other hand a lot are far from perfect. Why do you think anyone's prior occupation should come into play? Do some people naturally deserve to die more than others?


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Wanda said:


> Should this thread be put on hold while we wait for the next ''cops enter wrong home and kill someone''? I think that we all should agree that not all cops are bad but on the other hand a lot are far from perfect. Why do you think anyone's prior occupation should come into play? Do some people naturally deserve to die more than others?


There are some good Postal Employees, but a lot are mass murderers. Agreed?


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Wanda said:


> Should this thread be put on hold while we wait for the next ''cops enter wrong home and kill someone''? I think that we all should agree that not all cops are bad but on the other hand a lot are far from perfect. Why do you think anyone's prior occupation should come into play? Do some people naturally deserve to die more than others?


*Why do you think anyone's prior occupation should come into play?*

It goes to ability. Picking on a cat may get you tore up. Picking on a lion will probably get you killed. The cop by training was a lion even if retired. He had certain automatic reflexes instilled by training most of us don't. People with that training react without thinking. The military trains people the same way. When things go bad, there's no time for thinking or show and tell. People have to react the way they've been trained.

*Do some people naturally deserve to die more than others?*

Needs killing is a phrase used around here that's applied to a select few that are thieves, trespassers, and usually druggies. Most die of natural causes.


----------



## gimpy (Sep 18, 2007)

Darren said:


> Cops today don't know what they're facing.


Doesn't matter...Dude was not a cop. He was a civilian.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Feather In The Breeze said:


> We, a society, expect everyone to act appropriately to their surroundings and I don't give him a pass just because he is an officer.


Not a pass but he does have to be viewed in a different light. Which is just how we expect the law to work. You wouldn't like a system which treats everyone the same no matter the circumstances. If so the guy in the video I told you about would have been convicted of aggravated assault because he punched someone in the face where there was clearly no danger to him.

Also the appropriate action for you and a LEO are going to be different. If there is someone shooting your action is going to be to run away while we expect a LEO to run toward danger.




Feather In The Breeze said:


> We expect children of divorce to live in two different homes, two sets of rules, two different ways. We as children learn that the rules at church and the library, and we must be very quiet there. We can yell and play on the playground or backyard. If children can learn not to have tantrums when they are 3, not to be violent, surely an adult can do that as well.


Thanks for supporting my point, that people learn to act the way they are TRAINED. 




Feather In The Breeze said:


> The officer (retired) wasn't approaching a crime in progress, he was at a movie theater. Laughter, cheering, chewing popcorn noise, people coming and going, all those things could have set him off.


The officer was involve in a confrontation with a potentially hostile person in a confined space which would have caused his alert level to jump up. Once there was a hostile action his training kicked in. 




Feather In The Breeze said:


> It seems like quite a stretch to compare a retired officer to a dog.


Training is training. Dog, cat or person. If you train them over and over to react they will react w/o thinking. The longer they have been trained and the more important the action the less they will think. Find a retired enlisted Marine, catch him sitting down, walk up behind him and yell "Attention on deck!" and watch to see if he doesn't at least _start_ to jump out of his chair.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Darren said:


> The texter had no idea the 70+ year old man behind him was a retired cop. That wasn't the point. When I first started driving the advice was when stopped to get out and go back to tallk with the officer. There was a psychological reason for that. I was never told to get back in the car in those years. Later as the war on drugs progressed, Things got edgier and cops didn't like it when people got out. It was then viewed as aggressive behavior.
> 
> In the 70s while sitting in the shore patrol shack waiting to go on duty, I was reading though the warnings. One informed law enforcement officers that someone had fastened a shotgun inside a car door behind a hole so that when the door was opened the shotgun was aimed at anyone approaching from the rear. If stopped by a cop the driver simply opened the door as the cop came up and pulled a wire that fired the shotgun.
> 
> ...


 Such a long-winded explanation of what is most likely a very simple situation. Which is that of an armed man, going out of his way to provoke a confrontation, shooting an unarmed man in crowded theater in the course of an argument. 
And this notion of cops as 'unthinking killing machines' on a hair-trigger is ludicrous, and an excuse that will not fly. Cops are also trained NOT to shoot, and exercise judgement in using a deadly weapon.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

greg273 said:


> The jury will consider many things, but the law is the same for everyone.


That's the way justice is supposed to work. Its up to someone to decide if the reason a law might have been broken is a justifiable reason.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Feather In The Breeze said:


> Sure, and inhibition and hibition is controlled in our brains as well. Are you saying he, the officer, was lacking that, he was somehow acting subconsciously? Or that he was old and showing signs of dementia or alzheimers and exploded like a bomb?


Nope, he was trained to react and he reacted. If you saw something suddenly appear in front of your car you'd take time to think or might you just automatically hit the brakes?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

watcher said:


> Nope, he was trained to react and he reacted. If you saw something suddenly appear in front of your car you'd take time to think or might you just automatically hit the brakes?


No. It happens all the time, like a tumbleweed rolling across the road or even a piece of paper flying around on the freeway. Slamming on the brakes in that situation is not only unnecessary, but dangerous. Honestly, not I'm not only leery of you carrying a gun, but now I'm also leery of riding in a car with you.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Feather In The Breeze said:


> Did the officer wear his uniform, how was the texter to know he was a fragile individual and to be wary of him? Did he identify himself? Your assumption that he knew he was a retired officer is false if he didn't identify himself or tell the texter he had a gun.


The point is the texter gambled and lost. If the old guy had been a retired teacher the texter could have played the role of the big bad I'll do whatever I want and you can't stop me and I'll make you look like a fool by showering you with popcorn in public. 




Feather In The Breeze said:


> This is not part of the law. I am very respectful of the law, what you are suggesting is well beyond that. Maybe you could publish it as an ebook on what to do if Darren stops you in a traffic stop. You will have to identify yourself as Darren and having a gun.


Not the law but common sense should tell you if you are involved with someone who day after day deals with the scum of the earth who have no regard for human life (their's or other's) and is armed you are going to do what is needed to make sure that person knows you are not a threat.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

haypoint said:


> "Chad texted their daughter's babysitter to find out how the little girl was doing because she was sick. That's when she said retired police Captain Curtis Reeves, who was sitting behind them, lost it. He told Chad to stop and even kicked his chair. "


I still have to wonder. . .what kid of parents put their sick kid in daycare and go to a movie?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

watcher said:


> I still have to wonder. . .what kid of parents put their sick kid in daycare and go to a movie?


What's your point? Are you suggesting that he deserved to be shot for that?


----------



## unregistered5595 (Mar 3, 2003)

I'm going to politely agree to disagree with the idea that 'training' is an excuse. View it in court, sure, consider it. 

I think police officers should know the difference between popcorn, cell phones, cigarette packs, and guns. I think police officers should be thinking individuals and "I didn't think" is not an excuse. I think that police officers should be able to weigh the weight of the offense (texting) against what he is offering (death) before he shoots.

The idea that me automatically hitting my brakes to AVOID killing is exactly the opposite of a retired police officer automatically escalating a situation to kill someone. It is not my training in driving a car that causes this automatic reaction, it is my morals.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

If I'm not mistaken, Police are also trained to diffuse difficult situations verbally. I'm no more certain of the facts of this case than anyone else but I do wonder why he chose to be directly confrontationL instead of using his negotiation and reasoning skills, also part if his training, before the situation escalated.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

There's an interesting section in the book I mentioned about an NFL coach. He would understand what happened in that theater. Many times he tried to move up to the head coach position. Each time he explained his plan and team owners essentially got a blank look on their faces. Eventually he was hired and he went on to win two super bowls with his philosophy. That was to train his team so they didn't think. If you need to think you lose the time to effectively do the job whether it's intercepting a pass or killing someone before they can kill you. 

Once the team was habituated to read the clues and react, it was a game winning strategy because his players didn't need to think. They reacted before the ball was snapped. They were so fast, the other team couldn't stop them.

That's what happened in that theater. The retired cop never thought. He reacted based on training. It's not an excuse. It's scientific fact supported by research studies. Get the book and read it. I wish someone had handed that to me on a platter decades ago. Unfortunately, the book and the research is fairly current so it could not benefit me years ago.

People aren't stupid so much as being victim of their habits. Are obese people stupid because they eat when they're not hungry? Are alcoholics stupid? No to both of the questions. They are controlled by their habits. 

The book explains how habits form. Once you understand how habits are controlling your life and how they're formed you can instill new habits.

Want to know why you brush your teeth, read the book. Want to save your marriage, read the book. Want to understand why text dude got killed, read the book.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Police officers are trained to react. I agree, but they are first trained to assess. Reacting to flying popcorn or even a popcorn container with a kill shot is not how any police officer is trained.

Those who are suggesting that as some kind of defense would get laughed out of the court room by any sane jury.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

wr said:


> If I'm not mistaken, Police are also trained to diffuse difficult situations verbally. I'm no more certain of the facts of this case than anyone else but I do wonder why he chose to be directly confrontationL instead of using his negotiation and reasoning skills, also part if his training, before the situation escalated.


That's a good question. Proximity is the reason. He wasn't on a telephone talking to a hostage taker. Nor was he behind a barrier using a bull horn to talk to a criminal. Text dude was too close. As the text dude's wife said in her interview, everything happened in a blink of an eye.


----------



## Wanda (Dec 19, 2002)

Darren said:


> That's a good question. Proximity is the reason. He wasn't on a telephone talking to a hostage taker. Nor was he behind a barrier using a bull horn to talk to a criminal. Text dude was too close. As the text dude's wife said in her interview, everything happened in a blink of an eye.




If the shooter left the area why did he come back to an area that was ''to close'' to continue on with the dispute? The other guy did not just sudenly appear in front of him. It looks like there were bad decisions made by all the people involved. Could the shooter have been thought of as out of control as the reason the popcorn was thrown to distract him?


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Darren said:


> That's a good question. Proximity is the reason. He wasn't on a telephone talking to a hostage taker. Nor was he behind a barrier using a bull horn to talk to a criminal. Text dude was too close. As the text dude's wife said in her interview, everything happened in a blink of an eye.



But how did the situation escalate before that? Did he ask for the person to stop texting or demand the person stop texting immediately? The former usually generates a much more favourable response. If he was kicking the back of the dead man seat, would that be expected from a trained negotiator?

My point is that there was plenty of time before shooting to assess and diffuse the situation.


----------



## unregistered5595 (Mar 3, 2003)

Darren, I respectfully disagree.
Habits are the antithesis to thinking.
"We were trained not to think, we just do(a thing)."
That is not acceptable.

Here is a story, a true story, not about me but a doctor I had at one time.
He was trained in medicine, obstetrics specifically. Had been delivering children for over 20 years, maybe closer to 30 when this happened.

A woman comes in to deliver and her doctor is on vacation or golfing or something. My doctor goes to deliver as he is on call.
As usual, delivers the baby, then has a shot of some hormone (oxytocin?) administered which is normally administered after delivery to help the uterus contract and it is beneficial in milk production (I think?). All is just normal, have a baby and get a shot of this hormone. That is all in the training, and it is a habit from years of helping women give birth.

The problem with it is this, he was trained in many other things, reading charts, figuring out how to help, he needed to do all these things and he missed an important one. There was a second baby. The shot of the hormone made the uterus contract, the second baby died. The doctor (a good doctor) had made the mistake of not thinking, going just by habit. 

That is what I think happened with this police officer (retired). So while you may 'understand' what happened (or maybe we'll wait for the trial), there is no excuse for not thinking.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Darren said:


> That's what happened in that theater. The retired cop never thought. He reacted based on training.


Is this speculation, or is this based on something the shooter or is lawyer said?


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

You are correct. Neither the doctor nor the retired cop thought. They were controlled by habit. The doctor didn't face a personal life or death situation. I've BTDT as far as doctors not reading charts. That's why I always took my mother to her doctor's appointments and sat in on the exams. More than once the doctor started to prescribe something and I spoke up. That was followed by the doctor immediately shuffling through the file in his lap.

After reading the book, I realized I was expecting the doctor to work from habit although at that time I would not have been able to put words to it. I expected him to screw up.

Habit as an explanation is not an excuse for what happened in that theater, it's the reason. If the lawyer relies on simply claiming self defense, I don't think the retired cop has a good chance of acquittal.

If the defense attorney proves the eye issue through a demonstration and brings in experts to testify on why cops are trained and why it's needed, the man has a chance. At this point without any more information it comes down to essentially popularity and the experience of the jury.

If I was the lawyer, I'd make sure people who belonged to AA and others that were successful at changing habits were on the jury.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Darren said:


> If the defense attorney proves the eye issue through a demonstration and brings in experts to testify on why cops are trained and why it's needed, the man has a chance. At this point without any more information it comes down to essentially popularity and the experience of the jury.


Where did you learn that this was going to be his defense?


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Nevada said:


> Is this speculation, or is this based on something the shooter or is lawyer said?


It's based on the insight I gained from reading the book. I've had a life long interest in why smart people do stupid things. Voting is one of them. I've talked to college professors and read enumerable books that were suggested.

Until I read about Target knowing that women were pregnant before they or their families knew, I was still scratching my head. Looking at a review of the book gave me the lead I'd been looking for.

The story of Eugene Pauly, his brain damage and what that taught scientists through studies that began in 1993 finally gave me the answer.

"*To illustrate the power of our unconscious commitment to certain habits, * Duhigg tells the story of Eugene Pauly. Viral encephalitis destroyed Eugene's medial temporal lobe, a part of the brain responsible for cognitive tasks, memory, and emotional regulation. Though his habit-storing basal ganglia remained intact, his damaged brain no longer let him consciously remember any of his routines."

http://www.cardus.ca/comment/article/3290/habits-and-destiny/


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Darren said:


> It's based on the insight I gained from reading the book. I've had a life long interest in why smart people do stupid things.


But that doesn't mean you understand what happened in this case. You are throwing out unfounded theories of defense for the shooter when you don't know the facts. You even admonish other members that they are mistaken about their alternate theories.

I'm curious, why are you defending this guy this way? You don't seem to be willing to wait for evidence or legal theories. Instead you excuse the shooting on its face. I don't understand that.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

I understand in your opinion it's unfounded. My opinion after reading the book is there's a reason for what happened beyond what's been reported. If Target can tell when women are pregnant long before they start buying the obvious baby stuff, the defense *could* use the same knowledge to defend the retired cop.

Will the defense do that? Given the fact that the book came out about a year ago, I doubt Escobar, the criminal defense attorney has read it. The diminished eyesight should be low hanging fruit. The control that habits have on us, not likely.

The reason Zimmerman ended up on the ground being beat is that while he had been through CCW training, he wasn't trained like law enforcement. The retired cop reacted completely different to a perceived threat than Zimmerman. Training made the difference and was responsible for the tragedy.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> What's your point? Are you suggesting that he deserved to be shot for that?


Not much of a point but I guess it could show the mindset of the guy. Could show his mindset is "Its all about *ME!!!"* His kid is sick but instead of being with her and taking care of her he feels he deserves to go to a movie.

Or it could show that he was so stressed out by a sick kid he just had to get out of the house.

But based on his reported actions I think the first is the more likely one.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Text dude didn't deserve to be shot. As I said before he had the misfortune to encounter a retired cop whose previous training was activated by text dude's actions. If he'd encountered a CCW, there's good chance he wouldn't have been shot.

It was the luck of the draw and text dude struck out. Now if the retired cop threatened the text dude or brandished his weapon, he gets no sympathy from me.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

watcher said:


> Not much of a point but I guess it could show the mindset of the guy. Could show his mindset is "Its all about *ME!!!"* His kid is sick but instead of being with her and taking care of her he feels he deserves to go to a movie.
> 
> Or it could show that he was so stressed out by a sick kid he just had to get out of the house.
> 
> But based on his reported actions I think the first is the more likely one.


Let's talk about mindsets. What do you suppose the mindset is of a retired police captain who has been able to use his uniform, badge and authority throughout his police career to intimidate people to do what he says. A man who went on to be head of security at a major theme park. Another position where he likely wasn't talked back to much. What was his mindset when the person in front of him wasn't intimidated into discontinuing his texting and he couldn't get the attention he felt he deserved from theater management? Maybe his mindset was to be a bit antagonistic, especially since he was awaiting the arrival of his son, another police officer, to back him up. Of course that's all just speculation and I haven't read any books lately that have made me an expert on human behavior and reactions.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

wr said:


> If I'm not mistaken, Police are also trained to diffuse difficult situations verbally. I'm no more certain of the facts of this case than anyone else but I do wonder why he chose to be directly confrontationL instead of using his negotiation and reasoning skills, also part if his training, before the situation escalated.


The problem is we don't know exactly what happened. It seems from reports there was next to zero time between the time he returned to his seat and when the guy stood up and threw the popcorn.

Plus there are times when no matter how you try to defuse a situation it blows up.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

painterswife said:


> Police officers are trained to react. I agree, but they are first trained to assess. Reacting to flying popcorn or even a popcorn container with a kill shot is not how any police officer is trained.
> 
> Those who are suggesting that as some kind of defense would get laughed out of the court room by any sane jury.


Not being snarky but its fairly clear you have never been in a situation like this.

Throwing something at an opponent is a classic opening tactic in a street fight. What would you do if I threw something at your face? Are you going to stand there watching what I'm doing or are you going to close your eyes or turn your face away from me? If I'm going to attack you what do you think I'm going to be doing in those fractions of a second while you are preoccupied with the popcorn?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

wr said:


> But how did the situation escalate before that? Did he ask for the person to stop texting or demand the person stop texting immediately? The former usually generates a much more favourable response. If he was kicking the back of the dead man seat, would that be expected from a trained negotiator?
> 
> My point is that there was plenty of time before shooting to assess and diffuse the situation.


True but there are times when there is no defusing one, no matter what you do.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Is this speculation, or is this based on something the shooter or is lawyer said?


Right now I'd base it on the published statement from the wife which says it happened in a blink of an eye. Not much time to think before you blink.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

At this point are we even sure who threw the popcorn or if it was a deliberate act. What we can be pretty sure of is that it wasn't followed by any kind of attack by "texting dude". Retired cop made a mistake. It was fatal to another. Is there anything, in your opinion, that someone sitting behind you in a movie theater could say to you to get you to stand up, turn around and verbally confront them?


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

watcher said:


> True but there are times when there is no defusing one, no matter what you do.



Perhaps but one request could have been worded two different ways. Could you please text in the lobby because the light from your phone is distracting is a lot less confrontational than, quit texting or I'll have you kicked out. Non confrontational dialogue us all part of police training.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> At this point are we even sure who threw the popcorn or if it was a deliberate act. What we can be pretty sure of is that it wasn't followed by any kind of attack by "texting dude". Retired cop made a mistake. It was fatal to another. Is there anything, in your opinion, that someone sitting behind you in a movie theater could say to you to get you to stand up, turn around and verbally confront them?


For you and me there isn't. The news isn't clear, and it may never be know, what the old guy said in an effort to get texting dude to comply with the theatre rules. Did he say, " Please turn that off, the movie is about to start."? Did the old guy say, " Hey Fool, shut the phone off or I'll shut it off for you!"? We don't know what the texting dude replied. Was it, " Sir, I'm checking on my sick child, I'll turn it off in a moment, sorry to disturb you,"? or did he say, " Hey old man, mind your own business. I'll shut it off when I'm good and ready and you can't stop me!"
Whichever version suits you, the old guy, left his seat at the rear of the theatre and sought out theater staff. In most new theatres, that requires walking down the stairs and the down the hallway to the exit into the lobby. 
When the old guy returned, we have a couple witness statements that the texting dude started in on the old man for snitching. We don't know if the texting dude started an argument or if the texting dude was just continuing the earlier confrontation/conversation.
There has been a witness statement that said the texting dude threw popcorn on the old guy. I don't know if they meant at and not on, but right after that they heard a shot. I don't know if that was a split second or 3 seconds. 
At first I thought it would be easy with 25 , er 24 witnesses. But with the old guy in the back row, with a dark wall at his back and no one getting involved, I doubt anyone saw anything. The one guy said someone threw popcorn, he heard a shot and the dude fell on him. He was sitting one seat away, in the same row!
There are a lot of good movies out right now and with the cold weather, not so much to do on the farm. Go to a movie. Take a friend. Go to the back row. Have the tallest stand a row ahead. Get a feel for it. When the lights go down, look around and estimate how many people could see you somewhat clearly. Think about a dark alley. Hold your hand out and see how clear your vision. imagine a man, 6 foot 4 inches tall standing directly in front of you as you face the movie screen. What details can you make out?
Only one person in a hundred would refuse to power down their cell phone when the previews are on and the theatre lights have gone down. Only one person in a thousand would argue about it. It is a clear rule, no exceptions. Emergencies are handled in the lobby. But to rekindle the argument a few minutes later is insane. Who does that? Maybe one in ten thousand? But it gets worse. Yup, as the movie starts, texting dude throws his popcorn on the old guy. Now that is a one in a million class act!
Tragically, only one in a million attend a theatre with a gun. The texting dude wasn't counting on that at all. He was having his way with the old guy. He was having a ball. Then he was having a bullet.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

watcher said:


> Right now I'd base it on the published statement from the wife which says it happened in a blink of an eye. Not much time to think before you blink.


That's interesting, but I asked Darren what he based his statements on. Are you relaying a message for him?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Or "texting dude" having already powered down his phone and moved on to the movie asks over his shoulder, "did you really just go report me ?" To which he gets a rude, possibly profanity riddled reply from the man behind him threatening him with further reprisal when that man's police officer son shows up. I suppose he could have sat there, just as the other gentleman could have sat there and waited for him to finish texting, or he could do what many here say is right and stand up for himself against the rudeness of others. In doing so the popcorn container he is holding strikes the arm of his seat causing some to fly out. Certainly justifies him getting shot and killed to me. I can make up circumstances to justify both sides all day long.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

wr said:


> Perhaps but one request could have been worded two different ways. Could you please text in the lobby because the light from your phone is distracting is a lot less confrontational than, quit texting or I'll have you kicked out. Non confrontational dialogue us all part of police training.


True but there are some people who will take whatever you say to them as an excuse to get upset.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> That's interesting, but I asked Darren what he based his statements on. Are you relaying a message for him?


No I'm saying why I see it that way. After all it is an open forum not a PM.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> Or "texting dude" having already powered down his phone and moved on to the movie asks over his shoulder, "did you really just go report me ?" To which he gets a rude, possibly profanity riddled reply from the man behind him threatening him with further reprisal when that man's police officer son shows up. I suppose he could have sat there, just as the other gentleman could have sat there and waited for him to finish texting, or he could do what many here say is right and stand up for himself against the rudeness of others. In doing so the popcorn container he is holding strikes the arm of his seat causing some to fly out. Certainly justifies him getting shot and killed to me. I can make up circumstances to justify both sides all day long.


The problem with that version is the cop has a long record in which, AFAIK, there are no reports of him being reported as being a 'hot head'. IIRC, in his entire career there isn't a single citizen complaint against him. Now its true people do change but using the few 'facts' we 'know' common sense should give the greater benefit of the doubt to the LEO.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

watcher said:


> The problem with that version is the cop has a long record in which, AFAIK, there are no reports of him being reported as being a 'hot head'. IIRC, in his entire career there isn't a single citizen complaint against him. Now its true people do change but using the few 'facts' we 'know' common sense should give the greater benefit of the doubt to the LEO.


I never said he was a "hot head". I did speculate that he was someone used to getting his way and not having his authority questioned. Can you point me to evidence that the victim had any anger issues? I know from reading here that he was a self centered, over stressed, egotistical pedophile.


----------



## Wanda (Dec 19, 2002)

watcher said:


> The problem with that version is the cop has a long record in which, AFAIK, there are no reports of him being reported as being a 'hot head'. IIRC, in his entire career there isn't a single citizen complaint against him. Now its true people do change but using the few 'facts' we 'know' common sense should give the greater benefit of the doubt to the LEO.



When were his employment records released? I can not fathom why his lawyer would allow them to be made public before trial.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> Or "texting dude" having already powered down his phone and moved on to the movie asks over his shoulder, "did you really just go report me ?" To which he gets a rude, possibly profanity riddled reply from the man behind him threatening him with further reprisal when that man's police officer son shows up. I suppose he could have sat there, just as the other gentleman could have sat there and waited for him to finish texting, or he could do what many here say is right and stand up for himself against the rudeness of others. In doing so the popcorn container he is holding strikes the arm of his seat causing some to fly out. Certainly justifies him getting shot and killed to me. I can make up circumstances to justify both sides all day long.


You could be right. However, witnesses didn't hear what was said in their first dialog, but at least two witnesses report that an argument erupted when the dude started in about "snitching" when the old guy went to his seat. So it was the texting dude that got heard first, to me that means he got loud first. Everything you think might have happened might have happened. But based on the little we know, I think it is unlikely.
Clearly the two biggest fears in a cop's life is not seeing a gun that is there or thinking he sees a gun and there isn't one. One costs his life the other costs his career.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Wanda said:


> When were his employment records released? I can not fathom why his lawyer would allow them to be made public before trial.


This whole thing is a travesty. When the chief of police was informing the news, it seemed like he had all the answers already. 
Then when they brought him out of his cell to stand before the court and the world, they selected a location next to a group of female prisoners, seated like in a class room. They had the old guy stripped naked except for a quilted suicide gown. Like a mattress with arm holes. non- destructible, so a crazy person couldn't rip it up an either hang himself or fashion it into a choking weapon. Prison staff refer to it as a "Bam-Bam" suit. In reference to the Flintstones cartoon. 
It was like they wanted to diminish him as much as possible. When asked about it, one officer said it was a sort of flack jacket. Others speculated that it was to protect him from others. Nonsense. It is like bringing a Nursing Home patient to a competency hearing in a hospital gown. I don't expect that they buy him a three piece suit, but come on, why can't he wear clothes to the hearing? It just stinks.
Then the news gets to paw through his life long personnel records, trying to build a case against him. smudge free, so they report that back in 1969 he wasn't motivated enough or some such trivia. 
But we don't see any records on the deceased, no reports of rowdy behavior. He worked in a motorcycle shop, making loans and spent his weekends racing motorcycles. Great feat for a guy in his 40s. Plus he was tall, not easy to race when you are that big, unless you are strong and feel invincible. I only saw the photo that shows the shoulder/upper arm tattoo once. Couldn't make it out. Didn't look like a heart with MOM in the center.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

haypoint said:


> You could be right. However, witnesses didn't hear what was said in their first dialog, but at least two witnesses report that an argument erupted when the dude started in about "snitching" when the old guy went to his seat. So it was the texting dude that got heard first, to me that means he got loud first. Everything you think might have happened might have happened. But based on the little we know, I think it is unlikely.
> Clearly the two biggest fears in a cop's life is not seeing a gun that is there or thinking he sees a gun and there isn't one. One costs his life the other costs his career.


You like to use inflammatory language don't you. Reports I read said he asked if the retired PO had complained to management. It might be construed as "starting in", it might be that he had already stopped texting and wasn't looking forward to now having his date with his wife further interrupted by theater management. Noise levels , especially during previews, can go from deafening to silent in a second. That the texter was heard first is not conclusive in any way that he was the escalator. There's a bail hearing scheduled for early February. I'm sure we'll hear more details then. Until then, you spin your myths, I'll spin mine.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> I never said he was a "hot head". I did speculate that he was someone used to getting his way and not having his authority questioned. Can you point me to evidence that the victim had any anger issues? I know from reading here that he was a self centered, over stressed, egotistical pedophile.


Nope. Well there is the fact the throw popcorn in the face of a 71 y.o. man. 

But as the old saying goes "the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence". We do have evidence showing the cop was not known to 'fly off the handle' which, until evidence is shown to refute it, IMO gives him a larger benefit of the doubt.

As I have said before I can come with logical scenarios based on the few reports we have which could show either was in the wrong.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

watcher said:


> Nope. Well there is the fact the throw popcorn in the face of a 71 y.o. man.
> 
> But as the old saying goes "the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence". We do have evidence showing the cop was not known to 'fly off the handle' which, until evidence is shown to refute it, IMO gives him a larger benefit of the doubt.
> 
> As I have said before I can come with logical scenarios based on the few reports we have which could show either was in the wrong.


Care to show me the evidence that he deliberately threw popcorn in the man's face. Care to show me the evidence that he had history of being a hothead? By your own standards he is equally entitled to the benefit of the doubt. I never said he "flew off the handle". I did say he may have been frustrated that he wasn't getting his way and may have been just a culpable in escalating the situation.


----------



## Wanda (Dec 19, 2002)

watcher said:


> Nope. Well there is the fact the throw popcorn in the face of a 71 y.o. man.
> 
> But as the old saying goes "the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence". We do have evidence showing the cop was not known to 'fly off the handle' which, until evidence is shown to refute it, IMO gives him a larger benefit of the doubt.
> 
> As I have said before I can come with logical scenarios based on the few reports we have which could show either was in the wrong.




Are you sure the popcorn was not thrown to slow the firing of the weapon. We all are taught to throw things at an attacker to deflect there attention! The fact is that popcorn was propelled, the reason it was is open for debate.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> You like to use inflammatory language don't you. Reports I read said he asked if the retired PO had complained to management. It might be construed as "starting in", it might be that he had already stopped texting and wasn't looking forward to now having his date with his wife further interrupted by theater management. Noise levels , especially during previews, can go from deafening to silent in a second. That the texter was heard first is not conclusive in any way that he was the escalator. There's a bail hearing scheduled for early February. I'm sure we'll hear more details then. Until then, you spin your myths, I'll spin mine.


No, snitching was the word in the news, I'll see if I can find it.
"Initial reports have suggested Oulson challenged Reeves, demanding to know if he had reported him, but lawyers for the Oulson family have said Reeves started the row on both occasions.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...heater-ex-cop-refused-stop-texting-daughter-u
Well if the lawyers said the initial eye witness reports were wrong, then I guess it didn't happen that way.

"When Reeves returned, witnesses and authorities said that Oulson asked him if he had gone to tell on him for texting. Oulson reportedly said, in effect: I was just sending a message to my young daughter."
"The victim had been texting on his cell phone and &#8220;making a lot of noise,&#8221; Pasco County Sheriff Chris Nocco told CNN."
" "Upon his return, &#8220;Chad Oulson then starts confronting him verbally, starts saying: &#8216;Oh, did you go in there and start complaining on me? Did you tell the staff about me?&#8217;&#8221; Nocco said.


This verbal altercation starts getting louder and louder. During this altercation, it goes from a verbal to a physical altercation,&#8221; he said."


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Wanda said:


> Are you sure the popcorn was not thrown to slow the firing of the weapon. We all are taught to throw things at an attacker to deflect there attention! The fact is that popcorn was propelled, the reason it was is open for debate.


Very true. I wonder if we'll ever get the truth. Seated at the upper rear end of the theatre, in the dark, I don't think anyone saw it. Most were ignoring the argument. Intent on the movie or afraid to get involved. Both?
So, you are inclined to believe or at least advance the possibility that in the back of the theatre, in the heat of an argument over snitching :catfight:, the old guy drew his gun and texting guy tried to deflect it with his popcorn?

"Authorities said a preliminary investigation had determined that there was no physical contact during the incident Monday afternoon at a theater in the Tampa suburb of Wesley Chapel. It was popcorn, thrown by Oulson, 43, that struck Reeves."

"After officers read him his rights, Reeves told the detective that Oulson struck him in the face with an unknown object, and that's when he removed a .380 caliber gun from his pants pocket"


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

haypoint said:


> No, snitching was the word in the news, I'll see if I can find it.
> "Initial reports have suggested Oulson challenged Reeves, demanding to know if he had reported him, but lawyers for the Oulson family have said Reeves started the row on both occasions.
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...heater-ex-cop-refused-stop-texting-daughter-u
> ...


Couldn't find it?


----------



## MDKatie (Dec 13, 2010)

Does anyone know why Reeves was wearing that white suit when he was leaving the theater? Was it to preserve possible evidence?


----------



## Wanda (Dec 19, 2002)

haypoint said:


> Very true. I wonder if we'll ever get the truth. Seated at the upper rear end of the theatre, in the dark, I don't think anyone saw it. Most were ignoring the argument. Intent on the movie or afraid to get involved. Both?
> So, you are inclined to believe or at least advance the possibility that in the back of the theatre, in the heat of an argument over snitching :catfight:, the old guy drew his gun and texting guy tried to deflect it with his popcorn?
> 
> "Authorities said a preliminary investigation had determined that there was no physical contact during the incident Monday afternoon at a theater in the Tampa suburb of Wesley Chapel. It was popcorn, thrown by Oulson, 43, that struck Reeves."
> ...




I was putting out a possible explanation or more commonly known as a WAG just like everyone else is. Please do not try to attribute things to others that they do not say!


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

MDKatie said:


> Does anyone know why Reeves was wearing that white suit when he was leaving the theater? Was it to preserve possible evidence?


Yes, apparently.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

watcher said:


> Nope. Well there is the fact the throw popcorn in the face of a 71 y.o. man.
> 
> But as the old saying goes "the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence". We do have evidence showing the cop was not known to 'fly off the handle' which, until evidence is shown to refute it, IMO gives him a larger benefit of the doubt.
> 
> As I have said before I can come with logical scenarios based on the few reports we have which could show either was in the wrong.


Reports I have read indicate that popcorn was thrown but not for sure that the texter tossed it. I don't know if that is based on conflicting witness statements or if the initial information released wasn't fully accurate.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

I'm not a doctor and I don't play one on TV, but I don't think you should do CPR on a gunshot through the heart victim. 
"A pair of nurses who were at the movie also sprang into action, performing CPR in an effort to save Oulson." 
Witness reports said he was shot through the chest and had blood coming out his mouth. Getting his heart to pump will drain his body of blood faster.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

haypoint said:


> I'm not a doctor and I don't play one on TV, but I don't think you should do CPR on a gunshot through the heart victim.
> "A pair of nurses who were at the movie also sprang into action, performing CPR in an effort to save Oulson."
> Witness reports said he was shot through the chest and had blood coming out his mouth. Getting his heart to pump will drain his body of blood faster.


So now it's their fault he died?


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

haypoint said:


> I'm not a doctor and I don't play one on TV, but I don't think you should do CPR on a gunshot through the heart victim.
> "A pair of nurses who were at the movie also sprang into action, performing CPR in an effort to save Oulson."
> Witness reports said he was shot through the chest and had blood coming out his mouth. Getting his heart to pump will drain his body of blood faster.


Keep in mind that the Daily Mail has always been considered a bit of a dodgy source.


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

mmoetc said:


> So now it's their fault he died?


Everybody except the one that shot him.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

You know, a three day waiting period on all popcorn purchases might have prevented this.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Wanda said:


> If the shooter left the area why did he come back to an area that was ''to close'' to continue on with the dispute? The other guy did not just sudenly appear in front of him. It looks like there were bad decisions made by all the people involved. Could the shooter have been thought of as out of control as the reason the popcorn was thrown to distract him?


Both wives were present. The retired cop returned to where he was sitting with his wife. We haven't heard a statement from the retired cop's wife. I doubt we will before she testifies. Texter dudes wife has already gone public during an appearance with her lawyer.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

wr said:


> But how did the situation escalate before that? Did he ask for the person to stop texting or demand the person stop texting immediately? The former usually generates a much more favourable response. If he was kicking the back of the dead man seat, would that be expected from a trained negotiator?
> 
> My point is that there was plenty of time before shooting to assess and diffuse the situation.


Once the text dude stood up, turned around and threw the popcorn, there was no time for assessment and defusing. As the text dude wive said, it was over in the blink of an eye.

When the retired cop kicked the seat it was either childish or he had tried to get the text dude's attention to ask him to stop texting, got no response, so kicked the seat also to get his attention.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Tiempo said:


> Keep in mind that the Daily Mail has always been considered a bit of a dodgy source.


The blood from his mouth appeared immediately after text dude fell over on the man sitting next to him. That and the nurses' attempt has been reported in multiple sources. You don't have much choice in that situation. You're faced with brain death in a few minutes if you can't get blood to the brain. If there's no pulse, you start CPR.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Darren said:


> Once the text dude stood up, turned around and threw the popcorn, there was no time for assessment and defusing. As the text dude wive said, it was over in the blink of an eye.
> .


 'No time for assessment'.... yeah right. Enough time to pull a gun and fire, but not 'assess' the situation.... no, thats not believable. Those super-human cop skills you keep talking about are as much about NOT shooting as they are about shooting. 
Any chance the shooter could be the one at fault here, in your opinion? We've seen you try to over-explain this thing numerous times, just wondering if you've admitted that could be a possibility. I find it likely. I've had beer spilled on me, even spit on me once,and not once did I think killing the other person was the proper thing to do.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

gimpy said:


> Doesn't matter...Dude was not a cop. He was a civilian.


You don't control habits. You can learn new ones. But the old ones can resurface. Talk to someone who belongs to AA.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> So now it's their fault he died?


Please do not try to attribute things to others that they do not say!


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

haypoint said:


> Please do not try to attribute things to others that they do not say!


Just wondering why you brought it in to a discussion about whether shooting someone over flying popcorn was appropriate. Seemed a bit extraneous to the discussion.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Articles I have read, which are no more reliable than articles anyone else has read indicate popcorn was thrown but I have not found any clear comment that the victim tossed popcorn. Could we also assume that a retired cop, who was fearful because he was up against someone younger and more fit, could have tossed the popcorn as a diversion? 

I'm also interested to hear how others interpret the shooter's previous confrontation with the woman. Would you consider following her to the washroom to be a form of intimidation and if she had shot him because she was fearful of him following her to the washroom, would she have been justified?


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Darren said:


> Once the text dude stood up, turned around and threw the popcorn, there was no time for assessment and defusing. As the text dude wive said, it was over in the blink of an eye.
> 
> When the retired cop kicked the seat it was either childish or he had tried to get the text dude's attention to ask him to stop texting, got no response, so kicked the seat also to get his attention.


News reports state that he asked him several times to shut it off before going to theatre staff. Interesting that the fact ( excuse) that he was texting his possibly sick 3 year old (actually she is 22 months) didn't come up until the old guy got back to his seat. Couldn't tell the old guy, earlier, but he was prepared to tell Management. 
Several news report that in the news conference, the police state that he was texting and making some sort of noise.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

wr said:


> Articles I have read, which are no more reliable than articles anyone else has read indicate popcorn was thrown but I have not found any clear comment that the victim tossed popcorn. Could we also assume that a retired cop, who was fearful because he was up against someone younger and more fit, could have tossed the popcorn as a diversion?
> 
> I'm also interested to hear how others interpret the shooter's previous confrontation with the woman. Would you consider following her to the washroom to be a form of intimidation and if she had shot him because she was fearful of him following her to the washroom, would she have been justified?


The retired cop obviously had a pet peeve. He eye balled the women previously for texting in the theater. If she was fearful then from being eye balled, how come she didn't report him to management?


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

wr said:


> Articles I have read, which are no more reliable than articles anyone else has read indicate popcorn was thrown but I have not found any clear comment that the victim tossed popcorn. Could we also assume that a retired cop, who was fearful because he was up against someone younger and more fit, could have tossed the popcorn as a diversion?
> 
> I'm also interested to hear how others interpret the shooter's previous confrontation with the woman. Would you consider following her to the washroom to be a form of intimidation and if she had shot him because she was fearful of him following her to the washroom, would she have been justified?


I doubt the retired cop was fearful. If he was, he wouldn't have asked the text dude to comply with the theater's rules. Up to now I've never read about an instance of a justified shooting because of a "look." That wouldn't be "reasonable."


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Darren said:


> I doubt the retired cop was fearful. If he was, he wouldn't have asked the text dude to comply with the theater's rules. Up to now I've never read about an instance of a justified shooting because of a "look." That wouldn't be "reasonable."


If he was not fearful, why would it be okay for him to shoot another person? 

I never said anything about a look. Typically, washrooms in movie theaters are down a long hallway that doesn't see much traffic when a movie is playing. She may feel she a man who had previous conflict with her was going to further harm her.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

wr said:


> If he was not fearful, why would it be okay for him to shoot another person?
> 
> I never said anything about a look. Typically, washrooms in movie theaters are down a long hallway that doesn't see much traffic when a movie is playing. She may feel she a man who had previous conflict with her was going to further harm her.


It was not "okay" for him to shoot the text dude. The man wasn't committing a crime by texting. What followed during the confrontation after the retired cop returned to his seat after trying to talk to the management is not completely murky. 

Was the killing justified in self defense? That's up to the jury. I think it was because law enforcement is trained to react without thought to clues for self defense, *The average person who doesn't face the potential of life or death situations on a daily basis does not comphrehend that necessity.* That's shown by the responses on this thread.

From what I've read in reports of the incident and taking into account the studies in the book I received this week, I believe* the retired cop reacted in self defense.* Note I didn't say the cop "thought" he was being attacked. *I said reacted.* I think his conceptualizing of self defense came afterwards when he was surprised he shot text dude. The text dude's wife saying it happened in a blink of an eye is critical to understanding what happened.

The wild card is did the retired cop give into emotion? Did his words during and after the shooting show he was enraged? so far nothing like that has been reported. Even the text dude's wife never mentioned that in her statement.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Darren said:


> It was not "okay" for him to shoot the text dude. The man wasn't committing a crime by texting. What followed during the confrontation after the retired cop returned to his seat after trying to talk to the management is not completely murky.
> 
> Was the killing justified in self defense? That's up to the jury. I think it was because law enforcement is trained to react without thought to clues for self defense, *The average person who doesn't face the potential of life or death situations on a daily basis does not comphrehend that necessity.* That's shown by the responses on this thread.
> 
> ...


I'm not trying to pick your opinion apart but more trying to get a better understanding of your laws and justice system.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Pick away. What happened was a tragedy for both families involved. I'm trying to figure out what happened like anyone else. I have my thoughts based mostly on the book I found from another article here on HT. The information in the book is compelling in that now scientists know where in the brain habits are stored. It's not in the thinking parts. That explains why the climactic event happened in a blink of an eye.

The retired cop was not in thinking control of what happened but he was also not out of control in an emotional sense.


----------



## homstdr74 (Jul 4, 2011)

Darren said:


> It was not "okay" for him to shoot the text dude. The man wasn't committing a crime by texting. What followed during the confrontation after the retired cop returned to his seat after trying to talk to the management is not completely murky.
> 
> Was the killing justified in self defense? That's up to the jury. I think it was because law enforcement is trained to react without thought to clues for self defense, *The average person who doesn't face the potential of life or death situations on a daily basis does not comphrehend that necessity.* That's shown by the responses on this thread.
> 
> ...


Reading this entire thread, I am getting so aggravated at those who willingly suspend any concept of âInnocent until proven guiltyâ that were I a juror I would exonerate the retired LEO with the statement that he was completely innocent of any wrongdoing.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> Just wondering why you brought it in to a discussion about whether shooting someone over flying popcorn was appropriate. Seemed a bit extraneous to the discussion.


Fair enough. But throughout this discussion I have attempted to broaden the focus of this tragic incident. I wondered why no one backed up the old guy. Surely he wasn't the only one that doesn't like the annoyance of cell phones. I wondered why the witness statements were so vague. Now that I understand that he was in the top most seat, way in the last row, it is more understandable. In my mind, if the others would have shown support of the rule, the old guy wouldn't have felt so alone.
Then the news reported that the old guy sat down and placed the gun on his leg, but others hail the off duty cop that restrained him and secured the weapon. 
The dude got shot through the chest, likely through the heart, maybe not. Instantly, blood comes out his mouth. You don't need a medical license to understand he has a serious leak. Blood to the brain by CPR will also pump out what blood he has left. In many cases, stopping the bleeding is as critical as re-oxygenating the brain. Not every critical patient needs CPR. I wondered if it was appropriate.
The main witness the news is using is the guy that texting dude fell on, spilled blood on, spoke his last words to. Would you expect his slant on what he saw would be? From 2 seats over, he doesn't know who threw the popcorn or what was said. I figure he was cowering from involvement right from the start.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

homstdr74 said:


> Reading this entire thread, I am getting so aggravated at those who willingly suspend any concept of âInnocent until proven guiltyâ that were I a juror I would exonerate the retired LEO with the statement that he was completely innocent of any wrongdoing.


I agree. Plus the Chief of Police that made a public statement that after consulting with investigators outside the movie theatre, they have concluded that this is not a "Stand your ground" case. He also went on about the old guy's guilt in front of news cameras. Seems he and his force have already concluded the trial. To parade the old guy out before national news naked except a suicide gown is shameful. Even if they felt he was suicidal, they could have let him get dressed for this important court proceeding. Even a jail jumpsuit would have been better than that. Then try to explain it away as a safety vest, for his safety, shameful, just shameful. 
In the early part of this thread, I wrote that it isn't his lawyer's job to prove him innocent, but the prosecution's job to prove him guilty. Can you prove he wasn't in fear of his life?


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

wr said:


> If he was not fearful, why would it be okay for him to shoot another person?
> 
> I never said anything about a look. Typically, washrooms in movie theaters are down a long hallway that doesn't see much traffic when a movie is playing. She may feel she a man who had previous conflict with her was going to further harm her.


Further? You said further harm her. Is that like harm her again? She was texting during the movie. After the movie, AFTER the movie, she said he followed her. Did he head down a long hallway leading to the women's bathroom or was he headed to the restroom after the movie? They never spoke and we have no idea if he was 5 feet behind her or 100 feet. We really don't know if he was following or simply going in the same direction. Not a lot of choices between the theatre and the lobby. But I have seen nothing that indicates he followed her during the movie. The hallways wouldn't be vacant. when the movie "let out".


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

homstdr74 said:


> Reading this entire thread, I am getting so aggravated at those who willingly suspend any concept of &#8220;Innocent until proven guilty&#8221; that were I a juror I would exonerate the retired LEO with the statement that he was completely innocent of any wrongdoing.


I'm not aggravated. What's happening in this thread demonstrates human nature. Some would call it an inability to think out of the box, but it goes deeper than that. How do you know what you don't know? How do you put yourself in another's shoes during a time of stress of which you have no experience?

It's easy to emphasize with the text dude due to the tragedy. He left a 22 month old daughter and a wife behind. It's easy to be concerned about her future. It's much more difficult to emphasize with a retired 70 year old cop who killed the husband. 

When I've read the articles I've tried to understand why the text dude kept texting. 

Why did he confront the retired cop when he returned? 

Was ego involved on his part? Was ego involved on the retired cop's part? No one has mentioned either man threatening the other

The wife had looked forward to them going on a date. Why didn't he stop for his wife's sake?

How did events then happen in the blink of an eye? .

We know the wife placed her hand on her husband's chest just before the fatal shot. Did he have a history of losing his temper? 

Why didn't the wife use her public appearance to provide details that incriminate the retired cop? 

Why was the chief of police so eager to provide an interview? He looked like he was enjoying himself.

Was what happened a surprise to the retired cop's wife? 

Did she have any warning of what was going to happen?


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

haypoint said:


> Further? You said further harm her. Is that like harm her again? She was texting during the movie. After the movie, AFTER the movie, she said he followed her. Did he head down a long hallway leading to the women's bathroom or was he headed to the restroom after the movie? They never spoke and we have no idea if he was 5 feet behind her or 100 feet. We really don't know if he was following or simply going in the same direction. Not a lot of choices between the theatre and the lobby. But I have seen nothing that indicates he followed her during the movie. The hallways wouldn't be vacant. when the movie "let out".



Further was a poor choice of words based on my rephrasing my comment because he had caused her no physical harm. My question was simply if she feared for her safety, could she have shot him? Is shooting someone legal when based on perceived danger?


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Other than eye balling her, there was on evidence of a threat to her life. Eye balling someone in certain neighborhoods would be a sign of disrespect and can get you killed. The woman didn't say she was disrespected. There were no words between them after the movie.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

haypoint said:


> Fair enough. But throughout this discussion I have attempted to broaden the focus of this tragic incident. I wondered why no one backed up the old guy. Surely he wasn't the only one that doesn't like the annoyance of cell phones. I wondered why the witness statements were so vague. Now that I understand that he was in the top most seat, way in the last row, it is more understandable. In my mind, if the others would have shown support of the rule, the old guy wouldn't have felt so alone.
> Then the news reported that the old guy sat down and placed the gun on his leg, but others hail the off duty cop that restrained him and secured the weapon.
> The dude got shot through the chest, likely through the heart, maybe not. Instantly, blood comes out his mouth. You don't need a medical license to understand he has a serious leak. Blood to the brain by CPR will also pump out what blood he has left. In many cases, stopping the bleeding is as critical as re-oxygenating the brain. Not every critical patient needs CPR. I wondered if it was appropriate.
> The main witness the news is using is the guy that texting dude fell on, spilled blood on, spoke his last words to. Would you expect his slant on what he saw would be? From 2 seats over, he doesn't know who threw the popcorn or what was said. I figure he was cowering from involvement right from the start.


It's quite likely that no one else intervened because they weren't as bothered. I don't feel the need to police the bad behavior of everyone in every venue I enter. Some people apparently do. The shooter's son was late arriving to the theater. He arrived after this incident was concluded. His entering a darkened theater to find his parents and his seat would also be a distraction to those around them. Should everyone in the theater have stood upon his arrival and demanded he not be allowed in? You, or any of the others who seem willing to find any excuse to absolve the shooter of any responsibility in this matter, have yet to answer my earlier question. Is there anything someone sitting behind you in a movie theater could say to get you to stand up, turn around and confront them?


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

mmoetc said:


> It's quite likely that no one else intervened because they weren't as bothered. I don't feel the need to police the bad behavior of everyone in every venue I enter. Some people apparently do. The shooter's son was late arriving to the theater. He arrived after this incident was concluded. His entering a darkened theater to find his parents and his seat would also be a distraction to those around them. Should everyone in the theater have stood upon his arrival and demanded he not be allowed in? You, or any of the others who seem willing to find any excuse to absolve the shooter of any responsibility in this matter, have yet to answer my earlier question. * Is there anything someone sitting behind you in a movie theater could say to get you to stand up, turn around and confront them?*


That behavior by the text dude borders on outrageous. I'm convinced that and the thrown popcorn triggered the "in the blink of an eye" shooting.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Darren said:


> That behavior by the text dude borders on outrageous. I'm convinced that and the thrown popcorn triggered the "in the blink of an eye" shooting.


Still didn't answer my question. We also don't know the exact circumstance of the thrown popcorn. Whether it was thrown on purpose or an accident. If thrown on purpose, what was the possible provocation and was that an appropriate
response? You keep asking why he kept texting when it seems likely that the texting had stopped by the time the shooter returned. It supports the scenario of why the guy two seats over wasn't bothered. I have some sympathy for the retired officer, but I'm not willing to automatically give him a free pass for shooting and killing another human being.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

haypoint said:


> I agree. Plus the Chief of Police that made a public statement that after consulting with investigators outside the movie theatre, they have concluded that this is not a "Stand your ground" case. He also went on about the old guy's guilt in front of news cameras. Seems he and his force have already concluded the trial. To parade the old guy out before national news naked except a suicide gown is shameful. Even if they felt he was suicidal, they could have let him get dressed for this important court proceeding. Even a jail jumpsuit would have been better than that. Then try to explain it away as a safety vest, for his safety, shameful, just shameful.
> In the early part of this thread, I wrote that it isn't his lawyer's job to prove him innocent, but the prosecution's job to prove him guilty. Can you prove he wasn't in fear of his life?


Self defense and Stand Your Ground are defense arguments. The prosecution only has to prove the facts of the case- that one man shot another and killed him and that that action meets the standards of the offense charged. I tend to feel that 2nd degree might be hard to prove, but voluntary manslaughter is appropriate. It is not their responsibility to prove or disprove whether the defendant was in fear for his life unless the defense brings that fear up as a defense.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

mmoetc said:


> Still didn't answer my question. We also don't know the exact circumstance of the thrown popcorn. Whether it was thrown on purpose or an accident. If thrown on purpose, what was the possible provocation and was that an appropriate
> response? You keep asking why he kept texting when it seems likely that the texting had stopped by the time the shooter returned. It supports the scenario of why the guy two seats over wasn't bothered. I have some sympathy for the retired officer, but I'm not willing to automatically give him a free pass for shooting and killing another human being.


"Authorities said a preliminary investigation had determined that there was no physical contact during the incident Monday afternoon at a theater in the Tampa suburb of Wesley Chapel. *It was popcorn, thrown by Oulson, 43, that struck Reeves."*

http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/14/justice/florida-movie-theater-shooting/


----------



## homstdr74 (Jul 4, 2011)

Darren said:


> "Authorities said a preliminary investigation had determined that there was no physical contact during the incident Monday afternoon at a theater in the Tampa suburb of Wesley Chapel. *It was popcorn, thrown by Oulson, 43, that struck Reeves."*
> 
> http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/14/justice/florida-movie-theater-shooting/


Anyone who's ever had sand, dirt or anything else flung into their face and/or eyes during a fight would immediately understand the situation.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

You'd think that. That's obviously not understood by all. Some here believe for some reason it's not a big deal. In a dark movie theater where the target was a retired cop, it was the critical factor in getting text dude shot.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Darren said:


> "Authorities said a preliminary investigation had determined that there was no physical contact during the incident Monday afternoon at a theater in the Tampa suburb of Wesley Chapel. *It was popcorn, thrown by Oulson, 43, that struck Reeves."*
> 
> http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/14/justice/florida-movie-theater-shooting/


Still didn't answer the question. And I'll once again point out that no follow up attack occurred after the retired PO was struck by popcorn. He was obviously wrong about what the actual threat level was.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Text dude didn't have a chance to attack after the popcorn hit the retired cop. We don't know what text dude was going to do after "losing" his popcorn. We don't know what the threat level was. We know he stood up and turned around when he could have simply turned in his seat. We'll never know what would have come next if he hadn't been shot.

That also means we don't know if the threat level would have escalated. By getting up, turning around and losing control of the popcorn, text dude did escalate the situation. If I had been in the retired cop's seat, seeing a 6' 4" man in front of me get out of his seat and turn around after we had been arguing would have caused me to view situation as rapidly deteriorating. At that point I would have expected him to reach for me or throw a punch. I would have been out of my seat too in response. 

It's interesting that the retired cop did not get up. That furthers my belief his training kicked in and he reacted without thought.


----------



## MDKatie (Dec 13, 2010)

I don't know about you all, but after I read the new posts on this thread I always get a hankering for movie theater popcorn!


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Darren said:


> Text dude didn't have a chance to attack after the popcorn hit the retired cop. We don't know what text dude was going to do after "losing" his popcorn. We don't know what the threat level was. We know he stood up and turned around when he could have simply turned in his seat. We'll never know what would have come next if he hadn't been shot.
> 
> That also means we don't know if the threat level would have escalated. By getting up, turning around and losing control of the popcorn, text dude did escalate the situation. If I had been in the retired cop's seat, seeing a 6' 4" man in front of me get out of his seat and turn around after we had been arguing would have caused me to view situation as rapidly deteriorating. At that point I would have expected him to reach for me or throw a punch. I would have been out of my seat too in response.
> 
> It's interesting that the retired cop did not get up. That furthers my belief his training kicked in and he reacted without thought.


Still no answer to my question? It is interesting how your story is now evolving. I thought the entire rationale for the retiree pulling his gun and firing was that he was in fear of being pulled from a standing position over the seat backs and being beaten to death. The theory was that the popcorn striking him was , in his mind, a precursor to an immediate follow up attack and instinct kicked in. Now I find he was seated, a position that supposedly makes it more difficult to draw a weapon, seemingly further slowing the response time of a 71 year old. But still, he was able to draw his weapon and fire before the man in front of him, intent on attack, was able to lay a finger on him. Maybe they marched him into the courtroom in that attire because they had already removed his superhero costume.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

MDKatie said:


> I don't know about you all, but after I read the new posts on this thread I always get a hankering for movie theater popcorn!


Humor is good. Even if morbid.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

greg273 said:


> 'No time for assessment'.... yeah right. Enough time to pull a gun and fire, but not 'assess' the situation.... no, thats not believable. Those super-human cop skills you keep talking about are as much about NOT shooting as they are about shooting.
> Any chance the shooter could be the one at fault here, in your opinion? We've seen you try to over-explain this thing numerous times, just wondering if you've admitted that could be a possibility. I find it likely. I've had beer spilled on me, even spit on me once,and not once did I think killing the other person was the proper thing to do.


 
Since the arguments have become circular, I figured I drag this one out again and see if Mr. Darren feels like commenting. 
And Darren, its not like I, and many others, don't 'understand' the notion of trained reflexes... its just personally I don't find that to be a valid excuse.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Darren said:


> Text dude didn't have a chance to attack after the popcorn hit the retired cop. We don't know what text dude was going to do after "losing" his popcorn. We don't know what the threat level was. We know he stood up and turned around when he could have simply turned in his seat. We'll never know what would have come next if he hadn't been shot.
> 
> That also means we don't know if the threat level would have escalated. By getting up, turning around and losing control of the popcorn, text dude did escalate the situation. If I had been in the retired cop's seat, seeing a 6' 4" man in front of me get out of his seat and turn around after we had been arguing would have caused me to view situation as rapidly deteriorating. At that point I would have expected him to reach for me or throw a punch. I would have been out of my seat too in response.
> 
> It's interesting that the retired cop did not get up. That furthers my belief his training kicked in and he reacted without thought.


And you're right, we don't know what would have happened had a shot not been fired. The two could have continued their verbal war until theater management intervened and walked them both out to the lobby to be yelled at and embarrassed by their wives at which point the realized how stupid they had both been to let it get to this point. Text dude might have offered the retired officer a great deal on a motocross bike for his grandson. We'll never know, will we?


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Quote:
Originally Posted by *greg273*  
_'No time for assessment'.... yeah right. Enough time to pull a gun and fire, but not 'assess' the situation.... no, thats not believable. Those super-human cop skills you keep talking about are as much about NOT shooting as they are about shooting. 
Any chance the shooter could be the one at fault here, in your opinion? We've seen you try to over-explain this thing numerous times, just wondering if you've admitted that could be a possibility. I find it likely. I've had beer spilled on me, even spit on me once,and not once did I think killing the other person was the proper thing to do._
Since the arguments have become circular, I figured I drag this one out again and see if Mr. Darren feels like commenting. 

And Darren, its not like I, and many others, don't 'understand' the notion of trained reflexes... its just personally I don't find that to be a valid excuse.

************************************************************

There is a chance the retired cop is guilty of murder. That's why I'm interested in the conversation between the two men. Did either threaten the other? There's also a source that has the .380 out and ready. That seemed like supposition to me. What the widow said was revealing for what she didn't say.

You also have the issue of being able to quickly remove and fire the gun while sitting. If the retired cop was prepared in the way he carried, that may have not been an issue. The testimony of the two wives will be interesting. Both had a front row seat and heard everything.

I'm curious if the retired cop's wife was as surprised at the shooting as the text dude's.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> Care to show me the evidence that he deliberately threw popcorn in the man's face.


As I said no evidence but how do you accidentally throw popcorn at someone?




mmoetc said:


> Care to show me the evidence that he had history of being a hothead?


Again the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. Confronting a 70 old man about ratting him out for texting doesn't seem like a calm thing to do. 




mmoetc said:


> By your own standards he is equally entitled to the benefit of the doubt.


He is given the benefit of the doubt but w/o more evidence you have to pick one and seeing how one has a long history of not being a one with a temper gives the scales a bit more weight on his side.




mmoetc said:


> I never said he "flew off the handle". I did say he may have been frustrated that he wasn't getting his way and may have been just a culpable in escalating the situation.


Someone in control doesn't escalate a situation. In my life in different jobs and just outside them I've confronted a lot of people and some of them got a bit more than a little upset. But at no time did I even raise my voice at them. Yet I have had more than one get to the point they were more than willing to escalate to violence. At that time there were only a few actions available to me. I could have tried to run away and allow them to have their way. I could have let them attack me and hope that I wasn't injured to badly. Or I could use force to end the situation. I never had and I pray I never will have to use deadly force but I can tell you if I felt I were in danger I would.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Wanda said:


> Are you sure the popcorn was not thrown to slow the firing of the weapon. We all are taught to throw things at an attacker to deflect there attention! The fact is that popcorn was propelled, the reason it was is open for debate.


Nope. But the most likely reaction to seeing a weapon at close range is to either turn away or to attempt to grab it. Throwing something at someone with a firearm is a fairly good way to have them fire it.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

wr said:


> I'm not trying to pick your opinion apart but more trying to get a better understanding of your laws and justice system.


In most states if a "reasonable man" in the situation would have felt afraid of "grievous bodily harm" or death then the use of deadly is legal. 

You have to view things from the POV of the shooter. I'm an older guy with some health issues which means things which decades ago I would not have caused me that fear would do so today. Because of my physical issues I'm neither as able to defend myself nor escape. And because of those and my age I'm much more easily injured. That means I could justifiably use deadly force in situations today which I would not have been able to in the past.

I have posted what the state has to prove to convict the shooter and they *must* prove all of these things beyond a reasonable doubt to the 12 people on the jury. If even one person on the jury has a reasonable doubt to a single item then they must vote to find him not guilty. In that case they can either convince the other 11 and the guy walks free or the judge can say the jury is "hung", i.e. can not come to a verdict, and end the trial. At that point the state can try again or cut their losses and quit.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> It's quite likely that no one else intervened because they weren't as bothered. I don't feel the need to police the bad behavior of everyone in every venue I enter. Some people apparently do. The shooter's son was late arriving to the theater. He arrived after this incident was concluded. His entering a darkened theater to find his parents and his seat would also be a distraction to those around them. Should everyone in the theater have stood upon his arrival and demanded he not be allowed in? You, or any of the others who seem willing to find any excuse to absolve the shooter of any responsibility in this matter, have yet to answer my earlier question.


If the son had repeatedly entered and left the theater then SOMEONE should have said something to him. 




mmoetc said:


> Is there anything someone sitting behind you in a movie theater could say to get you to stand up, turn around and confront them?


Define "confront". First off I would not raise my voice other than enough to be heard. The louder you get the less people hear. Second, I would not stand up unless I had already dreamed them a threat and felt the need to better defend myself.


----------



## unregistered5595 (Mar 3, 2003)

watcher said:


> You have to view things from the POV of the shooter. I'm an older guy with some health issues which means things which decades ago I would not have caused me that fear would do so today. Because of my physical issues I'm neither as able to defend myself nor escape. And because of those and my age I'm much more easily injured. That means I could justifiably use deadly force in situations today which I would not have been able to in the past.


I just SO disagree with this paragraph.

First let me say: STOP THE MADNESS!!

Then, I do not have to view things from the POV of the shooter. If the shooter is sick, hallucinating, comatose, drunk, whatever, that is his/her point of view. I will consider it objectively but I will not view things from his POV.

Do you honestly think a jury should have to view things from a drunk driver's point of view to be fair in a jury trial? Fill up those jury glasses with beer for the 12th time and then let's decide. (/sarcasm)

Lastly, if you are so old, injured, or challenged mentally, so incredibly special, suffering from arthritis, using a wheelchair, that it is your POV that you can and should be allowed to use deadly force for almost anything, then, you shouldn't be allowed out in society with a gun, or not allowed to mix with average citizens that eat popcorn. I hear popcorn butter with artificial ingredients can bring on a rage reaction in people sensitive to the artificial ingredients. (I am not serious about the popcorn butter thing. Who knows, maybe a researcher will provide the research for the popcorn butter thing and all theaters will have to stop serving popcorn with butter.)

Madness, yes it is.

What probably is more likely, is the retired police officer is feeling left out of the loop now that he retired but he wants his name out there as a protector, a hero, and he will not go down as a nothing. His ego is in need of bolstering. He talks to his wife and says "Let's go to the theater, no one will ever do another theater shooting as long as an armed officer is there. I will protect everyone.". Each week they go to the theater, stalk some innocent texter and eyeball them down the hallways. Finally, a texter throws popcorn at him after he kicks their chair and snitches to the theater management so he shoots him and protects everyone and prevails. Finally his day in the news as a hero. (based solely on imagination and lies, no truth is here)


----------



## unregistered41671 (Dec 29, 2009)

What about the case or instances where older homeless people have been beaten to death by young punks. Is it fair that they just take a beating that would possibly end their life. They are not able to fend off attackers because of their age and disability. They would only be able to stop them with a firearm IMO. I don't know what happened in that movie in Fla. but I would want to be able to defend myself against one or more younger and much fitter people that would want to harm me or my family. To do otherwise, is truly MADNESS!!!


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

It still comes down to being in fear of being hurt or killed to defend yourself. To complicate things, I don't think the retired cop was ever in fear of the text dude. If that was the case, he may not be entitled to claim self defense.


----------



## unregistered5595 (Mar 3, 2003)

Possum Belly, are you saying if someone threatens your life, you will stop them with a gun? yes? okay.
Are you saying you will shoot them in the foot, knee, ankle, arm....? yes? okay.
Are you saying you will shoot a person in the heart to kill them that throws popcorn at you in a theater? yes? not okay.

The weight of the offense is important, the weight of the self defense is also important.
No one gets a kill shot for free -card.


----------



## unregistered5595 (Mar 3, 2003)

Darren said:


> It still comes down to being in fear of being hurt or killed to defend yourself. To complicate things, I don't think the retired cop was ever in fear of the text dude. If that was the case, he may not be entitled to claim self defense.


That is right. It will come down to an artificial ingredient in the popcorn butter causing an allergic rage reaction defense. (this has yet been tested in court)


----------



## homstdr74 (Jul 4, 2011)

Feather In The Breeze said:


> Possum Belly, are you saying if someone threatens your life, you will stop them with a gun? yes? okay.
> Are you saying you will shoot them in the foot, knee, ankle, arm....? yes? okay.
> Are you saying you will shoot a person in the heart to kill them that throws popcorn at you in a theater? yes? not okay.
> 
> ...


Maybe not, but many people who have only shot and wounded their aggressors have been killed by those wounded aggressors anyway. A wound doesn't always stop someone who's wired up on dope or adrenaline.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

watcher said:


> If the son had repeatedly entered and left the theater then SOMEONE should have said something to him.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Confront could be as innocuous as asking them to repeat them self because you couldn't believe someone would say such a thing to you. It might be to demand an apology because it was so egregious. It might be to tell them that you're now going to complain to theater management. No amount of rudeness other than a threat of violence could get you out of your seat yet texting during previews gets you all heated up?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

watcher said:


> As I said no evidence but how do you accidentally throw popcorn at someone?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Its fairly easy to send popcorn flying. My kitchen floor could sometimes be used as an exhibit of how far it can fly accidentally.

I don't have to choose sides. I have seen more disagreements with both sides guilty of escalation than I have any other scenario. Congrats to you that you are always in such control.


----------



## unregistered5595 (Mar 3, 2003)

homstdr74 said:


> Maybe not, but many people who have only shot and wounded their aggressors have been killed by those wounded aggressors anyway. A wound doesn't always stop someone who's wired up on dope or adrenaline.


Well that's true. The problem is that anyone walking around today assuming everyone is wired up on dope or adrenaline, that can't think about outcomes, shouldn't be allowed to carry or even be involved in society. A person that disables a criminal, that is is thinking, will remove threats. If that means wounding a criminal and then removing the criminal's gun from the situation, then yes I agree with you. 
It might be quieter and easier to just kill them, but that doesn't make it right.


----------



## homstdr74 (Jul 4, 2011)

Feather In The Breeze said:


> Well that's true. The problem is that anyone walking around today assuming everyone is wired up on dope or adrenaline, that can't think about outcomes, shouldn't be allowed to carry or even be involved in society. A person that disables a criminal, that is is thinking, will remove threats. If that means wounding a criminal and then removing the criminal's gun from the situation, then yes I agree with you.
> It might be quieter and easier to just kill them, but that doesn't make it right.


So, from what you're stating, we should just do away with the police and the military, because their training is the opposite to what your Utopia and its denizens would be like.


----------



## Wanda (Dec 19, 2002)

watcher said:


> Nope. But the most likely reaction to seeing a weapon at close range is to either turn away or to attempt to grab it. Throwing something at someone with a firearm is a fairly good way to have them fire it.


 I thought you or someone else in this thread said that throwing things at a person was for distraction:shrug: I think I would have a lot better chance grabbing the weapon if the attempted shooter was wiping popcorn and salt out of there eyes. I am right handed so personally I would have my popcorn in my left hand leaving my dominant hand free to grab a weapon after I flung the popcorn!


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Feather In The Breeze said:


> That is right. It will come down to an artificial ingredient in the popcorn butter causing an allergic rage reaction defense. (this has yet been tested in court)


Goes along with the Twinkie defense.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Wanda said:


> I thought you or someone else in this thread said that throwing things at a person was for distraction:shrug: I think I would have a lot better chance grabbing the weapon if the attempted shooter was wiping popcorn and salt out of there eyes. I am right handed so personally I would have my popcorn in my left hand leaving my dominant hand free to grab a weapon after I flung the popcorn!


Wanda, I don't think anyone saw the gun until after the shot. The retired cop's reaction would have been that fast. The text dude's last words showed surprise. I doubt he saw it much less had a chance to grab the gun. That's why they tell people in CCW classes don't get it out unless you're going to use it.

"Before you deliberately expose your gun in public, ask yourself "is this worth going to jail for?" The only time this question should warrant a "yes" response is when an adversary has at least both the ABILITY and INTENT and is actively seeking the OPPORTUNITY to do you great harm. "

http://www.agencyinvestigations.com/five_rules.htm


----------



## Wanda (Dec 19, 2002)

Darren said:


> Wanda, I don't think anyone saw the gun until after the shot. The retired cop's reaction would have been that fast. The text dude's last words showed surprise. I doubt he saw it much less had a chance to grab the gun. That's why they tell people in CCW classes don't get it out unless you're going to use it.
> 
> "Before you deliberately expose your gun in public, ask yourself "is this worth going to jail for?" The only time this question should warrant a "yes" response is when an adversary has at least both the ABILITY and INTENT and is actively seeking the OPPORTUNITY to do you great harm. "
> 
> http://www.agencyinvestigations.com/five_rules.htm



My response was to the post that I quoted in my reply. This thread has been almost all hypothetical scenarios so both sides are posting ''what if'' to test the theorys.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Darren said:


> Wanda, I don't think anyone saw the gun until after the shot. The retired cop's reaction would have been that fast. The text dude's last words showed surprise. I doubt he saw it much less had a chance to grab the gun. That's why they tell people in CCW classes don't get it out unless you're going to use it.
> 
> "Before you deliberately expose your gun in public, ask yourself "is this worth going to jail for?" The only time this question should warrant a "yes" response is when an adversary has at least both the ABILITY and INTENT and is actively seeking the OPPORTUNITY to do you great harm. "
> 
> http://www.agencyinvestigations.com/five_rules.htm


In the words of Meatloaf- two out of three ain't bad.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

You don't have what ifs with a CCW. The gun stays concealed until it's time to use it. Otherwise it's brandishing and the CCW holder may be in deep dodo.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

mmoetc said:


> In the words of Meatloaf- two out of three ain't bad.


Odd you mention that. I never heard of Ellen Foley until yesterday.

[YOUTUBE]f80DiqRJjog[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Darren said:


> Odd you mention that. I never heard of Ellen Foley until yesterday.
> 
> [YOUTUBE]f80DiqRJjog[/YOUTUBE]


You're musical education was sorely lacking.


----------



## unregistered5595 (Mar 3, 2003)

homstdr74 said:


> So, from what you're stating, we should just do away with the police and the military, because their training is the opposite to what your Utopia and its denizens would be like.


No, I'm decidedly FOR job creation.


----------



## unregistered41671 (Dec 29, 2009)

Feather In The Breeze said:


> Possum Belly, are you saying if someone threatens your life, you will stop them with a gun? yes? okay.
> Are you saying you will shoot them in the foot, knee, ankle, arm....? yes? okay.
> Are you saying you will shoot a person in the heart to kill them that throws popcorn at you in a theater? yes? not okay.
> 
> ...



What I am saying is that if I feel my life or the life of one of my family members is in danger , I will do my best to stop the threat. Usually a shot in the foot or big toe does not do the job. I will stop the threat if possible.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Feather In The Breeze said:


> Possum Belly, are you saying if someone threatens your life, you will stop them with a gun? yes? okay.
> Are you saying you will shoot them in the foot, knee, ankle, arm....? yes? okay.
> Are you saying you will shoot a person in the heart to kill them that throws popcorn at you in a theater? yes? not okay.
> 
> ...


Have you EVER been in a situation where you honestly felt you were in serious physical danger from another human?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> Confront could be as innocuous as asking them to repeat them self because you couldn't believe someone would say such a thing to you. It might be to demand an apology because it was so egregious. It might be to tell them that you're now going to complain to theater management. No amount of rudeness other than a threat of violence could get you out of your seat yet texting during previews gets you all heated up?


Rudeness? Nope, the best way to handle rude people politeness.

Threatening words? Yes.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> Its fairly easy to send popcorn flying. My kitchen floor could sometimes be used as an exhibit of how far it can fly accidentally.
> 
> I don't have to choose sides. I have seen more disagreements with both sides guilty of escalation than I have any other scenario. Congrats to you that you are always in such control.


I have it because of training, mostly from the school of hard knocks. One thing I learned long, long ago getting angry is like giving your enemy a weapon because angry people do stupid things and make mistakes.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

watcher said:


> I have it because of training, mostly from the school of hard knocks. One thing I learned long, long ago getting angry is like giving your enemy a weapon because angry people do stupid things and make mistakes.


Like shooting someone because they misconstrued a piece of flying popcorn as a threat?


----------



## That'll Do Pig (Jan 23, 2014)

haypoint said:


> Tragic situation, but if it gets a few impolite folks to pocket their devices in a theatre, then it had a positive impact.
> Recently there was a "movement" to ride public transportation without pants. I guess a lot of people were upset by it. I think it is BS. Why do people do it? Because no one will stop them. People are allowed to impose themselves on civilized citizens without fear of reprisal. Perhaps a bit more reprisal to deviant or abusive behavior would reduce such behavior and make the lives of decent folks more pleasant?
> If I am settled into my seat in a theatre and I have to leave and find some lazy theatre employee and explain what is going on, then return to my seat and get verbally abused and have stuff thrown on me, my evening's entertainment has been tarnished and someone else has had a ball humiliating me. Nope, not this time. Bam!
> 52 people killed in Flint and over 200 in Detroit last year. Probably a few for a lot less than throwing popcorn and arguing with an old guy.
> deterrent, that's the word. If obnoxious folks thought their victim was packing heat and had an itchy trigger finger, they might conform to civilized norms.


All context aside... Did you know you don't have a right to NOT be offended?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Feather In The Breeze said:


> Well that's true. The problem is that anyone walking around today assuming everyone is wired up on dope or adrenaline, that can't think about outcomes, shouldn't be allowed to carry or even be involved in society. A person that disables a criminal, that is is thinking, will remove threats. If that means wounding a criminal and then removing the criminal's gun from the situation, then yes I agree with you.
> It might be quieter and easier to just kill them, but that doesn't make it right.


You don't have to be wired up on dope to not be stopped by a gunshot. Read the following:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_FBI_Miami_shootout

If you don't want to read the entire thing I'll give you the relevant info:

William Matix: Killed after being shot six times.
Michael Platt: Killed after being shot 12 times.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Wanda said:


> I thought you or someone else in this thread said that throwing things at a person was for distraction:shrug: I think I would have a lot better chance grabbing the weapon if the attempted shooter was wiping popcorn and salt out of there eyes. I am right handed so personally I would have my popcorn in my left hand leaving my dominant hand free to grab a weapon after I flung the popcorn!


Throwing something is a distraction. But if someone is pointing a weapon at you tossing something at him is quite likely to cause him to pull the trigger out of reflex. You'd be much better off just grabbing for the weapon, action is ALWAYS faster than reaction. In this case you want something to draw his attention AWAY from you, not toward you. Dropping the popcorn or maybe tossing it to the side or even behind you might draw his attention giving you better odds of getting the weapon before he fires.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

I have no problem with shoot to kill. Shoot to wound only works in the movies. I'll even give cops in the course if carrying out their duties( including intervening while off duty) more of the benefit of the doubt. I will also hold private citizens who choose to go about armed to the highest standards. They are making a choice from the minute they walk out of the house armed. They dang well better be absolutely sure they are making the right decision to pull that weapon and pull the trigger as the outcome is most likely not reversible. There are few do overs in real life.


----------



## unregistered5595 (Mar 3, 2003)

watcher said:


> Have you EVER been in a situation where you honestly felt you were in serious physical danger from another human?


Yes I was, I ran like HECK, diffused the situation, diffused the situation and stayed away from the attacker. 
It's not relevant to the movie theater shooting conversation.


----------



## homstdr74 (Jul 4, 2011)

Feather In The Breeze said:


> No, I'm decidedly FOR job creation.


I hope you caught something else while trolling, because I ain't takin' no more bait from you.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

mmoetc said:


> They dang well better be absolutely sure they are making the right decision to pull that weapon and pull the trigger as the outcome is most likely not reversible. There are few do overs in real life.


And that's the point. Not only are there deadly consequences for a shooting victim, but there can also be serious legal consequences for the shooter. If you pull the trigger you had better be sure you are justified. Don't just guess at justification then expect understanding. You don't deserve it. A cop might deserve more consideration, since he has certain obligations to carry a gun and shoot, but ordinary citizens don't.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Sometimes people just want to survive the moment and live another day. I doubt they have the leisure of thinking. After what was inflicted on George Zimmerman, you'd have to be a hermit not to know you were in for a SHTF. If you're lucky you'll live in a state where prosecutors support self defense.

If you're faced with life or death, taking the time to flip a coin, mentally, may get you killed.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Darren said:


> If you're lucky you'll live in a state where prosecutors support self defense.


You mean a state like Texas?

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news...7/texas-stand-your-ground-sentence/55868954/1

.


----------



## unregistered5595 (Mar 3, 2003)

watcher said:


> You don't have to be wired up on dope to not be stopped by a gunshot. Read the following:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_FBI_Miami_shootout
> 
> ...


I didn't read it all. It was an amazing story though. 1 agent was not injured (out of 8 or 10) and only 1 agent didn't fire his gun, all told, I can see why they needed better guns. (stronger bigger)

It is different approaching known felons that are armed than approaching idiots in a movie theater with popcorn projectiles though. I've thrown popcorn at people, at home, in private but never at someone I don't know. I've never thrown dirt or sand at someone--I guess I've never lived. 

I used to think most people are unarmed at any time in public. After working at a gas station back in the '90's, half the clientele were police officers and detectives, they were always armed. There certainly is a general politeness that comes over people when they realize someone is armed. There is a restaurant/watering hole I visited with a police officer friend, almost everyone was armed.

I don't think we will know more about what was said until the court case.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Nevada said:


> You mean a state like Texas?
> 
> http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news...7/texas-stand-your-ground-sentence/55868954/1
> 
> .


Another poster boy for stupidity. Good call by the jury.


----------



## countryfied2011 (Jul 5, 2011)

Do you think we would have had 22 pages of discussion if this had not been a police officer? I dont think anyone would have paid any attention if it had been "Average Joe" who did the shooting...

In this day and time, you never know who might be carrying a gun and who isnt...


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

countryfied2011 said:


> Do you think we would have had 22 pages of discussion if this had not been a police officer? I dont think anyone would have paid any attention if it had been "Average Joe" who did the shooting...
> 
> In this day and time, you never know who might be carrying a gun and who isnt...


I do think this is differeent for a few reasons. It involved white people. It involved an action that is a growing nusence, texting in theatres. 
If it were some hot head with a gun and not a person with a lifetime of proper gun usage and dealing with troublesome people. If the old guy would have shoved the guy that was angery because he had been told on, not news-worthy; 
That a guy was " texting and making other noises" in the movie theatre after the lights went down, makes people think he was a jerk. That he was asked a few times to stop, but refused, makes him a super jerk. That he stood up, turned around when the old guy returned, questioned him about telling on him, makes him an aggressive super jerk. I think we can all agree on that. That, in a darkened movie theatre, while standing, arguing about someone's reaction (leaving his seat and attempting to report it to movie theatre staff) to his own bad behaviour, he pitches popcorn on this old, obviously angry man, makes him an agressive, super jerk, out of control maniac. In this case it also makes him dead. I wish the old man hadn't reacted to being hit in the face by a dark object by shooting.. Because the use of a gun to protect yourself evolks more emotion, I wonder if the old man had shoved the dude when he was hit by popcorn or whatever? After a face to face argument, started by texting dude, then popcorn thrown on him, would everyone support shoving the texting dude to increase his safety zone, since he was as far back in ther theatre as he could get, couldn't back up? If texting dude were shoved, lost his balance and hit his head, killing him, would the old guy be justified for the shove?


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

greg273 said:


> Since the arguments have become circular, I figured I drag this one out again and see if Mr. Darren feels like commenting.
> And Darren, its not like I, and many others, don't 'understand' the notion of trained reflexes... its just personally I don't find that to be a valid excuse.


 Don't like that excuse? Then pick another. With 22 pages, there must be at least one excuse that suits you, Perhaps you aren't really trying.


----------



## Wanda (Dec 19, 2002)

haypoint said:


> I do think this is differeent for a few reasons. It involved white people. It involved an action that is a growing nusence, texting in theatres.
> If it were some hot head with a gun and not a person with a lifetime of proper gun usage and dealing with troublesome people. If the old guy would have shoved the guy that was angery because he had been told on, not news-worthy;
> That a guy was " texting and making other noises" in the movie theatre after the lights went down, makes people think he was a jerk. That he was asked a few times to stop, but refused, makes him a super jerk. That he stood up, turned around when the old guy returned, questioned him about telling on him, makes him an aggressive super jerk. I think we can all agree on that. That, in a darkened movie theatre, while standing, arguing about someone's reaction (leaving his seat and attempting to report it to movie theatre staff) to his own bad behaviour, he pitches popcorn on this old, obviously angry man, makes him an agressive, super jerk, out of control maniac. In this case it also makes him dead. I wish the old man hadn't reacted to being hit in the face by a dark object by shooting.. Because the use of a gun to protect yourself evolks more emotion, I wonder if the old man had shoved the dude when he was hit by popcorn or whatever? After a face to face argument, started by texting dude, then popcorn thrown on him, would everyone support shoving the texting dude to increase his safety zone, since he was as far back in ther theatre as he could get, couldn't back up? If texting dude were shoved, lost his balance and hit his head, killing him, would the old guy be justified for the shove?






Yes he would be justified if it were an accidental death. The shooting was intentional. Why has the popcorn now turned into ''a black object''? Since when is standing an aggressive act? Would the textor not have the right to stand and state his case or do you think he must set down and shut up?


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Considering he got shot, I'll go with he'd been better off not stating his case in a theater by standing up, turning around and losing control of his popcorn. If he'd sat there or responded to his wife's effort, we wouldn't be having this conversation.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Feather In The Breeze said:


> Yes I was, I ran like HECK, diffused the situation, diffused the situation and stayed away from the attacker.
> It's not relevant to the movie theater shooting conversation.


I will freely admit I have defused some situations by using shoe leather :grin:. He who runs away lives to fight another day.

Not think about that time and think if you couldn't have ran. Would you have fought or just curled up in a ball and hope for the best?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> And that's the point. Not only are there deadly consequences for a shooting victim, but there can also be serious legal consequences for the shooter. If you pull the trigger you had better be sure you are justified. Don't just guess at justification then expect understanding. You don't deserve it. A cop might deserve more consideration, since he has certain obligations to carry a gun and shoot, but ordinary citizens don't.


The standards for using deadly force are lower, in every state I know about, for an "ordinary citizen" than it is for an LEO. What standard the court will use for a retired LEO I don't know.

But the basic standard holds. If a reasonable man would be in fear of grievous bodily harm or death then the use of deadly force is justified.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Feather In The Breeze said:


> I didn't read it all. It was an amazing story though. 1 agent was not injured (out of 8 or 10) and only 1 agent didn't fire his gun, all told, I can see why they needed better guns. (stronger bigger)


IMO, it goes to show they need more training on how to shoot not better things to shoot. A .45ACP or .38 spl. (both fairly old rounds) will do the job if the shooter places the rounds properly.





Feather In The Breeze said:


> It is different approaching known felons that are armed than approaching idiots in a movie theater with popcorn projectiles though. I've thrown popcorn at people, at home, in private but never at someone I don't know. I've never thrown dirt or sand at someone--I guess I've never lived.


Not the point, the point is it ain't like in the moves where every time someone gets shot once they fall down. I couldn't quickly find anything showing where exactly where the wounds were on the two attackers but it goes to show that if someone is trying to harm you shooting him in the arm or leg means you stand a good chance of still being harmed.





Feather In The Breeze said:


> I don't think we will know more about what was said until the court case.


I agree. And it may well come out in court that the cop did in fact go off the deep end but I have to say that will shock me if it happens.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Wanda said:


> Yes he would be justified if it were an accidental death. The shooting was intentional. Why has the popcorn now turned into ''a black object''? Since when is standing an aggressive act? Would the textor not have the right to stand and state his case or do you think he must set down and shut up?


So, you can shove someone and cause death if the death was accidental?
The dark object was in the old guy's statement. Just no one is interested in what has has to say. In his statement, a dark object was thrown at his face.
Standing is an agressive action. Holding up your arms is an aggresdsive act. Any time you make yourself larger it is seen as aggression. Taking a fighting stance is also. A failure to respond to that aggression, places you in danger. If you are seated near someone and they are verbally aggressive, stay seated, but increase your personal space. But if they stand, you'd better stand and turn your body to the side, for balance and reduce the size of his target.

I was a Federally trained Hostage Negiotiator. I was also a trained Crisis Intervention Specialist. I defuse hostile people. Sometimes it is best to let the person/people blow off steam by yelling about whatever. Sometimes, people escalate as they yell. Talking in a low calm voice isn't going to help, because at that point they are "running the show" and won't hear you. You need to increase your voice/ yell back, to get their attention and then bring the volume and the anger down. Most police are trained to recognize the dangers.

Most folks don't expect to face a dangerous felon in a movie theatre. For many years I worked with thousands of dangerous felons. Six years with mentally ill felons. A retired police officer has been required to face dangerous felons many times in his career. Prision Guards and police Officers may sence danger before you realize you are in a life threatening situation. That doesn't mean they are more likely to shoot random jerks. But while you are thinking this guy is just a loud mouth, I might be expecting/preparing myself against, an attack. 

There is a lot none of us know, but I am convinced the ex-cop did not shoot in anger.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

haypoint said:


> I do think this is differeent for a few reasons. It involved white people. It involved an action that is a growing nusence, texting in theatres.
> If it were some hot head with a gun and not a person with a lifetime of proper gun usage and dealing with troublesome people. If the old guy would have shoved the guy that was angery because he had been told on, not news-worthy;
> That a guy was " texting and making other noises" in the movie theatre after the lights went down, makes people think he was a jerk. That he was asked a few times to stop, but refused, makes him a super jerk. That he stood up, turned around when the old guy returned, questioned him about telling on him, makes him an aggressive super jerk. I think we can all agree on that. That, in a darkened movie theatre, while standing, arguing about someone's reaction (leaving his seat and attempting to report it to movie theatre staff) to his own bad behaviour, he pitches popcorn on this old, obviously angry man, makes him an agressive, super jerk, out of control maniac. In this case it also makes him dead. I wish the old man hadn't reacted to being hit in the face by a dark object by shooting.. Because the use of a gun to protect yourself evolks more emotion, I wonder if the old man had shoved the dude when he was hit by popcorn or whatever? After a face to face argument, started by texting dude, then popcorn thrown on him, would everyone support shoving the texting dude to increase his safety zone, since he was as far back in ther theatre as he could get, couldn't back up? If texting dude were shoved, lost his balance and hit his head, killing him, would the old guy be justified for the shove?


It is interesting how much you know, inÃ§luding how we would all agree with your characterization of the man shot as an out of control, aggressive super jerk. It is interesting that the man two seats away didn't report any of the yelling super aggressive behavior you cite. It's interesting how the shooter never mentions being yelled at or threatened in any way except being struck by the mysterious and deadly black object. I like the way you brought race into it also. Nice touch. Now I'll answer another of your questions though you have successfully avoided answering mine. Yes, pushing someone back to gain space, even if that causes a fall and death, is an appropriate response to having someone invade your personal space. The consequences of me pushing you backwards may cause death but the action isn't designed to cause death, unlike shooting someone in the chest at point blank range.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

We all have the same news articles available to us. What is noticeable is that people parse information in those articles differently and likewise come to differing conclusions. It's difficult, probably impossible, to judge something without your own experience and prejudice playing a part. That's where putting yourself in another's shoes can be difficult.

Other than his employment record, the experiences shared by his neighbors and his age, the retired cop has nothing to elicit compassion.

Text dude on the other hand has quite a few compassion points. 

*His baby had been sick.

He was concerned about his 22 month old daughter.

He was obviously a good father since he had a habit of contacting her often.

He and his wife had an opportunity to take some rare time off for a date night.

He had no history, so far, of anger issues.

He and his wife are photogenic.

Text dude was shot and died soon after.

Their life together was irrevocably ended in a tragic way.*

He and his wife are the human public relations equivalent of baby seals being clubbed to death for their pelts. 

The retired cop on the other hand gets his mug spread far and wide in this manner. There's no picture out there showing him smiling with a group of people. There is one picture that shows him in a better situation but it's not out there in many places. The bottom picture shows a man most folks would like to have for a friend or neighbor especially if they knew his employment history.


----------



## Wanda (Dec 19, 2002)

Should we have separate seating areas with protection for movie goers that are paranoid. Maybe the theater could charge a few bucks extra and everyone would be happy. Are most people concerned if someone in there area is bigger or younger than they are? I am really surprised that I have lived to be 65 years old without thinking that people that annoy me are dangerous thugs.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Wanda said:


> Should we have separate seating areas with protection for movie goers that are paranoid. Maybe the theater could charge a few bucks extra and everyone would be happy. Are most people concerned if someone in there area is bigger or younger than they are?* I am really surprised that I have lived to be 65 years old without thinking that people that annoy me are dangerous thugs.*


Very interesting statement!


----------



## Wanda (Dec 19, 2002)

Darren said:


> Very interesting statement!


 I wonder if you are a cop or a prison guard it skews your outlook on others? If I was exposed to the worst in people 8-12 hours a day it could change MY outlook as to what others MIGHT do. Gangbangers kill other gang members at a shocking rate because they think other gangs are out to get them. Does that make people in any of these groups paranoid?:shrug:I can see no reason for any group to get a pass for doing something that everyone else sees as wrong. This is no different than giving a criminal a pass because he had a bad childhood or a thief because they are poor.


----------



## unregistered5595 (Mar 3, 2003)

About *compassion points* and about *previous employment*.

*compassion points* I was on a jury once, drunk driving, deer hit him on his motorcycle, broken bones laying in a ditch drunk 5 times the legal limit when measured 4 hours later.
More than half the jury wanted to give him a get out of jail free card because he had been so hurt. Oh poor baby.
I don't think the compassion points should count in the decision in court, at all. He could have easily killed any of my family members while driving drunk at the time--so he doesn't deserve any compassion points.
It's not like the retired police officer knew the texter was a father, a good father, or any other compassion points.

*previous employment (experience education)* This is something I do think the jury should consider. Not a get out of jail free card, but something to consider. While some might say his previous employment should give him some authority over the texter and he should be believed, I am more likely to hold him to a higher standard than someone that was not in law enforcement.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> It is interesting how much you know, inÃ§luding how we would all agree with your characterization of the man shot as an out of control, aggressive super jerk. It is interesting that the man two seats away didn't report any of the yelling super aggressive behavior you cite. It's interesting how the shooter never mentions being yelled at or threatened in any way except being struck by the mysterious and deadly black object. I like the way you brought race into it also. Nice touch. Now I'll answer another of your questions though you have successfully avoided answering mine. Yes, pushing someone back to gain space, even if that causes a fall and death, is an appropriate response to having someone invade your personal space. The consequences of me pushing you backwards may cause death but the action isn't designed to cause death, unlike shooting someone in the chest at point blank range.


OK, in answer to your question, " Like shooting someone because they misconstrued a piece of flying popcorn as a threat?" It is a cops worst nightmare, shooting on what you thought you saw or getting killed because you hesitated or weren't sure. When you have a split second to evaluate and react and the rest of the world has the benefit of days to ponder the results. Hindsight is always 20/20. Also known as armchair quarterbacking. 
I brought out the fact that they were both white as one of the many reasons why this gets so much more attention in the news than other crimes. "Do you think we would have had 22 pages of discussion if this had not been a police officer? I dont think anyone would have paid any attention if it had been "Average Joe" who did the shooting..."
Texting dude had many choices as this situation came to a boil. IMHO, he chose to be disrespectful, rude and/or aggressive at each choice. 
My initial focus was, and to some degree still is, what part the others in the theatre played in this and how we as a people have let down humanity with our increasing refusal to stand up for what is right. 
One can chose to believe that there was only a low key disagreement going on when the popcorn was thrown at the old guy. If you chose that belief, I think you'd also have to conclude that the texting dude escalated the discussion by quite a leap from discussion to throwing something on an old stranger. I agree that there was an escalation, but it was more incremental. I chose to believe the discussion turned to arguing and the nearby movie theatre patron was afraid to get involved, turned his head away and sought to ignore it. IMHO, that is why the shooting and subsequent man falling into his lap was such a surprise. Because he had "tuned out" what was going on beside him, he didn't see the build up. But, clearly, two seats over, he wouldn't have seen much. The texting dude would have cast a shadow on the old guy and the theatre was dark, except the screen.
It is inconceivable to me that after knowing texting dude's actions at each point in this situation, you don't find it aggressive or at least the behavior of a jerk. At each juncture that I listed, would you have reacted the way he did?


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

The news coverage that shows the texting dude in a pose with his smiling wife and the old guy in a Bam-Bam suit is intentional. We saw it when the news showed Zimmerman's mug shot and Martin's 4 year old school photo. Also, they used Zimmerman's last name, and Travon's first name almost exclusively. Called trial by media.
We all know, via news, that this was a special day for texting dude and his beautiful wife. We know that his daughter might have been sick, we know that the wife's life has been broken into a thousand pieces.
But we don't know if this movie was important to the old guy, how important his movie date was or how often the three of them could get together. The dark object the old guy reported thrown at his face is paved over by Police Chief's premature accusation, " He must have just snapped."


----------



## Wanda (Dec 19, 2002)

As I said in post 654 there should be no free pass for past employment. I have had some crappy and dangerous jobs over the last 50 years of employment but can not imagine being uncountable for my own actions.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

haypoint said:


> OK, in answer to your question, " Like shooting someone because they misconstrued a piece of flying popcorn as a threat?" It is a cops worst nightmare, shooting on what you thought you saw or getting killed because you hesitated or weren't sure. When you have a split second to evaluate and react and the rest of the world has the benefit of days to ponder the results. Hindsight is always 20/20. Also known as armchair quarterbacking.
> I brought out the fact that they were both white as one of the many reasons why this gets so much more attention in the news than other crimes. "Do you think we would have had 22 pages of discussion if this had not been a police officer? I dont think anyone would have paid any attention if it had been "Average Joe" who did the shooting..."
> Texting dude had many choices as this situation came to a boil. IMHO, he chose to be disrespectful, rude and/or aggressive at each choice.
> My initial focus was, and to some degree still is, what part the others in the theatre played in this and how we as a people have let down humanity with our increasing refusal to stand up for what is right.
> ...


I'll ask the question for a third time. Is there anything someone sitting behind you could say or do to get you to stand up, turn around and confront them? 

You can choose to believe whatever you wish about this incident. Your choice doesn't make any of it fact. I am of the opinion that both parties acted like jerks. Kicking the back of someone's seat is jerkish behavior and is an escalator. I do have empathy for the retired head of security. He made a mistake that was fatal to another. The law may ultimately decide differently but feeling that you're in danger is not enough for me. You'd better be able to prove you were actually in danger before shooting someone. And you'd better be able to prove you did or said absolutely nothing to make the situation worse. The consequences can't be undone and an apology isn't enough for me.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Wanda said:


> As I said in post 654 there should be no free pass for past employment. I have had some crappy and dangerous jobs over the last 50 years of employment but can not imagine being uncountable for my own actions.


Finally we agree. No free pass for past employment.
But you miss the point. IMHO, the ex-cop didn't shoot the texting dude because he had a crappy job for 50 years. Being a cop didn't make him want to kill someone for texting. Being a cop didn't make him want to kill someone for throwing popcorn on him. Being a cop gave him far greater skills at assessing dangerous situations.
So, if he didn't shoot out of anger in 50 years, why do you conclude that he shot out of anger this time? He has shown, through his employment, training and leadership, he isn't going to use a gun to settle a petty disagreement. 
But, with his employment, training and leadership, he is far better able to access a dangerous situation than the average person. Plus far better at reacting to the danger. 
So, people that under-react to a threat are called dead and people that over-react to a threat are called criminals. Is that how it works? 
If you were always able to assess a threatening situation and select the most appropriate reaction, in a split second, you'd be earning a million dollars as a professional football quarterback. But the rest of us average humans can only react to what we perceive. 
If an angry stranger had me afraid he would harm me, threw something at me, I thought it was a dark object, I'd use what was available to protect myself. If I were sure that I could shove him and not be pulled over the seat, maybe. If I had a screwdriver that I could poke him with and felt sure that would stop the assault, maybe. If I had a coat in my lap and I thought I could cover his head long enough to get away, perhaps. If I had a Tazer, would I use it. Possibly. But if I had no other options except a gun, would I use it?
Every person that carries a weapon, must ponder the obvious. Under what situations would I use this gun? If my life were threatened, to save the life of another and for cops and prison guards, to prevent the destruction of a building that may contain people. 
If it were a 23 year old off duty cop, 6 months as a cop, I'd be more skeptical of the gun use. His threat level is different. His options greater.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

mmoetc said:


> Kicking the back of someone's seat is jerkish behavior and is an escalator.


I wonder though, if someone kicked the back of retired cop's chair would he have considered that justification for using deadly force? Better question, would he have considered justification to throw popcorn?


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> I'll ask the question for a third time. Is there anything someone sitting behind you could say or do to get you to stand up, turn around and confront them?
> 
> You can choose to believe whatever you wish about this incident. Your choice doesn't make any of it fact. I am of the opinion that both parties acted like jerks. Kicking the back of someone's seat is jerkish behavior and is an escalator. I do have empathy for the retired head of security. He made a mistake that was fatal to another. The law may ultimately decide differently but feeling that you're in danger is not enough for me. You'd better be able to prove you were actually in danger before shooting someone. And you'd better be able to prove you did or said absolutely nothing to make the situation worse. The consequences can't be undone and an apology isn't enough for me.


I cannot answer your question with a yes or no. It needs to be in some sort of context. If a person behind me asked me several times to stop texting, left to, presumably, tattle on me, when he returned to his seat, I would not seek him out for further conflict. So, nothing he said would get me to be drawn into a conflict. 
If you were seated ahead of me, and I wished o make a request, I might speak, "Sir, pardon me, sir." I don't think I'd stick my head next to his shoulder. Might be hard for me to get his attention. The sound in a movie is fairly loud. I might ring his door bell, if theatres had them at each seat. Lacking a door bell, I might tap the seat with my shoe to get his attention. Kicking the seat is disrespectful way to start a conversation. 
Is there anything someone standing in front of you could throw or do to get you to feel threatened?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

haypoint said:


> I cannot answer your question with a yes or no. It needs to be in some sort of context. If a person behind me asked me several times to stop texting, left to, presumably, tattle on me, when he returned to his seat, I would not seek him out for further conflict. So, nothing he said would get me to be drawn into a conflict.
> If you were seated ahead of me, and I wished o make a request, I might speak, "Sir, pardon me, sir." I don't think I'd stick my head next to his shoulder. Might be hard for me to get his attention. The sound in a movie is fairly loud. I might ring his door bell, if theatres had them at each seat. Lacking a door bell, I might tap the seat with my shoe to get his attention. Kicking the seat is disrespectful way to start a conversation.
> Is there anything someone standing in front of you could throw or do to get you to feel threatened?


It seems a fairly simple question you choose to dance around. I understand why you don't want to answer and that in itself is an answer.

To answer your question. Yes, there are many things that could be done or said to make me feel threatened. To answer your inevitable follow up, yes , even to the point of using deadly force in my defense.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

There is video of the incident. The court will hold a hearing to address the prosecution's concern's on the release of the video.

http://tbo.com/pasco-county/hearing-in-movie-theater-shooting-to-focus-on-video-20140203/


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Well, I guess the tape will tell the story. I suspect we will have another huge discussion depending on how much of the tape the defense objects to.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

painterswife said:


> Well, I guess the tape will tell the story. I suspect we will have another huge discussion depending on how much of the tape the defense objects to.


On other sites there are questions about why the video hasn't already been released to the defense. I'm not sure the prosecution is stonewalling ... yet. Unlike the Martin Zimmerman fiasco we have witnesses and video together.

I think it's proper to give the prosecution the benefit of doubt until we know what happens in the hearing. I'd like to know if the sheriff had the video when he talked to the press the first time. The video was never mentioned.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Why would the prosecutor want to suppress vital evidence?
Why does the media always just use the picture of the old guy in a mattress suit and the texting guy with a family photo? I'm sure there are Drivers license photos available.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

haypoint said:


> Why would the prosecutor want to suppress vital evidence?
> Why does the media always just use the picture of the old guy in a mattress suit and the texting guy with a family photo? I'm sure there are Drivers license photos available.


The media makes money by getting people to read or watch. They would use the picture of the shooting if they could.

The prosecutors always hold all the evidence as long as they can. 

Neither is right just normal operating procedure.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

The retired cop wasn't in a good situation. He could have smiled which might have come off as being a psycho at the hearing. I only saw a few pre arrest photos of the retired cop. Lots of family photos of the text dude.

A local website always posts the arrest photo of the recently arrested. Most look either dazed or glum. Sometimes you see one with a big smile. I can't help wondering why the dude or dudess is smiling. The regional jails aren't happy places. They're jam packed human warehouses.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Defense attorney's filed motion to subpoena tapes and other evidence.

"Attorneys for Curtis Reeves Jr. have filed a motion seeking to subpoena and preserve Cobb Theatre surveillance video of the Jan. 13 shooting at the theater chainâs Grove 16 cinema in Wesley Chapel."

http://tbo.com/pasco-county/attorneys-seek-to-subpoena-video-of-pasco-theater-shooting-20140127/


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Darren said:


> The retired cop wasn't in a good situation. He could have smiled which might have come off as being a psycho at the hearing. I only saw a few pre arrest photos of the retired cop. Lots of family photos of the text dude.
> 
> A local website always posts the arrest photo of the recently arrested. Most look either dazed or glum. Sometimes you see one with a big smile. I can't help wondering why the dude or dudess is smiling. The regional jails aren't happy places. They're jam packed human warehouses.


But why the media bias?
It has been clear from the start. Look back to the Martin Zimmerman media hype. Zimmerman was referred to as Zimmerman, but Martin was referred to as Travon. Zimmerman was known by his mug shot, Martin by his 4 year old middle School photo.
Now we get a Police Chief that has already convicted the old guy, parading the old guy out naked except a suicide quilt. The media is fine with that. That is how the Nation views the old guy. But the texting dude gets his pictures selected out of the family album.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

The media hype around Trayvon was a very carefully thought out public relations effort. The media was manipulated. the people knew what they were doing right down to the cameo appearance of Obama. That's not to say there's no media bias against firearms and self defense. There is.

You're right. The media has already picked a winner and a loser in the theater incident. Of course both men were losers in a sense. One died. One gets to live with the repercussions for the rest of his life, 

I'm looking forward to the video. I suspect it still won't be completely clear what happened even if you could play it in slow motion. It should show whether text dude's actions were aggressive.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

The video will be made available to the media.

"A judge said he will allow the courtroom to see a surveillance video showing the shooting of a man inside a Pasco County theater after the defense gets 30 days to review evidence in the case.

The ruling on the video came after the suspect in the shooting, Curtis Reeves Jr., 71, entered an official plea of not guilty during a bond hearing this morning in Dade City."

The retired cop is wearing a red sweater.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ng-exclaimed-I-believe-Ive-firing-pistol.html

"Hamilton remembers Reeves yelling at his wife after the incident, after she said 'That was no cause to shoot anyone.'
'He leaned back around and stuck his finger out as to scold her and said, "You shut your [expletive] mouth and don't say another word,"' Hamilton testified."


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

"Witness Mark Turner overheard the fight, and said he heard Oulson say: 'Do you mind, I've got a voicemail from by babysitter. I'd like to check to see that my daughter is okay.'
After more requests to stop using his phone, Oulson got up and threw a small bag of popcorn at Reeves, Turner said.
'Almost immediately the gun came out, the shot was fired and it went back into Mr. Reeves' lap,' Turner said."


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-believe-Ive-firing-pistol.html#ixzz2sVGvSLNb 
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

See here's the thing that Painter's Wife can attest to; I am usually at odds with her... she is correct. With such testimony how can you say the former cop was in the right? 

There was no cause to be so upset that gunfire was required. This was incorrect. This was wrong... this was perhaps too much training coupled with dementia.


----------



## MDKatie (Dec 13, 2010)

Darren said:


> The video will be made available to the media.
> 
> "A judge said he will allow the courtroom to see a surveillance video showing the shooting of a man inside a Pasco County theater after the defense gets 30 days to review evidence in the case.
> 
> ...



Why did you change the photo? Your original post had him in the middle of 2 men, and this one has him crying.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

That's a surprise to me. I didn't change the photo. There's some info that along with the popcorn text dude may have thrown the cell phone at the retired cop. That is not certain.

The judge watched the video 15 times and felt it was too grainy to tell what happened.

"Later in the afternoon, the judge heard testimony from Sumter County Corporal Allen Hamilton, who was in the movie theater off duty when the shooting happened -- just a few seats away from Chad Oulson.

Hamilton's testimony included details about the conversation between Reeves and his wife after Oulson had been shot.

"He leaned toward his wife and made a comment, and she postured and said 'that was no cause to shoot anyone.' And then he leaned back around, stuck his finger out, as to scold her, and said 'you shut your f***in mouth and don't say another word.' Reeves gets up and goes down one chair and again postures, and the look on her face, she was P.O.ed at him." 

*Hamilton said Oulsen (text dude) was the aggressor who was shouting and cursing at Reeves in the theater.""*

http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/story/...ng-video-can-be-played-in-court#ixzz2sXx02Tts 

​


----------

