Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 easysauce wrote:
definetly seems like we are getting one side to the story however, seems to be downplaying a sudden, threatening motion from someone who was getting verbally agressive, who was much younger and presumably more physically intimidating then the senior citizen

While I agree that there is likely more to the story, what you have posted here is not reasonable grounds for the use of lethal force in Florida. I'm not seeing a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm that the law requires.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Just gonna leave this here

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-25726591

Obviously the man feared for his life. Popcorn can be very dangerous when thrown.

Finally!

 Easy E wrote:
This guy was from an era of policing when he should have known better. He should have beat him with his billy club instead of shooting him.

Kind of makes ya wonder exactly why he was "retired"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
definetly seems like we are getting one side to the story however, seems to be downplaying a sudden, threatening motion from someone who was getting verbally agressive, who was much younger and presumably more physically intimidating then the senior citizen

While I agree that there is likely more to the story, what you have posted here is not reasonable grounds for the use of lethal force in Florida. I'm not seeing a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm that the law requires.

Maybe Texas still upholds "duels of honor" as a proper course of action? If so, obviously popcorn dude wasn't quick on the draw

Never bring popcorn to a gunfight.


Is there a lawful basis for dueling in Texas? I presume not but I imagine I could be surprised. If so, at least there would still be one scrap of dignity and honor remaining in these craven times.

Tampa Police spokeswoman Laura McElroy said Mr Reeves was a captain when he retired from the department in 1993, according to the Associated Press. After he retired, he was on the board of a neighbouring county's Crime Stoppers organisation.

[...]

Lone Survivor, based on a New York Times best-seller, stars Mark Wahlberg and tells the story of four navy Seals on an ill-fated covert mission against the Taliban in Afghanistan.

I want to believe that the ex-cop shouted "MURICA FETH YEAH" as he took his shot.

That sounds like a "MURICA FETH YEAH" moment to me, if there ever was any.

 Ouze wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
definetly seems like we are getting one side to the story however, seems to be downplaying a sudden, threatening motion from someone who was getting verbally agressive, who was much younger and presumably more physically intimidating then the senior citizen

While I agree that there is likely more to the story, what you have posted here is not reasonable grounds for the use of lethal force in Florida. I'm not seeing a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm that the law requires.

yes, I agree, looking at the situation after the fact from 20 20 hindsight now that all the facts can be examined.

however, being in the heat of the moment, its quite plausible that the old man thought he was drawing a knife/gun with that fast aggressive motion and the old guy just instinctively, incorrectly, reacted

wrong choice, wrong way to handle something that should be a simple "shhhh" and get the manager situation, and yes he should be charged

my point is that its not quite the "old man randomly shoots texter in movie theater" its more of a "two guys get into a fight/argument at a theatre, and one goes way too far"

but yes ouze, definitely, not justified in shooting him. definitely a bad draw, and definitely a bad shooting.

I'm not trying to give you a hassle, and I hope it didn't come across that way. I just want to make sure we establish, since "Stand your ground" laws already came up and they're little understood (I don't mean you, just in general) , that there is still a legal justification required for lethal force, you can't just blast someone and say "I felt threatened".


"Duty to retreat" is crap but the alternative isn't a free pass either. Not that this has any bearing on what happened here, just rebutting what came up earlier.

 Ouze wrote:
I'm not trying to give you a hassle, and I hope it didn't come across that way. I just want to make sure we establish, since "Stand your ground" laws already came up and they're little understood (I don't mean you, just in general) , that there is still a legal justification required for lethal force, you can't just blast someone and say "I felt threatened".


"Duty to retreat" is crap but the alternative isn't a free pass either. Not that this has any bearing on what happened here, just rebutting what came up earlier.

Ya mean we can't ever do this?

Seriously, no Firefly quote.

Noone?

:(

 Ouze wrote:
I'm not trying to give you a hassle, and I hope it didn't come across that way. I just want to make sure we establish, since "Stand your ground" laws already came up and they're little understood (I don't mean you, just in general) , that there is still a legal justification required for lethal force, you can't just blast someone and say "I felt threatened".


"Duty to retreat" is crap but the alternative isn't a free pass either. Not that this has any bearing on what happened here, just rebutting what came up earlier.

no worries, I agree with everything you said above,

Watched the news during dinner. String the cop up by his genitals. Gettin pissed at a guy for texting during previews is ridiculous, the younger guy rightfully got upset at the cop's actions. And of course the cop shoots him and claims he was threatened-of course you were, you ass! You got pissed over nothing. Scumbag. I hope you rot for depriving a young kid of his/her dad over a text in a theater. Drop dead you old bastard.

 Ouze wrote:
Never bring popcorn to a gunfight.


Is there a lawful basis for dueling in Texas? I presume not but I imagine I could be surprised. If so, at least there would still be one scrap of dignity and honor remaining in these craven times.

1. This event was in Florida, not Texas.
2. Dueling is no longer permitted in Texas.
3. However, women do have the "he needed killing your honor" defense.

 Frazzled wrote:
1. This event was in Florida, not Texas.

I know, my post was in response to someone else who asked about dueling in Texas. It seems like the only state where it could possibly be legal.

 Ouze wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
1. This event was in Florida, not Texas.

I know, my post was in response to someone else who asked about dueling in Texas. It seems like the only state where it could possibly be legal.

lol, My Bad... I honestly thought this took place in Texas. I should really pay more attention to whats on the TV when not really watching it at the chow hall

 TheMeanDM wrote:
$100 says "stand your ground" is his defense.

And gun rights activists would have held this man up as the pinnacle of responsible gun owners.

One of the things posted to not bring into the theater: weapons.

I have a feeling most sane gun rights people would not go that way. That said, every group has it's crazies. I'm sure someone out there is preparing a spin where the texter was clearly reaching for some C4 strapped to his chest that the cellphone would activate before the old man put him down, as the star spangled banner played in the background as Abraham Lincoln and George Washington kicked Osama bin Laden in the balls in the afterlife.

Something must have snapped inside this 71 year old man's head to make him shoot a guy over texting. It's not like having popcorn thrown at you is assault with a deadly weapon.

My money is he was on some sort of new medicine (because, you know, 71) and nobody thought to read the warning labels that the med MIGHT make you violent, prone to outbursts, etc. They put that stuff on the labels for a reason.

I guess we'll see when more details come to the surface.

Na he was probably rockin a hoody while texting...... What to soon?

Dakka OT really is where funny comes to die.

Oh I don't know. It seems pretty funny to me...

 Easy E wrote:
This guy was from an era of policing when he should have known better. He should have beat him with his billy club instead of shooting him.

Or at least had a drop gun he could put by the guy

I find texting during movies, even the previews (which are one of my favorite parts) to be obnoxious. I've often day dreamed about solutions to the problem.

I usually end up at ejector seats rather than shooting folks.

In any case, a damn shame, but replace movie theatre dispute with parking spot or dry cleaning dispute and you'd see that this sort of thing can happen anywhere.

 Ouze wrote:

 easysauce wrote:
definetly seems like we are getting one side to the story however, seems to be downplaying a sudden, threatening motion from someone who was getting verbally agressive, who was much younger and presumably more physically intimidating then the senior citizen

While I agree that there is likely more to the story, what you have posted here is not reasonable grounds for the use of lethal force in Florida. I'm not seeing a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm that the law requires.

It seems like the old guy was looking for trouble. From what I've read, there was an earlier incident where he followed a lady to the bathroom because she was texting.

71 year old? What is there left to defend yourself against at that point? Your dignity? The dust in your wallet from your dried up pension? You'd be better off laying on the ground face down than attempting to use a firearm at that age.

He was texting during the previews. Texting. Not talking, texting, during the previews of a matinee.

This story is beyond ridiculous.

Hmm... Semms like a bit of an over reaction to me, but im not going to pass comment.

Its the victims fault after all, if only he had been carrying a gun....

 MrMoustaffa wrote:

 TheMeanDM wrote:
$100 says "stand your ground" is his defense.

And gun rights activists would have held this man up as the pinnacle of responsible gun owners.

One of the things posted to not bring into the theater: weapons.

I have a feeling most sane gun rights people would not go that way. That said, every group has it's crazies. I'm sure someone out there is preparing a spin where the texter was clearly reaching for some C4 strapped to his chest that the cellphone would activate before the old man put him down, as the star spangled banner played in the background as Abraham Lincoln and George Washington kicked Osama bin Laden in the balls in the afterlife.

Something must have snapped inside this 71 year old man's head to make him shoot a guy over texting. It's not like having popcorn thrown at you is assault with a deadly weapon.

My money is he was on some sort of new medicine (because, you know, 71) and nobody thought to read the warning labels that the med MIGHT make you violent, prone to outbursts, etc. They put that stuff on the labels for a reason.

I guess we'll see when more details come to the surface.

No one on the CC sites are defending the guy. Most are bemoaning how the anti gunners are going to use this against them. A few have posited the only defense is if there's more to the story and the guy was actually setting up to attack the cop.

Interestingly, the theater was another gun free zone. So to close the loop-Thanks Obama! Now the circle is complete.

 Ouze wrote:
I'm not trying to give you a hassle, and I hope it didn't come across that way. I just want to make sure we establish, since "Stand your ground" laws already came up and they're little understood (I don't mean you, just in general) , that there is still a legal justification required for lethal force, you can't just blast someone and say "I felt threatened".


"Duty to retreat" is crap but the alternative isn't a free pass either. Not that this has any bearing on what happened here, just rebutting what came up earlier.

Perhaps a combination of the two? Duty to retreat should never be applied within your own home or property, but in the public sphere maybe a limited duty to disengage (previously dependent on factors such as imminent threat, weapon being wielded by the other party, number of assailants)

Looks like psycho ex cop, is a well nutjob ex cop with a history of bugging people.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/15/justice/florida-movie-theater-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Interestingly, the lack of access to legal guns has caused an explosion of crime in the UK.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-24626158

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-20984368

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Interestingly, the lack of access to legal guns has caused an explosion of crime in the UK.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-24626158

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-20984368

So will criminals now resort to dueling instead of drive bys to resolve disputes?

They will have to duel with pillows.

 gunslingerpro wrote:
I find texting during movies, even the previews (which are one of my favorite parts) to be obnoxious. I've often day dreamed about solutions to the problem.

I usually end up at ejector seats rather than shooting folks.

In any case, a damn shame, but replace movie theatre dispute with parking spot or dry cleaning dispute and you'd see that this sort of thing can happen anywhere.

I dream about making a cellphone App that activates a cell phone jammer built into my phone that jams Cellphone signals in a 50 foot radius.