Texting, then assulting ex cop, during movie equals death.

[fatkrakr]

So because I don't agree with you I don't know what Im talking about and a troll. That's the funniest thing I have read in a long time. The law doesn't say the person needs to use deadly force just that the victim needs to fear for his life. If you dont think the old man had anything to fear from the guy your nuts. As I said before the old man had every reason and right to believe the assault wasn't going to stop at the popcorn. I know I sure would of expected that to be just the beginning of the fight.

 

[Northstar]

law doesn't say the person needs to use deadly force just that the victim needs to fear for his life.

This is what Florida's self-defense laws say.

(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

At the point of the shooting I really don't think there was a risk of great bodily harm, not to mention death.

If you dont think the old man had anything to fear from the guy your nuts.

Of course he had something to fear, but again, he went for the nuclear option before trying anything else, that is what the court is going to look at.

As I said before the old man had every reason and right to believe the assault wasn't going to stop at the popcorn. I know I sure would of expected that to be just the beginning of the fight.

He is going to have a hell of a time proving it considering he shot the guy before the popcorn hit the ground...

 

[Grayfox]

So.

If an old man sees a bunch of goth/punk looking teens can is scared by them can he just pull out his gun and go BANG?



If your driving and you see a pack of sport bike riders can you stop and kill every single one cause you fear they will do the same crap as the idiots did in New York?

 

[Danoff]

So because I don't agree with you I don't know what Im talking about and a troll. That's the funniest thing I have read in a long time. The law doesn't say the person needs to use deadly force just that the victim needs to fear for his life. If you dont think the old man had anything to fear from the guy your nuts. As I said before the old man had every reason and right to believe the assault wasn't going to stop at the popcorn. I know I sure would of expected that to be just the beginning of the fight.

No, it's not that you're a troll because you don't agree with me. You're a troll because you're sloppy with your arguments and draw conclusions that aren't supported, and I think you may be doing it on purpose.

 

[ImToLegitToQuit]

After being hit by the "unknown object" he was able to still see and shoot the other guy in a dark movie theater. he was hardly in danger and took advantage of his right to bear arms. He made the wrong decision and endangered the lives of everyone else in that theater. What if he had missed ? he deserves to go to jail. two bad decisions were made, only one ended someones life. A proper gun owner with a CHL knows when to pull a gun. Shooting in the dark at a texter is not that time. end of story

 

[fatkrakr]

This is what Florida's self-defense laws say.


At the point of the shooting I really don't think there was a risk of great bodily harm, not to mention death.



Of course he had something to fear, but again, he went for the nuclear option before trying anything else, that is what the court is going to look at.



He is going to have a hell of a time proving it considering he shot the guy before the popcorn hit the ground...

The part you have in bold print is exactly the point I am making. It was perfectly reasonable for the old man to believe he was in for great bodily harm. The guy was half his age. The old man had no way to physically defend himself.

No, it's not that you're a troll because you don't agree with me. You're a troll because you're sloppy with your arguments and draw conclusions that aren't supported, and I think you may be doing it on purpose.

What conclusion aren't supported and for that matter what supports your side of the argument. The Florida law has been posted for your reading pleasure. Maybe you should take a minute and read it.

 

[Northstar]

believe he was in for great bodily harm.

Show me, because I'm not seeing the great bodily harm. And no, not knowing what he is going to do is not enough.

The guy was half his age. The old man had no way to physically defend himself.

Both him and his wife have hands and feet, which means that they did have a way to physically defend themselves. Hell, just drawing his gun and not firing probably would have been enough(it usually is).

What conclusion aren't supported and for that matter what supports your side of the argument. The Florida law has been posted for your reading pleasure. Maybe you should take a minute and read it.

Maybe you should as well.

 

[fatkrakr]

I have read it and what the old man did was completely legal under the law. Maybe you or myself wouldn't see any great bodily harm in the situation, but its completely reasonable for a senior citizen to fear great bodily harm in the same situation.

 

[Grayfox]

You're misinterpreting the law

 

[ImToLegitToQuit]

I have read it and what the old man did was completely legal under the law. Maybe you or myself wouldn't see any great bodily harm in the situation, but its completely reasonable for a senior citizen to fear great bodily harm in the same situation.

there's always a grey area surrounding these types of killings. George Zimmerman was found not guilty because he had wounds to prove self defense. This guy has no bruises, scrapes, or cuts. he was not assaulted. the texter would not have been arrested if the police were called. the shooter was not scared, he was mad. that's why he should face the consequences.

As I said earlier, if he could still see and shoot a man in the dark, in a room full of other people, after being hit in the head with something, then he was in no imminent danger. I'm almost certain as this gets investigated he will be found accountable.

 

[fatkrakr]

You're misinterpreting the law

No Im not, its written right there. Whats in question here is weather or not the old man had reason to fear great bodily harm. I tend to believe it was within reason and you do not.

there's always a grey area surrounding these types of killings. George Zimmerman was found not guilty because he had wounds to prove self defense. This guy has no bruises, scrapes, or cuts. he was not assaulted. the texter would not have been arrested if the police were called. the shooter was not scared, he was mad. that's why he should face the consequences.

As I said earlier, if he could still see and shoot a man in the dark, in a room full of other people, after being hit in the head with something, then he was in no imminent danger. I'm almost certain as this gets investigated he will be found accountable.

That's assuming the younger guy was going to do nothing else after he threw the popcorn. I don't believe that was going to be the end of it. Obviously the old man didn't believe it was going to end there either.

 

[Blitz24]

I have read it and what the old man did was completely legal under the law. Maybe you or myself wouldn't see any great bodily harm in the situation, but its completely reasonable for a senior citizen to fear great bodily harm in the same situation.

If it was so reasonable he wouldn't be in court facing murder charges for recklessly using his weapon.

 

[fatkrakr]

If it was so reasonable he wouldn't be in court facing murder charges for recklessly using his weapon.

Yeah because innocent people are never charged with crimes they didn't commit.

 

[Blitz24]

Yeah because innocent people are never charged with crimes they didn't commit.

He isn't innocent. Not even in the slightest. If he had actually be hit with anything OTHER than a bag of popcorn (like a knife, a bullet... etc) he would have been justified to retaliate to some degree. Shooting a gun is not a justifiable retaliation. Age is irrelevant in this situation because if it were a factor then its even more reason why he shouldn't have a weapon.

 

[fatkrakr]

That's your opinion and has nothing to do with the law. What he did was legal under the law.

 

[ImToLegitToQuit]

That's assuming the younger guy was going to do nothing else after he threw the popcorn. I don't believe that was going to be the end of it. Obviously the old man didn't believe it was going to end there either.

Shooting someone because of an assumption is not legal, much less right. you aren't allowed to shoot everyone that you assume is going to hurt you. you keep basing your argument on possible or assumed bodily harm. I don't think those words are in the laws that you posted above.

 

[Blitz24]

Makes sense. If you feel threatened even by something that isn't a threat under any conceivable means, but you perceive as a threat, you can go shoot the person who you feel is threatening you. Apparently that's the new law.

 

[ImToLegitToQuit]

using your understanding of the law fatkrakr, anyone who says that they are going to punch you can be killed out of fear for your safety. Sounds like there should be millions of people dead because they had a few to many to drink in your view of whats right and wrong.

 

[fatkrakr]

The facts are the facts. The younger guy assaulted the older guy. Weather you like it or not what he done was assault. The question is weather or not there was reason to fear harm. The old guy had the right and was within reason to assume the situation was not going to end with the popcorn and the younger man was going to continue to assault him.

 

[ImToLegitToQuit]

The facts are the facts. The younger guy assaulted the older guy. Weather you like it or not what he done was assault. The question is weather or not there was reason to fear harm. The old guy had the right and was within reason to assume the situation was not going to end with the popcorn and the younger man was going to continue to assault him.

im sure the courts will disagree. i have another question for you though. if everyone in the theater had a gun and they all shot eachother because they all felt that the gunman before them might shoot them too and everyone is dead, does that mean everyone was in the right and that situation was handled properly ?

 

[Blitz24]

im sure the courts will disagree. i have another question for you though. if everyone in the theater had a gun and they all shot eachother because they all felt that the gunman before them might shoot them too and everyone is dead, does that mean everyone was in the right and that situation was handled properly ?

Based on the theory used. Yes it does mean they were in the right but the situation wasn't handled properly.

 

[fatkrakr]

Ok Im done here. All you guys can come up with now is stupid hypotheticals that have absolutely nothing to do with the case. Just remember the question is weather or not it was reasonable for the old man to fear for his safety.

 

[Blitz24]

Ok Im done here. All you guys can come up with now is stupid hypotheticals that have absolutely nothing to do with the case. Just remember the question is weather or not it was reasonable for the old man to fear for his safety.

As is what you are doing. Shooting at a man and his wife for texting after being "assaulted" by a bag of popcorn is definitely an overreaction. He would have been better off taking the gun out and threatening him (if he was going to be taking out the gun regardless). Either way once he removed the gun from it's holder and pointed it at the other man he was going to face criminal charges.

 

[ImToLegitToQuit]

then it would be reasonable for someone else to shoot the old man because he was in a theater shooting people. therefore under your criteria given, the situation would have been handled appropriately. i'm just trying to get you to understand that a man does not deserve to get shot to death for throwing popcorn. that is freaking ridiculous for someone to think that situation was the right outcome. I hope for the public's safety that you are not a gun owner but unfortunately based on your views, you probably are.

As is what you are doing. Shooting at a man and his wife for texting after being "assaulted" by a bag of popcorn is definitely an overreaction. He would have been better off taking the gun out and threatening him (if he was going to be taking out the gun regardless). Either way once he removed the gun from it's holder and pointed it at the other man he was going to face criminal charges.

i even have to disagree with you here blitz, it is never ok to pull out a gun in a crowded theater unless someone else is already shooting people. there are way too many uncontrollable factors that a responsible gun owner would recognize. That room is full of bystanders. you remove yourself from the situation. management would have removed the texter for throwing popcorn and you then enjoy the rest of the movie. now one man is dead and the other life is probably over.

FATKRAKR, you are an idiot to think that popcorn throwing is assault and that shooting someone because you think something else might happen is ok. had the texter physically hit him, or pulled a weapon of his own then this would be a completely different story.

 

[fatkrakr]

Your an idiot if you think the younger guy was just going to throw the popcorn. Its not the act of throwing the popcorn, but how he threw it. The younger guy was trying to hurt the older man. If he wasn't trying to hurt the old man and just shut him up he could of tossed it from his seat. He didn't he got up stood over the man and side armed as hard as he could in to his face from a foot away. Again he was trying to hurt the old guy and got his self shot for it.

 

[ImToLegitToQuit]

Your an idiot if you think the younger guy was just going to throw the popcorn. Its not the act of throwing the popcorn, but how he threw it. The younger guy was trying to hurt the older man. If he wasn't trying to hurt the old man and just shut him up he could of tossed it from his seat. He didn't he got up stood over the man and side armed as hard as he could in to his face from a foot away. Again he was trying to hurt the old guy and got his self shot for it.

hahahahahaahahahahahahahahaha do you really think that if he was trying to hurt the man he would have used popcorn ?!?!?! if his intent was to hurt the man, after getting up and walking over to him, he would have used his fists or a weapon. please try using some common sense. i'm not trying to say he was in the right. he acted like a child, did he deserve to die for it though ?

 

[fatkrakr]

hahahahahaha yeap.

 

[Grayfox]

I am thinking of so many things to say to you fatkrakr but they are all against the AUP, so I wont.

How old are you.

I am thinking under the voting/drinking age perhaps even legal driving age because you do not seem to be grasping the reality of the situation.

 

[fatkrakr]

Yeah this threads dead. Now all you guys got are insults.

 

[Grayfox]

Yeah this threads dead. Now all you guys got are insults.

Thread is far from dead as the case against the old man is still on going.

Last part may need editing as it doesn't make much sense grammatically.