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

[Grayfox]

Age makes all the difference in this case. What was the 70 year old to do?.

The old man could have ignored him from the start instead of barking orders like a cop.

Witnesses say he was on the phone before the movie started.
When he was told I am checking on the baby sitter he could have been smart.

The fact that he did this means he still thought he was a cop on a power trip.

 

[fatkrakr]

I agree the whole thing got out of control, but the guy who was shoot brought it all on himself. There was no need for him to get up, but when he did he changed the situation from a verbal argument to a physical confrontation. You can say what you want , but if you don't think youd be scared for your life in the old mans situation your lying to yourself. There was a bigger stronger younger man standing over him assaulting him.

 

[Grayfox]

Well the old man started by barking orders at a younger man.

Would you go marching into a bikie bar and start giving out orders, no cause you know what will happen to you.

 

[subsist]

Exactly.

Doesn't matter either way. You do not assult other people....period. There is no right or wrong way to assult someone. If you assult someone you have a VERY high chance of death.

This is everything wrong with American gun culture. You believe you have the right to take a life because someone attacked you?

And not just take a life, but use a gun to do it? That is so cowardly no wonder America is in such Dire Straights when it comes to guns and their culture.

Most the world does not behave like this, this is exclusive to nearly one country in the world. When that happens, you know something is wrong.

 

[fatkrakr]

You say he was barking orders like a cop. None of the witness said he was barking orders. Just that he wanted him to put his phone away.

No I wouldn't go in a bar and start giving orders, just like I wouldn't get up and assult someone who asked me to put my phone away.

 

[fatkrakr]

This is everything wrong with American gun culture. You believe you have the right to take a life because someone attacked you?

Damn skippy. Don't want to be shot don't assult people.

 

[niky]

Damn skippy. Don't want to be shot don't assult people.

I'm pretty sure most people would agree: Throwing popcorn doesn't classify as assault.

The man overstepped his boundaries. And his actions directly after the crime reflect that he knew that.

The obverse is also true. Don't want to get "assaulted", don't start a fight with someone.

But when you do plead guilty you may get a lesser sentence, as your not wasting time.

Why would he plead to murder in the absence of intent?

This is the sticky situation: He is guilty of killing someone, yes.

But did he want to kill the person? That is the question.

 

[Danoff]

@fatkrakr

Throwing popcorn and puffing your chest is not assault. The courts will validate that when they convict the murderer.

 

[fatkrakr]

Not assult my rear. What would you call it sharing?

 

[Grayfox]

You say he was barking orders like a cop. None of the witness said he was barking orders. Just that he wanted him to put his phone away.

No I wouldn't go in a bar and start giving orders, just like I wouldn't get up and assault someone who asked me to put my phone away.

He told the guy he was checking a message, the guy kept yelling at him to put the phone away.

Sounds like order barking
And since he was a cop he was use to people following his orders.

 

[Kent]

This is the sticky situation: He is guilty of killing someone, yes.

But did he want to kill the person? That is the question.

Btw, that's why courts use the term "not guilty" instead of "innocent."

If throwing popcorn started a fight that escalated into a shooting the shooter is at fault. Popcorn is no where near being a deadly weapon (without a ton of salt and butter) and the fight to follow is unnecessary considering how small the offense (popcorn throwing) really is in the grand scheme.

Time to pay the piper imho.

 

[fatkrakr]

@fatkrakr

Throwing popcorn and puffing your chest is not assault. The courts will validate that when they convict the murderer.

Maybe you should read this before you say its not assult. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Assault

 

[playnthru]

Not assult my rear. What would you call it sharing?

Back in my day we called it a food fight.

Maybe you should read this before you say its not assult. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Assault

Maybe you should read what you posted. In zero way could popcorn be considered aggravated assault. That's what would be needed for this to be self defense.

Yes..There're many kinds of assault, true. But you can't claim self defense unless your life is in danger, real danger... Not falsely perceived danger biased on should have, would have, could have.

Read the law instead of arguing pointlessly please.

 

[Grayfox]

Maybe you should read this before you say its not assult. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Assault

Assault
At Common Law, an intentional act by one person that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent harmful or offensive contact.

Throwing popcorn is neither harmful nor offensive.

 

[fatkrakr]

I think you all need to reread it. He most certainly did create apprehension in another of an harmful or offensive contact. He got himself shoot for causing such apprehension.

 

[Grayfox]

You may need to brush up on what assault really is.

If you tell someone to shut the F up, that can be considered assault & does that mean you can be shoot the person you spoke to like that.

As it is both offensive to you an you feel that your in harm when he said it?

 

[fatkrakr]

You may need to brush up on what assault really is.

If you tell someone to shut the F up, that can be considered assault does that mean you can shoot the person that spoke like that.

As it is both offensive to you an you feel that your in harm when he said it?

Of course not, but he didn't just leave it at words did he? Nope he got up, went over to where the other guy was sitting and turned it into a physical assault.

 

[Grayfox]

Physical Assault:
Physical assault takes place when an individual or a group provokes and attacks a person physically, with or without the use of a weapon, or threatens to hurt that person.

Popcorn is not a weapon.
Popcorn can not really hurt someone.

 

[fatkrakr]

Physical Assault:
provokes and attacks a person physically, with or without the use of a weapon, or threatens to hurt that person.

Exactly my point. When someone hits you with something the way he did there was only one intent. The old man had every reason and right to believe that the man wasn't just going to stop at the popcorn.

 

[Danoff]

I think you all need to reread it. He most certainly did create apprehension in another of an harmful or offensive contact. He got himself shoot for causing such apprehension.

1) Throwing popcorn is no more assault than throwing a snowball or water balloon. So, no friggin way.
2) Even if it was assault you're not allowed to just shoot the guy. The term is "deadly force".

The guy is a murderer and he will be sentenced.

 

[fatkrakr]

1) Throwing popcorn is no more assault than throwing a snowball or water balloon. So, no friggin way.
2) Even if it was assault you're not allowed to just shoot the guy. The term is "deadly force".

The guy is a murderer and he will be sentenced.

Again you need to do some reading because both CAN be considered assault. As far as not allowed to shoot Im not so sure about that. Florida has a law that if you assault someone over 65 it is an automatic felony. So it would depend on exactly what that charge is.

You might hope he will be sentenced, but there is noway of saying if he will or not.

 

[Grayfox]

Even if you say it assault it is not assault with a deadly weapon.
There for you can not legally kill them.

Or is a gun just a toy to some Americans and they do not see it as a deadly weapon?

 

[fatkrakr]

It doesn't have to be a deadly weapon. The Martin kid had no weapon and the jury still found it justified.

 

[Harry6784]

This is everything wrong with American gun culture. You believe you have the right to take a life because someone attacked you?

Except at the time you have no idea who's attacking you and what their intent is. If someone is trying to physically hurt me, I WILL draw my firearm, and if that doesn't deter the assailant, I WILL fire. Now Reeves obviously over reacted. I have no idea how he was licensed to carry a firearm. If you carry a gun you have the ability to end someone's life in a split second. As such anyone who carries has to be able to tell when to use deadly force, and despite all his 'training', he made a poor decision. Reeves is a murder and should be punished accordingly.

 

[Grayfox]

Except at the time you have no idea who's attacking you and what their intent is. If someone is trying to physically hurt me, I WILL draw my firearm, and if that doesn't deter the assailant, I WILL fire. Now Reeves obviously over reacted. I have no idea how he was licensed to carry a firearm. If you carry a gun you have the ability to end someone's life in a split second. As such anyone who carries has to be able to tell when to use deadly force, and despite all his 'training', he made a poor decision. Reeves is a murder and should be punished accordingly.

Which is why all cops, firefighters and paramedics and military should be screened when they leave the job.
They all witness crap and may be suffering from PTSD and not know.

 

[subsist]

Except at the time you have no idea who's attacking you and what their intent is. If someone is trying to physically hurt me, I WILL draw my firearm, and if that doesn't deter the assailant, I WILL fire. Now Reeves obviously over reacted. I have no idea how he was licensed to carry a firearm. If you carry a gun you have the ability to end someone's life in a split second. As such anyone who carries has to be able to tell when to use deadly force, and despite all his 'training', he made a poor decision. Reeves is a murder and should be punished accordingly.

This is the whole crux of my point. You should not even be in the position of carrying a firearm or feeling the "need" to carry one in the first place, unless you are of course a police officer or such, then it is perfectly understandable.

But the general public walking around with a weapon, concealed or not, is generally a recipe for disaster, and I think the USA has proven that over and over again.

 

[fatkrakr]

This is the whole crux of my point. You should not even be in the position of carrying a firearm or feeling the "need" to carry one in the first place, unless you are of course a police officer or such, then it is perfectly understandable.

But the general public walking around with a weapon, concealed or not, is generally a recipe for disaster, and I think the USA has proven that over and over again.

Except the real statistics don't support that THEROY. The cities in the USA with the highest crime rates also have the most restrictive gun laws and the cities with the most relaxed gun laws tend to have much lower crime rates.

 

[niky]

Of course not, but he didn't just leave it at words did he? Nope he got up, went over to where the other guy was sitting and turned it into a physical assault.

He got up, turned around (because the man was like, sitting right behind him) and threw his popcorn.

If that's considered assault worthy of a gun defense, there would be thousands less people in the world right now.

Think about it... it's the perfect break-up. Tell your wife you've got a mistress while at a restaurant, she empties her water glass in your face, you shoot her. Now you're free, no strings attached, no messy divorce.

-

The interpretation of what is an authentic cause for apprehension will lie with the judge and jury. There are many things that can cause grave apprehension, but they do not justify lethal response.

-

RE: assault of a senior citizen being a felony... first, you'd have to prove it as assault, then second, you'd have to justify carrying a firearm within a private establishment that bans the carrying of firearms.

 

[Harry6784]

This is the whole crux of my point. You should not even be in the position of carrying a firearm or feeling the "need" to carry one in the first place, unless you are of course a police officer or such, then it is perfectly understandable.

But the general public walking around with a weapon, concealed or not, is generally a recipe for disaster, and I think the USA has proven that over and over again.

Have any statistics to back that up? As of 2009, the total number of murders committed in the US by licensed concealed carry personnel are practically negligible.

You realize that in America, we don't just go around street corners handing Glocks out to people. You have to meet some pretty tight requirements just to purchase a firearm; and even more to get a concealed carry license. These are not the people who are committing crimes. Crimes are committed by criminals and they will find a way to get a gun no matter what the laws are.

 

[Danoff]

Again you need to do some reading because both CAN be considered assault.

Not criminally. No one would be prosecuted criminally under assault for throwing popcorn, snowballs or water balloons at anyone - except possibly if they were throwing it at a moving vehicle in an attempt to cause an accident, and that case doesn't apply because it's not about the throwing or the impact but an attempt to distract or blind.

As far as not allowed to shoot Im not so sure about that. Florida has a law that if you assault someone over 65 it is an automatic felony. So it would depend on exactly what that charge is.

I'm still waiting for the part where you demonstrate that the old man's life was threatened with deadly force. The Zimmerman case is a good example of how deadly force can show up without a gun, but deadly force is still needed - even in Florida.

A) It's not criminal assault - so the laws about whether it's a felony if it is criminal assault are meaningless.
B) Even if it were criminal assault (which it wasn't), deadly force was not present.

Either A or B is enough to convict the old man. Both is overkill.

You might hope he will be sentenced, but there is noway of saying if he will or not.

Everyone should hope that he will be sentenced. He murdered a guy.

This is the whole crux of my point. You should not even be in the position of carrying a firearm or feeling the "need" to carry one in the first place, unless you are of course a police officer or such, then it is perfectly understandable.

But the general public walking around with a weapon, concealed or not, is generally a recipe for disaster, and I think the USA has proven that over and over again.

Don't pay attention to him, he doesn't know what he's talking about. Nothing he is saying is helping your point because nothing he is saying is actually correct. I'm still not convinced that he's not just trolling.