Retired police officer kills fellow movie-goer over texting dispute

[Brooklyn]

It's a little concerning that we are some how debating if this was a good shoot or not. They old man had ample opportunity to remove himself from the "threat". Drawing a firearm over textimg and popcorn isn't a great argument for the valors of SYG.

This isn't about the vast gray area between DTR and SYG, its about what should be common sense while armed in public. Was the original aggressor wrong, yes. Is gunshots a rational response to popcorn being thrown? I'm gonna say no.

My hunch says he's going away.

Most likely ... But the defense has nothing to do with popcorn-- was it reasonable to think that the phone and the popcorn was a precursor to a more lethal attack? that's the question.. and I have doubts that he can prove it was -- but its the state that has the burden.

Without SYG the accused has the burden.

Now he should never have risked a confrontation by stating -- at best he was in cop mode -- not citizen mode.. and that's going to be a real problem.

Don't be there when it goes bad -- leave before ..

 

[Kman]

Most likely ... But the defense has nothing to do with popcorn-- was it reasonable to think that the phone and the popcorn was a precursor to a more lethal attack? that's the question.. and I have doubts that he can prove it was -- but its the state that has the burden.

Without SYG the accused has the burden.

Now he should never have risked a confrontation by stating -- at best he was in cop mode -- not citizen mode.. and that's going to be a real problem.

Don't be there when it goes bad -- leave before ..

Good Lord....if this was the case, I would have been justified for killing hundreds of people for comparable "threats" in the last 30 years.

 

[Brooklyn]

Good Lord....if this was the case, I would have been justified for killing hundreds of people for comparable "threats" in the last 30 years.

No it means the state has the burden of proof. Like it always does. Did you miss that part of my statement?


Take a good look at police "good shoot rulings" over the years.. you will find lots of "good shoot " rulings based on nothing more than the failure to prove wrong doing. Perhaps you mean the police should be also be forced to prove that they were justified. When that happens we can discuss who has the burden of proof... even in self defense cases..


See the best way to get way with murder is to dump the body and run --- not stick around and mount an affirmative defense.


Now my bet is that the state will met its burden. But my duty as a juror is to ensure that they do and the job of the defense is to introduce reasonable doubt -- so far all is working as it should..

Were is my error ?

 

[gamer_jim]

Good quote here on Defensive Forums about Jeff Cooper's book:

http://www.defensivecarry.com/forum...frontations-while-carrying-3.html#post1205886

You can never cause a situation to escalate, because you know that deadly force can be introduced into any confrontation.

and on the same forum good discussion about avoidance, deterrence, and de-escalation:

http://www.defensivecarry.com/forum...97038-avoidance-deterrence-de-escalation.html

 

[Ab_Normal]

No it means the state has the burden of proof. Like it always does. Did you miss that part of my statement?


Take a good look at police "good shoot rulings" over the years.. you will find lots of "good shoot " rulings based on nothing more than the failure to prove wrong doing. Perhaps you mean the police should be also be forced to prove that they were justified. When that happens we can discuss who has the burden of proof... even in self defense cases..


See the best way to get way with murder is to dump the body and run --- not stick around and mount an affirmative defense.


Now my bet is that the state will met its burden. But my duty as a juror is to ensure that they do and the job of the defense is to introduce reasonable doubt -- so far all is working as it should..

Were is my error ?

What ever happened to the case a couple years ago where the one police officer said to the other one 'I got your back' or something like that after the other just shot an innocent/the wrong person?

Do you really expect the TBL to get crossed in a lot of those instances?

 

[ThawMyTongue]

Good Lord....if this was the case, I would have been justified for killing hundreds of people for comparable "threats" in the last 30 years.

This!

I was at a viewing of a Lawrence Martin movie in downtown Indianapolis years ago where I guess I would have needed a mini-gun and RPGs...

 

[Kman]

No it means the state has the burden of proof. Like it always does. Did you miss that part of my statement?


Take a good look at police "good shoot rulings" over the years.. you will find lots of "good shoot " rulings based on nothing more than the failure to prove wrong doing. Perhaps you mean the police should be also be forced to prove that they were justified. When that happens we can discuss who has the burden of proof... even in self defense cases..


See the best way to get way with murder is to dump the body and run --- not stick around and mount an affirmative defense.


Now my bet is that the state will met its burden. But my duty as a juror is to ensure that they do and the job of the defense is to introduce reasonable doubt -- so far all is working as it should..

Were is my error ?

Calm down. Didn't miss anything, that's why I highlighted the single portion I commented on. I wasn't indicating you were wrong or at fault for anything.

It was the thought that anyone could believe that throwing popcorn could be perceived as a precursor to deadly threat. I'm sure most people have been disrespected in a more serious manner without killing someone over it. I know I have.

 

[Brooklyn]

What ever happened to the case a couple years ago where the one police officer said to the other one 'I got your back' or something like that after the other just shot an innocent/the wrong person?

Do you really expect the TBL to get crossed in a lot of those instances?

Presumption of innocence is a bitch -- it grantees that the guilty are often not punished in exchange for reducing the chance of an innocent being wrongfully convicted.. It is literally a Faustian bargain.

Before we toss such a 'bad ' solution to such a insolvable problem we may want to review a few thousand years of precedent before doing so. Free free to revisit the question -- but please consider how we came to this bargain and why ..

 

[Brooklyn]

Calm down. Didn't miss anything, that's why I highlighted the single portion I commented on. I wasn't indicating you were wrong or at fault for anything.

It was the thought that anyone could believe that throwing popcorn could be perceived as a precursor to deadly threat. I'm sure most people have been disrespected in a more serious manner without killing someone over it. I know I have.

Got it.. and we agree. but I was not there and we do not know what was said...

And I am not upset.. I just like the record clear on these matters...

 

[Ab_Normal]

Presumption of innocence is a bitch -- it grantees that the guilty are often not punished in exchange for reducing the chance of an innocent being wrongfully convicted.. It is literally a Faustian bargain.

Before we toss such a 'bad ' solution to such a insolvable problem we may want to review a few thousand years of precedent before doing so. Free free to revisit the question -- but please consider how we came to this bargain and why ..

I agree in some aspects but the situation clearly lends to the notion that some people are more equal than others. It even extends to dogs to the extent that shooting a police K9 is the equivalent of shooting a police officer yet a police officer shooting a pet is like shooting their 'couch' - as another member posted.

 

[Straightshooter]

Before we build the gallows there are more questions that need to be answered. He's at an age where mental health issues such as dementia and Alzheimer's tend to arise. Did this play a part on his action?

 

[Kman]

Before we build the gallows there are more questions that need to be answered. He's at an age where mental health issues such as dementia and Alzheimer's tend to arise. Did this play a part on his action?

Good point. Recipe for trouble. Bad attitude(s), carrying a handgun where not allowed to carry in movie theater, texter, popcorn, dementia and now we get to see this play out in court.

edit: Say a prayer. Taking my son to the movies this afternoon. No phone, no popcorn, no CCW, no kevlar.

 

[Benanov]

Before we build the gallows there are more questions that need to be answered. He's at an age where mental health issues such as dementia and Alzheimer's tend to arise. Did this play a part on his action?

That is a distinct possibility - however things like Sundowning tend to be more common in the middle stages. We'll have to wait and see. "This can happen" is not very useful when you're dealing with a specific case of "how did this happen"

I wonder if Alzheimer's or Severe Dementia will be a reason to not proceed in NICS in a few years.

 

[MikeTF]

We weren't there. The video is only one side of the story. We don't know the words that were exchanged, the body language, how the other person was dressed (i.e. they appeared to be concealed carrying), if there were any specific threats made, etc. etc.

The world would be a whole lot more polite if people thought for a second, 'I might loose my life if I throw popcorn, spit, punch, or posture like a neanderthal.' In other words, if people realized their mortality, they might consider civil behavior a method of self preservation. There's a reason why we wave, shake hands, and smile at one another: to avoid confrontations.

In today's culture, everyone thinks they're a bad ass. These guys were going to watch a bad ass movie 'Sole Survivor'. Two people who thought they were bad asses thought they could out bad ass one another. They both lose. One is dead. The other will spend a lot of time and money trying to avoid prison.

It's time we bring back etiquette: turn off your cell phone, and if someone politely asks you too, apologize and do so or go outside to use it. It might save your life.

 

[Ab_Normal]

We weren't there. The video is only one side of the story. We don't know the words that were exchanged, the body language, how the other person was dressed (i.e. they appeared to be concealed carrying), if there were any specific threats made, etc. etc.

The world would be a whole lot more polite if people thought for a second, 'I might loose my life if I throw popcorn, spit, punch, or posture like a neanderthal.' In other words, if people realized their mortality, they might consider civil behavior a method of self preservation. There's a reason why we wave, shake hands, and smile at one another: to avoid confrontations.

In today's culture, everyone thinks they're a bad ass. These guys were going to watch a bad ass movie 'Sole Survivor'. Two people who thought they were bad asses thought they could out bad ass one another. They both lose. One is dead. The other will spend a lot of time and money trying to avoid prison.

It's time we bring back etiquette: turn off your cell phone, and if someone politely asks you too, apologize and do so or go outside to use it. It might save your life.

Them's fightin' words!

 

[fabsroman]

So at what point would "you" pull your firearm? When the aggressor grabbed the popcorn? When aggressor threw the popcorn back in your face? When you were punched in the face? Of course the punch in the face didn't happen because the aggressor what stopped prior to that opportunity presenting itself.

We have the benefit of knowing the aggressor was stopped after throwing the popcorn but in real time nobody other than the aggressor knew how far the aggressor was willing to take this. His wife even attempted to restrain him (which could have looked like another aggressor to the shooter). Why did his wife need to physically restrain her husband? Does he have anger issues only she knows about? Has she seen this behavior before?

What would I have done? Moved seats without saying a word and if I was still distracted I would have left the theater. Sure, I have the right to be there so the person breaking the rules "wins" but my life isn't changed forever either. I say breaking the rules because the last few movies I've been to the '"Turn cellphones off" message is played before they dim the lights and am making an assumption that is a movie theater standard.

Will the shooter go to jail? Yep- but not because of not moving, not because of the shooting but because of his big mouth.

What would I have done? Probably moved seats, taken video of what the guy was doing, thereby breaking the rules too, and then getting management involved. Not to mention I already broke the rules by bringing a firearm into the theater. Then again, I probably would have realized that somebody texting in a movie theater isn't the end of the world and worth an elevated blood pressure level over.

Thing is, I think the person with a firearm shouldn't be looking for a fight, but trying to avoid one. Hard for me to swallow that if I get into a verbal argument with a person, it would be fine and dandy for that person to shoot me dead because he was "scared for his life" which anybody can say after the fact when they are the only one standing. I am having a hard time seeing any verbal confrontation between me and another person resulting in gun fire like what happened in this theater. Sometimes, you have to look at it from both sides. A man died and left behind his wife and 2 year old daughter because he threw popcorn at another guy. Granted, he never should have thrown the popcorn, but throwing popcorn or any food should NEVER result in somebody dying.

End of the day, the judge listened to over 8 hours of testimony on this matter, saw the video, and decided that the defendant would be held without bail.

 

[wilcam47]

dunno...but it seems excessive to me. personally I would have kicked the dude down the row of seats before shooting him if it got that that point...I wonder if the seats in the upper row were blocked off or something? Easy solution is to move.

 

[PJDiesel]

Theater looks pretty empty to me.

 

[Indiana Jones]

No it means the state has the burden of proof. Like it always does. Did you miss that part of my statement?


Take a good look at police "good shoot rulings" over the years.. you will find lots of "good shoot " rulings based on nothing more than the failure to prove wrong doing. Perhaps you mean the police should be also be forced to prove that they were justified. When that happens we can discuss who has the burden of proof... even in self defense cases..


See the best way to get way with murder is to dump the body and run --- not stick around and mount an affirmative defense.


Now my bet is that the state will met its burden. But my duty as a juror is to ensure that they do and the job of the defense is to introduce reasonable doubt -- so far all is working as it should..

Were is my error ?

What does this shooting have to do with police? It was an old man who was assaulted. Remember treyvons camp said george shoulda waited til he was beaten worse to shoot? Rather hypocritical. This guy was a cop what 20 years ago? What if he was a clerk? Or a fireman? Or a gay porn star? Doesnt matter. Its called grasping at straws and it is what the anti gun LEFT does.

 

[wilcam47]

What does this shooting have to do with police? It was an old man who was assaulted. Remember treyvons camp said george shoulda waited til he was beaten worse to shoot? Rather hypocritical. This guy was a cop what 20 years ago? What if he was a clerk? Or a fireman? Or a gay porn star? Doesnt matter. Its called grasping at straws and it is what the anti gun LEFT does.

I agree what difference does it make...but
Its what media uses to draw attention to their headline...giving fuel to the anti's.