Results of an armed society

So talking leading to something being thrown is the retired cops fault. How about the jerk texting just move to another seat?

 

Asking someone to stop being a distraction is not "starting something", unless you are just one of those easily offended types that has out lived their usefulness anyway.

 

Exactly! You nailed it!

 

LOL, more Americans are armed every day. Yet this sort of thing is pretty rare. Funny how that works.
And the moral of the story here is don't throw things in people faces. Bad things can ensue.

 

And, if you carry(even if you were a police captain) don't get in stupid arguments. Carrying a gun comes with responsible restraint.

 

So basically don't say anything to anyone based on their reaction may be childish and violent.
Yea, that's a nice society.

 

If I had been there, I would have summoned an usher to confront the texter rather than confront him myself, and all this would have been avoided.

However, the thing that most are ignoring here is that popcorn guy left his seat and approached the shooter, I presume in a pretty provocative manner, just prior to physically assaulting him. The shooter was seated, and the popcorn guy was standing, and in his face. That was the escalation that, imo, makes an argument for the shooter. The 70yo shooter had no way to know the intention of this young aggressive guy who had just assaulted him, but it was reasonable to assume that the popcorn was not the only thing this guy had in mind.

 

What I have been saying. People don't understand that. They hate cops and hate guns. So its like a twofer for them.

 

Perhaps you can provide eye witness statements that match your post. Again, even the ex-cops wife was witnessed saying he shot him for no reason.

 

It wasn't the wife that was being assaulted. So her opinion is different. My wife and I differ on many things.

 

There is surveillance video posted earlier in this thread.

 

Don't matter, people here will always blame the person who felt they needed to defend themselves.

 

The video supports the shooter in that he was responding to an assault. The news story points to an argument over the dead guy texting in the theater that preceded the assault and the shooting. The outcome will be/has been determined by what evidence and testimony make it to court.

I know this happened in Florida, but Texas has laws about incidents like this. What is the law in Florida? I would ask Orlando Chuck. He should know the law in Florida better than any of us.

from Sec 9.31 of Texas Penal Code:

(b) The use of force against another is not justified:

(1) in response to verbal provocation alone;

(2) to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows is being made by a peace officer, or by a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, even though the arrest or search is unlawful, unless the resistance is justified under Subsection (c);

(3) if the actor consented to the exact force used or attempted by the other;

(4) if the actor provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force, unless:

(A) the actor abandons the encounter, or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely abandon the encounter; and

(B) the other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful force against the actor;

 

To me, finding fault is simple: The person who INITIATES violence is at fault. Popcorn guy initiated violence by leaving his seat and physically assaulting the shooter, resulting in his demise.

There were ample opportunity for this to have been avoided, and many of those were with the shooter. He could have quietly tolerated the rude texting. He could have summoned an usher to confront the texter. Etc. etc.etc... But once the popcorn guy left his seat and physically assaulted the shooter, then all bets were off. This could have been avoided, and the shooter shares the blame for that... however, he's not to blame for defending himself. The popcorn guy is to blame for his own demise. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

 

Exactly.

 

Just like the Travon Martin deal. It boils down to who did the first "illegal" thing.
Saying something, even if is rude. Is not illegal.

 

You willfully fail to understand.
When you instigate an encounter, such as one previously described, you do not get to claim self-defense.

 

Some feel the ex police officer instigated just by telling the guy to turn his phone off.
Some feel, like me, the other person instigated it by throwing pop corn in the ex officers face.

 

Do any of you believe that the response should have been at a level appropriate with the attack?

 

Not me, the shooter should rot in jail. As I've stated earlier, his part in this death was irresponsible for someone who carrys and was likely due to his having an authoritarian position in life.

 

The response was "at a level appropriate with the attack".

 

We don't know if the throwing of popcorn was the beginning of the attack as a distraction, or if that was going to be it.
We also have to take into account the age disparity.

 

Not in our or the UK's courts it would not be and I would suggest not in many USA courts

 

Then how is this different from black kids shooting other black kids for "disrespecting" them?

The shooter was charged with second degree murder - someone thinks this is an inappropriate response

 

Yeah, and? So what? The lawyer plans on trying to use the stand your ground law as a legal defense - that doesn't mean it will hold up.

idk what kind of argument you think you have here. It sounds like you're saying that because someone is trying to use a law to defend themselves that means the law is wrong. ^_- Someone might try to use the 1st amendment to defend themselves in court against charges of bombing a school because they consider it to be making a statement - that has about as much chance of holding up in court, and is about as much cause to get rid of the law (stand your ground vs. 1st amendment).

The second argument I can see you possibly trying to make here is that this crazy freak event wouldn't have happened if people weren't armed. Sure, the assailant might have stabbed the other guy. :/ But anomalies like this are still anomalies - there are tens of millions of people with the legal right to conceal carry (last I heard, there were actually over 10 million conceal carry permits, which doesn't include the growing number of states where you don't need a permit to do so). I mean, sheesh, we could just as soon take some the case of the cop in SC who shot a black man without cause, and say, "see, this is what happens when you have cops". There really isn't any rigor to this kind of approach - it's super simplistic, it won't change anyone's views, and it doesn't even get down to the nitty gritty of what the underlying issues are.