Posted on 02/26/2022 6:01:53 AM PST by conservative98
sounds like nonsense to me, but for sure that movie was pretty bad.
Not sure special police training is required to decide if your life is in danger.
He did not kill a man for texting, he killed him because he got attacked by him.
The headline should read “idiot attacks man who complained about texting, gets shot”
“...cop who killed man in movie theater for texting...” Once again, a false headline from our enemies in the media.
“In his entire career that is the most he has ever been scared? Absolutely unreal,”
**********
Yep gotta watch out for that ‘popcorn’.
It’ll scare you every time.
Sounds good. Now what can we do about that guy who talks back to the screen?
The events described in this article bear little resemblance to the actual trial. I watched the trial, I doubt that this reporter saw any of it. I agree with the verdict, but it was a close call for the jury. Clearly, they did not believe the prosecution and I don’t either.
Get him a parrot. He needs someone to talk to.
Attached by popcorn? I mean really?
There are other witnesses to the event.
He didn’t merely toss popcorn and sit down.
Sounds like a civilian would have been convicted under the same circumstances. A case of police privilege, something I don't care for.
Based upon my limited knowledge of the case, I'd have voted to convict.
Classic disparity of force.
Did the wife also attack him? He shot her in the hand. On the surface, it sounds like there was over reacting going on all around.
There are other witnesses to the event.
He didn’t merely toss popcorn and sit down. He threw his cell phone at his face and was climbing over the seat.
What do you think was going to happen next? Should he have waited to find out?
In a dark theatre it’s difficult to know what weapons your opponent may be hiding... So it’s always best to shoot first and then ask questions later... Worked out pretty good for this dude.
While I think his response was unwarranted at the point he shot, I could see escalation being his reasonable fear.
However, his training and experience as a cop should’ve made him more able to anticipate and defuse the situation. His retired cop status should’ve made the jury more doubtful of his actions. In many states, a retired cop still carries arrest powers etc. I think he had options.
In the end, his police elitism earned him an acquittal, in my opinion.
So he wasn’t killed for texting he was killed for physically attacking the man.
“when the victim threw his cellphone at his face and appeared ready to climb over the seat and attack him.”
Right; fake news headline indicates he executed someone for “texting”...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.