Posted on 01/17/2014 6:10:16 AM PST by Anton.Rutter
Guns don’t kill people, popcorn kills people. Or maybe it’s texting. Or just being in the wrong place at the wrong time with some fool who thinks he needs to take a gun to the movies.
(Excerpt) Read more at touch.latimes.com ...
I, too, have a FL permit. If I had been in the shooter's situation, I would have sought out management and insisted that they refund my money so that I could enjoy a movie somewhere else. The manager then could choose whether he wanted my business or the business of the texter.
Had I returned to my seat, I would have considered the matter closed and any communication with the texter unwelcome. Had the texter continued to berate me, I would have left.
The problem, however, is what to do if suddenly physically attacked by the texter. How big is he? How many scars does he have on his face from prior altercations. Can I see his hands? Does he have accomplices that I can see or that are approaching from behind?
The first rule of a gunfight is "Have a gun", but perhaps should be, "If you have a choice, don't go".
I believe it is the widespread and long-standing violations of the Second Amendment which have turned our world into a place where people think they can throw popcorn into another's face and not pay any consequences.
I asked before, just what was the popcorn thrower going to do next? Sit down and enjoy the movie after having assaulted another person? Or is it more likely that the attack was going to continue?
There are no winners in this situation even if the ex-cop is able to convince a jury that he feared great bodily harm or death at the hands of his attacker.
But what about my post’s most important points — all the options the ex-cop had to avoid escalating the confrontation over texting. And by “fight”, I meant a verbal unpleasantness over the texting. No one in any of the accounts I’ve read said that he made a polite request to the texter. One of the accounts said he went supposedly to get a manager but did not actually talk to the manager because she was busy with another customer, so RageHead went back into the theater and again sat right behind the texter, which he most certainly could have avoided. So all the other legalistic hairsplitting does not excuse or mitigate or provide any kind of defense for shooting an unarmed man with whom he had provoked an argument and then gone right back into the same seat within inches of the man he had antagonized.
Remember that even after Zimmerman getting the crap beat out of him, broken nose, head bleeding front and back and being banged on the concrete as he was screaming for help that never came as the assailant was sitting on top of him keeping him from moving or breathing, the prosecution still argued that the law said that he had no reason to fear for his life and use deadly force.
And you in this case want to argue that popcorn in the face was life-threatening enough for a 270 pound man who started the argument and was exacerbating it to pull his gun and kill????
Wake up —
In George Zimmerman's case, George cooperated with the cops to such an extent that his case was made by the videos taken by the cops.
Even in self-defense cases, I don't think the burden of proof shifts at all. The burden is on the prosecution to prove that no justification existed.
For example, the prosecution can call a witness to state that the victim never attacked, physically or verbally, the ex-cop. That would constitute evidence tending to show that a reasonable person would not have feared great bodily harm or death.
The problem for the prosecution is that the victim DID physically assault the defendant.
If a complete stranger, acting alone, came up to me and threw popcorn in my face, I would probably feel threatened but perhaps not enough to fear great bodily harm.
In the movie-shooting case, the two people were not complete strangers. There was anger probably on both sides. The victim appears to have been a large man and was certainly quite a bit younger than the shooter.
George Zimmerman had some problems due to a prior legal problem. If the victim in this case has a clean record, that will go a long way toward convincing a jury that such a man would not do anything so irresponsible that he would deserve shooting. Unfortunately, it does appear that the man threw popcorn in another man's face.
"Who does that?", is a question I have already asked. I don't do it. I wouldn't tolerate being around people who would do that. I suspect we will hear more about the victim before this case is over.
Anyone try to access your link?
I understand what you are saying.
Now, answer one of my questions. What was the man throwing the popcorn going to do next? Was he going to turn his back on a person he just attacked and take his seat to enjoy the movie? What did the attacker's wife believe was going to happen? She was evidently trying to restrain him. Why? Was she afraid that her husband was about to cause great bodily harm?
Explain?
Go get some more popcorn. He didn't have any for the show now.
Was he going to turn his back on a person he just attacked and take his seat to enjoy the movie?
He certainly wasn't going to throw anymore popcorn because he was all out.
BUT the ex-cop now had the bag of popcorn. My gosh there is no telling what he could have done with such armaments -- why he just might have eaten what was left.
What did the attacker's wife believe was going to happen? She was evidently trying to restrain him.
And the shooter's wife -- was she trying to restrain her out of control nut???
Was she afraid that her husband was about to cause great bodily harm?
With what -- the cell phone in his hand??? the bag of popcorn that he now no longer had???
Get a grip then turn to the Michael Dunn trial and watch what happens to him. He is going away for a long time for doing just what this guy just did.
What was the popcorn thrower going to do next? Tell me how you rule out that he was going to continue the attack.
What attack??? the popcorn attack??? he was all out of ammo??? he had no more popcorn to attack with.
Get a grip —
Jan. 17, 2014 77°.Close Ad x 1 of ADVERTISEMENTRelated Content Recent Columns
.Related Content ADVERTISEMENTAccount
Sign in
Register
Sign Out
Connect
Like us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
Send Feedback
Send Feedback
Terms of Service
Privacy Policy
Terms of Service
Privacy Policy
202 West 1st Street,
Los Angeles, California, 90012
Copyright 2013
So you don't believe that throwing objects into someone's face is a criminal act?
Regardless of that, what was the popcorn thrower going to do next? That will definitely be discussed in any trial.
I've asked you to describe what a reasonable person in the situation of the ex-cop would expect to happen next.
Obviously you don't think anything threatening was going to happen. Tell me what you think the likely continuation of the situation would have been if the ex-cop had not drawn his gun.
I think you're wrong in that. The prosecution will try to prove that the defendant is guilty of second degree murder. The defense will be the ones claiming that their man is innocent because be acted out of fear of great bodily harm or death. They have to show why his fears were justified. Good luck with that.
The problem for the prosecution is that the victim DID physically assault the defendant.
Read the law. According to the statute, a person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. That could conceivably be the case here. The statute continues: "However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony." That is what the defense is going to have to show, and there is absolutely no evidence that Reeves was facing imminent death or great bodily harm.
Someone in the auditorium would have yelled out: "Hey you idiots -- shut up -- the movie is starting" -- and the good wife who was defusing things would have sat down with her husband and watched the movie.
If you think that carrying a gun in your pocket gives you some kind of moral superiority -- think again.
You are defending a guy who acted like an idiot.
From:
http://www.ohioverticals.com/blogs/akron_law_cafe/2012/04/zimmermans-low-burden-of-proof-on-the-issue-of-self-defense/
The Fourth District Court of Appeal stated:
"But, with these additional facts, did he also incur a "burden of proof" identical to the State's? That is, did he have to prove the additional facts for self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt? Or was he instead bound by some lesser standard-say, the greater weight of the evidence? Indeed, how about something even less onerous than that? Was he merely obligated to lay the additional facts before the jury, without any burden as to the strength of their probative value – other than they might be true?
The answer is this. No, he did not have to prove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. He did not have to prove even that his additional facts were more likely true than not. The real nature of his burden concerning his defense of justification is that his evidence of additional facts need merely leave the jury with a reasonable doubt about whether he was justified in using deadly force. Hence, if he wanted his self-defense to be considered, it was necessary to present evidence that his justification might be true. It would then be up to the jury to decide whether his evidence produced a reasonable doubt about his claim of self-defense.
The ex-cop has the burden of providing some evidence that would engender reasonable doubt in one juror. The prosecution will have the burden to prove BEYOND ANY REASONABLE DOUBT that self-defense was not justified.
As far as I am concerned, the fact that no physical contact took place until the victim physically assaulted the defendant suffices as evidence that self-defense MIGHT have been reasonable, depending upon all the other factors that would have influenced the defendant's state of mind.
This would clearly burden the prosecution to prove, BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, that the defendant was not justified by self-defense.
Questions that need answering:
Was the theater darkened at the time of the attack? Was the attacker silhouetted by the lit movie screen such that the defendant could not see what object was thrown, whether the attacker was about to throw another object, or whether the attacker was armed?
Since the attackers wife was also standing, was it possible for the defendant to determine whether the wife was also participating in the attack?
Was the defendant concerned about the welfare of his wife given that he was under attack by perhaps two people?
What would a reasonable person believe would follow the attack? Is there any reason to believe that the attack would stop?
Were there people seated in the defendant's row of seats such that an attempt to flee, possibly in the dark, would have injured other innocent people?
To all those who would claim that it is not reasonable for the defendant to expect to be killed over an argument about "texting", I would point out that that is exactly what happened to the victim in this case. The criminal actions of the victim proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the attacker had no qualms about breaking the law to harm the defendant.
So you, being a reasonable person, and just having thrown popcorn into an irate stranger's face, would just sit down to watch the movie as if nothing had happened?
You would not be anticipating any retaliation at all?
Would you be expecting the defendant to leave the theater and call the police? Would you just sit there waiting for the police? What would you tell the police?
There was a seat and a good wife between the two and as far as the victim knew a manager who was going to be there shortly.
All the ex-cop had to do was sit down and shut up and say to himself: “Curtis — just watch the movie” — and the argument is over especially when or if the manager gets there.
But of course doing that in your book would have been retreating — really???
What happened next was in his hands.
He chose not to reciprocate with popcorn of his own or Milk Duds, but to escalate but not with a push, or a slap, or a punch for which he might get one in return — but all the way with deadly force that he secretly had and his opponent didn’t.
It was not only a criminal act — it was the height of cowardice. And as he sits in his jail cell he knows it.
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.
