Florida theatre killing proves guys with guns are primed to shoot

latimes.com ^ | Jan. 15, 2014 | David Horsey

[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.

[William Tell]

trisham said: "That’s a ridiculous analogy."

I've asked several people to tell me what the popcorn thrower was going to do next. You tell me.

Do you think he was simply going to turn his back on someone he had just assaulted? Please describe what you think was going to happen next if no gun had been drawn.

[dirtboy]

I've asked several people to tell me what the popcorn thrower was going to do next. You tell me.

An absurd legal standard. If the cop was worried about what was to happen next, he should have simply brandished the weapon.

Oops, that's right, you think the cop was correct in skipping that intermediate step and going right to shooting over popcorn throwing.

Once again, absurd.

[Uncle Chip]

"The 6-foot-1, 270-pound Reeves ... returned "irritated," the argument continued and popcorn was thrown. Reeves then shot Oulson, sat down and put the gun in his lap, the witness said."

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/01/14/justice/curtis-reeves-theater-shooter-profile/index.html

Maybe he was just being polite and stood out of courtesy to his victim before shooting him and sitting back down!!!

Or maybe his 270 lb butt was cramped so snuggly in the seat that he couldn't get into his pants pocket without first standing up.

Either way, it's bad for him and you guys are just two too much.

[William Tell]

It would appear that despite your surprise about being attacked by the coffee thrower that you were able to determine that the attack was at an end and that you were in no further danger. Deadly force would not be justified.

Your tailgater is a different matter. You would not be justified in following him, however his behavior would put him at risk if he were to attempt to approach you.

For example, if you pulled over to make the call and he pulled over in front of you and aggressively approached your car. The car with windows closed makes for pretty good protection. If he brought a tire iron with him and took a swing at your window, you fire. There won't be time to figure out how quickly he can break the window and get to your head and you shouldn't have to make that calculation.

If the guy, instead of a tire iron, brings a bag of popcorn and throws it at you through the open window, then you get to try to figure out what he is going to do next and you may have to do it while somewhat blinded by popcorn and salt.

[William Tell]

dirtboy said: "No one takes such an absurd moral equivalence attempt seriously. "

So, you're convinced Reeves is guilty of second degree murder? Tell me how you ruled out voluntary manslaughter.

The jury did not convict Zimmerman, but I can assure you that there are literally millions of people who don't believe that Zimmerman was justified in shooting. In their minds, there is little difference in these two cases.

[Uncle Chip]

Technically, I fall back on this: An armed society is a polite society.

As long as the arms are in the hands of polite people.

[William Tell]

Albion Wilde said: "I think what will happen next is you are going to generate a zot warning. Stop it."

I will make every effort to not respond to any more of your postings.

[William Tell]

dirtboy said: "Throwing popcorn is the lowest level of assault. No physical contact was made."

I wasn't aware that no physical contact was made. Tell me more.

[trisham]

Why don't you tell me? I don't know, but since the popcorn was apparently his only weapon, and his attacker was in possession of a gun, I'm thinking that his options were limited.

I'm guessing that the man with the gun was hostile, aggressive and paranoid, but not legally mentally ill. I'm hoping that he goes to prison for the remainder of his life.

[Uncle Chip]

Everything being claimed about this case was also claimed about Zimmerman.

WRONG --------------

Zimmerman got the crap beat out of him, head bleeding front and back, a guy sitting on his chest, head being beaten into the sidewalk, and he was screaming for help that never came.

And despite all of that the prosecution still argued that that did not rise to the level of the use of deadly force.

This nutcase had a mere bag of popcorn thrown at him and he kills in cold blood.

Wake up -- and smell the difference.

[William Tell]

dirtboy said: "Oops, that's right, you think the cop was correct in skipping that intermediate step and going right to shooting over popcorn throwing."

I think that there is no "intermediate step". Brandishing and warning shots are use of deadly force and are legally justified only in the same circumstances where firing to stop the attack is justified.

I have heard of a jurisdiction which is considering treating warning shots as less than deadly force but it hasn't happened yet.

Do you disagree with the laws concerning use of deadly force? Would you be seeking a conviction against Reeves if he brandished a gun rather than firing it?

My understanding of the law is that, if Reeves was wrong to shoot, then he would be wrong to display the firearm. Is that not the way the law is written?

[William Tell]

trisham said: "Why don't you tell me?"

I believe the popcorn thrower assaulted Reeves in a deliberate attempt to get Reeves to retaliate so that he could then punch him until he was unconscious and bleeding on the floor.

[Uncle Chip]

She probably shoplifted something while you were in the back getting more creamer and was upset at you because you came back too soon.

[trisham]

You have a strange and rather paranoid imagination.

[trisham]

I suppose that’s possible. Her response does seem bizarre and extreme.

[cableguymn]

I kinda hoped it just went in to no mans land and no one would notice.

No reason to call attention to my mistakes ya know ;)

[William Tell]

trisham said: "You have a strange and rather paranoid imagination."

Thanks.

Do you think the popcorn throwing was just a sudden irrational act and that the popcorn thrower was going to immediately realize the wrongness of his action and apologize?

What was the popcorn thrower's wife concerned about. Was she trying to restrain him prior to the popcorn throwing? If so, how did she anticipate it?

If her attempts to restrain him came after the popcorn throwing, what further action was she expecting from her husband?

[dirtboy]

Your beliefs don’t mean squat. There was nothing remotely resembling a threat of bodily harm that justified lethal response.

[dirtboy]

Sheez, give it up, moron. You keep going further and further down the rabbit hole with your absurd postulations.

[trisham]

I have no idea. All I know is what actions took place. A man shot another man to death because he was texting and allegedly threw a bag of popcorn at him.

Do you have a connection to someone in this case?