Fine. That means that if the ex-cop was not justified in firing then he was not justified in brandishing.
Hypothetically, (and I use the word explicitly so that people don't misunderstand and think that I claim that is what happened), if the ex-cop, for whatever reason, pulled out his gun after the popcorn throwing and put it in his lap, what would the popcorn thrower do?
Assume, again hypothetically, that the popcorn thrower was armed. Would the popcorn thrower be justified in drawing his own weapon and shooting the ex-cop dead? Does it make a difference if the ex-cop's hand is still on the firearm?
For that matter, and once again hypothetically, if the off-duty copy in the audience had been armed, would he have been justified in shooting the ex-cop dead having seen the display of the ex-cop's firearm? Would the off-duty cop then be facing second degree murder charges?
You are just too wedded to your brandishment=firing from a legal viewpoint. Just as there are varying degrees of assault that carry different penalties depending upon the severity of the assault (and assault with popcorn would have to be at the very bottom), improper brandishment carries a much lesser penalty than 2nd degree murder or manslaughter:
In Florida, it is a first degree misdemeanor offense punishable by a maximum prison term of 1 year and a maximum fine of up to $1000, if you are found guilty of an Improper Exhibition of a firearm.
That is the salient point you refuse to acknowledge. Had the shooter instead brandished and there wasn't legal grounds to do such, Reeves would be facing misdemeanor charges, instead of life in prison.
Didn't you read dirtboy's post just above yours about Reeves ignoring the signs posted at a Florida movie theater forbidding weapons on the premises?
peasant Oulson didn't, and wouldn't, have a weapon to draw.
I'm sure Reeves knew that.
Try re-reading the post.