<>I repeat a question I asked previously about throwing popcorn in someone’s face, “Who does that?”<>
Your hero the shooter Curtis Reeves does that:
“He’s being charged with second degree murder. Curtis maintains that he was attacked, but in court, an attorney called Curtis’ claims “weak” due to the fact that other people in the movie theater saw him throw popcorn first”.
http://hollywoodlife.com/2014/01/14/curtis-reeves-movie-theater-shooter-five-things-to-know/
“The dispute quickly escalated. A bag of popcorn was angrily flung. It isn’t clear who threw the first kernel. Witnesses insisted it was Mr. Reeves, who, in turn, blamed Mr. Oulson.”
Please read before responding —
Sure. Here's my favorite nugget:
Mr. Reeves was put behind bars and charged with second degree murder, with the incident another example of Florida's eccentric criminal landscape and insane gun laws.
Very helpful. I wonder which insane gun laws they were referring to?
I went to some length to explain in a prior posting that there is a bright line between a verbal argument and physical assault. I suggested that it was possible that the "texter" intentionally threw the popcorn to provoke a response that would justify beating up the ex-cop.
I also included that the culpability of the cop increases if it was he who crossed that line, trying to provoke a response from the texter which he could use as justification to escalate the matter.
There's a reason why it is important to consider whether the ex-cop was the first to throw an object at the other person. This "minor assault" might well cause a reasonable person to retaliate in the heat of the moment. It would be far more difficult, as we are seeing, to make a rational claim that the retaliation was cause to expect great bodily harm or death.
Evidently, it DOES make a difference whether the cop threw popcorn or not. I claim that it also made a difference whether the texter threw popcorn or not.