[William Tell]

Uncle Chip said: "Did your hero the nutcase throw popcorn first: Yes or No."

There are reports of such. It will be evidence when testified to under oath.

Assuming my "hero" (as you have termed him, not me) did start the physical confrontation by throwing popcorn, doesn't it strike you as just a little ironic that the texter, given all the circumstances surrounding this irrationally irate ex-cop's behavior, just might have had a fear of a lethal attack and might have been justified in using deadly force; that is, in light of the fact that the ex-cop did, in fact, throw popcorn evidently with the intention of provoking a response that he could use to rationalize drawing a gun?

Now we have the reverse of what I originally stated. I considered the possibility that the texter might have thrown popcorn as a way to provoke the ex-cop into a response which would have provided an excuse for the texter to do great bodily harm to the ex-cop. People suggested that was absurd.

Now the consensus seems to be forming that the ex-cop did that very thing. That the ex-cop threw popcorn in order to provoke a response which an irrational person might use to justify deadly deadly force.

Is it still absurd to consider the possibility that a person throwing popcorn is considering a deadly attack?

[Uncle Chip]

There are reports of such. It will be evidence when testified to under oath.

You do realize that police witness statements stating that Reeves threw the first kernel of popcorn are in the hands of the court.

They've already been sworn to.