Geez, they didn’t get much right. You have an old retired cop with a sterling service record who goes out to tell the theater manager about someone texting which is against the theater rules. The dude was texting the daycare center. When the old guy returns, he wasn’t able to talk to the manager, text dude starts a confrontation and then throws popcorn per witnesses at the retired cop.
1. Retired cop reacts based on years of training and experience to something being thrown at him by an 2. angry man who is younger and taller during a time when his 3. eyesight is hindered by going from a lighted area to a very dark area. Texter dude hit the death trifecta. BAM!
No — he’s got it right
Your recitation is incorrect.
shooting someone for throwing popcorn is Self-Defense?
yhe dude was texting the daycare center
A bag of popcorn was angrily flung. It isn’t clear who threw the first kernel. Witnesses insisted it was Mr. Reeves
when the old guy returns, he wasn’t able to talk to the manager, text dude starts a confrontation
<><><>
He was texting his daughter who was at home with a babysitter
According to this article, witnesses say the shooter threw the popcorn.
and the article does not say that the murdered one started it back up when the shooter returned
having a little trouble with your conclusions when you get the basic facts a) wrong, and b) make your own facts up when none are available
The witnesses say the cop threw the popcorn first.
Most accounts say Reeves started the confrontation. But regardless, are you saying that thrown popcorn rises to the level of fear of imminent death or great bodily harm that the Florida law requires to justify the use of deadly force?