Thus goes the thread to the lowest common denominator that could be found. Sure you don't want to suggest he is a fag and be done with it.
The way I look at it, the police officer had no right to shoot if he was not physically attacked (beyond popcorn thrown for a distance beyond point blank distance). We are not given enough info to know if that is fact or not. We can assume the police officer will claim to have been not only assaulted with the popcorn but grabbed. The wife will claim otherwise, thus independent witness accounts become very important. If grabbed, the shooting is justified probable unless it is proven that the grabbing was fully provoked by the retired police officer who wanted to escalate the event. Working against the officer is his history of being offended in theaters. Working against the wounded is their very rude behavior when it is plainly offensive to text during movies and deprive other well paying customers their opportunity to enjoy a movie (even if it is just previews of upcoming events). Is it a crime to speak up and mention when someone is behaving rudely in a theater?
It will go down to a jury of peers when all the facts (especially from other eyewitnesses) are brought to light under sworn oath w/ a hand on the Bible. As it stands now, unless damning eyewitness accounts contradicts what little story we have, odds are this police officer will spend the rest of his life in prison. But... if I was on the jury, and if events told go strongly against the plaintiffs, I might vote not guilty. But that leaves a whole, whole, whole lot of proving by the defense.
Now if you want to call me a cop lover (or any other so called derogatory name you can think of), knock yourself out. You can have last word.
“The way I look at it, the police officer had no right to shoot if he was not physically attacked”
Therein lies the problem. He was NOT a police officer! Being a retired cop doesn’t mean squat! He’s just another “retired person.” He has no special privileges (other that he may not have to jump through hoops to have a CCW permit), and yet, he seems to according to some here. Asking a poster who seems to be projecting the image you would expect of someone who is, or was, in law enforcement to identify himself as such is simply a way to try and understand where he is coming from. To suggest that that’s a slur and that somehow I should go “whole hog” and call him a homosexual is unbelievable. Seemingly, I don’t have the right to express my feelings, but you do. If you “love” cops, that’s your prerogative, I really could care less, but I do take exception to anyone who espouses the notion that what happened here was acceptable behavior for anyone, let alone someone who has been in law enforcement.
Our former chief of police who used to be a friend thought it was quite humorous to relate how he would routinely use his service revolver ( by picking it up of the seat of his car and opening and closing the cylinder as if he were checking the status of it’s ammunition) to intimidate anyone he thought was following him too closely. I don’t know what the law is where you are, but in this state, that’s a felony. We quit associating when I figured out that he regarded everyone with whom he had contact as a potential criminal. Have a nice day.