Actually it’s not. Even without contact it can be criminal intimidation depending on what’s surrounding the situation.
I stand corrected on my ‘picking a fight’ BUT-
That is what has to be determined- it sounds from the article that the shooter left to talk to management- to try to resolve the issue- he returned- and another argument ensued- where is the proof that the shooter was guilty of ‘criminal intimidation’? Was it determiend that the dead fella didn’t initiate the second contact out of anger?
If it can be shown that the shooter ‘challenged the fella to a fight’ then we have a clear case of the shooter ‘being the aggressor’, but Simply confronting someone over an issue - doesn’t necessarily rise to the level of ‘disturbing the peace’- Especially when the shooter felt he was ‘being disturbed’ by the distracting cell phone use (Not that that thought makes it a fact legally-)