Florida Man Is Shot to Death for Texting During Movie Previews

[desura]

Nope. If the evidence shows he wasn't legally justified he needs to go to jail. I just have a hard problem with people auto assuming someone is guilty without knowing the evidence. I also have a hard time with people that have such a phobia of guns they just auto assume there isn't such a thing as self defense and that anyone willing to kill someone else is committing murder.

Sure. But from news reports, there really isn't much that can be said in his defense. This wasn't a dark alleyway or his front porch late at night.

 

[JSt0rm]

Lol. The guy shot another guy in a crowded theater like it was the Wild West and some of you want to reserve judgement because of gun rights? Lol. We are so fucked.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Lol. The guy shot another guy in a crowded theater like it was the Wild West and some of you want to reserve judgement because of gun rights? Lol. We are so fucked.

dude, he had popcorn.

 

[ch33zw1z]

dude, he had popcorn.

maybe the old guy has high cholesterol.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

maybe the old guy has high cholesterol.

sounds like a slam dunk for the defense.

 

[shortylickens]

OP needs to be punished for lying in his title. (Lord knows I would sure as heck be punished.)

He was NOT killed for texting in a theater.
He was killed after an argument between two selfish, self-centered, childish, angry, rage-filled assholes turned to violence.

 

[woolfe9998]

OP needs to be punished for lying in his title. (Lord knows I would sure as heck be punished.)

He was NOT killed for texting in a theater.
He was killed after an argument between two selfish, self-centered, childish, angry, rage-filled assholes turned to violence.

I'm not buying into your equivalency between shooter and victim. Sorry. Not buying it at all.

 

[JSt0rm]

OP needs to be punished for lying in his title. (Lord knows I would sure as heck be punished.)

He was NOT killed for texting in a theater.
He was killed after an argument between two selfish, self-centered, childish, angry, rage-filled assholes turned to violence.

Tell us more about how you almost killed guy for defending malady against the creeper nerd.

 

[HumblePie]

Sure. But from news reports, there really isn't much that can be said in his defense. This wasn't a dark alleyway or his front porch late at night.

The defense is that he stated the other man was threatening bodily harm and other eye witnesses also heard language to that effect. This has been talked about previously in this thread. You just do NOT threaten to ever injury someone and then encroach upon that persons space. Even if that encroachment was a "bag of popcorn" doing so can constitute the wiliness to go further with violence and make yourself considered a threat. As pointed out you have a young well built man who is in a clearly agitated state of mind, as seen in the videos, and was venting his agitation at an old man. In many states, that age difference also allows for it to be considered a threat as seniors in many places get some additional protections from various laws when it comes to protecting themselves through self defense.

At this point, all we get is a blurry video recording inside a dark theater and we can't tell what was said. Further evidence will reveal the truth to this. I also have a hard time with people bullying elderly people.

 

[ch33zw1z]

HumblePie - you stated "clearly agitated state of mind, as seen in videos, and was venting his agitation at an old man"

then: "At this point, all we get is a blurry video recording inside a dark theater and we can't tell what was said"

So, what do you mean exactly.

How I interpret the situation so far is:

Older man gives younger guy a hard time for using his cell phone during movie previews, younger guy talks some smack back, older man goes to complain to management (who essentially do nothing), goes back to theater room, situation escalates to the point where younger stands up and throws pop corn at older guy....who shoots him.

Is there something we're all missing here?

I'm not defending either side here, just wondering what you're saying exactly. I'm trying not to make assumptions, but it really seems like your defending the older guy based on the gun part.

 

[HumblePie]

HumblePie - you stated "clearly agitated state of mind, as seen in videos, and was venting his agitation at an old man"

then: "At this point, all we get is a blurry video recording inside a dark theater and we can't tell what was said"

So, what do you mean exactly.

How I interpret the situation so far is:

Older man gives younger guy a hard time for using his cell phone during movie previews, younger guy talks some smack back, older man goes to complain to management (who essentially do nothing), goes back to theater room, situation escalates to the point where younger stands up and throws pop corn at older guy....who shoots him.

Is there something we're all missing here?

I'm not defending either side here, just wondering what you're saying exactly. I'm trying not to make assumptions, but it really seems like your defending the older guy based on the gun part.

Non agitated people don't throw things at other people. The fact that at least popcorn was thrown is not legally in question or in legally in dispute. That is what I mean by agitated. When I say blurry, because there are claims made that the young man also threw his telephone before throwing the popcorn, but the video is too blurry to see if that is true or not. We don't have audio so we can't tell what is being said and at what volume it is being said at. We just can tell that words are being exchanged.

You are also missing the point. If the younger man presents himself as a credible threat, such as saying something like "I'm going to beat your ass" to the old man prior to throwing the popcorn, then the old man has legal justification under the law to protect himself.

The counter evidence to the perceived threat is some witness testimony saying the younger man wasn't raising his voice or making threats, and the old man expressing his doubts on the emergency line afterwards about his actions. Having those doubts for normal rational people is going to be natural. While it is natural for any normal human person to doubt the act of shooting anyone, period, expressing said doubts on a recorded phone call will give the prosecution fodder to use that against you in a trial.

 

[bshole]

The shooter was an ex-cop. This explains a little bit about his authoritarian mindset. An entire career in law enforcement and still completely incapable of de-escalating the situation. Let the fucker die in prison.

 

[ch33zw1z]

I understand the point. The court has already decided on that though. He didn't have SYG justification, so that specific defense can't be used.

I, for one, am happy that SYG can't be used in this case. I find the laws trivial in cases so public as this. If basically means you can antagonize someone to the point they respond, you shoot them because you're "in fear of bodily harm".

IIRC correctly, the older guy is a retired LEO. He knows exactly what happened, and his words on the phone are very telling.

 

[HumblePie]

The shooter was an ex-cop. This explains a little bit about his authoritarian mindset. An entire career in law enforcement and still completely incapable of de-escalating the situation. Let the fucker die in prison.

He did go get management to intervene when the young man didn't acquiesce to his original request. I call that attempting to de-escalate by having a proper third party try to intervene. Had the young man just stepped outside the theater to send/receive his texts during the previews then none of this would have ever happened.

Do I think the faster reaction to shoot happened because the old man was previously a cop? Yep. As far as escalating, that's a stretch to assume at this point. It could be the old man was inciting the young man further, but we, the public, haven't actually evidence to that effect yet.

 

[shortylickens]

I'm not buying into your equivalency between shooter and victim. Sorry. Not buying it at all.

Well that's handy, 'cause I ain't fucking selling it. It's a fact.

 

[HumblePie]

I understand the point. The court has already decided on that though. He didn't have SYG justification, so that specific defense can't be used.

I, for one, am happy that SYG can't be used in this case. I find the laws trivial in cases so public as this. If basically means you can antagonize someone to the point they respond, you shoot them because you're "in fear of bodily harm".

IIRC correctly, the older guy is a retired LEO. He knows exactly what happened, and his words on the phone are very telling.

SYG as a statue has a major flaw in that there is no level of legal burden that must be met. So the assumption could be anything.

For example, in a criminal murder case, the defendant is found guilty of murder if evidence presented shows the action was "beyond a reasonable doubt" and reasonable doubt has further legal definitions as to how that standard is met. That is what I mean when I say SYG doesn't have that in it's wording. At least for Florida. However, the spirit of the law in most cases is that the evidence to claim SYG probably has to be beyond reproach and near perfect.

Since there was testimony stated by some witnesses that said Chad, the young man, wasn't raising his voice or making threats at the old man, that is counter evidence that would prevent SYG from being used by most judges. Which is the case here.

 

[bshole]

He did go get management to intervene when the young man didn't acquiesce to his original request. I call that attempting to de-escalate by having a proper third party try to intervene. Had the young man just stepped outside the theater to send/receive his texts during the previews then none of this would have ever happened.

Do I think the faster reaction to shoot happened because the old man was previously a cop? Yep. As far as escalating, that's a stretch to assume at this point. It could be the old man was inciting the young man further, but we, the public, haven't actually evidence to that effect yet.

My style of de-escalation was always to move to another part of the theater. And I never gave a shit if somebody was on the cellphone during the damn PREVIEWS. This was a control freak who couldn't handle another human being not doing EXACTLY what the control freak wanted. The fact that management did not come down on the side of the cop should have told the cop something...... he was on the wrong side of the disagreement.

 

[HumblePie]

My style of de-escalation was always to move to another part of the theater. And I never gave a shit if somebody was on the cellphone during the damn PREVIEWS. This was a control freak who couldn't handle another human being not doing EXACTLY what the control freak wanted. The fact that management did not come down on the side of the cop should have told the cop something...... he was on the wrong side of the disagreement.

Text during the previews in an Alamo Drafthouse theater and you'll be tossed out by management. How you choose to de-escalate doesn't mean it's the only way or even the right way for a given situation.

 

[desura]

Can't believe someone is sympathizing with the murderer here. The dead guy was zero threat to the old guy because this was a movie theater and he was there with his wife and there were dozens of other people around them. This isn't like the Zimmerman situation where they are alone in an alleyway.

 

[momeNt]

I don't care if you are being facetious. I don't care if you are a Republican or Democrat, and being either Hillary or Trump supporter.

Gun should be used at home, for protecting yourself or your family. Not carrying it around and shoot people just because you are furious at the time.

See the strawman? Implying that you cannot, or should not, be able to protect yourself if you are outside of your home. And also that the only reason one would carry a gun on their person outside of their home is to act on unjustifiable grounds of being furious at the time.

You are a horrible person.

 

[mxnerd]

See the strawman? Implying that you cannot, or should not, be able to protect yourself if you are outside of your home. And also that the only reason one would carry a gun on their person outside of their home is to act on unjustifiable grounds of being furious at the time.

You are a horrible person.

You kept defending gun carriers who shot innocent people. Who is more horrible?

You are not only horrible, you are pathetic. I can imagine you eventually will show up on TV.

 

[Ns1]

Clearly the only person who was a raging violent killer in that theater was the old man.

 

[momeNt]

You kept defending gun carriers who shot innocent people. Who is more horrible?

You are not only horrible, you are pathetic. I can imagine you eventually will show up on TV.

I didn't defend him. Just defending his right to have a gun in the first place, not what is PROBABLY a misuse of it.

 

[Vic]

The security camera footage of this event leaves little doubt that this was anything other than cold blooded murder.

 

[umbrella39]

OP needs to be punished for lying in his title. (Lord knows I would sure as heck be punished.)

He was NOT killed for texting in a theater.
He was killed after an argument between two selfish, self-centered, childish, angry, rage-filled assholes turned to violence.

LMAO... You need to get down off the cross Jesus Snowflake!