Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Are you the one who suggested that maybe the shooter thought it was acid in the popcorn box ? I mean, really. He knew it was popcorn, he'd had enough of inconsiderate people who didn't obey him, pulled his gun, and fired. Don't bring popcorn to a gunfight ?
Reeves won't walk.
Comprehension: ZERO.
It's an epidemic.
I have no idea what he thought and never said I did. Nor does anyone else.
Clue: Don't throw unknown substances in the faces of strangers and there won't be gunfights.
I seriously doubt that he will walk unless the guy can prove he was temporarily (or permanently) insane. Should this happen, in the future we will have a new legal term called the "movie cellphone defense." This would be followed with the "movie crying baby defense," the "movie loud talker defense", and possibly the "movie popcorn defense." Very very bad legal precedent. Unless the shooter truly is certifiable and not just cranky, he is most likely going to jail. Since Casey Anthony and OJ, I realize anyone can walk, but there are a lot of witnesses in this case and prior incidents. He's been retired way too long to try to use PTSD. Bet he takes a plea.
Can you imagine the voir dire for the jury at the trial? "Do you go to the movies? Do you use a cellphone? Do you text? Do you text in public? What are your feelings about popcorn?"
I'm saying that, if his attorney is competent, he will have the jury cutting this guy a little slack because of his police training and background.
I'm not a cop, nor have I ever been one. But I'm fairly certain that their training involves quick and decisive action in response to physical threats or perceived physical threats. Now....anyone can laugh all they want in hindsight about "popcorn" as a threat, but for an instant all there may have been in his mind is an instinctive need to act.
Again, let me repeat my oft stated opposition to guns freely circulating in the hands of the general public. But we created that monster long ago and to this date show very little widespread national appetite for doing anything about it. As a result, I place a share of the blame for this tragedy on each and every gun proponent in the citizenry. For they collectively are the reason that this guy felt the need - and the license - to put a gun in his pocket before he went to the movies.
Take the gun out of the scenario, and this thread never exists.
People are on their cell phones BEFORE the movie starts.
70-year-olds who get miffed when others use their cell phones don't get to order people around. And, yes, it is too much to EXPECT someone to stop a normal activity that's important to them, for no good reason. The last time I went to the movie, the girl in front of me had just had her hair done, and the gels and hairspray odor was overwhelming. Guess what, I MOVED.
Just because someone is 70-years old, (and I really don't think he looks that old, probably didn't look that old to the 43-year-old in the dim lights of the theater) does not mean that they get to cut me off in traffic, or cut in line at the grocery store, or order me to do anything.
And if the 70-year-old finds altercations with younger people so "threatening", perhaps he should stop instigating those altercations.
Because complaining about cell phone use BEFORE the movie is incredibly petty. And, frankly, Mr Reeves didn't get infuriated because someone was texting on their phone. He was infuriated because he tried to exert authority, he was a man accustomed to being an authority figure, and when the younger man didn't respect that authority, he sought out management to back up his authority. That didn't work out for him, which is why when he returned to the theater, the other people in the theater noted that he was visibly agitated. VISIBLY infuriated. When the younger man mocked him, that pushed his fury into overdrive. But blaming the younger man is exactly like blaming a rape victim. The younger man is not at fault. So he was rude. He had no obligation to obey Mr Reeves. And Mr Reeves pettiness, and tattling, didn't earn anyone's respect. That's why NONE of the other people in the theater have defended him. He may be a stand-up guy, a good neighbor, a wonderful husband. But he didn't behave well at any point at that theater. His behavior didn't merit anyone's respect. He was trained to defuse situations, to contain his anger. And instead, he let his anger control him.
The texter was checking on his 3-year-old daughter. That's all. BEFORE the movie started. And Mr Reeves didn't like it.
Police were held to a higher standard than a civilian due to their training.
I write "were" because there have quite a few impulse shootings in the previous few years.
I'm saying that, if his attorney is competent, he will have the jury cutting this guy a little slack because of his police training and background.
I'm not a cop, nor have I ever been one. But I'm fairly certain that their training involves quick and decisive action in response to physical threats or perceived physical threats. Now....anyone can laugh all they want in hindsight about "popcorn" as a threat, but for an instant all there may have been in his mind is an instinctive need to act.
.
Exactly. It's what cops are trained to do.
If someone in a theater started tossing unknown stuff into the faces of patrons and the stuff turned out to be deadly, can you imagine the uproar if there had been a cop nearby who did nothing?
I'm saying that, if his attorney is competent, he will have the jury cutting this guy a little slack because of his police training and background.
I'm not a cop, nor have I ever been one. But I'm fairly certain that their training involves quick and decisive action in response to physical threats or perceived physical threats. Now....anyone can laugh all they want in hindsight about "popcorn" as a threat, but for an instant all there may have been in his mind is an instinctive need to act.
No, that could work against him. An experienced police officer has entered dozens, perhaps hundreds of confrontations over a career...every time he responds to a call, every time he pulls over a call, he is entering a confrontation. His training and experience--it will surely be argued--should make him an expert in quickly discerning true threats from bravado.
An experienced police officer is the last person who should be responding with gunfire to "an instinctive need to act."
No, that could work against him. An experienced police officer has entered dozens, perhaps hundreds of confrontations over a career...every time he responds to a call, every time he pulls over a call, he is entering a confrontation. His training and experience--it will surely be argued--should make him an expert in quickly discerning true threats from bravado.
An experienced police officer is the last person who should be responding with gunfire to "an instinctive need to act."
I agree with you, in a way. Keep in mind the guy's age and the fact that he was without a partner(s) to assist. Of course he over-reacted in using deadly force, but was action on his part, any action, justified?
No, that could work against him. An experienced police officer has entered dozens, perhaps hundreds of confrontations over a career...every time he responds to a call, every time he pulls over a call, he is entering a confrontation. His training and experience--it will surely be argued--should make him an expert in quickly discerning true threats from bravado.
An experienced police officer is the last person who should be responding with gunfire to "an instinctive need to act."
Don't think so....and the key word there is should. You're discounting their unique experience and the fact that they're human beings as imperfect as you or I.
Let's not lose focus here. This incident is merely a grain of sand on the beach that is our tragically misguided national preoccupation with guns. The one lesson to be learned....re-learned is unfortunately more apt....is that the circulation of guns in our society is a public safety nightmare that must be addressed. It is killing us by the tens of thousands and enslaving millions more in constant fear.
I am a strong supporter of Amendment II, however ya gotta admit ya have to be crazy to think flying popcorn is something dangerous.
Yes, if you know that's what it is flying into your face and eyes. Can you prove the old fella knew it was harmless popcorn being flung at him by a belligerent stranger?
Again, what happened was a guy used to having people obey him (the cop) confronted a guy used to getting his way, via intimidation by his size, getting blowback because the younger big guy didn't like being ordered and disrespected by some annoying little old man.
The old guy should never have initiated, the young guy, because of his size wasn't going to take orders from some little old man, but unbeknownst to him, the old man had his equalizer and wasn't going to be intimidated by an obnoxious big bully. Sadly the young guy lost his life and a little girl lost her dad.
This whole thing is a terrible tragedy because two egos fought to show who was more dominant.
The cop was totally in the wrong, never should have happened. His behavior and ego led to this incident
Also, no matter how physically big you are, never use it to intimidate others.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
