OT: Bet This Dude Wishes He had Just Shut It Off.

[MHSL82]

What kind of grown man throws a bag of popcorn at a 71 year old man who has asked him to stop texting?

I know, right? He just threw away, what, $10 worth of movie popcorn? Fucking insane to waste movie popcorn at these prices.

I thought my throwing Skittles was a waste of money. The popcorn? Not worth the money, either. (Insert tasteless joke about popcorn and your life.)

Incidentally, my wife and I called our baby when she was in the belly, "Skittles". This was before I knew about the Seattle tradition. Her initials were going to be SK so we just used that. I didn't tell anyone the name tell the baby was born. We didn't want to keep calling her "the baby." We had a different name for the second using the last two letters of the nickname backwards. No, I'm not calling us creative, just sharing.

 

[erckm510]

If the Zimmerman case is any indication he could easily get off. It appears that in Florida all that matters is the individual's perception of danger, no matter what a pathetic, paranoid ninny the individual is. You think one punch is going to kill you? OK, you're justified in killing someone. If the victim threw anything more substantial than a cottonball at the old man, some jury might have to submit to that lunatic law and exonerate the shooter.

There are witnesses this time so I don't know how well it compares to the Zimmerman case.

 

[Ray_Dogg]

If the Zimmerman case is any indication he could easily get off. It appears that in Florida all that matters is the individual's perception of danger, no matter what a pathetic, paranoid ninny the individual is. You think one punch is going to kill you? OK, you're justified in killing someone. If the victim threw anything more substantial than a cottonball at the old man, some jury might have to submit to that lunatic law and exonerate the shooter.

I think Zimmerman went the self-defense route instead of the stand your ground law.

 

[MHSL82]

So it turns out the guy was texting the babysitter.

The old man is claiming fear of attack and that an unknown object hit him in the face and then he pulled his gun and shot him. So the Florida stand your ground law might be his defense. He has to convince a judge or jury that he reasonably feared for his life and felt he could not retreat. Gonna be quite the challenge.

He doesn't have to prove anything about the ability to retreat. That was the point of the law in the Zimmerman case. I will note that the defense did not argue that law in their arguments. They had it in the jury instructions which the jury can read. But that wasn't a point of emphasis in their trial arguments.

 

[h0ckeysk83r]

There are witnesses this time so I don't know how well it compares to the Zimmerman case.

Yup. This is huge.

 

[MHSL82]

If he was texting the babysitter, perhaps he was not saying to the elderly man that he can text when he wants to, goddamnit. He might've been saying, "I was just texting the babysitter, relax. It's during the previews not the movie, man." (Not that I believe necessarily that he wouldn't text during the movie, but rather that would be my thinking in making a distinction that I wasn't being wholly discourteous.) Maybe he wasn't talking about continuing to do it, just justifying why he did it?

 

[sjballer03]

There are witnesses this time so I don't know how well it compares to the Zimmerman case.

This will make the case very interesting. We'll even be able to find out what the babysitter has to say.

 

[Ray_Dogg]

He doesn't have to prove anything about the ability to retreat. That was the point of the law in the Zimmerman case. I will note that the defense did not argue that law in their arguments. They had it in the jury instructions which the jury can read. But that wasn't a point of emphasis in their trial arguments.

Thanks for the clarification. The article I read totally botched that. Damn this dude has a legit chance of walking then. The stand your ground law is nuts!

 

[h0ckeysk83r]

Thanks for the clarification. The article I read totally botched that. Damn this dude has a legit chance of walking then. The stand your ground law is nuts!

Ya it's pretty crazy law. It's been pretty inconsistent in some cases though.

However as noted above there are plenty of witnesses which make it interesting.

The guy was an ex cop and he has lots of people that could back him up. Money talks and money wins.

 

[Ray_Dogg]

Ya it's pretty crazy law. It's been pretty inconsistent in some cases though.

However as noted above there are plenty of witnesses which make it interesting.

The guy was an ex cop and he has lots of people that could back him up. Money talks and money wins.

Plus the wife getting shot in the hand could have meant she was trying to pull her husband back. Gonna be interesting, no doubt.

 

[MHSL82]

Thanks for the clarification. The article I read totally botched that. Damn this dude has a legit chance of walking then. The stand your ground law is nuts!

The reason why this "stand your ground" law is called that is because it says you don't have to retreat, you can "stand your ground." So if you don't have to retreat, then proving your ability to retreat would be irrelevant. Just have to prove that you believed at the moment that you were in danger of imminent death. There is a reasonable person standard applied in that, too. Theoretically, if the jury feels that your imminent death belief was unreasonable, then that defense doesn't work. This case of popcorn thrown at him might qualify as being unreasonable, or the fact that he said he didn't know what it was that was thrown might be reasonable or he might be expected to have looked to see what was thrown at him. The fact that he used to be a police officer might be a factor. The fact that he's an elderly man might be a factor. Timing would be a factor, especially if the jury felt that he should've known/looked to see what was done.

Technically, in general criminal law (not voting the above law), in self defense, the force used has to match up with the force believed or used by the other. So if you punch me or I feel like I'm going to get punched, in a case of assault, I can punch you in self defense. I could say that I believed you were going to punch me (you had your hand in a fist). But I cannot shoot you and say that I believed you were going to punch me. However, I don't know what to believe now because I could say that I feared my life if you punched me. Technically, punch can tell, but is not the same thing as you drawing a gun on me. It really depends on your jury and your ability to act or push forward your true belief.

Not talking about you - but about the author of the article you read: I don't understand how journalists can cite that title of the law and watch that case, and get that wrong. I could rant about the law I don't understand and then publish it. But a professional journalist? Maybe he wasn't ranting, maybe he was just referencing it.

 

[MHSL82]

Plus the wife getting shot in the hand could have meant she was trying to pull her husband back. Gonna be interesting, no doubt.

She might've been trying to pull him back but it was a ricochet. So maybe he was falling back from the shot? Definitely a lot of things to consider.

 

[erckm510]

Ya it's pretty crazy law. It's been pretty inconsistent in some cases though.

However as noted above there are plenty of witnesses which make it interesting.

The guy was an ex cop and he has lots of people that could back him up. Money talks and money wins.

True he may get out of the criminal charges but he'll pay up in civil court

 

[Arete Tzu]

He didn't like someone telling him waht to do; especially when he knew he was wrong.

Where you there to whitness how the old man told him? what makes you assume the old guy was courteous and respectful with his request?

 

[Crimsoncrew]

I strongly disagree with this. You make way to many generalizations. You take the handful of cases you hear on the news, and use that to smear hundreds of thousands of law abiding citizens.

I realize I said "that rarely happens" when speaking about people carrying guns acting with more restraint than they otherwise would. That's probably unfair. The great majority of people who carry guns likely do so very responsibly, and I don't mean to suggest otherwise. Cases like this are the exception, not the rule. And even in this case, it's unclear that possession of the firearm changed the shooter's behavior in any appreciable way. However, these isolated events underscore what I see as the potential problem created by people carrying concealed guns, and laws that have a very lenient self defense standard. There is far too much wiggle room for people to put themselves in harm's way, shoot their way out of it, then fall back on self defense as an excuse.

 

[NinerSickness]

There are witnesses this time so I don't know how well it compares to the Zimmerman case.

That case had an eye witness too. Not to the entire incident though.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

Name two. And I'll name 25 that are less than 2 hours.

That was meant to be hyperbole.

 

[MHSL82]

That was meant to be hyperbole.

You should never use hyperbole. I cannot think of even one instance where you should use ever use hyperbole. It is the absolute worst form of expression. Just kidding

 

[erckm510]

That case had an eye witness too. Not to the entire incident though.

That's a big deal. No one could disprove Zimmerman's story. This time there are people who were there to see how everything went down.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

The reason why this "stand your ground" law is called that is because it says you don't have to retreat, you can "stand your ground." So if you don't have to retreat, then proving your ability to retreat would be irrelevant. Just have to prove that you believed at the moment that you were in danger of imminent death. There is a reasonable person standard applied in that, too. Theoretically, if the jury feels that your imminent death belief was unreasonable, then that defense doesn't work. This case of popcorn thrown at him might qualify as being unreasonable, or the fact that he said he didn't know what it was that was thrown might be reasonable or he might be expected to have looked to see what was thrown at him. The fact that he used to be a police officer might be a factor. The fact that he's an elderly man might be a factor. Timing would be a factor, especially if the jury felt that he should've known/looked to see what was done.

Technically, in general criminal law (not voting the above law), in self defense, the force used has to match up with the force believed or used by the other. So if you punch me or I feel like I'm going to get punched, in a case of assault, I can punch you in self defense. I could say that I believed you were going to punch me (you had your hand in a fist). But I cannot shoot you and say that I believed you were going to punch me. However, I don't know what to believe now because I could say that I feared my life if you punched me. Technically, punch can tell, but is not the same thing as you drawing a gun on me. It really depends on your jury and your ability to act or push forward your true belief.

Not talking about you - but about the author of the article you read: I don't understand how journalists can cite that title of the law and watch that case, and get that wrong. I could rant about the law I don't understand and then publish it. But a professional journalist? Maybe he wasn't ranting, maybe he was just referencing it.

Well, if the prosecution team is the same as the one that prosecuted Zimmerman, this guy walks for sure. Those guys are Grade A morons.