Using Your Cellphone During a Movie? Have a Bullet.

14 fucking years, and he still can't write a fucking tag??

and I never promoted the idea that Hillary Clinton had Vince Foster killed yet you managed to claim I did.

Isn't that correct?

And you're how old?

He's going with the Stand Your Ground defense since the guy assaulted him with a deadly bag of popcorn.

According to his lawyer...

Florida.

I can't blame him as it is a retarded law which allows the shooter a free get out of jail card so of course he's going to try to take advantage of one of the worst laws out there.

I don't think any judge in the country is going to agree that a reasonable person would fear death or serious bodily injury from a face full of popcorn.

What if he's severely allergic to popcorn?

Reasonable people aren't allergic to popcorn.

Maybe it had peanuts in it. We all know how deadly peanuts are.

I have a few comments, mostly unrelated to each other:

1. An almost instant kill with a .380? Point blank or at any range, a .380 isn't exactly a "hand cannon" by any means, so I must doff my hat to his shooting ability.
2. Did he pull his weapon from a holster or was he using "Mexican Carry" and pulled the weapon from his pants?
3. Did he get a refund for the movie he never got to see? Actually, all the patrons should get a refund or voucher to see that same movie for free.

The lawyer is likely right too. That's just how stupid and terrible stand your ground laws really are.

I hope your right but stand your ground got rid of the old proportional use of force laws which used to dictate the progression of force people had to go through before resorting to deadly force (unless they could show their life really was in imminent danger). It also got rid of the old duty to retreat laws which would have made the shooter automatically guilty in this case. That's why stand your ground is a really terrible law which will mainly be used by gun happy murderers instead of by regular people.

Wrong.

The lawyer is wrong you idiot. No judge is going to let popcorn being thrown an acceptable excuse for shooting someone. This guy will have his hearing and the judge will deny it and he will go to trial.

And there is nothing wrong with the Stand Your Ground laws. The fact that a few people might try to abuse them doesn't make it a bad law.

I see that to many people think Stand Your Ground = deadly force. It doesn't. All stand your ground laws say is that if someone attacks you then you can defend yourself without retreating. Stand your ground did not get rid of meeting force with equal force. If you use deadly force it still has to be justified. Having popcorn thrown at you doesn't justify deadly force.

Retreat laws are always stupid and unworkable. How far do I have to retreat? One step? Two? Ten?

Popcorn can indeed be hardous/deadly - work with me here:
big puffy piece of popcorn gets stuck in your throat - you choke to death
hot butter burns you - maybe your eyes, you could go blind
tiny piece of kernel gets stuck between your teeth and you notice this driving down the road. You're trying to work it out with your tongue and it's a driving distraction then BAM! Deadly car wreck

But watch this video carefully. James brown is gyrating, jumping, screaming and otherwise showing signs of pain and distress and shouting "POPCORN!" and at the time he was strong and healthy. Imagine what "popcorn" could do to an elderly man caught off-guard? If I were his lawyer this video would be my ace-in-the-hole.
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=mother popcorn

We'll see. Especially since they guy will likely claim it was more than pop corn and that he was attacked or something. He'll muddy the waters in an attempt to create doubt and quite possibly get off because of the stand your ground law.

Speaking of retreating:
I always go backwards when I'm backing up

I'm not aware of any proportional use of force laws before Stand Your Ground. I've been in two ccw classes...both of which were at a time when there was no Stand Your Ground in the state I was taking them in. The threshold has been reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury.

The problem is that Dinner and most of the people who rail against the "Stand Your Ground" laws are ignorant of what the law actually says. He believes that Stand your Ground gives a person the right to use deadly force in any situation. That's obviously not true.

All Stand Your Ground did was get rid of the retreat requirement.

Here is the law in Florida:

So just because I'm "standing my ground" doesn't mean I'm automatically able to use deadly force. I still have to be justified in the force I use. If I use deadly force I still have to be justified in using deadly force.

In this case having popcorn thrown at you is not a justification to use deadly force.

"Stand Your Ground" Eyed in Florida Movie Shooting

Well, that pretty much sets the tone for that not-at-all-biased article, dunnit?

Oh, I hope defense lawyers try the Stand Your Ground "defense" for every single one of these cases.

"Waaah, he hurted my feewings so I shot him!"

The jury will go for a self defense claim largely depending on how big of a dick they think the dead guy was.

This will be a fairly hard case to win in my opinion because EVERY juror will have had an encounter in the past with someone being a jerk with their cell phone.

Also a plus for the shooter is that he apparently went and notified management to resolve the issue. His lawyer can argue that he didn't immediately use deadly force and in fact went through a reasonable progression of procedures to resolve the situation.

Uh, no. You're conflating two things here that are vastly different from a legal point of view. He "went through a reasonable progression of procedures to resolve the situation" with regard to someone texting on his cell phone, not with regard to someone assaulting him with a bag of popcorn. There are and will be no criminal proceedings concerning that first situation. Whether there were any "reasonable procedures" concerning the second remains to be seen, but going to the management is not one of them.

Gangbanger shoots another gangbanger for "disrespecting" him? Gunforge goes on a rant against "those animals."

Old white guy shoots young white guy for "disrespecting" him? Gunforge doesn't know whether to do its usual ageist riff or embrace its new hero...

That is a gross simplification garamet. As is your characterization of some here as "gunforge". I incidentally have not defended him based on what we know now.

Dayton3: But I do hate the idea of a guy in the theatre armed with a handgun as well. (though I wouldn't count him as part of gunforge but given this is Garamet we are talking about.......)

Frontline: Some are calling him a murderer. Some are saying that he was justified. My take is this..we won't know for some time.

Paladin: Can't say if it was justified or not just yet. Seems kinda unlikely given the circumstances.

Man afraid of his Shoes: As it stands, yeah...it looks like this was 2nd degree murder clear cut, (and I suspect that it is) but who knows what news will "break" tomorrow?

Zombie: Regardless of who started the conflict, this case doesn't appear to have risen to the point that a shooting was justified.

Elwood: (didn't comment on the case but about cellphone jammers)

Zombie: Is the shooter in the wrong? All signs point to yes and he will die in prison since it's an automatic sentence if he's found guilty.

Frontline: Based on additional info, I'm going with the idea that he's guilty as shit and over reacted

Forbin: over the fact the guy says the thrown popcorn is justification for the shoot

Zombie: Having popcorn thrown at you doesn't justify deadly force.

Zombie: In this case having popcorn thrown at you is not a justification to use deadly force

DAMN THOSE BASTARDS IN GUNFORGE!!!!!