Sometimes we're our own worst enemy

Status
Not open for further replies.
It's amazing to me how everybody here knows for an absolute fact exactly what happened in that theater. I sure don't. I wasn't there. Were any of you there?

Shooter says man attacked him. The one piece of evidence I have heard is that the dead man's wife was shot through hand and the bullet then went into husband's chest. Hmmm... why did she have her hand on his chest? Could it be perhaps she was trying to restrain her husband who was angry and lunging towards the retired cop? He was like 20 years younger than the shooter, and him coming at the older man might be grounds for a justifiable shooting, no? Again, I wasn't there. I don't know what happened. But the one fact I noted is very interesting.
 
It's amazing to me how everybody here knows for an absolute fact exactly what happened in that theater
Click to expand...
The known facts seem to be one was unarmed and their was no physical attack, unless you include throwing popcorn and some verbal. If that is the case i would lock him up and throw away the key, he is not somewone safe to have a firearm.
 
How do you know these facts to be true? One man was unarmed, beyond that we don't know what happened. A gun isn't required for lethal force to be justified.
 
How do you know these facts to be true?
Click to expand...
How do you know the popcorn thrower's wife was actually shot through the hand?

Maybe the same way people know that the shooter told the popcorn thrower: "I'll teach you to throw popcorn at me."

Because that's what the news has reported.

All anybody knows, and can comment about, is what's been reported. Some of it is probably accurate, some of it is almost certainly inaccurate, based on my experience with news reports. But either way, the assessments made at this point can only be made on what's been reported and based on the assumption that what's been reported is reasonably accurate.

In other words, if you're going to argue against some facts based on the fact that we don't know them to be true for certain, it's not reasonable to simultaneously make claims based on other facts which are in just as much question as the ones you're trying to invalidate.
 
from what I see in this video the popcorn thrower attacked the shooter while the shooter was sitting down... he didnt simply throw his popcorn at the guy, he grabbed the guys popcorn from him and threw it back in his face. This makes the popcorn thrower the instigator of the fight

Take a look
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAbstx5CQng
 
Last edited:
SaxonPig said:
I wasn't there. Were any of you there?
Click to expand...
You're absolutely right. If I wasn't there to witness an event, there's no way I can ever have any kind of informed opinion of what happened. I wasn't at the signing of the Declaration of Independence, so I'll never know anthing about what happened there. I wasn't on any of the Apollo missions, so I have no knowledge of any of our moon landings. I've never seen Tom Hanks, so I have no way of knowing if he exists or not.
 
This makes the popcorn thrower the instigator of the fight...
Click to expand...
I really, REALLY hope you weren't trying to say that his being the instigator was enough to justify his being shot. If you were, I really REALLY hope you don't carry, or even own firearms.

Even if we accept that he was the instigator, it means absolutely nothing from a legal standpoint unless something he did during the "fight" actually justified the use of deadly force.

A person could start verbal fights with different people all day long. He could get in their faces, throw popcorn at them and generally make a huge jerk of himself and it would still never justify shooting him. It would probably get him arrested eventually, but it wouldn't justify any of his victims shooting him.

Given that the man's wife was not in the video frame and was supposedly injured by the shot before it entered her husband's chest it's blatantly obvious that the shot came well after the popcorn had been thrown and the thrower had stepped away.

That's going to make it very difficult to sell the idea that the shot was in self-defense as opposed to being retaliatory. That would be true even without the eyewitness accounts that the shooter stated that he was going to teach the guy not to throw popcorn. The statement makes it plain that the shooter knew very well what had happened and was acting in retaliation, as opposed to being in fear and reacting to the possibility of being hit or to the possibility of having something other than popcorn thrown at him as he is claiming at this point.

Retaliation is never legal justification for the use of deadly force.

Getting back to the point of the thread, the shooter can claim anything he wants, but before his claims will do him any good, he will have to present evidence to support them.
 
I really, REALLY hope you weren't trying to say that his being the instigator was enough to justify his being shot. If you were, I really REALLY hope you don't carry, or even own firearms.

Even if we accept that he was the instigator, it means absolutely nothing from a legal standpoint unless something he did during the "fight" actually justified the use of deadly force.

A person could start verbal fights with different people all day long. He could get in their faces, throw popcorn at them and generally make a huge jerk of himself and it would still never justify shooting him. It would probably get him arrested eventually, but it wouldn't justify any of his victims shooting him.

Given that the man's wife was not in the video frame and was supposedly injured by the shot before it entered her husband's chest it's blatantly obvious that the shot came well after the popcorn had been thrown and the thrower had stepped away.

That's going to make it very difficult to sell the idea that the shot was in self-defense as opposed to being retaliatory. That would be true even without the eyewitness accounts that the shooter stated that he was going to teach the guy not to throw popcorn. The statement makes it plain that the shooter knew very well what had happened and was acting in retaliation, as opposed to being in fear and reacting to the possibility of being hit or to the possibility of having something other than popcorn thrown at him as he is claiming at this point.

Retaliation is never legal justification for the use of deadly force.

Getting back to the point of the thread, the shooter can claim anything he wants, but before his claims will do him any good, he will have to present evidence to support them.
Click to expand...

Good post some should take notice, it concerns me what some on this forum think justifies deadly force. :(
 
JohnKSa said:
Given that the man's wife was not in the video frame and was supposedly injured by the shot before it entered her husband's chest it's blatantly obvious that the shot came well after the popcorn had been thrown and the thrower had stepped away.
Click to expand...
The shot happens immediately after the popcorn is thrown. Wife had her hand on husband's chest trying to push him away.
 
manta49 said:
Good post some should take notice, it concerns me what some on this forum think justifies deadly force.
Click to expand...
where did I state his use of deadly force was justified?

JohnKSa said:
I really, REALLY hope you weren't trying to say that his being the instigator was enough to justify his being shot. If you were, I really REALLY hope you don't carry, or even own firearms.

Even if we accept that he was the instigator, it means absolutely nothing from a legal standpoint unless something he did during the "fight" actually justified the use of deadly force.

A person could start verbal fights with different people all day long. He could get in their faces, throw popcorn at them and generally make a huge jerk of himself and it would still never justify shooting him. It would probably get him arrested eventually, but it wouldn't justify any of his victims shooting him.

Given that the man's wife was not in the video frame and was supposedly injured by the shot before it entered her husband's chest it's blatantly obvious that the shot came well after the popcorn had been thrown and the thrower had walked away.

That's going to make it very difficult to sell the idea that the shot was in self-defense as opposed to being retaliatory. That would be true even without the eyewitness accounts that the shooter stated that he was going to teach the guy not to throw popcorn. The statement makes it plain that the shooter knew very well what had happened and was acting in retaliation, as opposed to being in fear and reacting to the possibility of being hit or to the possibility of having something other than popcorn thrown at him as he is claiming at this point.

Retaliation is never legal justification for the use of deadly force.

Getting back to the point of the thread, the shooter can claim anything he wants, but before his claims will do him any good, he will have to present evidence to support them.
Click to expand...

settle down folks, John I hear what your saying and never said the guy was justified. I simply said the popcoprn thrower started the fight and that does change everything, the rest we don’t know and the media is blowing this our of proportion as bad as the Zimmerman case.... the popcorn thrower didn’t just throw his own popcorn at the cop he assaulted the cop. There are a dozen scenarios that could be happening out of frame of the camera and the cop sitting in a chair has no where to retreat even if he wanted to.

Armed_Chicagoan gets what I’m saying. The guys wife could have been desperately trying to hold him back.


now for the record before anyone else jumps to the conclusion I'd shoot someone over popcorn, I’m not saying the cop is innocent I’m saying there is now some evidence he didn’t start the fight and was assaulted. Maybe the shooting was wrong, I don’t know - but it doesn't sound like the guy that got shot was a real sweet heart Id say he has issues assaulting a old man in a chair.
 
It's easy (for me, anyway) to envision a defense attorney construing the "popcorn in the face" maneuver by the popcorn thrower as an attempt at distracting/disorienting his adversary. He (the popcorn thrower) would then have more opportunity to present and use something far more capable of causing injury or death in his assault, if he continued. And what reason does the "popcorn recipient" have, to believe that he adversary's assault would have stopped there?

The contention "I was fearful that he (popcorn thrower) was going for a knife or a gun." doesn't ring quite so hollow, especially after a criminal defense attorney has worked it over to maximum effect.
 
Theohazard- What color boots was John Hancock wearing at the signing, brown or black? Just because we know an event took place, that doesn't mean we know every detail. Your comments were fairly ridiculous. We know one man shot another. At this point that's all we know. The details won't be revealed until trial testimony. All the statements made in this thread are pure speculation.
 
JohnKSa-The fact that the dead man's wife was shot through the hand was reported by several news outlets and as far as I know nobody has denied it as true. You're right, I am making an assumption that what was reported is correct. But 99% of the observations made by others on this thread have no basis whatsoever.
 
Since the apparent "style of the times" when the Declaration of Independence was signed was knee-high breeches and stockings with shoes, I'LL say that Hancock was wearing neither black NOR brown BOOTS at the signing. :cool:

99% of the observations made by others on this thread have no basis whatsoever.
Click to expand...
Really? 99%? no basis whatsoever?

:rolleyes: WOW... :rolleyes:
 
I simply said the popcoprn thrower started the fight and that does change everything...
Click to expand...
It doesn't change anything from the perspective of whether or not deadly force was justified unless the thrower actually did something to justify deadly force. It's a non-issue in terms of the shooter being able to claim self-defense.
But 99% of the observations made by others on this thread have no basis whatsoever.
Click to expand...
As far as I can tell, they are all based on the same thing your observation is based on--things that have been "reported by several news outlets and as far as I know nobody has denied it as true".
We know one man shot another. At this point that's all we know.
Click to expand...
If that's all we know, why do you keep claiming that the wife was shot in the hand? Why are the "facts" that you choose to repeat from news reports somehow more valid than the "facts" other people choose to repeat from news reports? Are you really saying that we can't learn anything from watching a video of the shooting? Clearly that's nonsense. We don't know everything about the shooting, and some of the information we think is true, probably isn't. But we certainly know a good deal about what happened.
It's easy (for me, anyway) to envision a defense attorney construing the "popcorn in the face" maneuver by the popcorn thrower as an attempt at distracting/disorienting his adversary. He (the popcorn thrower) would then have more opportunity to present and use something far more capable of causing injury or death in his assault, if he continued. And what reason does the "popcorn recipient" have, to believe that he adversary's assault would have stopped there?
Click to expand...
1. The shot came after the throwing was done and the thrower had stepped back away from the shooter.

2. The shooter's statement, as reported by eyewitnesses, clearly indicated that he knew what had been done to him and why he was shooting. He didn't say: "Get back", "Don't hurt me", "Don't hit me", "Don't hit me again", "Ouch", or anything else like that. He said "I'll teach you to throw popcorn at me".
...the popcorn thrower didn’t just throw his own popcorn at the cop he assaulted the cop.
Click to expand...
True, but that's still not justification for the use of deadly force.
The contention "I was fearful that he (popcorn thrower) was going for a knife or a gun." doesn't ring quite so hollow, especially after a criminal defense attorney has worked it over to maximum effect.
Click to expand...
I'm sure he'll try it. He wouldn't be a good attorney if he didn't try to prove his client is innocent.

The shooter might have had a chance of claiming self-defense if he had shot as the person came at him, and if the circumstances (and what he exclaimed at the time) were consistent with him actually being in fear. As it is, he waited until the shooter stepped back and then made a comment indicating that he was retaliating, not defending.

For self-defense, the defender must reasonably believe that they are in immediate danger of serious injury or of being killed by someone who has the motive to carry out the threat and the means to do so. The words and actions of the shooter in this case indicate that he was not concerned with serious injury or death (he didn't respond while the person was coming towards him but only after he stepped away) and that his motive was not self defense but rather was retaliation (I'll teach you to throw popcorn at me.)

The circumstances of the case (based on what's been reported so far) will make self-defense a very difficult (if not impossible) sell to a jury.
 
True, but that's still not justification for the use of deadly force.
Click to expand...

true, but only given by what little we know. I cant help but wonder just what would have been a reasonable response for a 71yr old man sitting down to do to defend himself against being assaulted by a much younger man? If he had physically defended himself it would have easily escalated into a fist fight, and he had every right to physically defend himself. I can see why the cop was scared.

Its also worth noting that in the video I shared a cell phone was thrown at the cop and struck him... I’m not certain though where this happened in the timeline of events (before or after the shot).
 
Its also worth noting that in the video I shared a cell phone was thrown at the cop and struck him... I’m not certain though where this happened in the timeline of events (before or after the shot).
Click to expand...
Even if he hit him with a cell phone its hardly reason to shoot him. There are plenty of laws i doint like in the UK but the law on self defence is about right imo.

A person claiming self-defense must prove at trial that the self-defense was justified. Generally a person may use reasonable force when it appears reasonably necessary to prevent an impending injury. A person using force in self-defense should use only so much force as is required to repel the attack. Nondeadly force can be used to repel either a nondeadly attack or a deadly attack. Deadly Force may be used to fend off an attacker who is using deadly force but may not be used to repel an attacker who is not using deadly force.
Click to expand...

If he had physically defended himself it would have easily escalated into a fist fight, and he had every right to physically defend himself. I can see why the cop was scared.
Click to expand...
If it had escalated into a fist fight, then he might have being justfied in shooting him but that is not what happened. I doint see how being scared is good reason to shoot somewone either.
 
I understand that, but here we have a case with a large disparity of force. That is what makes this case interesting to me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top