Had the disparity of force come into play, it would have been a factor to consider. Since the popcorn thrower never laid hands on the shooter, since there are no reports that he threatened to do so and most of all, since the shooter did not react as if he were concerned that could happen, it's not likely to be useful as part of the shooter's defense.
Sometimes we're our own worst enemy
- Thread starter Andy Blozinski
- Start date
- Status
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
The armed 71 man could have moved. He could have asked for his money back.
He decided to engage an unknown person in the monkey dance. In a sense, he is lucky (not that he is going to jail). There are people who might have just reached over and stabbed him.
There is the pragmatic and normative.
The normative folks will say he had the right to stay there and not be annoyed. He had the right to stand his ground. Blah, Blah.
The pragmatic says you defuse fights.
In quality FOF, you learn to do more than wonder about if your latest Extreme Organ Crusher load at 2500 FPS from a LCP will kill your opponent if you shot him in the toe. You learn to get out of the situation.
Geezer didn't. So he probably won't be telling kids to get off his lawn.
If you want to defend on the normative podium his right not deescalate a conflict and take the risk of a gunfight or getting killed himself, that's not sensible.
Internet denizens always assume they will win the fight. Always?
He decided to engage an unknown person in the monkey dance. In a sense, he is lucky (not that he is going to jail). There are people who might have just reached over and stabbed him.
There is the pragmatic and normative.
The normative folks will say he had the right to stay there and not be annoyed. He had the right to stand his ground. Blah, Blah.
The pragmatic says you defuse fights.
In quality FOF, you learn to do more than wonder about if your latest Extreme Organ Crusher load at 2500 FPS from a LCP will kill your opponent if you shot him in the toe. You learn to get out of the situation.
Geezer didn't. So he probably won't be telling kids to get off his lawn.
If you want to defend on the normative podium his right not deescalate a conflict and take the risk of a gunfight or getting killed himself, that's not sensible.
Internet denizens always assume they will win the fight. Always?
You must have missed these statements I made in previous posts.
If we're going to talk about this, we can only talk about what's been reported in the news. If we can only talk about things we absolutely know to be true then this discussion is pointless and the thread should be closed since it's almost certain that at least some of what's been reported is inaccurate or incomplete.
Anyway, it's not necessary to rely on any single piece of information to analyze the situation. For example, the post from which you selected that quote, listed three bits of supporting evidence which all supported a single conclusion, not just the single bit of evidence you took exception to.
he was seated in his chair when assaulted, and had his wife with him. Was he supposed to suddenly get up and run away and leave his wife behind?Glenn E. Meyer said:
JohnKSa said:
this is true. Im more just arguing the counterpoint here for the sake of discussion because I suspect many opinions are already formed by the poor media reporting that the guy shot him because the other guy threw his own popcorn at him. I do think it deserves merit that there is evidence this was not the case. And since were not limited to only what we absolutely know to be true, my guess is he didn’t shoot the man out of revenge for taking his popcorn. I could be wrong...
...so I’m not necessarily disagreeing with you that he shouldn’t have fired, but what I see is a 72year old man sitting down assaulted by a much younger assailant in a position he could not retreat from. I’m curious what you guys would have done differently, in the moment he grabbed your popcorn from your hands and threw it in your face? What would a reasonable man have done?
A "reasonable" man wouldn't have been the a-hole that harassed the guy texting his kid before the movie started. A "reasonable" man might have got up and moved to a different seat if he was so offended by someone else's cell phone that they felt the need to pick a fight over it.
Being enough of a jerk to prompt someone to throw popcorn in your face doesn't give you the right to use deadly force. Or at least it shouldn't. Claims that the victim initiated the incident by throwing the popcorn ignore the prior actions of the assailant that precipitated the popcorn "assault".
Being enough of a jerk to prompt someone to throw popcorn in your face doesn't give you the right to use deadly force. Or at least it shouldn't. Claims that the victim initiated the incident by throwing the popcorn ignore the prior actions of the assailant that precipitated the popcorn "assault".
The shooter, according to the eyewitnesses, stated in the heat of the moment why he shot the thrower. He said: "I'll teach you to throw popcorn at me." If that's not retaliatory, I don't know what is. There's really no need to guess given a statement like that.
He didn't need to retreat. The thrower had already stepped back before the shooter fired.
As I said in an earlier post, had he fired as the thrower was approaching, that might have been different and he might have had a chance to claim that he was honestly afraid he was about to be violently attacked. That wouldn't have been a slam-dunk defense since the thrower was unarmed but disparity of force may have come into play in those circumstances. Then the problem would have been proving that it was reasonable to fear for his life because the thrower was coming at him. Not a great chance but at least a possibility.
Since he waited until after the popcorn had been thrown and the thrower had stepped back away from him, it's a different story. There's not a good way to paint that as a legitimate self-defense scenario.
I'd like to think I wouldn't have let it escalate to that point. This went on quite awhile from the first time the shooter complained about the texting--giving the shooter time to leave the theater and then come back and resume his complaints. A lot of time to realize that the exchange wasn't going to be productive and let it drop.
[sarcasm]Kill him, what else![/sarcasm]
Seriously, what would any reasonable person do if someone throws popcorn at them? It's irritating, even infuriating, but it certainly doesn't justify deadly force. A reasonable person lets it drop. In fact, a reasonable person probably wouldn't continue the exchange to the point that it actually descended to that level.
This is one thing that's important to consider when we deal with people--our choices have consequences and part of the consequences is that they affect future choices. New choices can be created that weren't there before. Choices can be changed. Choices that existed may be eliminated.
For example, choosing to confront a person for annoying behavior eliminates the choice to simply move unobtrusively away from the source of annoyance without the possibility of a scene. Am I saying that it's always a bad choice to confront someone? Certainly not, but I am saying that one should keep in mind that such exchanges are not always productive and have the potential to turn sour.
There was a story in the news recently where a father's choice to engage in road-raging with another idiot who had even less self-restraint ended up costing his daughter her life and putting his young son in the position to watch his sister die in front of him. It wasn't the father's fault, it was the fault of the murderer who fired into their vehicle, but the father's choices certainly made a difference in the outcome.
In a situation where a decision is made to confront, one needs to also consider the possibility that after the confrontation is begun, the circumstances may dictate that the best option is to back down and try to let it drop if the other party isn't behaving like an adult. A person who knows himself/herself well enough to realize it will be very difficult to back down should think extra hard about beginning a confrontation in the first place.
The other alternative is just doing whatever you feel like without putting any thought into it right up until the point where there's a life or death decision to be made and hoping you're still rational enough at that point to make the right decision.
Last edited:
Wymark and JohnKSa, those are both good replies I agree. I think that was a good point about the thrower stepping back... and most of all about choosing to disengage. If that was me I know I would not have antagonized anyone at all, worst case I would have asked for my money back and went home. I focused on the moment of the incident shown in the video since it was different than what the media described but in the entirety of the situation it doesn’t justify staying in an argument, even more so when armed. This reminds me of an article I read a while ago from Ayoob about staging a $20 bill on you when crossing a bad part of town to give a mugger an easy 20 bill instead of fighting back (and thus keeping your wallet). Thank you for the dialogue.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
Not to belabor the point but focusing on the incident missed my point.
I am certainly not starting a fight with my elderly wife next to me when we can simply leave the area.
Look at the video and the empty seats further back. Also, the old man left his wife alone to report the man.
This was a total fail in situation evaluation by the old man. That the popcorn thrower was wrong to do this and geezer might win in some tortured analysis of the jury, doesn't mean that the geezer was a fool.
leadcounsel
Moderator
Yes, we are. That includes convicting this man in the media. I recall recently two mens' lives being ruined by the media when it turns out they acted lawfully in self defense. Zimmerman and Wilson. Turns out the media doesn't really report things very fairly or accurately.
When factoring in self defense it is fear in the mind of an individual at the time, not from internet commandos sitting behind computer screens on their couch at home.
The shooter was over 70 years old. The aggressor was 43. I'm unaware of any 70+ year old that would last more than 1 good punch from a fit 43 year old. The 43 year old struck the shooter twice - one assault by hitting him with an object (we later learn it's a phone) and also by grabbing his possession (his popcorn). We can downplay and trivialize these but they are legal assaults x 2. Sure it does factor in that they were minor assaults, but the fact remains that the shooter apparently tried to do the right thing by complaining first to the guy, then to management, and was lawfully seated in his seat when he was assaulted. Remember, the video is in IR. We can see. But the theater was dark. He would have just seen the figure of a man between him and the only light in the room, a movie screen, when the man assaulted him twice.
He would not have known the mans intentions or whether he had a knife or gun. But any reasonable person, especially and geriactric person, could reasonably fear serious bodily harm is imminent when a 43 year old comes at him and his wife. I think there are valid defenses.
Between the assaults with the popcorn and phone and gunshot there is a small window of time, maybe a second or two, it's almost instant.
Surely it could have been handled better by all involved. That's an important point to think about. I'm not advocating to shoot people over this minor avoidable incident. But it does not appear to me the man has clear criminal culpability. He was in an armed defensive posture, which is totally lawful in this situation. He was defending himself from an unknown attacker with unknown abilities and weapons in a dark room. He was assaulted twice in a dark room by a man 30 years younger and presumably a man that could have killed this old guy easily, given average ages and comparative strength. Knowing only this, I'd say it was a tragic but lawful shoot.
Arguing against myself, I'd say there are reasons that it may not be a lawful shoot. But I'm not going to give the prosecution any tips in case they're reading this thread.
Last edited:
leadcounsel
Moderator
I don't think you can say that at all.
Normally a person can only respond with lethal force when presented with lethal force/attack. However, in a DARK movie theater (let's not forget shootings have happened in dark movie theaters) when a person lunges at you, and hits you with a thrown object, twice, and this was following presumed threats and vulgarities... I'd say that a reasonable person could fear that imminent serious bodily harm was forthcoming to him or his wife seated by his side. He was old and had very limited options at the instant of the attack. And he had no duty to move or retreat prior to the attack.
Put yourself in a situation, with a person of far probably superior strength or fighting ability. You're in a dark room. Your wife is with you (and also possibly threatened). You're lawfully there. Hostile words are exchanged from the aggressive man. You could leave, but you ARE lawfully there. Suddenly a large aggressive man (assuming that small meek men don't start fights) with unknown abilities or weapons is blocking the entire movie screen in front of you and you just see a dark figure, who hits you with a thrown object and lunges at you. You're blocked in by seats and people in every direction, and your wife is there too (assuming you have a duty to protect her, as she may be a victim if he draws a weapon), and at 70+ years old you're in likely no physical condition to flee over people and chairs and leave your wife, nor are you able to fight this guy in a fist fight. A fit 43 year old could easily hop the chair and be on top of this 70 year old in an instant, and pummel him to death with ease, or use a weapon against him like a knife. The fact he didn't is irrelevant. It's a reasonable fear of IMMINENT serious bodily harm or death, and I'd say that was created at least in his man's mind.
What do you do? Plead for mercy from this guy? Beg for him not to harass you. Close your eyes and hope for the best? Cry?
As I see it this man's options were limited. He didn't presumably start it, provoke it, or deserve to be boxed in and attacked.
Again, he could have moved seats - plenty of them were open behind him. But he was NOT lawfully required to move. And from start to finish, the attack and response was within a few seconds.
Finally, the fact that the aggressor's wife was trying to hold him back apparently demonstrates that the aggressor was out of line and his wife knew it.
I'd say you'd have a VERY good self defense claim.
Last edited:
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
This is quite a good example of a ridiculous world view. Every quality trainer and the TX CHL course teaches one to defuse situations. Even the slightest hint of justification because it was legal to stay there is ridiculous as staying there was not a necessity as compared to the risk.
If you stay in a potential fight because it is technically legal and you don't have to - you are an idiot.
Can he pull it off because he managed to get himself in a disparity of force situation? That will be determined.
As the OP stated, we can be our own worst enemy. Any discussion of the technical legalities that might get this guy off should be predicated on the fact that the old guy was an idiot at the start.
Even if he walks, he has gone through hell and there are all kinds of consequences for his action, even if legal.
leadcounsel
Moderator
Well, equally ridiculous is the notion that I must go around the world in fear and yielding to every bully that wants my lunch money or wants to humiliate me in front of my wife by kicking sand in my face. Every time someone tells me to move my car from a public spot, I must go move it? When the bully comes and tells me and my wife to move from the booth at Denny's because that's "his seat" I must move? When the bully threatens me with immediate severe bodily harm for my wallet, I must yield and give it to him? I don't think so. At some point for human dignity and safety we get to stand our ground against bullies.
In this case, the only fault this guy had was not moving, which he was under no legal obligation to do. He was apprehensive and had his pistol drawn and ready. I agree, he should have just moved seats. But he had a right to be where he was.
Now, that "privilege" or "right" may very well result in the un-pleasantries of murder charges and draining your retirement fund for a lawyer, and spend your twilight years in prison. Really dumb to pick this battle, I agree. But the "stand your ground" law exists so one does not have to retreat and yield to bullies.
It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.
I don't think this is correct. I believe the stand your ground law just doesn't apply here. It only says that an individual has no duty to retreat from any place he/she has a lawful right to be and may use any level of force, including lethal, if he/she reasonably believes he/she faces an imminent and immediate threat of serious bodily harm or death;
There simply can be no reasonable belief that someone faces an imminent and immediate threat of serious bodily harm here. Perhaps if the guy punched him, had a knife, verbally threatened to kill or hurt the man - something. But, grabbing someone's popcorn or throwing popcorn. Naaaa. Is the guy a bully? Perhaps? Does this mean you get to shoot him? Not if these are the only facts and I'm on the jury.
Would anyone here actually pull a gun and shoot the telephone-talker under these exact same conditions (what has been reported anyway)? Is there anyone willing to admit that these facts are enough to shoot someone?
Last edited:
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
Feel free to get into gun fight accompanied by your wife in Denny's.
Tell me, how you will respond to the man who tells you to move?
He says: Move
What do you do next?
I assume that you have excellent martial arts and shooting skills such that a gunfight in Denny's won't hit anyone else and you will win the H2H. That's of course a given.
Tell me, how you will respond to the man who tells you to move?
He says: Move
What do you do next?
I assume that you have excellent martial arts and shooting skills such that a gunfight in Denny's won't hit anyone else and you will win the H2H. That's of course a given.
NO!!,,no,no,no,no!
Stand you ground laws are legal cya, to prevent you from being taken to court if you do get into a shooting and are found justified.
Many states had a "duty to retreat" either directly written in law, or implied. some, I think, still do. People forced to defend themselves could and were sometimes found in the wrong, when everything else was right, solely because they did not retreat.
Because "stand your ground" laws use language like "anywhere you are lawfully entitled to be" they got nicknamed "stand your ground", and people have been misunderstanding what they are REALLY about, ever since.
It may seem like a small matter in discussion, but small matters can be vitally important in a court of law.
Frank Ettin
Administrator
What a preposterous thing for someone who claims to be a lawyer to say. "Stand-Your-Ground" simply obviates the need when pleading self defense to demonstrate that you could not safely retreat.leadcounsel said:
It has long been the rule under the Common Law that one had no duty to retreat in one's home, and sometimes in one's place of business. Stand-Your-Ground laws simply expand the situations in which one doesn't lose the ability to justify his use of force in self defense if he can safely retreat. But he must still demonstrate that his use of force was justified.
"Stand-Your-Ground" has nothing to do with standing up to bullies.
In California, BTW, it has long been the rule, based on court decisions that one has no duty to retreat anywhere
- Status