leadcounsel said: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.
I guess I disagree with the entire premise of this post (except that it could have been handled better by all). The old guy was the aggressor in this situation. He picked the fight, and then he continued to escalate. When the victim got fed up and reacted, the aggressor shot him. If the age disparity is a factor at all, then why did the old guy pick a fight with someone half his age whose capabilities he had no way of knowing?
The aggressor left his seat, and left his wife behind, to go and complain to management. Why not just move seats? Let the whole thing go and enjoy the movie?
leadcounsel said:Arguing against myself, I'd say there are reasons that it may not be a lawful shoot.
Ok, we do agree on one point then.