See that? give someone a rap on the beater and ya get a little respect around here!

You continue to miss the difference between defending yourself, and killing another unarmed person over a disagreement. No witnesses reported any struggle. Shooter is behind bars, and likely will be for a long time. That should tell you everything you need to know about your idea of defense.

I am assuming that most elderly folks have physical conditions that would make fisticuffs unfair at best, and possibly deadly in some worst cases.

If that assumption doesn't prove to be true, this was probably murder. If the texter didn't show an eminent physical threat, this was probably murder.

In the CCW class I took I was told that you can’t start a fight, use your weapon to end it and call it “self-defense”. That’s murder, plain and simple.

He might get conjegul visits.

He shot a man over a thrown bag of popcorn, in an incident of his own creation, which he was wrong to initiate in the first place. I'm not sure what you think you're defending, but this is not the guy to be white knighting.

I saw another article that said there was a physical confrontation. Like I've been saying, a lot of missing information. I'm not missing anything, I just won't jump to the assumption he is guilty of cold blooded murder until some details are clarified. I thought I had made that clear...

If this proves to be the truth, so be it.

I agree....he's ****ed

No, it's unpossible for an old man to defend himself against a 20 something.

http://i39.tinypic.com/2lckzg6.jpg

That's the claim made by his own attorneys:

http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/story/2...heads-to-court

I figured as much. I just feel awful for you helpless guys in your 50's and 60's. Just have to curl up into a ball and take the beating unless you have a weapon on you.

LMAO

What an idiot and I have no doubt he thought the stand your ground law would bail him out.

nah, I think it's a classic case of a guy losing his temper over something very minor. I'm guessing the old man just kind of lost it. Now someone is dead. I'm guessing the old guy had some anger managment issues he never really dealt with.

Or maybe he was able to vent his anger in some way during his police years.

Yup

Retired "POLICE CAPTAIN". This guy was a ****ing Captain.

That must be why he was able to shoot two people with one bullet.

If I read what happened correctly he shot once, sat down and put the gun in his lap. He knew what he was doing and what the law was

If that works, I've got about six people that I'm going to go pick a fight with as soon as they start using their phone.

Seems to me this guy was both sheep dog and wolf.

At least the victim didn't throw a bag of skittles at him.

This was no ordinary senior citizen. This was not some retired flat foot, walked a beat, small town cop.

He was the cop that started the first SWAT team in the early 80's in Tampa. He was considered the go to guy for all hostage situations, public unrests etc. for over 10 years. The best cop in the Tampa area.

He was head of Security at Bush Gardens amusement park after he retired from the police force.

I wonder if the reaction here would be the same if the headline read "Man shot at movie theatre for being a dick." I love how headlines can drive peoples emotions.

Death for texting during a movie preview seems extreme to me, regardless of the headline. Your mileage may vary.

As I said in a previous post, was it the texting that got him shot or did something happen after that?

And I am not condoning what the old fart did. I am just saying there was more than he was just texting.

Obviously he had no choice but to shoot the guy. It's not like you can just walk out of a theater. And even if he could, why would he throw away $10 of his hard earned money when he can just kill someone instead.

I think this should be an acceptable penalty for texting repeatedly during a movie.

one of the witnesses seems to give a good account. Verbal altercation followed by the victim tossing his popcorn at the old dipshit. Guess the old man didn't appreciate getting his disgusting, bald head all greasy.

So your saying it wasn't for texting?

Does the headline make a difference? "Man throws popcorn after altercation, shot in chest"....

Dude took it all wrong. That shit was $20 worth of popcorn. It was a peace offering and not intended to offend.

The shooter will probably get off as self defense. He thought the guy's smart phone was a stun gun...

Yes it does. Several people on here have stated he was shot for just texting which is laughable. He was shot because he got into an altercation with an old fart with a gun. The texting led to the altercation but it did not lead to the shooting.

Once again, I am not on the side of the old fart. I don't have enough evidence one way or the other to make any analysis but it does sound like the dipshit will be spending some time in jail.

Unfortunately his wife was the Lone Survivor.

Absolutely correct. The texting is may have started it, but this is nothing more than a sad case of two folks who let their egos get in the way. Had the guy who was texting been more courteous to those around him AND had the old guy been a little more patient, this would never have escalated to two strangers standing up and facing each other in a public theater.

They BOTH mishandled this poorly. It should never have escalated to someone feeling like he needed to pull a gun on the other.

Ok. You're just stating what everyone already knows.

:hmmm:

You're so literal

The senility defense. Nice.

Either you didn't read the thread or you're just being an asshole. I'm the one who linked to the follow up story about the popcorn being thrown and quoted it.

I don't remember reading it in the story but did the guy have his gun drawn already and pointed at the guy when he threw the popcorn? Or did he draw and fire after he was hit with the popcorn?

This could make a huge difference in the trial if it gets to one.

Like I said. Probably not the first person he murdered. He was just on duty before.

Was probably why he was promoted to Captain. For taking out the "bad guys".

Yup. I mean the guy had a weapon.

Popcorn.






Popcorn.

We know the police talked to witnesses who did not see any punches thrown. We know the defense attorney is claiming the bag of popcorn thrown is cause to fear for your life. We know this isn't the first time he has harassed movie goers.

Most 70 something people live in an elderly care home? Are you serious? Go to Branson, MO sometime and check out the people in their 90's running around on vacation. You're off on the age demographic here. No way in hell "most" people in their 70's are living in a nursing home.

No doubt in my mind that this dude thought stand your ground would protect him. Oops. Now his 71 year old asshole is going to get pruned nightly in prison by kids half his age avenging their absent fathers. ROFL Sorry, couldn't help myself...

I agree. Dude was just waiting to be "attacked"

Lock his stupid ass up

I tend to doubt he thought that far ahead. Read the bio on this guy, he’s a man of authority that isn’t used to being told to get bent much less have some smart ass punk throw something at him. I’m willing to bet his reaction is based on emotion and pride.

I hope this is sarcastic.

either way, he is a psycho

Which I'm sure is a big part of it. But when I say he thought stand your ground would protect him, in my mind he's a big supporter of the law, and thought to himself that because of it, his ailing body wouldn't cause him to suffer any humiliation ever again. Totally crack pot psychology there, but that is the jest of my thought process. Right or wrong, we'll never know, more than likely.

Agreed, and he's headed for what he deserves.

People who carry guns around continue to sink lower and lower on the society food chain.

Feel bad too because guns are pretty cool considering the engineering involved.

You don't think it will look different to a judge and jury both in the verdict and sentencing in a trial.

Scenario one, old fart claims something hits him and he just reactivly pulls the trigger.

Scenario two, old fart gets hit with something and has to actively think to pull out his gun and pull the trigger.

That can play a huge difference.

"Reactively pull the trigger"?

I don't really understand the difference.

As someone earlier pointed out, I'm curious why the wife's hand got shot, and if she was trying to hold the dead guy back from attacking the old guy. But even if she was, I think the old guy is in a heap of trouble, so maybe it doesn't make much difference.

It's really hard for me to buy any type of self-defense argument. There were no punches thrown, and it was in a public area with dozens of other people around. Yelling, "Help! Call the police!" would have sufficed as a defense.

About the only thing I'm thinking is that this crazy old **** thinks it's okay to discharge his weapon in a room that's wall to wall people over a confrontation he just wouldn't walk away from. He needs to be put away.

He's a retired police captain.

Was there a better way to "mishandle" it. ROFL

A guy was killed because some asshole didn't like him texting during movie previews. The previews. This isn't a both wrong scenario.

I think the big problem is that we no longer allow duels. In 1810 this would have been handled much better. They would have slapped each other with gloves, met in a designated dueling zone of a city park later, and everyone would have enjoyed the movie.

Well that is kind of what they did, only the loser brought popcorn to a gun fight.

He also got first shot, but you're not going to win a duel with popcorn. It was a bad choice of weapons.

Not so fast...

Also...

Popcorn can be some scary stuff! The old man was clearly within his rights.

Back in high school debate, we used to call something like that (the popcorn health angle) a "squirrel case." It might be too crazy to defense, so, it might just work!

Isn't that the basis of the "Chewbacca Defense"?

Maybe any lawyers on here could tell me if I am wrong but I think it could mean the difference between the type of murder charge (ie. murder 1, murder 2) they try to get which in effect changes the type of sentencing he can recieve.

Apparently it wasn't this guy's first time as movie theater vigilante.

http://gawker.com/ex-cop-who-shot-te...ene-1501798833

I'm not defending the old coot, but glaring at someone is not really a confrontation.

No, but following her to the restroom is either a case of the viagra working too well or a guy with a serious hostility issue.

Unless you're the guy picked to be a second.

Think Leawood. Upper class suburbia.

Like I said earlier, he was use to being the top dog, having the power of being the top dog. I bet he felt entitled to get his way in public. If anyone didn't bend to his will, especially someone not following the rules......he got pissed off.

FWIW, he also verbally confronted her. I dunno if she was texting during the actual movie that time.

Anyways. This guy should have really sat in the front row if someone simply looking at their phone is too much to bear.

Even if it were the first scenario, which I would guess you believe would make his self-defense case a bit more believable, why was he brandishing his weapon prior to any threatening event? It seems to me he'd be the wrong in either scenario you propose.

....let's not pretend we know this guy, other than he made a horrific decision, and he'll end up where belongs.

Those are both murder2.

So, no.

I think we should coin a new term, "The KenDICK Lewis Defense" - you knew before it started that you were going to be raped and killed, so you had to do it.