ChiefsPlanet - Life Texting in the theater in Florida? I don't think so...

ChiefsPlanet (https://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/index.php)

- Nzoner's Game Room (https://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/forumdisplay.php?f=1)

- -

Texting in the theater in Florida? I don't think so... (https://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=280643)

Also...

Quote:

The major health concerns involving popcorn stems from the presence of popcorn kernels and popcorn hulls. If kernels and hulls were not part of the popcorn mix, popcorn itself could finally receive a clean bill of health. However, more often than not, popcorn that is commercially available today contains an abundance of both kernels and hulls. And it is the kernels and hulls that pose a danger to consumers.

In considering the negative health consequences of popcorn kernels and hulls, these two elements can cause certain people serious problems in relation to their digestive system. For example, a person diagnosed with diverticulitis will find that his or her disease will seriously be aggravated if that patient consumes popcorn kernels and hulls. Indeed, this can develop into a life threatening situation on some occasions.

People of all ages who eat popcorn that contains kernels and hulls run a very high risk of injury (and sometimes, sadly, death) due to choking. The number of people who choke on popcorn kernels or hulls annually surprisingly is very high. For this reason, very young children never should eat popcorn. Additionally, many doctors advise their older patients to avoid popcorn as well because the risks associated with choking on popcorn kernels and hulls is so very high. Of course, everyone has heard of stories of people who unfortunately have been seriously injured or even died as the result of a choking incident.

http://dev.3klabs.com/crazzles/popco...ur-health.html

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!

Quote:

Originally Posted by gblowfish (Post 10371766)

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"?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rain Man (Post 10371599)

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.

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.

Quote:

The Times says that after the shooting, another local woman, Jamira Dixon, came forward to say Reeves had accosted her weeks earlier for the same offense:

On Dec. 28, she said Reeves confronted her for texting during a movie. <b>She said he was glaring at her, and that he even followed her to the restroom.</b>

Dixon said her husband thought of confronting Reeves, but didn't. "It could have been us," she told Bay News 9.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dartgod (Post 10371899)

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rain Man (Post 10371667)

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.

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by mike_b_284 (Post 10372248)

My parents moved to Wesley chapel last year. Its a really nice area. At least where they live.

Think Leawood. Upper class suburbia.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By (Post 10371927)

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.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dartgod (Post 10371899)

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

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chief Gump (Post 10371590)

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.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chief Gump (Post 10371590)

Those are both murder2.

So, no.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dartgod (Post 10371796)

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

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.