So you don't believe that throwing objects into someone's face is a criminal act?
Regardless of that, what was the popcorn thrower going to do next? That will definitely be discussed in any trial.
I've asked you to describe what a reasonable person in the situation of the ex-cop would expect to happen next.
Obviously you don't think anything threatening was going to happen. Tell me what you think the likely continuation of the situation would have been if the ex-cop had not drawn his gun.
Someone in the auditorium would have yelled out: "Hey you idiots -- shut up -- the movie is starting" -- and the good wife who was defusing things would have sat down with her husband and watched the movie.
If you think that carrying a gun in your pocket gives you some kind of moral superiority -- think again.
You are defending a guy who acted like an idiot.
People do criminal acts in my yard all the time, letting their dogs off leash to crap on my grass, and not picking it up. That's two county violations right there, and sometimes the dog owners trespass by stepping on my property with the dog, as well. That's three criminal acts. So, according to you, I have the right to shoot them? Three times, maybe?
This case illustrates perfectly the problem created by the Florida SYG law, to the extent that it overturns English Common Law (I confess to being a common law nut).
By granting the shooter a legal presumption of reasonableness, it imposes on the fact-finder (judge or jury) the impossible task of figuring out how this street beef started and who was most responsible for the consequences.
If a deadly force encounter starts with your door kicked in at 3am, it’s easy. If it starts in a parking lot with the decedent having pulled a knife, it’s still easy. Those are both classic, straightforward self-defense.
But when it starts on the street or in a public place between complete strangers, “standing your ground” can be interpreted in a number of ways. If “standing your ground” escalates a confrontation to the point that deadly force becomes legal, it’s unwise. And if “standing your ground” PROVOKES deadly force, such provocation being reasonably foreseeable under common law rules, it should not be a shield from prosecution.
I believe (Floridians correct me if I’m wrong) that the simple fact of Reeves telling the police that he felt endangered makes it a requirement that he not be arrested.