So that's the 'he-said-she-said', but then there's this from Cialella's (the shooter) lawyer:
Lomax, 31, told the judge he was at the movie with his girlfriend and her three teenagers, enjoying the film and laughing, when a man in front of him — not Cialella — told him to quiet down.
"We can't laugh?" Lomax recalled asking.
A second man threw popcorn at the family, and a brawl ensued. Lomax said he was fighting with the first man when the second man pulled out a gun and fired, striking him in the left arm.
A defense lawyer argued that Cialella was being choked and punched as he tried to break up the fight and fired in self-defense.
"He's a marksman," lawyer Greg Pagano said. "If he wanted to shoot to kill, he would have."So was he shooting to wound? That sounds like a pretty terrible defense if that's true. Personally, I wouldn't try to break up a fight to begin with; armed or not. That's just an invitation to get into a situation like this. Cialella carried a ".38 caliber handgun" in his waistband, for what that's worth.
The whole thing sounds kinds dubious to me, and I still think he's an idiot.