Iraq Vet's Lawyer: He Fired In Self-Defense In Shooting Over Noisy Moviegoers

PHILADELPHIA — An Iraq veteran charged in a Christmas night shooting over noisy moviegoers fired in self-defense, his lawyer said.

James Joseph Cialella, 29, of Philadelphia, is charged with firing a shot that broke the arm of Woffard Lomax Jr. inside a movie theater during a screening of the film "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button."

A judge on Wednesday ordered Cialella held for trial on aggravated assault, reckless endangerment and related charges. The judge tossed out an attempted murder charge over a prosecutor's objections.

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."

Cialella spent five months in Iraq with the Army before being honorably discharged in September, Pagano said.

Municipal Court Judge Craig M. Washington lowered Cialella's bond from $350,000 to $50,000, but ordered him to remain under house arrest if he is released. It was not immediately clear Thursday whether he had posted bail.

Lomax did not elaborate on his testimony after the hearing.

Police have said Cialella brought a .38-caliber handgun in his waistband to the South Philadelphia megaplex.

___

Information from: The Philadelphia Inquirer, http://www.philly.com

Comments

[kennybean]

A muddled w a r casualty, creating more casualties post-w a r. Yep, this is how it happens. Bracing myself ...

[Xpress]

Self Defense? Didn't the Army teach him hand to hand combat? I think people do more brazen things (throwing popcorn, willingness to get involved in confrontations) when they are packing a gun. His self-defense certainly could have consisted of getting up out of his seat and getting the manager. But no, he elects to get involved to the point of firing a weapon in a public theater.

This Judge sounds like he cut the Vet a break by dropping the attempted murder charge.

Sounds like the Vet may have just been lucky not to have hit a vital organ or artery while he was being 'choked and punched.' I do believe our government is failing our Vets and we need to do more in providing the mental healthcare that Vets need.

We have all been to movies where there are people who seem to think they are the only ones in the theater - laughing too loud, talking too loud, texting etc. I guess its a good thing that we don't all carry guns!

One last observatio­n...This Vet served only 5 months in Iraq and was honorably discharged in September. I wonder if he had been discharged with a diagnosis of post traumatic stress or other mental impairment. I keep hearing of solider's doing up to two - 18 month tours of duty and then being denied the right to a discharge (back door draft). And this guy only served 5 months and they let him out? HHHmmmm...

[nofltwlt]

There is no justification whatsoever for taking a gun into a movie theater.

[permissionmag]

The second amendment says otherwise.

[americanexile]

You show me where it says ANYTHING about carrying a concealed weapon into a public place in the Constitution.

it talks about a well regulated milita, which can be CONSTRUED as allowing OWNERSHIP of a gun, not conealment in a public place for protection. Certainly there isn't even explicit, unwavering statements about owning guns in the Constitution, it needs to be CONSTRUED through the militia clause.

And the NRA can go suck itself if it tries to say otherwise.

Conceal and carry is a state issue, not a federal one.

[gnostic19]

i wonder how many skulls he cracked in Iraq.

[rudyinbama]

Tuesday night I saw "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button" myself.
I would suggest that Mr. Cialella's lawyers hire a psychological expert to look into the very real possibility that this painfully overlong and preposterous movie drove their client over the edge.

[stunsitfel]

Thanks for the review....­I'll mark it off my list.

[pipetoe]

I agree...Go Jennifer..

[Eyewideopen]

Yay Jen Jen

[euthman]

On the positive side, perhaps all this will have a chilling effect on people running their mouth in theaters. ;)

[MrsMAB]

Why do you need a gun to go to a love-story? And why isn't this attempted murder? He 'could have' shot to kill? How do you aim to NOT hit an artery?
Bottom line, this guy is a nut, and should be in jail. The scary thing is there will be a lot of nuts coming back from war.

[formerprosecutor]

Well, we have really no idea whether he shot to kill or not. That idea is just defense spin. He may have just shot, not caring about his target. Or he did shoot to kill, and the jostling threw off his aim.
To defense attorney: good luck with this defense. It doesn't fit the criteria.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

"And why isn't this attempted murder?"

Well, we have a decision from an experienced judge with a legal education who knows more about the particular facts that the author of the story.

For all we know, the author may simply be a part-time fiction writer who has written a story with part of the facts. He may be somebody who is simply yanking your chain. Somebody that wants you to react.

Alright, the shooter is a veteran. Is he suffering from PTSD? He doesn't claim that. The alleged victim isn't claiming that. And the judge hasn't simply dismissed the attempted murder charge without mentioning that at all.

How do we know that the alleged victim is a victim? Why? Because he was shot? How do we know that the shooter isn't 5' 2" and the alleged victim isn't 6' 5," with a reputation in the neighborhood for violence? The fact is we don't.

During the arraignment process established under our system of law, the judge saw more than what the reporter described in the story. The prosecutor made one argument. The defense attorney made a counter argument. The judge looked at the facts and the law, and made a decision.

At the point when we revert back to mob rule, we can all decide that this was attempted murder and that the guy with the bad photo should not be allowed to have due process of law. We're not there yet.

[beherenow54]

I believe that attempted murder would have to be premeditated, but I'm not sure on that. So assault with a deadly weapon would be more legally applicable. Had he actually killed the man it could possibly have been manslaughter or something like that. He would have had to think about beforehand, and then attempt to murder him with no actions preceding the attempt, for this to be attempted murder, I think.

Do we have any lawyers on the thread?

[formerprosecutor]

Another example of why we must institute a mechanism to determine psycological fitness to purchase and posess firearms. You have to provide less information to buy a gun than you do to be a foster parent or get a government job. Law enforcement must have a psycological fitness exam before we give them guns; what reasoning is there that the general public should be able to buy or posess a gun without that standard. (?) Burdensome ? It should be.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

Perhaps we should also have tests to determine the psycological fitness of people to be in public, like the alleged victim, and choke people like the shooter.

Just look at the shooter's photo. What type of person in their right mind would want to choke him? Or even consider being rude to him?

[formerprosecutor]

Nonetheless, the argument would have stayed " fisticuffs" .

Just think if the other idiot (victim) had been armed. The casuality count would have been much larger.

Why do some suspects try to fight 5 police officers; same mentality as the victim.

Not that this would help in this case; but I sure wish they would bring back ushers and enforce some rules in theaters.
Metal detecros might be a good idea. I love it that stores have spent millions to save their perfum from walking out the door but zero to protect employees and shoppers from gun violence.

[kennybean]

formerprosecutor - Wouldn't a war vet be an automatic pass? Having presumably already passed all the tests necessary to enter the military and combat?

[americanexile]

The Army has reduced it's standards in order to meet it's recruiting goals - they now allow people who committed serious crimes as well as high school drop outs

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/07/30/eveningnews/main3115199.shtml

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/MYSA101307_01A_ArmyRecruiting_36a6ac8_html5997.html

http://politicom.moldova.org/news/-78534-eng.html

This is going to be a big problem - the Army has taken some of the lowest quality people and trained them how to kill....

not to say that there aren't some good honorable people in the military, just that it is not entirely filled with good people - that's all

[reno1190]

HOW DO YOU KNOW WHEN A LAWYER IS LYING? THE MOMENT THEY OPEN THEIR MOUTH

[aznurse]

Holy cow!! I never, ever heard that before. It's bumper sticker material. Wow.

[americanexile]

DID YOU COME UP WITH THAT ALL BY YOURSELF?

[squander123]

America can expect a lot more of this kind of incident over the coming years (decades?). Combine a deep fetishization of military culture with a long and brutal war fought largely by an under-educated economic underclass who are then dumped back into wider society with little or no thought given to the effects their experiences have had on them, and with a legislative structure making the US the only western democracy that allows almost unfettered access to firearms, and this is what you get.

The single longest-lasting effect of the Iraq War for most Americans may well be these kind of incidents. The generation of working-class cannon-fodder your military has been recruiting from shopping-malls for the last 5 years are NOT going to go quietly. Years of small individual tragedies like this are going to be the price the rest of the US will pay for having allowed its government to prosecute an illegal war and abuses of human rights.

[CologneCitizen]

Kudos, great post.

[walleymr]

Not unlike those soldiers who came back from the first Gulf War ...

[americanexile]

AMEN to that. It hasn't even started yet - wait til the withdrawal is complete!

[AnotherMcIntosh]

Alright, we know what the shooter looks like. A bad guy. A person with squinty eyes, a muscular neck, and apparently a bad attitude. Somebody that most people wouldn't mess with.

What about the shootee?

[MrsMAB]

What about the shootee? He wasn't charged with a crime. He didn't bring a gun into a movie theater. What different does it make what he looks like?

[AnotherMcIntosh]

"[The shootee] didn't bring a gun into a movie theater."

We don't know that. This was in South Philadelphia.

[ZenCrusader]

GUNS in theaters ? come on - that's insane ! It's bad enough we have to live in a nation amid a dumbed-down populace but when they are allowed to carry guns into a movie theater it's beyond the pale.

[formerprosecutor]

The "place" makes no difference. I will bet that he was carrying illegally. The gun being in the waistband tells me "thug" not a licensed carrier. No responsible person would carry in their waistband in that fashion unless he didn't mind being neutered.

[provgrays]

Of course, this article had nary a word about why a concealed weapon was brought into a public place. There will be many more incidents like this in the Cowboy theme park that is the USA.

[CologneCitizen]

Only in America can a harmless argument in a movie theater or at toys r us lead to a fatal shooting.

Your public is so numb, they even discuss it on the internet instead of immediate action to make it very hard for a private person to own a gun. Yes, 2nd amendment, guns don't kill people etc. You can take violent American soldiers out of foreign countries, but you cannot take the violence out of these guys at home.

[provgrays]

Many Americans oppose guns, but the Supreme Court recently certified an incorrect reading of the Constitution, or at the very least, certified a badly written and now outdated amendment as meaning the individual right to brandish guns.

An armed populace does not increase your freedom but a populace can take arms to overthrow tyranny whether guns are legal or not.

Many who own guns don't love freedom. They merely love guns.

[mspink]

I support Our Troops.

[deadcustodian]

so what, this guy is an eeeeediot

[Fein]

The last sitting American president to be assassinated was killed by an ex Marine.

[americanexile]

What does that have to do with anything?

What does that mean anyway?

Do you support them being away from their families for years on end, fighting and dying for some lie that a rich white guy conned you into believing?

Do you support more trauma that makes a guy feel like he needs to be armed to go to a movie theatre?

Do you support having the wives and girlfriends having to deal with these wounded warriors on their own, what do you support about the troops?

What you MEANT to say, was you support the republican party, damn the consequences to SOMEONE ELSE - which I would expect from a person that voted for Bush twice, but not from someone on this blog.

I support the troops; I want them home, with the care, treatment and jobs that they need to live, to love and to be happy.