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

[montestruc]

Since he was not charged with carrying a concealed weapon, it seems pretty clear that he had a permit which makes it legal and proper for him to carry the gun to the theater.

Many places have laws against carry in a place that serves alcohol, but since this was a movie theater that children were at, clearly that does not apply. From the story he did not pull a weapon till after one was fired at him, and did not get physical with anyone till after they started something.

It was self defense according to the facts presented in this article. Now it may well be that not all the facts were presented, but from what the story says, it was self defense.

[Rashomon]

Since when is it ever 'proper' to carry a gun into a movie theatre?
How often has anyone actually needed a gun while watching a movie?
This is absurd. Even if it were legal to do so it is odd to carry one unless he is an on duty cop.

We have all been angry at people for making noise in a movie theatre. Most of us are adult enough to call management on them. Or to try to reason with them. And heck maybe some do get into a fight. But bringing a gun into the equation is dangerous because someone could die.

Imagine that. Someone gets shot because they threw popcorn.

[harriettubman]

It's always proper to have one's gun to a member of the NRA. Didn't you know that? They take it to the theater, restaurants, church, and dare you to say a word.

[montestruc]

Lomax claimed that a "brawl erupted" after some person threw popcorn at them, that is often a code phrase for "I started punching someone".

"formerprosecuters" claims aside, a person can be killed by bare hands and should not have to tolerate being used as a punching bag by some lunatic.

It is proper to carry a concealed firearm if you have a permit into anywhere that it is legally allowed.

You cannot predict when you will need a gun for self defense, that was much of the point of the concealed carry laws. When that law was enacted in Texas it was in large measure as a result of a lady who witnessed her parents being murdered while she had left her gun in her car following the law at that time. That man killed 23 people before he committed suicide and by accounts of numerous witnesses, any one person with a gun could probably have stopped him during the rampage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Hennard

[bubbuh]

Only in Texas.

[formerprosecutor]

You are kidding, right ?

Legally, he had a duty to retreat. and could. easily

Legally, he was not in fear of his life ( a combat vet with a friend) vs one unarmed big mouth; no way they are going to sell self defense

Legally, he can only use enough force to escape. Instead, he engaged.

He shot an unarmed person.

I won't even start of the "depraved indifference" of shooting in a crowded movie theater.

[montestruc]

"formerprosecuter" commented:

"You are kidding, right ? Legally, he had a duty to retreat. and could. easily"

I am not kidding and while it may be true in some states, including perhaps PA that a monstrous and viciously amoral "duty to retreat" while being attacked exists, it does not in many if not the majority of jurisdictions in the USA.

I am by the way very aware of the exact meaning of what I say and I mean it, the so called "duty to retreat" is monstrous, vicious, and amoral.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_retreat

I do know for a fact that "duty to retreat" legally tends to be a creature of the northeast and California, and not in most of the rest of the USA.

People, educated people anyway, who "believe in" a "duty to retreat" of a human being who is being attacked, are not people I would willingly associate with.

[Deesel]

Where does it say that he didn't fire until he was shot at? There was one gun, and it was his own.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

"There was one gun, ..."

Maybe.

But the AP has variously reported
(1) a .38 was used (i.e., a revolver), and
(2) a .380 was used (i.e., a type of pistol that uses a magazine).

Contrast, for example, http://www.philly.com/philly/wires/ap/news/state/pennsylvania/36977009.html
with
http://www.philly.com/philly/wires/ap/news/nation_world/36980549.html

[montestruc]

My mistake.

His lawyer says he fired in self - defense as he was being choked and punched. I misunderstood the passage to think that the guy giving testimony was the same as the guy being charged.

In any case a person can be killed by bare hands and starting a fight over throwing popcorn is out of line.

[ThinkCreeps]

OK, so you've got PTSD - go to hospital. When you're better come back and join in with life. And while you're mentally ill, don't carry a firearm.

[eminent]

how does one know one has PTSD when one is used to extreme conditions such as war?how many people out there suffering with all sorts of undiagnosed disorders allowed to carried guns? how about paranoia and a gun? strengthen the vet support and amend the gun laws.

[neesy08]

I have no sympathy for him.Not only did he carry a gun into a public facility where children are, he is a vet. He has been trained to use firearms. He should have left the gun at home. Why bring one to a movie theater? He was asking for trouble.

[SouPro]

I'd encourage you to direct your ire towards him and not the object he's carrying. He fired a gun in a crowded theater. It's dark, so he clearly had a terrible view of his target and what was behind him. Cialella could have easily missed Lomax and hit someone else, the bullet could have passed through Lomax and hit someone else, it could have passed through the theater wall and hit someone watching Marley & Me (Which would make it assisted suicide :-) ). I'd say reckless endangerment charges are in order.

If it wasn't for his training he might've hurt more people, and you view that as a negative?

The most important question is whether Cialella joined the brawl or if Lomax brought him in to the fight. The major malfunction with many concealed carry people I've met over the years is the belief that they are obligated to collective security. If he entered the fight feeling obligated to end it, then it's a question of whether he forgot to bring his brain with him to the movies that night.

Philadelphia has one of the highest capital murder rates in the country. He's a law abiding citizen who carried a weapon to protect himself to and from the theater in a dangerous city. I think it's fair to give a fellow America, a veteran, and law abiding citizen the benefit of the doubt he wasn't looking for trouble when he went to the movies that night.

[SiberianRat]

Ah yes, yet another example that the rest of the civilized world will use to marvel at the fact that our population runs around with guns, shooting each other.

[bubbuh]

The Islamic world understands. It's what they do.

[gifu]

???? What kind of reply is that?

[SiberianRat]

Que??

[ChiGuy]

I'm torn.
On the one hand, he never should have been carrying the gun into a theater. Especially where children would be present.
But on the other hand, I really, REALLY detest people at the movies that chatter like they're in their living room.

[libertron]

A severe beating leaving him in the alley outside the fire exit would have been the proper response.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

Maybe the shootee was bigger and bader, and would have objected to such a response.

How do we know that the shooter was the only bad guy?

How do we know that the shootee was smaller, more polite, and unarmed?

[bubbuh]

Pepper spray or a taser and a severe pantsing would have bennthe measured response. LOL

[Eric8869]

I just saw Benjamin Button - its so long drawn out and boring. (Think Forrest Gump on sleeping pills) I almost shot myself.

[bubbuh]

That must account for the shooting.

[aweissnet]

One of the movies you're better off waiting for release of the dvd? If I rent it, I can always choose not to watch too much of it--then I'm not tempted to get violent at the theater.

[M1nkyb0y]

How many more thousand of these mentally wounded are walking our streets right now? These are the uncounted costs of war.

[deadcustodian]

another angry republican?

[totaldisbelief]

It doesn't say much for the City of Brotherly Love.

[bubbuh]

Pretty certain the city wasn't responsible for the fight or the shooting. It was in a different theater watching Marley & Me.

[Eric8869]

Marley and Me makes you want to go home and shoot your dog.

[UnknownSoldier]

Hang'em High was on last night starring Clint Eastwood.

[abbeyroad]

walking around in public with a gun shows intention.

the "vet" excuse won't fly.

[thaneb]

I do not think you are correct on the issue of intent. Also it is not so much a "vet" "excuse" as an effective tack for jury nullification, should it come to that. See e.g. the case of Daniel Cotnoir, Lawrence Mass., August, '05.

[bubbuh]

It's a mixed signal. After all, the gun was pointed at his own testicles most of the time.

[Gidster]

I carry concealed. in 25 years I have yet to draw my weapon. My intent is defense if needed, not to look for trouble.

[InquisitiveRaven]

Another reason to avoid movie theaters.
It's bad enough that people talk through the whole movie, they'll shoot you, too.

[normathumb]

If only more people had been carrying guns, we wouldn't be reading what this shooter's attorney has to say.

[voltage356]

This is the start of things to come with our service members. Any type of shooting going on , I will always be curious to know if this person ever served in Iraq or Afghanistan.

[tubette]

It is so sad anyone would take a gun to the movie theater with their family..... I don't know, but I think I would be frightened to see this guy.....

[bubbuh]

Look at the picture. Gun or no, you would be frightened if he sat down beside you.