Gun owners are going to be the death of gun ownership

[ROGER4314]

Gun owners are going to be the death of gun ownership

With over 300 million residents of the US (legal or illegal) there will be SOME violent acts including some with firearms and nothing will prevent that. That is normal and expected. What is NOT normal is the way our government and "journalist" media focuses on that tiny percentage of criminal behavior, expands coverage of it and claims that to be a representative sample of our society.

One of my favorite articles in my "keeper" file describes the violent crime PER CAPITA of European nations. Comparing apples to apples and violent crimes per 100,000 population, Gt Britain is Number ONE on that list. The list continues down to number 11 where the US is plugged in for comparison, even though we are not a European nation. We are actually lower in violent crimes than FRANCE at number 10!

Of course, we have more violent crime! We have many more people! To hear the US media tell it, we are the most violent nation on Earth and that is absolutely not true!

When viewed fairly (per capita), we have far fewer violent crimes than other nations! The Liberals get around that bit of truth by stating that the US is highest in violent GUN crimes. That is true because we have many guns and the other nations have fewer to no guns at all. To sweeten that pot, our violent gun crimes include suicides by firearms! Those self destructive gun deaths comprise approximately 1/2 of the violent US gun deaths! How's that for skewing the statistics?

The fact that murders in Gt Britain are committed with knives, bats and pipes, does not make them safer or less violent. Instead, Liberals brag that they have fewer GUN crimes!

All this is happening while we have a nationwide drop in violent crimes. To make this media hype even more distressing, Chicago, with some of strictest anti gun laws in the US, is now the "Murder Capital of the US". Other strict anti gun areas are similarly high in murder rates. The truth is evident but our media chooses to ignore it.

Any time 300 million people are bunched together, there will be murders. To draw in tightly on that few, concentrate on those events alone is a disservice to our people and a propaganda scheme. It is also a perversion of the facts.

Flash

 

[zen1300]

Conflict resolution is not so difficult if one can let go of ego.

the suspect could have had more patience during the trailers. He could have moved to another seat or even asked for a refund and returned another day.

Texter could have apologized and stopped, or left the theater to finish his text.

Such simple acts could have changed the course of this situation and prevented a tragic outcome.

One right we believe we have is the right to be an a$$ because we feel we are correct and the other person wrong. Being in the right doesn't grant you that. Taking on that approach does nothing to help a situation.

While the facts may come out in witness testimony, one's character will also be on display. In this day and age of social media and online activity, even the posts on this board may be found and used to measure one's character.

This will be an interesting case, but will it be the likes of another Zimmerman-Trayvon circus?

 

[mitchntx]

The main question to be answered is "What was the victim doing right before he was shot?"

I'm not sure this would be much of a factor IF the suspect initiated the conflict.

If one begins and continues poking a bear with a stick and the bear decides it's enough poking, is it now self-defense if one kills the bear?

 

[Chirpy]

I think we will find there was just a little "contempt of cop" at work here as well. Our texter was not obeying instructions. That and just the generational issue, I expect my 75 year old dad will meet his end telling teenagers and young men to pipe down and behave, which he does all the time.

It's a bad situation all the way around, while I do believe there is a special level of hell for those who text in theaters, it's not our job to send them there.


Sent from magic cutting board

 

[Younggun]

I'm not sure this would be much of a factor IF the suspect initiated the conflict.

If one begins and continues poking a bear with a stick and the bear decides it's enough poking, is it now self-defense if one kills the bear?

Not to my knowledge. Can't think of the word used in the law right now, but you can't stir the pot.

However, "poking" could be viewed as many different things by different people. If you poked first however, I think your screwed. Guess it would have to be case by case for me to decide my opinion simply due to the infinite number of scenarios.

 

[mitchntx]

My point is, obtaining a CHL and then donning a CCW makes some grow balls of steel ...

 

[craigntx]

fox news reported the judge has rejected stand your ground defense and pops is staying in jail
for now

 

[Southpaw]

Gun owners are going to be the death of gun ownership

With over 300 million residents of the US (legal or illegal) there will be SOME violent acts including some with firearms and nothing will prevent that. That is normal and expected. What is NOT normal is the way our government and "journalist" media focuses on that tiny percentage of criminal behavior, expands coverage of it and claims that to be a representative sample of our society.
...............

Flash

This cannot be stressed enough.

 

[ZX9RCAM]

Not to my knowledge. Can't think of the word used in the law right now, but you can't stir the pot.

However, "poking" could be viewed as many different things by different people. If you poked first however, I think your screwed. Guess it would have to be case by case for me to decide my opinion simply due to the infinite number of scenarios.

So, who "poked" first in this case, the guy texting, or the guy complaining?
The guy texting was surely annoying everybody around him, but nobody else wanted to say anything.....

 

[mitchntx]

So, who "poked" first in this case, the guy texting, or the guy complaining?
The guy texting was surely annoying everybody around him, but nobody else wanted to say anything.....

That's THE question ... is "annoying" justification for a deadly response?

Does one "stand your ground" or simply find another time and place to enjoy the movie?

I'm not justifying or implicating either side.
Just making an observation that when someone dons a weapon, one's inner alpha male takes over.

The actual phenomenon is not unlike road rage or an internet keyboard warrior.
The end results are different, but the mentality is very similar.

 

[Renegade]

So, who "poked" first in this case, the guy texting, or the guy complaining?
The guy texting was surely annoying everybody around him, but nobody else wanted to say anything.....

IMO opinion the texter caused his own demise by pushing the old man until he exploded. Not sure why texter felt arguing with someone over a text was damn important. But he obviously wound up arguing with the wrong person. I tend to be the exact opposite, I am not wasting any of my precious time arguing with an idiot, even if I am right. I just move on, so that is probably why I see it this way.

Of course, causing your demise does not mean the other guy is not legally at fault.

 

[ZX9RCAM]

I totally agree.....

 

[ROGER4314]

For a civilian to smash another man's face or to shoot him at close range requires several things. Some of the main ingredients are lots of anger, primal fear of death or injury or an incredible amount of self importance or entitlement.

I see entitlement as the main ingredient here. Both of these theater players broke the rules. The texter KNEW that was against the rules. The CHL/LEO knew the rules of engagement for use of deadly force. When he left to summon management, he sealed his fate. He came BACK to the fight. Both were wrong and one died.

It's a big theater with lots of seats. Finding another seat or letting management handle the issue were correct options. One death and one imprisoned then getting sued for wrongful death is just unacceptable!

Flash

 

[TheDan]

When he left to summon management, he sealed his fate. He came BACK to the fight.

Perhaps the manager told him to give him a few minutes and he would come take of it. Based what I've read, the old man didn't continue the confrontation after he came back, but the texter blew up on him for tattling. Having a bag of popcorn thrown at you is not justification for shooting someone, however

 

[TAVM]

Honestly guys, the guy texting...it plays zero role here. It may be against the theater rules, but it's not against the law. Many people text in theaters during previews and the reason why no one says anything is because it's not a big deal. I see it all the time...no one pays any mind. Once the movie starts and the lights dim that's a different story, because then everyone notices and then it detracts from the experience people are paying for. And since the texting happened well before the shooting, it really has no place in the SHOOTING. It only provides reason for the initial contact, which also doesn't matter at this point.

What does have a place, is what happened just moments before the firing of the weapon. That is where the prosecution says the victim was simply murdered, and the defense is saying that the retired leo is responding to defend his LIFE. But the judge was right, "something" going into your face is not being punched, or kicked, or truly threatened of your life in any way. It IS being insulted and COULD be indicating that the situation was going to continue to heat up. But the defendant shooting the other two people was clearly an unreasonable threat response, and a disregard for other people's lives. If the victim had attempted to punch or hurt him (where the intent becomes obvious with having to climb the row of chairs between them) that would have provided this crazy old man the legal fodder to satiate his desire to kill...but that simply wasn't the case based on what we know right now.

Perhaps the court proceedings will provide new evidence, but with him doing the same shit to another patron at the theater, even following the female patron to the john...that tells you something about this defendant, and it's not something good. He may have had a great history and past, but currently, he apparently has a problem with not being able to stay out of other people's business, and clearly has controlling and anger management issues.

 

[Renegade]

Perhaps the manager told him to give him a few minutes and he would come take of it. Based what I've read, the old man didn't continue the confrontation after he came back, but the texter blew up on him for tattling. Having a bag of popcorn thrown at you is not justification for shooting someone, however

Correct. News reports suggest Gramps did everything right until he started shooting. It was texter who kept escalating and was looking for a fight. He got one and violated rule #1.

 

[Renegade]

But the defendant shooting the other two people was clearly an unreasonable threat response

"Other two people" as in 3 people were shot? What incident are you talking about? Cause the Tampa Bay one with Reeves only one shot was fired.

 

[TAVM]

Yes, one shot fired, two people shot. (Remember one through the hand of the wife and the other through the chest of her husband?) Other two people as in the two people that were shot.

 

[Mreed911]

Regardless of how he could have disengaged, the real problem here is the mere reaching for a weapon when there's no threat of deadly force AND when it's possible and advisable to simply disengage.

Even with ego a simple "forget this jerk, let's move to another seat" or "this time I'll get the manager for real!" is less destructive than an escalated, face to face confrontation.

What hurts most here, according to the stories, is that while he went to get a manager, he never actually contacted one because the manager was busy so he returned without one. So it's not worth waiting a few minutes for a manager? How important was it then?

Sure, the confrontation may have been instigated by the deceased. It sounds like he over reacted, throwing popcorn and being held back by his wife.

It's going to be difficult, though, to prove this rose to a deadly force confrontation on the dead man's part, necessitating a response with deadly force by the actor. Not impossible, especially since we don't know all the facts, but difficult.

 

[TAVM]

Well according to the initial reports given to the judge, and the witnesses there cited in the media, the victim made no attempt to strike the defendant. He simply threw his popcorn at him. I agree that you should always respond with one step higher of force than your attacker, but to be honest, I wouldn't have even hit someone for throwing popcorn at me. It's not worth the subsequent heartache.

I just found out too that the victim was a USAA employee in Tampa. Not that it matters, but everyone at USAA is buzzing about it. Sad situation all around.