Gun owners are going to be the death of gun ownership

[Shooter McGavin]

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.

From what has come out thus far Reeves is completely screwed and should be as far as I'm concerned.
According to what witnesses have stated, there was absolutely, positively, no reason or justification for shooting that man, period.
Petty and senseless BS, now a daughter has lost her father and a wife no longer has her husband.

 

[tXfactor]

It's really not that sad. What's sad is that more people die from drunk drivers every year, and yet everyone seems to only care about some dude in a movie theater.

 

[Mreed911]

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.

Not sure who you're agreeing with but it's not me. I'd say you should RARELY respond with force on force, nowhere close to ALWAYS. Someone else on here said this and I don't remember who: when I'm carrying a concealed weapon, it becomes my job to save the other person's life to the best of my ability and safety because they don't realize they're approaching a situation that could become a deadly force encounter, but I do. So true.

 

[Renegade]

It's really not that sad. What's sad is that more people die from drunk drivers every year, and yet everyone seems to only care about some dude in a movie theater.

For the record I do not care about either of them. My only real interest in this case how can i go about my life and not get shot by a D-Bag? By analyzing every shooting I can and seeing what cues were missed by the deceased. Texter had plenty of chances to live. He chose to keep pushing the old man to win a "I can text if I want to" argument. Yeah he won alright.

 

[txinvestigator]

It's really not that sad. What's sad is that more people die from drunk drivers every year, and yet everyone seems to only care about some dude in a movie theater.

That is ridiculous.

 

[Charlie]

A "stare down", really? How do you get in a "stare down" unless you are "staring" also? It's a throw back to kids in public school saying, "...he said this to me first..........., ............ he gave me a hard look,") etc. The adolescents I worked with always used the "he did it first" excuse for their behavior to justify whatever they did in retaliation. Both of these grown men should have known how to act in public by now.

Either one could have turned and walked out of the theater at any time and none of this would have happened.

 

[benenglish]

I think we will find there was just a little "contempt of cop" at work here as well. Our texter was not obeying instructions.

... 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.

<redacted>

Nope. I'm not gonna go there.

 

[tXfactor]

For the record I do not care about either of them. My only real interest in this case how can i go about my life and not get shot by a D-Bag? By analyzing every shooting I can and seeing what cues were missed by the deceased. Texter had plenty of chances to live. He chose to keep pushing the old man to win a "I can text if I want to" argument. Yeah he won alright.

Well there's your answer: Don't push. Don't pull. Just walk away.

 

[Mreed911]

Re-run this scenario with the "scary gang member" of choice (black, white, Hispanic, etc) as either person involved. Whether it's as the texter or the person confronting the texter and analyze how things are likely to change. One side becomes MUCH more likely to de-escalate when faced with a stronger perceived threat possibility on the other end.

This seems to be the perfect storm - a hot headed, entitled texter and an "ill show that kid" gramps.

You're going to throw your popcorn at someone for telling on you for breaking the rules? Really?

You're going to shoot someone for throwing their popcorn at you? Really?

Of course that's what's got to get worked out in court... is that really the whole story? I'm not convinced... but I can't say it looks good for gramps.

 

[TAVM]

Not sure who you're agreeing with but it's not me.

It wasn't directed to you personally or in a literal sense to anything you said. It's referring to the general dogma that in combat you respond to a adversary at an advantage. E.G. he attacks you with his fist, you defend with a stick or bat. He brings a bat, you bring a knife. He brings a knife, you bring a gun. He brings a gun, you bring a bigger gun. Etc. That's the case in all war and combat.

This seems to be the perfect storm - a hot headed, entitled texter and an "ill show that kid" gramps.

You're going to throw your popcorn at someone for telling on you for breaking the rules? Really?

You're going to shoot someone for throwing their popcorn at you? Really?

Of course that's what's got to get worked out in court... is that really the whole story? I'm not convinced... but I can't say it looks good for gramps.

Agreed.

 

[Shorts]

There are some crazy folks down in Florida though.

QFT
The crazy here is CA-RAAAA-ZYY!

Id support a movie theater that uses less than lethal force to keep people off their damn phones during a movie. lol

Shooting them outright is a little much.

I love reading your replies.

When the camera rolls and video is on the screen, phones should be off. If you need to use phone, take it outside. Common courtesy, how hard is that?

My mark is when the lights dim. If the lights are dim my viewership has started. I don't give two poops if it is previews or the movie I came to see. I just signed over a kidney to watch images on an oversized screen and I will watch every damn video they put on it in peace. Not with some jackwagon's bright ass phone lighting up the field of view and being a visual distraction.

If you need to to text ortake a call, do so outside. Do not pull that phone out and light up the screen until you get out of the theater.

For the record I do not care about either of them. My only real interest in this case how can i go about my life and not get shot by a D-Bag? By analyzing every shooting I can and seeing what cues were missed by the deceased. Texter had plenty of chances to live. He chose to keep pushing the old man to win a "I can text if I want to" argument. Yeah he won alright.

Yup, I saw it on another forum, you don't kill someone over texting. In turn, you don't die over it either.

Perhaps of the victim had thought about his family and how to be a better man he'd still be alive. Yeah, he showed them how tough he is alright. And now because of it his daughter is fatherless and his wife is a widow. Good job, Dad.

He texted. The old man behind him asked him to stop. It was then and there he should have said "sorry, no problem, finishing up" or "sorry about that I'll step outside and finish it up".

This entire incident could have been avoided if people used common courtesy, politeness, manners and civility. Everyone is quikc to jump on Charlie Law for being a trigger happy old coot. But I have no sympathy for the dead texter. Not to be inhumane about the story, but to say actions have consequences and you just don't know how severe some consequences will be.

 

[Shooter McGavin]

Perhaps of the victim had thought about his family and how to be a better man he'd still be alive. Yeah, he showed them how tough he is alright. And now because of it his daughter is fatherless and his wife is a widow. Good job, Dad.

He texted. The old man behind him asked him to stop. It was then and there he should have said "sorry, no problem, finishing up" or "sorry about that I'll step outside and finish it up".

This entire incident could have been avoided if people used common courtesy, politeness, manners and civility. Everyone is quikc to jump on Charlie Law for being a trigger happy old coot. But I have no sympathy for the dead texter. Not to be inhumane about the story, but to say actions have consequences and you just don't know how severe some consequences will be.

Seriously Shorts??? Come on lady.... I'm not taking sides with the individual that got shot completely, granted what he was doing and how he reacted was rude and uncalled for but to try and make this inexcusable act into some sort of rational bahavior is ludicrous.
This whole scenario could've went in the other direction if the deceased texter had turned around and shot Reeves for harassing him about texting, Same Church different pew. Who in the hell knew or even thought about either one of them having a firearm on them and wouldn't hesitate to use it at the drop of a hat. We can play the "WHAT IF GAME" every day all day but what happend, happend. No justification or excuse for busting a cap in someone's chest simply because they piss you off and you don't like their attitude, (thank GOD).

 

[Shorts]

Seriously Shorts??? Come on man.... I'm not taking sides with the individual that got shot completely, granted what he was doing and how he reacted was rude and uncalled for but to try and make this inexcusable act into some sort of rational bahavior is ludicrous.

No where in my reply did I ever say it was rational behavior on the part of the shooter.

This whole scenario could've went in the other direction if the deceased texter had turned around and shot Reeves for harassing him about texting, Same Church different pew.

Could have. Good thing I covered that, "This entire incident could have been avoided if people used common courtesy, politeness, manners and civility.". That goes for both guys involved.

Who in the hell knew or even thought about either one of them having a firearm on them and wouldn't hesitate to use it at the drop of a hat.

Yup, covered that too, "Not to be inhumane about the story, but to say actions have consequences and you just don't know how severe some consequences will be."

"Consequences" cover the entire range from foreseeable to unforeseeable, rational to irrational, bad to the unthinkable. "Consequences" are neutral, taking no sides on who is right or wrong, justified or unjustified.
"Consequences" are the results based on the events that led up to it.

We can play the "WHAT IF GAME" every day all day but what happend, happend. No justification or excuse for busting a cap in someone's chest simply because they piss you off and you don't like their attitude, (thank GOD).

Again, covered, "you don't kill someone over texting. In turn, you don't die over it either."



Looks like we're on the same page.

 

[Shooter McGavin]

^^^my apologizes ma'am, I obviously mis-interpreted your post. We are in agreement.^^^

 

[Mreed911]

Who in the hell knew or even thought about either one of them having a firearm on them

The shooter did. I made that point earlier. When you carry a weapon, part of disengaging is actually to preserve the other person's life (who's NOT thinking about you having a gun). When and where you safely can, of course, but there's an inherent responsibility to not escalate things, especially to this point.

 

[Shooter McGavin]

The shooter did. I made that point earlier. When you carry a weapon, part of disengaging is actually to preserve the other person's life (who's NOT thinking about you having a gun). When and where you safely can, of course, but there's an inherent responsibility to not escalate things, especially to this point.

Oh I agree 100% and that was the point I was trying to make with that entire statement. "and wouldn't hesitate to use it at the drop of a hat". Reeves failed to abide by the reasoning of which you stated, texter threw popcorn in his face and he completely lost it.

 

[35Remington]

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

Aggressor is the word. Here's the statute language in Florida:

§ 776.041. Use of force by aggressor

The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

 

[Savage805]

^^^my apologizes sir, I obviously mis-interpreted your post. We are in agreement.^^^

Wow, Leading by example. Who would have thought?

 

[txinvestigator]

^^^my apologizes sir, I obviously mis-interpreted your post. We are in agreement.^^^

Shorts is a Ma'am

 

[Das Jared]

Gunna have to go with Shorts on this. We, as men, take the "my dick is bigger than yours" crap wayyyy too far. And I also like messycan hippie's idea. Cattle prods and beanbag guns for those who interrupt

sent from Jennifer Lawrence's bedroom