FL Retired cop, shoots texting wanker

[EMJ]

Originally Posted by fintstone

The guy with a gun has zero responsibility to flee and can "stand his ground" if attacked.

So you think it's worth killing someone because they wouldn't stop texting in a movie theater because you told them to, and they got in your face about it? And because it's legal? This is essentially what happened. And no, the old man's actions were not legal. Or moral.

[stomachmonkey]

Originally Posted by EMJ

....Honestly, the words "I'm texting with my 3-year-old daughter, I'm sorry for disturbing you, I'll take it outside" would've been enough to diffuse the situation......

fify

[Heel n Toe]

Originally Posted by 70SATMan

I'd be surprised if there was a law.

I'm glad you aknowledge that neither the texter nor the old man broke the law. They only broke theater policies of texting and carrying.

Would you rate one over the other in terms of severity of offense, the possibility of misuse, etc?

I see what you did there.

I'm too smart to fall into your cheap little trap.

Originally Posted by 70SATMan

I ignore texting signs in theaters because they don't have the force of the law.

I don't believe you for a minute. You're doing it again.

Look, two idiots met up at the wrong place and time. The courts will sort it out.

And hopefully, fewer idiots will have their phones on in the theatre from now on.

People are just inconsiderate phone addicts, huh?

[Jim Richards]

Originally Posted by 70SATMan

Jim, aint it a shame that you were forced to use the word "rarely" in your statement???

Yep. I hated living in FL because of the intolerant blue-hairs. Twenty-some years ago, kids repeatedly cutting across an old codgers' lawn lead him to go postal. He didn't go after the kids. Instead, he packed a couple of duffel bags of guns and ammo and went to the nearest shopping center and started killing indiscriminately. Lots of dead and wounded. Some people I worked with died, and others were in harm's way. Who would think some kids taking a short cut through their neighborhood would lead to the loss of innocent lives?

[Jim Richards]

---

[EMJ]

Originally Posted by stomachmonkey

fify

I agree with your edit. The texter was way wrong. But one can only control one's own actions. The one with the power was the one with the gun and he was the one responsible to diffuse the situation. The texter had no idea the incident would cost him his life.

[70SATMan]

Originally Posted by Heel n Toe

I see what you did there.

I'm too smart to fall into your cheap little trap.



I don't believe you for a minute. You're doing it again.

Look, two idiots met up at the wrong place and time. The courts will sort it out.

And hopefully, fewer idiots will have their phones on in the theatre from now on.

People are just inconsiderate phone addicts, huh?

Agreed!!!

By the way, I just upgraded from my old Motorola Razr to an Iphone 5S.

[foxpaws]

Originally Posted by stomachmonkey

LOL, don't take everything so literally.

Well, reading 'not likely' means 'not likely' in my book - sorry, typing is very literal, I can't see your face or notice inflections in your voice.

[Rick Lee]

Quote de fintstone

The guy with a gun has zero responsibility to flee and can "stand his ground" if attacked.

So you think it's worth killing someone because they wouldn't stop texting in a movie theater because you told them to, and they got in your face about it? And because it's legal? This is essentially what happened. And no, the old man's actions were not legal. Or moral.

I certainly don't think it was justified. And even if it were justified and legal, its being avoidable is my standard. If I can at all avoid it, I will. Nothing but true threat to life or limb is worth what Reeves is about to go through. Some people need to be dead right.

[70SATMan]

Originally Posted by Jim Richards

Yep. I hated living in FL because of the intolerant blue-hairs. Twenty-some years ago, kids repeatedly cutting across an old codgers' lawn lead him to go postal. He didn't go after the kids. Instead, he packed a couple of duffel bags of guns and ammo and went to the nearest shopping center and started killing indiscriminately. Lots of dead and wounded. Some people I worked with died, and others were in harm's way. Who would think some kids taking a short cut through their neighborhood would lead to the loss of innocent lives?

Man that's sad...

I rather doubt there's a kid alive that hasn't cut through a lawn, lot, over a fence,,,,,

Old guy that forgot what it was like to be a kid.... I vow to never do that...

[VaSteve]

Originally Posted by AFC-911

^ Krichard,

If someone asked you to put out a cigarette and you get butthurt about it and start arguing, I would say that you started the confrontation.

Not saying it justifies murder, but it does prove that the person requesting common courtesy did not start a confrontation.

Hey, that actually happened:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/11/24/owner-allegedly-shoots-kills-country-singer-in-nashville-bar/

[hardflex]

When does the sacred viewing time start, at the start of the previews or the start of the actual movie? it seems like during the previews people are still moving around, taking their seats, and talking. Then when the actual 'main attraction' starts everyone goes quiet and attentive.

[stomachmonkey]

Originally Posted by EMJ

I agree with your edit. The texter was way wrong. But one can only control one's own actions. The one with the power was the one with the gun and he was the one responsible to diffuse the situation. The texter had no idea the incident would cost him his life.

The texter is responsible for instigating the situation and also had the power to diffuse the altercation before it cost him his life but apparently he chose to escalate it.

Again we were not there so who knows what ultimately transpired to push the old guy to take a life.

If the courts find he was not justified he will pay for his actions.

Still won't bring the other guy back though.

[fintstone]

Originally Posted by EMJ

An therein lies the rub. The old man was not at risk of death based off of what transpired. He wasn't physically assaulted, stabbed, shot at, threatened, etc...

He claims he was.

[EMJ]

Originally Posted by stomachmonkey

The texter is responsible for instigating the situation and also had the power to diffuse the altercation before it cost him his life but apparently he chose to escalate it.

Again we were not there so who knows what ultimately transpired to push the old guy to take a life.

If the courts find he was not justified he will pay for his actions.

Still won't bring the other guy back though.

We actually don't need to have been there to know what happened since there were plenty of witnesses. And I disagree that the texter's "escalation" cost him his life as he apparently had no idea that the shooter had a gun and would kill him over the situation. CNN reported that the victim said, and I paraphrase, "I can't believe I've been shot." Very telling.

[fintstone]

Originally Posted by EMJ

So you think it's worth killing someone because they wouldn't stop texting in a movie theater because you told them to, and they got in your face about it? And because it's legal? This is essentially what happened. And no, the old man's actions were not legal. Or moral.

The guy with a gun has zero responsibility to flee and can "stand his ground" if attacked and fears for his safety. It doesn't matter if the attack comes from a douche who insists upon texting in a theater or a street gang.

[fintstone]

Originally Posted by EMJ

...as he apparently had no idea that the shooter had a gun and would kill him over the situation. CNN reported that the victim said, and I paraphrase, "I can't believe I've been shot." Very telling.

What does that have to do with anything? He should know who has a gun and who does not...so he can target folks to attack that way? The only consideration should be if the older man believed the younger one was physically attacking him and he feared for his safety.

[Jim Richards]

Fint, your wild, wild west philosophy is totally off-base. If he was annoyed, he certainly had the option to move seats, instead of escalating the conflict. It was all within his control. Suffering fools vs. killing them. That's the difference between the 21st and the 19th centuries.

[scottmandue]

Case in point,

I'm standing in line at the supermarket where I shop a couple times a week for over a decade.

The store is not crowded, there is no one fifteen feet from me and I'm standing at the back of the line.

Some guy walks up to me and exclaims "you cut in front of me!!!!"

I'm not a fighter but the guy was about my size and a few years younger.

I quickly assessed the situations, the guy had kind of a wild look in his eye... he was obviously a few fries short of a happy meal... even thought everyone in the store knew me and would have backed me up I opted not to embarrass myself and let Mr. coo coo puff go ahead of me. (thou I did say, "it is not that important, go ahead")

Ironical as he was checking out he looked back at me and said "oh, I'm sorry, I thought you were someone else."

[krichard]

Fint lives in an imaginary world where old guys with guns make the rules and everyone who stands up to those old bullies are threatening their life so lethal force is justified. He should consider a career in writing fiction.