Pelican Parts Forums - FL Retired cop, shoots texting wanker

Agreed... Obviously common sense should prevail. One knows if they are throwing an ax at a person it is with a "violent intent" to do physical harm.

Who in their right mind thinks that they are going to violently hurt someone by throwing popcorn?

I don't see the intent by the texter.

fintstone

01-17-2014 07:56 AM

I have had folks train me to shoot at targets. They were not operational folks and knew no more about shooting other folks or the law than the guy that made me lunch.

EMJ	01-17-2014 07:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Heel n Toe (Post 7861439)

Your statement to me was that Foxy kicked my arse in every exchange she had with me. You didn't say it was your opinion that she had, you declared it as fact.

I challenged you on it because I knew you could not back it up. Likewise on your new claim re: "fool" and "attacking."

You still can't back up how she kicked my arse.

So now you're trying to weasel out another way... by saying it was merely your opinion.

But you embarrass yourself even more by not realizing that any person's opinion is worthless if he/she can't show why they hold that the opinion.

So, you got nothing.

Your opinion is worth nothing.

It's apparently worth nothing to you also, because you won't even attempt to defend it.

The thread was circling... very repetitive arguments following on faulty premises and/or people forgetting ground that had already been covered and people's points were rehatching themselves over and over and over.

I was also trying to bring some much-needed comic relief into the thread at the same time. Duck Season. A Bentley doing doughnuts. Reprehensible behavior, huh?

If you or a couple of others didn't get or enjoy the humor, maybe you were offended that it showed that there are those here who can't seem to accept the fact that much of the responsibility for what happened in that theatre rests with texter dude.

Personal responsibility. A simple, yet elusive concept to some of you.

I'm guessing that's your opinion (The only one who should be embarrassed... haven't a clue), so I'll regard it as such. Worthless and just another way for you to attack me. That's fine... it shows your desperation to claim something here as you continue to find ways to look bad.

You would do well to learn a few basics on debating and what logic actually is, because you're operating by winging it and it's not working for you.

And of course it's a horrible incident. If you'd take a few minutes to peruse this thread, you'll see that I fully realize that and have made plenty of serious and substantive posts that you seem to forget while you focus on those you've cherry picked to criticize.

Well, other than the fact that Florida law may have something to say about all that, you're circling again.

You are the man, EMJ... hope you have enjoyed the ride thus far. :)

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1389977135.jpg

I could care less what you think of my opinion. You're still a troll.

fintstone

01-17-2014 07:58 AM

As I posted before...this was not stated by a witness.. But deduced by local LE enjoying the spotlight and declaring their heroism of disarming a guy who sat down and put his gun on his lap.

Quote:

An argument broke out between the couples, after which Reeves reportedly took out a gun and fired at Oulson and his wife. Officials said Nicole tried to block the bullet, resulting in a gunshot wound to her hand, before Chad was struck.<br>
(Figured it out from Channel 10 Tampa )

foxpaws

01-17-2014 07:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VaSteve (Post 7861260)

No excuses for either of these stupid people ending their stupid lives, BUT, everytime I have seen people who are argumentative the wives/girlfriends are usually tying to ease the situation. Not stick their hands in front of a real gun, Daffy Duck style.

Again, dark theater. The dude that got shot didn't even know he got shot. Maybe didn't see the gun.

As I said - I think she was trying to push her husband out of the way of the drawn weapon - but, that is speculation - you would need her testimony to know what she was doing, and I don't believe she has talked to anyone except the police at this point, and that hasn't been released to the press.

Again - I also believe that the theater wasn't to full dark - I believe it was in seating lighting (again, not positive, but it appeared that the witnesses were able to see what was going on).

I believe the texter stated "I can't believe I got shot", not necessarily indicating he didn't know he got shot, could be that it indicated he couldn't believe he got shot over this minor incident.

widebody911

01-17-2014 08:00 AM

I think there is a certain demographic that wants more cases like this and the GZ case, so they can fulfill their Soldier of Fortune fantasies of just shooting people whenever they feel like it. "She was double parked, I had to shoot her!" "Ok, case dismissed"

EMJ	01-17-2014 08:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AFC-911 (Post 7861444)

Interesting you didn't reveal your background early on. It would have given your words more credibility than a ranting internet poster.

It's called debate, hardly ranting, and qualifications aren't needed for opinions. That's why it isn't good to assume...

Heel n Toe

01-17-2014 08:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EMJ (Post 7861466)

I could care less what you think of my opinion. You're still a troll.

You think I care that you claim you don't care? Bwahahaha.

Another empty claim... plus, you're probably lying that you don't care. ;)

I can fully understand why you're so grumpy about the way this has gone.

You've been shown up as a person who makes worthless, empty statements they can't back up and who runs away from being challenged on them.

Why would you not be grumpy?

Did you vote for the Big Zero-in-Chief also? A lot of people are very grumpy about how poorly he's doing and it seems to be carrying over into other areas of their lives.

fintstone

01-17-2014 08:06 AM

Widebody
I think that most folks that have been in life or death situations realize how fast they happen...and how they often look much different in the light of day when all the armchair quarterbacks are recalling the plays.

EMJ	01-17-2014 08:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Heel n Toe (Post 7861457)

Hilarious.

Ladies and gentlemen, I think we have discovered the big, badazz BOSSMAN of this thread.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1389977638.jpg

Be afraid.

Be very afraid.

Troll with nothing meaningful to contribute. Some might even call what you're doing bullying. Which is funny because you appear to support the killer of the so called bully in this case.

70SATMan

01-17-2014 08:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AFC-911 (Post 7861437)

Spitting at someone qualifies as assault...What's your point?

Some may not feel that it qualifies, but it is what it is.

I clearly stated "Felony" assault. There are many layers of severity when discussing Assault and Battery. Typically you don't get into the felony area until you hit "aggrevated".

Fint for example is basing the cops response on the presumption of the popcorn throwing being a felony assault... The clear intent to cause bodily harm.

Using Fint's broad brush, he would support the same reaction if the cop had been spit upon.

Would you consider a cop in the line of duty shooting an individual because he was spit upon the use of excessive force?

Heel n Toe

01-17-2014 08:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EMJ (Post 7861496)

Troll with nothing meaningful to contribute. Some might even call what you're doing bullying. Which is funny because you appear to support the killer of the so called bully in this case.

:D More empty claims. Thanks for that.

When there is substantial new information here that I want to discuss and "contribute to," I will.

Until then, you're laughable again and have no standing calling me a bully when it's demonstrable that you want to be the big, badazz BOSSMAN here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by EMJ (Post 7861408)

As you are now. Give it a rest.
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1389978753.jpg

fintstone

01-17-2014 08:13 AM

EMJ
What would you expect after your insulting remark to him regarding Foxpaws...friendly agreement?

70SATMan

01-17-2014 08:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick Lee (Post 7861441)

Tell you what. You go get into a verbal huff with a cop and throw popcorn at him. If you come out of it with a minor misdemeanor conviction, I'll pledge to take up a collection and pay the fine for you.

There are specifc laws addressing assault upon a LEO that differs from what would be applied if I threw popcorn at you Rick.

Your example is irrelevant.

fintstone

01-17-2014 08:18 AM

SAtman
Try it with a senior citizen in front of most LEOs in FL. They are a protected group (by law).

As I stated earlier, the law is different regarding what constitutes assault on a senior citizen in FL.

Heel n Toe

01-17-2014 08:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EMJ (Post 7861356)

No, he was angry and was going to show this punk who he was messing with. He was a SWAT team guy. Popcorn flying at him wouldn't scare this guy.

Yeah, back this claim up.

You just KNOW this, don't you?

Hilarious.

URY914

01-17-2014 08:20 AM

If he had only just shot him in the back of the head when he saw him texting to begin with. It would have saved us a lot of typing.

70SATMan

01-17-2014 08:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fintstone (Post 7861514)

SAtman
Try it with a senior citizen in front of most LEOs in FL. They are a protected group (by law).

In the same manner as hate crimes, typically to address the specific targeting of senior citizens.

In your own words, the guy looks like he is 60.

fintstone

01-17-2014 08:21 AM

But he is not 60...and is protected by law.

EMJ	01-17-2014 08:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fintstone (Post 7861508)

EMJ
What would you expect after your insulting remark to him regarding Foxpaws...friendly agreement?

No. He was bragging about how her posts made no sense so I let him know my opinion: her posts were reasonable and spot on IMO. I'm not responding to him anymore. I'm walking away from the hothead... See how that works? The whole argument of this thread.

speeder

01-17-2014 08:27 AM

Saying that you were in fear for your life and had to shoot someone means nothing by itself in the eyes of the law. A reasonable person would have to have been in fear for their life. That's why he was arrested and is being held on a no-bail murder charge.

And he's a retired police captain with a clean record in the city where it happened. If anyone would get the benefit of the doubt from the local authorities, it would be him.

On top of that, this happened in Florida. One of those weird states in the southern U.S. with very lenient laws regarding shooting someone in self-defense. Where you can shoot someone in the back and not get charged with murder in some cases.

Yet still, on this internet forum we have members who look at this as a clear case of self-defense based on the facts presented so far. Some of you guys are so far out in right field that you're not even in the game.

speeder

01-17-2014 08:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fintstone (Post 7861521)

But he is not 60...and is protected by law.

So what? Then he calls 911 and has the guy arrested for assault by popcorn. He isn't protected by any law that excuses 2nd degree murder, obviously, and he's probably never going to breathe free air again in this life.

intakexhaust

01-17-2014 08:36 AM

fp- I don't expect you to reply but bothered why you would think actually think this? You don't even know the ages of the posters here and to assume the older age group are justifying in killing another?

Quote:

Originally Posted by foxpaws (Post 7859677)

Reading all these posts I am struck with something - age 'vision'.

It appears that most people who are under 35 or so feel that the older gentlemen 'went too far' in killing someone for texting. Most of those older than 55 or so seem more often to side with the older gentleman, he was somehow 'justified' in killing this 'azzhat' for throwing popcorn (protecting himself and his wife from some perceived deadly assault).

Who do you think will determine the fate of gun ownership/the 2nd amendment in the future?

Quote:

Originally Posted by intakexhaust (Post 7860090)

Drifting from the topic here but this one raises another question. What does the next generation do with all of our guns? You as a gun owner, what are your plans for the your guns once gone? Seriously.

Scenario - While here, what's one conscience thinking if an heir of a gun goes nutz? If so concerned about responsible gun ownership, how can a current gun owner predict if an heir OR next owner by sale is sane enough? Why not turn your guns in now to protect the future generation?

I know of a few in their 30's and one in his 20's that have inherited from a few gun's to rather nice collections. One in particular never had interest in guns, contemplated selling but going on four years has kept all of them.

I might suggest visiting a gun show or range and observe. I'm not sure if the NRA might have a better idea on age stats but I've seen a wide age range of both men and woman, guessing a majority are in the 30 to 40 year old. Guns, illegal or not are here forever.

Back to the topic......

Here's a sad one in the news today - FP: not that age matters but the police officer who lost it was 34
Utah police officer kills own kids, shoots wife & mother-in-law dead before killing himself: cops - NY Daily News

fintstone

01-17-2014 08:36 AM

Sorry Speeder, but you are just flat wrong. The law is clear. If he reasonably believes that deadly force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony...he has no responsibility to retreat and may use deadly force to protect himself. A good solid right hook can cause great bodily harm to a senior citizen.

70SATMan

01-17-2014 08:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fintstone (Post 7861521)

But he is not 60...and is protected by law.

The only thing I've been able to find concerning the protection you mention is aggrevated assault being elevated to a first degree felony.

Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine

If I've missed a specific citation you've posted, please reference it for me..

Otherwise, I don't think the protection you speak of applies in this case.

fintstone

01-17-2014 08:47 AM

According to the shooter...he did not know what struck him...so the popcorn remarks are silly since it never figured into his decision.

I can only put myself in his place. If the guy was coming after me and struck me, I would assume the it was on...and he would likely hit me again. I would do what I thought necessary to prevent that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by speeder (Post 7861543)

foxpaws

01-17-2014 08:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by intakexhaust (Post 7861548)

I sort of know the general ages of most who post here - you don't always know what happens in PMs, etc.... The 'justification' of using lethal force is more about the method of lethal force, in this case specifically, guns.

What I see, not only among those who post here, but in the population in general, is that the 'culture of guns' is an aging, mostly white, demographic. People who are younger seem to not be caught up in that culture. It seems somewhat 'age/race' specific (I guess you could also point to inner city black youths - but, that is more a 'dealing' with illegal weapons, and not a voting demographic in large). I question on what will happen to gun control laws as that demographic ages further, dies, or becomes less politically important because of the sheer numbers of the younger demographic. Look at the 'requirement' to register guns in I believe Connecticut. I think that is crazy - and very much against the 2nd, however, younger people who have been influenced by the huge amount of press following what appears to be senseless gun violence, aren't going to view it the same way. I believe the erosion of the 2nd is almost becoming inevitable.

speeder

01-17-2014 08:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Heel n Toe (Post 7861515)

Yeah, back this claim up.

You just KNOW this, don't you?

Hilarious.

Dude, stop trolling.

Go back, ( I know you have the time), and visually scan a page or two of this 34 page thread. Even though the subject matter touches several "hot button" issues, there is a refreshing lack of name-calling and bickering. Not to mention emoticon abuse and large font/multi-colored text plus cartoons and ultra-repetitive memes.

Except for you.

It's textbook internet trolling. It could be in a textbook someday when people are studying antisocial behavior in the early internet age. You cannot bear to see a group of people having a reasonably civil, (though long-winded), discussion so you have to take a dump in the middle of the room and start jumping up and down while screaming and pulling your hair.

I've seen you do it before, with the cartoons and the endlessly repetitive needling of another poster that you've engaged. Just stop it. If you did something similar in the gravity world, someone would close your mouth for you. But you know that, so you're probably as polite as can be in real life. So you do it here, where nothing bad can happen. Anyone who points it out is simply wrong and about to get a barrage of cartoons ands colored text.

This has nothing really to do with the argument or discussion at hand. It's about being an internet troll. Stop it. :cool:

foxpaws

01-17-2014 08:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fintstone (Post 7861566)

You are taking the word of the older man, and not the word of the witnesses (that we have been privy to). The old guy has reason to further his 'side' of the story (and to lie perhaps) - to foster the SYG defense.

He can say anything, but with eye witnesses that don't cooperate his 'version' in court it will be a difficult sell.

Plus, I would be quite surprised if he took the stand (if it gets to that point), rarely does the defense want to put their client on the stand - especially since it allows a whole lot of other evidence to be presented, usually damaging to their client.

70SATMan

01-17-2014 08:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fintstone (Post 7861566)

So anything,,,, a hat, a waded up M&M wrapper, a loogie on the cheek would qualify?

Ridiculous, nay silly, from one with training.

Maybe it was so dark that he couldn't see what was thrown... perfect reason to draw a weapon and pop off a round, yes?

speeder

01-17-2014 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fintstone (Post 7861550)

So how do you explain him sitting in a cell on a no-bail murder charge? In the same part of the same state that let George Zimmerman just go home without charges after shooting TM?

It sounds like witnesses, including the off-duty deputy that detained him, have a different version of this incident than you are telling.

Rusty914s

01-17-2014 09:01 AM

Fintstone, are you related to the retired shooter? I just ask since it seems that this is a very personal situation for you.

All is good in the world, there are crazies but there are also really good people everywhere...

That's all, go back to posting 50 responses a day to make the same point, over and over again.

70SATMan

01-17-2014 09:05 AM

I can imagine the shooter sitting down in a cold sweat with the realization that he was past his shelf date regarding his responsibilities for CCW.

Did he really just sit there and let the dude bleed out or did he attempt to help render aid?

Heel n Toe

01-17-2014 09:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EMJ (Post 7861522)

Heel n Toe

01-17-2014 09:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rusty914s (Post 7861586)

That's all, go back to posting 50 responses a day to make the same point, over and over again.

I rest my case. :D

johnsjmc

01-17-2014 09:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 70SATMan (Post 7861596)

Good point. It was reported that 2 off duty local nurses administered CPR and first aid while waiting for an ambulance.
The shooter (with his police training) just sat down and waited for the police.
An off duty police officer took the gun from him and one report said he initially resisted giving it up.

speeder

01-17-2014 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rusty914s (Post 7861586)

If I may, I don't think that he's related to the shooter or knows him. Fintstone is a guy who just really likes to debate and he's good at it. He has a specific style that is like a boxer who just hammers away at your kidneys and never gives up. He will wear you down.

He also does not result to name-calling or other childish actions like cartoons and colored text. He's cool-headed and even. My opinion is that he likes a challenge and therefore enjoys taking the "wrong" side of a debate, which is much more challenging to argue than the "right" side. If you ever debated in HS, you know that someone always has to take the other side, no matter what the argument. :)

70SATMan

01-17-2014 09:26 AM

Yep!SmileWavy

EMJ	01-17-2014 09:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by speeder (Post 7861622)

--snip-- My opinion is that he likes a challenge and therefore enjoys taking the "wrong" side of a debate, which is much more challenging to argue than the "right" side.

I was roped in too deep to stop when I noticed this about 20 pages back!:p

All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:21 PM.

Page 19 of 24

« First

« Prev

Last »

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2025 Pelican Parts, LLC - Posts may be archived for display on the Pelican Parts Website

DTO Garage Plus vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.