Pattern established. In a two week ago incident with another family.


Florida theater shooting: Couple describes encounter with Curtis Reeves
By Steve Almasy and Ed Payne, CNN
updated 11:24 PM EST, Wed January 15, 2014
Florida theater shooting: Couple had tense run-in with Curtis Reeves - CNN.com

She hasn't kicked mine or anyone else's.

Please feel free to substantiate your assertion if you can.

BTW, just so you know, you have to do more than say something has happened for it to be true.

There's another pattern for ya.

He used the magic word.

Twice.

You're taking Jamira's word for it that he "snarled."

Just like hothead texter dude, if Jamira is one of those people that doesn't let anyone suggest she do anything without getting her dander up, she could have heard snarling when there was none.

However, there is this:

...Another man's cell phone went off during the movie...

I think we all here can read. That's all the evidence needed.

You seem to have left the part out that the man who was shot had an armful of stolen property. It is legal in Texas to use deadly force to protect against property theft and this is why Joe Horn was not convicted. Carry on.

Why'd you leave this out, kach?
___________________
Jamira Dixon said she sent a text at 2:20 p.m. and an usher told her that she needed to put the phone away or she would have to leave the theater.
___________________

There's another pattern. Another person that thinks they're "special," regardless of the notices on the screen that tell everyone to turn off their phones.

Off.

Consideration of others. It's a simple concept.

I wonder if the personal responsibility-phobes will have fun circling with this one, too.

Certainly.

You're attempting to use the that lame "because I said it happened, it happened" reasoning again.

And that doesn't work.

You have to back up your assertions, otherwise they're just empty claims.

Care to man up and give it a go?

So, explain how you are being 'considerate' to the man you just shot and killed?

There is no amount of explaining that will change anyone's mind in this thread. I just hope justice is served in this case.

See - this is what I mean - you consistently draw out things the texter could have done to avoid the situation, however, you don't give 'equal' time to ways the older guy could have avoided the situation. It appears that you always 'blame' the texter when you do this. "The texter could have done this or that or maybe something else", while never using this same reasoning for the older man. However, you now have stated that you believe that it wasn't 'equal' but you still just use the texter as the 'only if he had done this' example.

I didn't leave anything out. Speeder said in some states you can shoot anyone who raises a fist at you. I pointed out that, "You don't even have to raise a fist in Texas." Which you kindly affirmed. If you're in Texas and you have something in your arms, if somebody thinks you stole it from someone, they can legally kill you.

Anyone reading your posts will know what I mean: your posts with the circling cars and colors, and making fun of people who have opinions in this discussion are pre-pubescent shenanigans. So you didn't post these? Is this enough evidence to satisfy your infinite standards of "reasoning." BTW, you should really look up what that means.

Back to the discussion...

Just a bunch of folks who did not get their desired/ predicted outcome in the Trayvon Martin case...hoping to get another shot at an evil gun-owner. This guy is not the much hated nazi, Jew, white/Hispanic gun owner as Zimmerman was declared here...but he is just as easy to hate as a old, white, retired cop, gun-owner. What possible right did either have to defend them self from a much cooler, younger man?

Now you're changing the subject.

That is merely an attempt at deflection.

You just cherry pick a few things you don't like and try to paint every post I made here as shenanigans.

Sorry, you still haven't demonstrated how "Foxy kicked my arse."

Read/skim back through parts of this thread and honestly evaluate my points and counterpoints.

With Foxy or anyone else.

Then come back here and spell out just how what you say happened actually happened.

Have fun trying. :cool:

Regardless of which side you think is right, I think the decision to charge murder 2 is a blunder....just like in zimmerman/martin....manslaughter would be an easy conviction.....just as it would have been in the zimmerman case

Yup.

That's exactly what's going on here.

It's all too easy to see.

Total nonsense.

You can legally kill them if they have stolen property, you cannot legally kill them if the property is not stolen.

Very simple. Just read her retorts to your gibberish. And then read everyone else's retorts to your gibberish. Very on subject. Further, you haven't even, to use your term, "manned up," and addressed the question of how you can defend someone who shot an innocent, victim's wife, and could have possibly shot others. Did the wife deserve to be shot? Keep it classy, BTW. This is just debate on a hot current event.

BTW, you're the only person here asserting that "Foxy has kicked my arse in every post."

So please stop trying to establish it as fact that you are part of a group that is saying the same thing.

You got yourself into this mess by claiming something you can't back up... don't embarrass yourself further by thinking you're going to have a posse come help you out.

You have to back up your assertions with reasoned responses.

All you're doing is saying, just look at this and that, and everyone will see it exactly as I see it.

Sorry, that doesn't work in the real world.

So you're just left with empty claims.

Again.

But thanks for trying. :)