Slashdot Mirror
Man Shot To Death For Texting During Movie
An anonymous reader writes "The New York Times reports that an argument over texting ended in a cellphone user's death when a retired police officer in the audience shot him in a theater near Tampa, Florida on Monday. The report notes that 'cinema executives acknowledged during a trade conference last year that they debated whether to accommodate younger viewers by allowing text messages during some movies.'"
Cell phones or guns: take your pick.
Texter gets what he deserves vs. more cop brutality. My brain can't handle it.
http://www.rootstrikers.org/
If a fight broke out in a british cinema, there'd be a punch-up, the police would be called and someone would be spending the night in the cells. In America you get shot. Thank fuck i'm british.
Cellphones during the movie was debated, but WEAPONS not?
He was texting during the previews, which, unless things have gotten even worse, do not constitute "the movie". Get your headlines right.
Guns don't cause shitstorms...
Note that the title is wrong -- he was shot for texting during the previews, not during the movie itself.
People cause shitstorms.
Left MS Windows for Linux Mint and never looked back!
Vote for Bernie in 2016!
He was shot as result of an altercation that started over his use of a cellphone.
I don't know if the shooter ever felt that his life was in danger or not but that will likely be his defense. In any case this is another instance where a simple argument turns into a murder because somebody was carrying a gun and either panicked or allowed their anger to get the better of them.
In English: shot dead. "Shot to death" implies a long and lingering shooting, with many small bullets that cause you to gradually lose your grasp on life.
So says the guy that doesn't even have enough balls to post under his username on an internet site.
Of course the summary is wrong and the trolls are already celebrating the shooter.
1) The texter was not young.
2) The movie had not started. It was during the previews.
3) If you read the actual news story you'd learn that the texter was not sending a text at the time of the shooting. In fact the texter told the shooter that he was texting his daughter to check on her before the movie started. The shooter got his feelings hurt and walked out of the theater, got his gun and returned to murder the man and injure his wife who was standing next to him.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
When I hear news like these I always wonder what type of idiot thinks that shooting the texter solves anything?
Thank you for providing an answer.
p.s. The shooter will spend the rest of his life in jail, how's that preferable to someone annoyingly texting in a movie?
So now a 3 year old girl is going to grow up without her daddy, and you think this is a good thing? Did the thought cross your mind that maybe, just possibly, annoyance is not a good enough reason to deprive this little girl of her daddy?
I'm not saying he was a good man or that he didn't make a dumb mistake. But your cheering is disturbing.
Sincerely hope you don't have a Coexist bumper sticker on your car, because you could sure take the advice of one.
So says the guy that doesn't even have enough balls to post anonymously on an internet site.
-anonymous
CLI paste? paste.pr0.tips!
This was a retired cop. Police in America are privileged to wield guns whereever and whenever basically. And truth be told, law officers have a far poorer record than concealed carry permit holders.
Well, I mean, if he shot him in the leg or something, he'd just be screaming through the whole movie.
He went out to his car and retrieved his firearm. The question will be asked, if you were concerned for your safety....why did you return to the theater?
Yes, because shooting a 43 year old man and his wife is totally an appropriate response if one of them sends texts during a movie.
I mean, since he was retired, the shooter would've paid around $10 for the privilege of being in that cinema. So he's entitled to shoot anyone who slightly annoys him during that time. Especially considering it was a Mark Wahlberg movie.
That was sarcasm. But this isn't: You are an idiot.
You can never know everything, and part of what you do know will always be wrong. Perhaps even the most important part.
Well he's not texting anymore. And the guy with the gun isn't shooting people anymore. I think this is a win for movie-go'ers.
Who ordered that?
Is there any greater display of courtesy and respect for someone than not shooting them dead?
If you would have taken the time to actually read the news you would have known that the shooter had to leave the theater to retrieve his gun from the car. It is no where in the realm of being self defense.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
Hahahahaha NRA shill spotted already.
"Who knows what happened" and then proceeding to paint the victim in the worst possible manner, despite witness testimony of the transpired events.
At least it shows how full of crap the NRA's argument is, that guns are safe as long as they're in the hands of well-trained "good guys".
I read that he left the theater to report the guy who was texting, not necessarily to get his gun.
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
This officer has earned himself a seat at the right hand of God; the free exercise of Second Amendment rights is one of the Christliest pursuits that any sovereign citizen can aspire to. He will be viciously attacked for this by the extreme/ultimate left, but the fact remains that he is (and always will be) a defender of our Constitutional and Scriptural rights.
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/ex-police-officer-curtis-reeves-shoots-dead-chad-oulson-texting-cinema-1432197
This way you can decide guilt and innocence based solely on physical appearance like Reddit does.
Sig. Sig. Sputnik
Clearly you don't understand the argument then. Anyone who does something wrong with their gun is, by definition, no longer one of the good guys.
Aside: I learned this a long time ago about police cars and fire trucks. They can only proceed through intersections with lights and sirens if it's clear to do so. If they hit something, it obviously wasn't clear to do so. The other guy may have some liability, but that won't necessarily excuse the fire truck driver.
He was texting during the previews, not the movie itself. When I go to the theater, plenty of people use their cellphones during the trailer previews. I assume they are just checking their messages one last time before silencing the phone. I have never seen anyone complain about that. Shooting someone for texting during the movie is fine with me, but shooting them for texting during the trailer previews is unjustified.
Parents on a night out to relax together, notably not bringing their children to the theater with them (would that also have drawn this bastards ire?) sent one last text to their child at home before the PREVIEWS ended and the movie began. Lets drop the *golf clap* and other snide remarks praising a murderer that destroyed a family.
I take this one pretty personally for multiple reasons: My wife and I love to go see a movie to relax and unwind while the kids stay home with a baby sitter, and only 2 years ago we lived in Wesley Chapel and that was our movie theater. It's a suburban neighborhood with good families and lots of kids go see movies there, though I'm sure from some of the comments here that teenagers who rarely exercise good judgement should be fair game for psychotic always-armed "I can shoot who I want because I'm a cop" murderers. I wish we could bring back the Roman execution styles and throw this son of a whore from a high cliff.
On the petty and barely relevant question of texting during a movie, I would never take my phone out of my pocket during the movie, and always take the previews as my cue to put it away in the first place, but wouldn't expect trouble if I used the previews to send one last text to my kids. That really doesn't seem like it's taking your life in your hands, but these days it's hard to tell.
Regulation probably would not have helped. The shooter is a retired cop. Almost every jurisdiction with gun restrictions makes exceptions for active duty and retired cops.
The police are "good guys"?
No sig today...
I know its only one example, but it supports my personal theory that US cops are programmed by their job to think that you can fix every problem with a gun, and that they are arrogant enough to think that shooting people is always OK if you are (or maybe ever were) a cop.
The texter was very much in the wrong too though. Every movie I've ever been to includes at least one info-trailer to let people know that phoning and texting are not OK in the theater. For all you saying it was 'only' during the previews, the trailer never says anything about "only during the main movie". And what about people who enjoy watching the previews?
>> "The man using the phone explained to the irritated man that he was simply texting his 3-year-old daughter"
This made me laugh as it so represents the apparent socialised blame culture in the US...like somehow the age/gender/personal relationship of the recipient is somehow now a justifiable reason for why everyone should put up with his selfishness. ..and what kind of parent gives their 3 year old kid a cellphone anyway?
You have a warped sense of entitlement. Shooting someone for texting is never justified.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
I find more reasons to just up and leave the USA. This culture totally sucks.
They are no different than Street gang thugs. Even retired they believe they are above the law.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Someone seems to have forgotten.
NRA? It's not the NRA who says that police should be allowed to carry guns but ordinary citizens shouldn't.
Regardless of whether or not he retrieved his gun or had it on his person, any self-defense argument is moot because he was able to safely remove himself from the situation first. This is cold-blooded, premeditated murder. There is absolutely no excuse for this. There is no evidence that the texter posed an immediate, lethal threat (with a deadly weapon) to the murderer. There is, however, ample evidence that the texter did NOT pose a threat, because of the demonstrated aformentioned ability of the murderer to remove himself from the situation first.
From IBT:
Curtis Reeves has now been charged with second-degree murder
First I'm an NRA member myself. Second I didn't read the article, but by the summary this was in no way a self defense shooting and the perp should rot in jail. I am one that believes that self defense is a right granted by God the same way that freedom of speech and freedom of expression is granted. Wasting a life because somebody got pissed is not a good excuse. Now when it comes to movies personally I only go to the drive-in or watch Blu-Ray anymore and I even turn off my phone at the drive in as I don't want the distraction. The last time I was in a regular theater was 2007 when I watched The Simpsons Movie.
sudo mod me up
It just makes you an asshole with a gun.
My local theatres displays the "please turn off your phones" banner *after* the previews and before the main feature just to reinforce this point.
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
As a former gun owner and supporter of gun rights, I hope the retired officer gets the death penalty for this. Yes, things can set people off, but it's the responsibility of anyone with the ability to kill someone to control that. If you can't do that, you should not develop the ability to kill, whether through physical training such as martial arts or through items like knives or guns.
The penalty needs to correspond to the responsibility that the individual accepted. As a gun owner, his responsibility to keep his cool should be higher, even more so as a retired cop.
AJ Henderson
2 things - 1) It was reported that the texting itself occured during the preview trailers, not the movie itself. I've often done that myself, check e-mail and and such during previews, share the information, coordinate schedule with other people who may be attending the movie with us as well. I do agree that once the movie starts, then the phone needs to be put away and put on silent.
2) Other outlets are now reporting that the argument was escalated by the shooting victim, with him yelling at the shooter for 'telling on him', then escalated it further into the physical realm. I suppose at that point I can see how the older man (71) was feeling physically threatened by the younger (43) and felt he had to take immediate action to protect himself.
I'm not saying that's exactly what happened here. I am pointing out that information is still being developed and details are still coming out. It's forlorn hope I admit, but I'd like to think that we could all dial down the outrage until all the facts are learned, then castigate the guilty party(ies) and not just vent uncontrollably based on our own immediate perceptions.
I'm not crazy,I'm actively irresponsible.
If you would have taken the time to actually read the news you would have known that the shooter had to leave the theater to retrieve his gun from the car.
The article says nothing about him going to the car for anything, it says he went to find a manager. Managers don't typically hang out in my car, so I doubt this guy would think to go look for one there.
And "self defense" is what happens in the moment. Nowhere does it say he came back into the theater brandishing a weapon, just as nowhere does it say he had to deliberately go find one.
The fact is, there was an argument and it got physical. We'll have to wait for FACTS before we can judge the events, instead of making them up to justify our point of view.
I was in a theater the other day and someone was doing that. They were directly in my line of view but it was during the previews. I thought about saying something but also felt it could lead to a confrontation. They put it away as soon as the lights dimmed and never took it back out.
Oh, and it was a huge phablet. Maybe I should have said something. :)
If you would have taken the time to actually read the news you would have known that the shooter had to leave the theater to retrieve his gun from the car.
Where are you getting this information? The linked NYT article says nothing about the shooter leaving to retrieve his gun.
The cops, (again only the ones I've seen) have a habit of driving as fast as possible and don't like using their sirens, even when blowing through an intersection. This is based on my experiences driving fire trucks and ambulances.
the shooter had to leave the theater to retrieve his gun from the car
I don't see that in the article. He went to complain to the theater manager. When he returned the victim started the argument up again and it escalated from there. Both guys sound like assholes.
mildly inconvenience me and I WILL KILL YOU!
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
True that shooting is uncalled for. On the other had, the victim was obviously a bully who didn't care if people around him were annoyed by his behavior. Texting a 3 year old? Really?
So says the guy who thinks he's anonymous on an internet site.
Yes, I look forward to a society where everyone can bother everyone around them with absolutely no repercussions. Yay freedom!
Sol System/Planet Designate 11340 (Local Name: Earth) Political/Religious sector: United States of America Attn: Regional incident review director, Xenobiology sector 998 Event Status Report Incident 998754 - 2014-01-13 Theater shooting, Local Sector Name: Tampa Florida Discharge of firearm in close quarters/enclosed space. Victims identified. Outcome analysis: Direct impact: 1 male, deceased. 1 female, injured 1 male, detained 1 misc number of subjects within range of event Local Sector has laws which allow the use of firearms without concern for outcome (Locally called "Stand your ground"). Evidence of use can be seen via report 99827. Ancillary impacts: Prior evidence suggests long term impacts to immediate family of both victim and attacker can result in propagation of undesired outcomes. Basic human therapy will be performed but ruled minimally effective. We can also assume, based on prior events, the event will be utilized by the two main controlling religious parties in the sector to reinforce their control. As always, actions by the two groups will ensure continued such events to allow for propagation of converts based on ideology. Recommended actions: Continue observations. If we do not see a decrease in the number of such events, begin extraction of observers and retask to Planet Designate 112333. Categorization of Planet from Mostly Harmless to "Avoid" also recommended.
Just curious, are there other annoying habits you think deserve the death penalty?
Shooting people is a pretty nasty habit.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Let's have some facts:
There is a very recent article about Reeve's appearance in court and what
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
Shooting some for anything is never justified
Wrong. If someone is posing a clear and present danger to me or my family, and if the setting is such that shooting him doesn't pose a danger to others in the vicinity, then shooting him would absolutely be justified.
Obviously that wasn't the case in this incident.
The Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (LEOSA) is a United States federal law, enacted in 2004, that allows two classes of persons—the "qualified law enforcement officer" and the "qualified retired law enforcement officer"—to carry a concealed firearm in any jurisdiction in the United States, regardless of state or local laws, with certain exceptions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_Enforcement_Officers_Safety_Act
They are the American Nobility...
His point is that LEOs and retired LEOs are EXEMPT from pretty much ALL of the restrictions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_Enforcement_Officers_Safety_Act
In the old days, this was known as natural selection.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
If you would have taken the time to read the news, you would have known that he left the theater to talk to the manager and never went to his car .
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
On the plus side, I guess if you had to be involved in a collision with another vehicle, an ambulance is probably the best choice - no need to call an ambulance.
Although, I suppose there's substantial danger of being hit by the fifteen lawyer's cars chasing the ambulance :S
Requiem for the American Dream
*Lawyers' cars
Requiem for the American Dream
Cheap Mexican food causes shitstorms.
Was shooting definitely warranted? Idk, probably not but I'll let the courts decide. A premeditated murder? Seems unlikely.
If you can safely walk away from a confrontation (and/or you and whomever you're with; ex. if with a child/wife/etc), then it was not warranted nor justified.
IMO, that's the best rule of guidance to go by for any (potentially) physical confrontation.
In this case, he (shooter) is a row behind this guy. He already walked away just fine once. The situation escalates. He could leave; he could stop provoking the situation; etc. I am not implying that the texter was in the right in every way, but he did have less of an opportunity and reason for walking away.
It's a really sad case. Shooter is 71; was a cop; probably saw a lot of messed up stuff; probably has a lot of friends that have and are passing away at that age; and now what? Prison for the rest of his life? That's a shitty way to go. Not as bad as getting knocked off in your prime during an escalated incident stemming from texting during some previews, but it's hard to find anything positive in this story.
From what I have read, three or four accounts now, the only thing that may have physically happened is someone threw popcorn at the arguing idiots. Being hit with popcorn is not a valid defense for shooting someone. In fact unless the person has a weapon or is currently physically beating you I don't believe there is any excuse for shooting someone in a theater.
The MPAA applauded the action, and announced that, in order to curb piracy, anybody at a movie with a powered-on cell phone will henceforth be summarily shot and killed.
Yes, texting during a movie is not a capital offense. It fact it is not against the law. It makes them a a-hole, but not a criminal. No justification for the shooting, fry the shooter.
It's not that it's justified, it's that there are only two realistic options. Kill or be killed. Either is unjustified. But you get a legal pass because it's better for you to prevail than him.
However, if you had the power and means to restrain the attacker without causing harm and delivering him to authorities for arrest, then THAT would be the correct option, not shooting him.
Asking people to think is like asking them to buy you a new car
An armed society is a FEARFULL society. FTFY
If you have to be "polite" because you fear someone shoots you because you may sound "disrespectfull/unfriendly/annoying" the "politeness" is completely hollow and is in fact fear.
Social norm would then be "who has the biggest most prominent guns wins/has right of way/is right".
Sounds too much like medieval times...
And don't tell me that if everyone has a gun it will be a level playing field. (think weapon, fitness, health, mood, social settings, fear of injuring someone you love or have some responsibility over, etc..., etc.. ,etc...)
Well I will clue you in, having nachos or a cold soda thrown at you are also not valid reasons to kill someone. Valid reasons to call the cops and press assault charges maybe, but not valid reasons to shoot someone. Next time you step on someones shoes or accidentally elbow them when walking past would they be justified in shooting you, because you certainly cause more harm then being hit with a piece of popped corn would.
You're missing the part where the "threatened" 71 year old left the theater, went to his car, retrieved the gun and then came back and shot the 43 year old. At what point was a beatdown by the 43 year old going on there?
Maybe you are not from the U.S., and you believe "left the theater" means "left the building" rather than "left the room in which the movie was being projected to talk to the management in the massive lobby". In the U.S., a movie complex is a huge thing, and "theater" describes the room with the screen in it, not the building containing the room with the screen in it. He didn't leave the building to get his gun, he had a concealed carry permit, and the gun was on him the entire time.
You really need to read more than one biases source for the story:
http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/national/curtis-reeves-set-to-make-first-court-appearance-after-florida-theater-shooting
"As a male moviegoer texted, the man seated behind him objected, and asked the texter to put his phone away. ...
They argued several times, according to police and witnesses, and the man who was texting watched as the other man walked out of the theater. Curtis Reeves, a retired police officer, apparently went seeking a theater employee to complain about the texting, police said."
The man who had been texting, Chad Oulson, got up and turned to Reeves to ask him if he had gone to tell on him for his texting. Oulson reportedly said, in effect: I was just sending a message to my young daughter.
Voices were raised. Popcorn was thrown."
Assault, with implied threat of battery.
"And then came something unimaginable -- except maybe in a movie. A gunshot.
Not that unimaginable. This is just sensationalist editorializing on the part of ABC.
The shot went through the wife's hand, which is how she sustained her injury. That places her hand on Oulson's chest, which is typical if one is restraining someone, and atypical behavior for the wife, unless Oulson had exhibited similar behavior in the past.
If Reeves were a crazed nut job, he would have not sat and removed his hands from the weapon and waited for the police.
...the wife was injured through her hand by the shot as she had her hand on the husbands chest attempting to restrain him, so it's likely that he's done this sort of flying off the handle before...
Well, this really demonstrates your point of view. I think if I were she, and some old crazy dude pulled a gun on my husband, my last act for my spouse would be to put my hand up... to shield him.
That's kind of heart-breaking. Your assumption makes my blood run a little cooler, though.
"Clearly you don't understand the argument then. Anyone who does something wrong with their gun is, by definition, no longer one of the good guys."
Wait, so you're saying guns are OK because the only people who kill people with guns are people who kill people with guns? While admitting that training and experience can't be used to predict who those people are going to be? Well, I know I'm completely convinced.
Yes. I have to wonder what the three-year-old daughter of the man thinks. The three-year-old daughter of the now-dead man. It's utterly shameful that this happened. Especially the way that it ended the man's life.
-- haaz.
And if that's the extent of it, I agree. I believe that the use of potentially deadly force is only justified when that same force is first used against you, or you're in immediate and imminent danger of having it being used against you.
So far, nothing in this story leads me to believe that was the case. But we'll see what, if any, new information comes out.
I'm not crazy,I'm actively irresponsible.
Ah... We have an eye witness with infallible determinations of intent and an eidetic memory of exactly what happened in a dimmed theater.
I wish there were more people like you in the world.
Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
I just don't understand how the shooter thought that discharging a firearm inside a crowded movie theater was in any way going to aid in his effort to quietly watch the previews and later feature presentation.
In what possible way was shooting another patron NOT going to stop the projection, evacuate the theater and end up with the shooter at least detained if not arrested and in jail for the next few hours?
Did he really think: "Well, if I just shoot this one guy then we can get on with the rest of the film?
There must be some mental instability lurking in there somewhere: anger/rage issues, delusions, drug use, etc.
Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
Lack of respect, lack of boundaries, lack of communication, emotional instability.
All these psychological problem led to escalation and homicide.
It's a shame they forgot to run the "please don't shoot each other" banner before the previews. Maybe this whole thing could have been averted.
I think you misspelled "buttery"
Good luck with that. Apparently there's a Federal law that gives them these privileges. When was the last time you ever heard the gun-control crowd suggest stricter gun control measures for cops or ex-cops?
> However, if you had the power and means to restrain the attacker without causing harm and delivering him to authorities for arrest, then THAT would be the correct option, not shooting him.
Speaking as a self defense instructor, (part time in the evenings, when I'm not being paid to do IT geek stuff) there are lots of ways for a restraining situation to go wrong, especially if you don't know the person's strength, training and weaponry. I might try it were it only me at risk, but if my family is threatened with severe injury or death, It would be irresponsible for me to wrestle with someone if I had more effective means at my disposal.
That said, one does have to do a risk assessment; someone throwing popcorn in a theater is clearly not threat of bodily harm and doesn't justify a lethal response. My understanding of self defense laws boils down to: If a reasonable person would be afraid for their life (or a loved one's life), lethal force is justified. Else, no.
But I'll grant you that lethal defense of loved ones isn't something to feel good about. It's just better than the alternative.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Look I have seen *plenty* of situation where one person (sibling, friend, S.O., fatehr/son) put the hand over the arm, the chest or whatever. Those are gesture to *calm* down the person, and are in no way shape or form a restraint against a violent gesture to come. That youa re trying to use it as a justification to fear immeninent violence says more about you , and your *utter inability* to analyze a situation , than it says anything about the victim. You are the poster child on who should not be allowed to have a gun, just by the plain fact they can be misinterpreting normal social situation as imminent violence.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Clearly you don't understand the argument then. Anyone who does something wrong with their gun is, by definition, no longer one of the good guys.
I really hope you're being facetious.
Remember that the "bad guy" in question was a retired police officer. The sort of person who the NRA would say should be allowed to carry a weapon into a movie theater. He has received years of training on how and when to use a weapon at taxpayer expense.
Except that the error rate for CWP firing is about 2% compared to about 14% for police...so your hypothetical, while terrifying, isn't how it actually happens...like ever.
Clearly you don't understand the argument then. Anyone who does something wrong with their gun is, by definition, no longer one of the good guys.
The problem is finding out that they aren't a good guy too late. This guy was a retired cop. He should have been one of the people who could be trusted with a firearm in public, but he wasn't. That calls into question whether or not anyone can really be trusted with firearms in public, as a matter of public policy.
What should the law be when it's impossible or impractical to determine whether or not someone will lash out this way? Were there warning signs about him? Should people with ill tempers be allowed to own firearms, and if not, how do you identify them reasonably? A man is dead, and a three-year old is without a father because we choose that it was more important for the shooter to be allowed to have a gun than for him not to be allowed to have one.
The gun rights groups answer to gun violence is almost always to suggest more guns. All that could have done here with short tempers and close range is make more dead people and grieving families.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Assualt and battery is not the same as Salty and Buttery.
I can't recall: which book/verse exactly is it where your god tells you to arm yourself to the teeth to protect yourself?
Much of the Old Testament, actually. There's a ton of war stories with the theme of "our tribe won because our god was better" in there, and the idea that it's fine, or even required, to raid the neighboring tribe isn't questioned. To many Christians the New Testament deprecated all of that stuff, but that gets into specific faiths, and I never could keep them all straight.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
I'll tell you what. I'll buy you a ticket to fly down and explain to the fatherless 3 year old how this is a win for moviegoers. Do report back on how that goes.
What the guy texting deserved was to be kicked out of the theater without a refund. What the guy who decided to shoot him for what he did deserves at least 2 decades behind bars.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Right of way does not mean right to keep going when it's not safe. Ie, you have right of way when your light turns green, but you can not legally proceed if the intersection is blocked. Yes, it may be another person's fault for still being in the intersection, but it is also your fault for going ahead when there's something blocking the way.
You might want to explain what "CWP firing error rate" is supposed to mean. As googling it, only reveals "Concealed Weapons Permit", which I am not sure can be fired erroneously or otherwise.
What I do know from life experience however, is that in a theater, there are people all around you, except maybe directly above and below you.
Correct. Nobody, not even fire trucks, has the right of way. You, however, as a "normal" driver must yield the right of way to fire trucks. It's a subtle difference but an important one. [This is true for pedestrians in crosswalks. They don't have the right of way either. You must, however, yield the right of way to them.]
Moral of the story? You're always in the right until you're in the wrong.
I think he meant that the Americans are revolting.
You've described a zany hypothetical situation where a "good guy" with a gun "helps" by shooting into a crowd.
The person responding to you replied by telling you that 98% of shoots by CCW holders are "righteous" where only 86% of police shoots are. The other 14%, presumably, are police shooting people holding cell phones and other fuckups.
I have no idea if his stat is true, but if so, by an overwhelming majority a CCW holder (a guy who just wants to carry his gun) is less likely to shoot into a crowd than a cop by a factor of 7:1.
The idiot in this story is part of the 2%, clearly -- although he's likely a minority among that 2% as well.
Whoopsie, you had headphones on or the stereo turned up loud and he popped in to see if anyone was in danger from the chimney fire he spotted.
Stick with violent paranoia though, it makes life grander.
Not legally, they're not. Retired LEOs enjoy numerous privileges not available to the general populace. This law, for example, grants active and retired police a concealed carry permit that must be honored in all 50 states (there is no such thing available to private citizens), AND it can only be overridden by state laws that prohibit possession on state property or provisions of state law that allow private property owners to bar concealed weaponry.
I was taught in my concealed weapons class to only defend yourself (and likely anyone under your care). If you can, always retreat. And if you come upon a gun fight (whether one or both parties have guns), you don't know what the situation is so don't get involved. One could be an undercover police.
Is it just me, or do you hate it when people say "Is it just me..."?
in an "armed" society, where not everyone has the same level of impulse control?
Here's to hot beer, cold women, and Glaswegian kisses for all.