Posted on 01/17/2014 6:10:16 AM PST by Anton.Rutter
Guns don’t kill people, popcorn kills people. Or maybe it’s texting. Or just being in the wrong place at the wrong time with some fool who thinks he needs to take a gun to the movies.
(Excerpt) Read more at touch.latimes.com ...
What mistake???
exactly.
You are hiding behind narrow legal distinctions.
I've seen statistics that well over 90 percent of defensive uses of firearms involve either letting the perp know you are armed or showing the perp you are armed - i.e., brandishment.
The one time I used a firearm for self-defense, this was the case.
This counters the anti-gunner propaganda that the only way to defend with a firearm is to kill someone.
The level of assault had not risen to the level where the shooter could reasonably feel his safety was in danger. You instead postulate about what the victim might have done - which is utterly immaterial in ANY context, legal or logical. If the shooter was reasonably worried for his safety, the next logical step is brandishment. That resolves the vast majority of such confrontations without bloodshed, and if the CCW carrier is wrong, the legal penalties are vastly less and no one has died for the wrong reason.
That is why you are being so absurd. But I am sure the gun-grabbers are thanking you for bolstering their case that CCW holders will shoot you for assault with salty food.
You could have started that statement with, "a 71 year old, retired, obese gentleman......" What you stated was obviously intended to make him sound like some kind of a young, big, virulent, muscular, fire-breathing, linebacker type of guy. What you left out was that he is an elderly overweight and out of shape man. How you chose to state this and what you left out just turned it into total manipulative deception. Your slant on this incident and departure from the full truth and known reality is noted.
OK you are right, I know you were there and saw it all and listened to every word that was whispered, spoken, and screamed. I have the utmost respect and belief in your crystal balls accuracy and understand that you have full factual knowledge about what the shooter felt and believed in that instant in time when he pulled the trigger. So I can attest to all that you know it all and can read minds from great distance.
This discussion has descended to the level of many other discussions I had with those who worshiped Saint Travon in the first week after that monster GZ hunted down the poor naked scared toddler and shot him in the back just because he was black. Or at least that is what they and the media wanted the world to think about Travon's level of involvement and the facts surrounding his death. As it was then it is now. The statements and posts made by many in their attack of this shooter are not factual, complete, or rational and misrepresent not only the presently known facts but also what actually could be known by them at this point in time.
I'm good with waiting for a judgment from a judge or jury who have all the facts, fully understand all of the applicable laws, and can make a decision from an informed point of view. That would not be you.
Have a good day.
I get what you are saying but I seriously doubt it. I wasn’t naive about shop lifters and certainly knew how to spot a scam or a set up but she didn’t fit the profile. She impressed me more as the type of person who though she deserved more respect from a “lowly” “minimum wage type service workers” and expected to be groveled to and evidently I didn’t grovel to her sufficiently in her own mind therefore to her, her actions toward me were completely justified.
While managing this same store and not long after, a middle aged professional looking guy came in one Monday morning to complain to me about one of my employees who waited on him and his kids the previous Sunday. He told me that my employee had been rude to him and he “demanded” that I fire her.
This worker had been in my employ for several years and she was a good worker, quite dependable and I’d never had any other customer complaints about her. I asked this customer to describe what happened. He told me that she had scrimped on the scoops of ice cream she served them and had been nasty and rude to his children. I politely told him that I took all customer complaints quite seriously and that I would look into the matter and take appropriate action if warranted. This was not good enough for him and he again “demanded” that I fire her right then and now, on the spot, expecting me to call her at her fulltime day job and fire her on his say so and while he was there to listen to me do it.
I calmly and politely explained to him that while I took his complaint very seriously, I wasn’t about to fire a long time worker based only on his say so, but that I would talk to her and get her side of the story along with that of her co-worker on that same shift and make a determination based on his complaint, what her co-worker had to say and weighed along with her overall performance and any other complaints against her previously (which there were none) and any future complaints and if warranted that I would reprimand her, write her up but that I wasn’t going to necessarily fire her on the spot based on his sole complaint.
This really incensed the guy who went on to tell me how he was a very important and highly paid executive at “xyz corp” and that I didn’t know who I was f-ing with that he would not only get her fired but me too. I told him that if wanted to make a complaint about me or how I managed my store, that I would be more than happy to provide him with my district manager’s name and phone number, I even wrote it down for him. He took the info and stormed off but not before calling me a stupid moron, and “I don’t have to take any sh!t from any minimum wage types like you”. FWIW, I made a lot more than minimum wage but that was beside the point. I called my district manager and told her about what transpired and to alert her in case she got a call from him and what I was doing to investigate and deal with the matter and she agreed with my plan of action and investigation.
When this worker came in for her evening shift that same day, I told her about the complaint and asked her what had happened. She told me this guy and his three kids came in late that Sunday afternoon and ordered ice cream cones. But that while she was scooping them, they kept changing their minds about what flavors they wanted after she had already scooped them and she had to throw several cones away and then on what size cone they wanted – at first a double scoop was too small but a triple scoop was too big but that the double scoop was too skimpy even though she told me she gave them two full scoops. She also told me that while she was waiting on them that his kids were running amok around the store, squeezing the bread and snack cakes and that they were pulling comic books off the magazine rack and after looking at them, throwing them on the floor and that she asked them to stop. And when she asked them to stop the dad told them, “You don’t have to listen to her”.
So I called, at home the worker who worked that same shift with her that night. He was also a long time employee and someone who I trusted to open and close the store, make bank deposits in my absence, a really good honest and stand up guy. I only asked him if anything unusual had happened the night before. At first he said “no not really” but then he related what happened with a male customer and his three bratty kids, how very rude and obnoxious they had been to Katie and to him and to the other customers who had been waiting in line behind them, he basically described the exact same events to me that Katie did.
Needless to say, I didn’t fire Katie, I didn’t even write her up. I also never heard anything more about it from my manager.
Working in retail as long as I did, I have a lot of other stories about rude, obnoxious, unreasonable and some downright bat sh!t crazy scary customers.
I have to wonder if the shooter in this case was a lot like one of them. He stormed out of the theater to find a manager to hear his complaint but when the manger wasn’t immediately available to speak with him and no one else jumped on his “complaint”, that only made him even more angry.
Don't even begin to go there.
There is utterly no evidence that the assault went beyond throwing popcorn.
And that does not rise to the level of assault to justify lethal force by anyone's sane definition of such.
The shooter broke many rules that CCW carriers are supposed to follow, the biggest being backing away from such confrontations when possible. Instead, he went BACK and resumed the confrontation, because apparently he had a major bee up his butt about texting at movies.
Whereas Zimmerman did not shoot until the perp was on top of him bashing his head against the sidewalk. You insult Zimmerman by trying to tie this idiot to him in such a manner.
Your argument is with the state Attorney and police. They are who charged him.
“Showing a gun without justification to use it is a CRIME. It is called “brandishing”. Only recently have some jurisdictions begun to consider allowing the showing of a firearm as a means to ward off an attack.”
You’re an excellent example of someone who’s committed to a theory, and will double down endlessly despite being clearly wrong. You remind me of many global warming supporters...
As a CCW holder, there is no problem with “brandishing” your weapon if you have just cause to draw it and potentially shoot someone. For instance, if you see a man beating a woman on the sidewalk, it is perfectly permissible to draw your weapon and warn the man to stop or he’ll be shot. If he stops, it’s fine to hold him at gunpoint until the police arrive. You will not be in any trouble. and there is CERTAINLY no requirement to shoot him rather than warning him first. You should look into the myriad of accounts where simply exhibiting a weapon defused the situation...
I really, really hope you are not a CCW holder given your general cluelessness in this area.
“Zimmerman got the crap beat out of him, head bleeding front and back, a guy sitting on his chest, head being beaten into the sidewalk, and he was screaming for help that never came.”
Exactly, and that was a point I meant to make earlier. Zimmerman called for help, and really waited until the last possible second to shoot.
Reeves clearly had a hair trigger, as an ex-cop he should absolutely have understood the requirements to use deadly force. By all accounts, this incident did not meet them.
That is good to know and should probably be shouted from the housetops so that a whole lot of people here and elsewhere who are carrying can get the message as they clearly did not pay attention in their CCW classes.
As long as the arms are in the hands of polite people.
*Mutual Assured Destruction
"He’s being charged with second degree murder. Curtis maintains that he was attacked, but in court, an attorney called Curtis’ claims “weak” due to the fact that other people in the movie theater saw him throw popcorn first".
http://hollywoodlife.com/2014/01/14/curtis-reeves-movie-theater-shooter-five-things-to-know/
"The dispute quickly escalated. A bag of popcorn was angrily flung. It isn't clear who threw the first kernel. Witnesses insisted it was Mr. Reeves, who, in turn, blamed Mr. Oulson."
http://www.post-gazette.com/opinion/tony-norman/2014/01/17/Fla-shooting-case-is-theater-of-the-absurd/stories/201401170125
“The dispute quickly escalated. A bag of popcorn was angrily flung. It isn’t clear who threw the first kernel. Witnesses insisted it was Mr. Reeves, who, in turn, blamed Mr. Oulson.”
Isn’t that interesting. Can’t say I’m surprised.
Another thing one must always remember as a CCW holder is that if you provoke the situation, if you use your weapon you’ll be prosecuted for it. If you don’t have an even temper and good judgement, please do us all a favor and stay away from firearms.
Another point I’d like to make regarding Reeve’s use of deadly force in this situation was what might have happened if Oulsen had ducked (assuming that he was not shot at very close, point blank range) or if the bullet passed through Oulsen’s body or Reeves had missed and hit another movie patron sitting behind Oulsen. I don’t have a CCP but I know a number of people who do. Part of the responsibility of anyone carrying, especially a cop or a former cop, would be to not only assess the situation, whether or not they truly thought their lives were in jeopardy or in eminent danger of grave bodily harm but also to assess their surroundings and the danger they might put others in, those in close proximity such as in a darkened movie theater.
But once again I think we need to put the whole thing into the proper perspective.
Is texting or talking on a cell phone during the movie rude and obnoxious behavior and don’t movie theaters strongly admonish and ask their customers to turn off their cell phones? Yes. Is it something that is “illegal” with the full force of law behind it or in any way dangerous in the same way as texting while driving? No. Is texting while the previews, the “coming attractions” and commercials as egregious as texting while the movie is running? No. Do people often chat with each other or get up during the previews to go to get refreshments or to the restroom? Yes. As a movie goer is that something that completely ruins my movie going experience? No. Are their some legitimate reasons why a movie patron might send or receive a text message before the movie started, such as to check in on a sick child in order to make the call whether to stay or leave before the movie starts? I’d say yes. Is someone who becomes so enraged over such slight distractions during the previews and feels the need to start a heated argument over it and gets up to complain about it and then come back to further escalate the situation and then pulls their firearm, have an anger management issue? …….
Your heated anger here is either because you are still angry over George Zimmerman, or because you are related to the shooter. We're just sifting the available reportage. How it looks to us would be helpful to the defense as well as the prosecution. Chill, baby.
Ah, retail! I worked in an otherwise pleasant retail field before and after my professional career, and agree that there are just some customers who come into a store loaded for bear and are going to take it out on their "inferiors." It's worth noting that I almost never got this treatment from white Christian Americans born here or from Europeans, particularly Eastern European refugees from communism. East Asian customers were also a delight. The angry entitlement types were either our familiar minority religious or racial complainants and also many kings and queens from Africa and the Middle East. The hagglers and the silent and often organized thieves were usually wearing burkas or saris, where much pelf could be hidden, although our field (fashion) also had teams of gay guys with one distracting the help while the other one stole female accoutrements.
From the sound of it, at least you had a good manager and good coworkers. I had the experience of really, really bad and spiteful managers on top of the other indignities of what the retail world has devolved into since the rise of the MBA class (1980 onward). Today's management's only motive isn't love of their particular industry, but consolidation into mom-n-pop-destroying internationalist financial conglomerates, squeezing every possible nth of a point to put more money in the pockets of owners and shareholders at the expense of American workers and our economy as a whole. If they could have computer screens with bad-English-speaking workers dealing with customers over Skype from China, they would. Shh, I'd better not give them any more "maximization" ideas.
Here's Sheldon to demonstrate...
From your link, Uncle Chip:
The theory his lawyer spun about his fearing for his life didn't begin to jibe with reality and was widely ridiculed, even by Second Amendment absolutists. Mr. Reeves helped start Tampa's tactical response team in the 1990s, so his attempts to portray himself as some kind of scaredy cat added an element of absurdity.Though he's 71, Mr. Reeves is a beefy, muscular man who, at least in his mug shot, retains the intimidating grimace of the cop he once was, but he didn't have the reputation of someone who would shoot a person for something as trivial as texting in a theater.
Even if you take the former officer at his word that he feared bodily harm, what sane person would try to rationalize the brutal act of taking a husband from his wife and a father from his daughter because of a flung bag of popcorn? What happened to his instincts about serving the public?
What kind of person takes a firearm into a theater where, presumably, the other patrons are unarmed? And if he was afraid, why didn't he wait for his son, also a policeman, to return before taking matters into his own soon-to-be-bloody hands? It makes you wonder if he would've shot at the couple if their daughter was present. One shudders to think what he would've done if they had brought a crying baby into the theater.
[bold emphases mine]
Only the most irrational gun enthusiasts are defending Mr. Reeves on newspaper comment boards and blogs. There is a class of very scared gun owners out there who claim they would have done the same thing as Mr. Reeves did under the circumstances. Flicked popcorn kernels constitute assault if Mr. Oulson threw it first.
They believe Mr. Oulson should've been packing heat for self-defense, which would've dissuaded Mr. Reeves from shooting him if he thought there was a reasonable chance he and his family might die in a fusillade of returning bullets. The shooter didn't have a reasonable fear of being shot. We need the homeostasis of the Old West to be safe.
Just as I postulated - the level of absurdity that some posters on this thread have pursued is being picked up by the gun-grabbers.
So Reeves went all postal on someone violating a rule at the theater as he in turn violated another rule at the theater. Telling.
Fine. That means that if the ex-cop was not justified in firing then he was not justified in brandishing.
Hypothetically, (and I use the word explicitly so that people don't misunderstand and think that I claim that is what happened), if the ex-cop, for whatever reason, pulled out his gun after the popcorn throwing and put it in his lap, what would the popcorn thrower do?
Assume, again hypothetically, that the popcorn thrower was armed. Would the popcorn thrower be justified in drawing his own weapon and shooting the ex-cop dead? Does it make a difference if the ex-cop's hand is still on the firearm?
For that matter, and once again hypothetically, if the off-duty copy in the audience had been armed, would he have been justified in shooting the ex-cop dead having seen the display of the ex-cop's firearm? Would the off-duty cop then be facing second degree murder charges?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.