Florida theatre killing proves guys with guns are primed to shoot

latimes.com ^ | Jan. 15, 2014 | David Horsey

[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.

[Albion Wilde]

Just as I postulated - the level of absurdity that some posters on this thread have pursued is being picked up by the gun-grabbers.

As I did, as well. And the word "absurd" has also popped up here upthread. Hope those who continued to beat a dead horse will take this unintended consequence to heart, assuming that they were posting in good faith and not just trolling to create damning quotes media can take out of context and used to slander CC and 2nd Amendment.

[kiryandil]

So Reeves went all postal on someone violating a rule at the theater as he in turn violated another rule at the theater.

Those signs are for the peasants, not a retired King's Man.

Another point is that the King's Men, active duty or retired, generally don't have to bother with peasant training, like CCW classes.

This is probably why Reeves conducted himself the way he did.

Telling.

Nice pun, dirtboy...

[dirtboy]

That means that if the ex-cop was not justified in firing then he was not justified in brandishing.

You are just too wedded to your brandishment=firing from a legal viewpoint. Just as there are varying degrees of assault that carry different penalties depending upon the severity of the assault (and assault with popcorn would have to be at the very bottom), improper brandishment carries a much lesser penalty than 2nd degree murder or manslaughter:

In Florida, it is a first degree misdemeanor offense punishable by a maximum prison term of 1 year and a maximum fine of up to $1000, if you are found guilty of an Improper Exhibition of a firearm.

That is the salient point you refuse to acknowledge. Had the shooter instead brandished and there wasn't legal grounds to do such, Reeves would be facing misdemeanor charges, instead of life in prison.

[kiryandil]

Would the popcorn thrower be justified in drawing his own weapon and shooting the ex-cop dead?

Didn't you read dirtboy's post just above yours about Reeves ignoring the signs posted at a Florida movie theater forbidding weapons on the premises?

peasant Oulson didn't, and wouldn't, have a weapon to draw.

I'm sure Reeves knew that.

[William Tell]

PreciousLiberty said: As a CCW holder, there is no problem with “brandishing” your weapon if you have just cause to draw it and potentially shoot someone."

Let me turn your statement around and see how it sounds:

As a CCW holder, there is no problem with shooting someone with your weapon if you have just cause to draw it and brandish it.

Isn't that the same thing?

If the justification for "brandishing" is the same as the justification for shooting, then there is no justification for brandishing if there is no justification for shooting.

[kiryandil]

PreciousLiberty already refuted your "brandishing" strawman to everyone else's satisfaction.

Try re-reading the post.

[kiryandil]

As a CCW holder, there is no problem with shooting someone with your weapon if you have just cause to draw it and brandish it.

I actually doubt that Reeves has a CCW, so going on about CCW is just a waste of everyone's time.

[William Tell]

dirtboy said: "That is the salient point you refuse to acknowledge. Had the shooter instead brandished and there wasn't legal grounds to do such, Reeves would be facing misdemeanor charges, instead of life in prison. "

I do acknowledge that.

Now do you acknowledge that it is not reasonable to suggest brandishing the firearm as an alternative to leaving it concealed?

Either the justification existed or it did not. I'm not aware of any distinction. Those that point out that brandishment is sometimes sufficient lose sight of the fact that it is a decision made by a person that, although they fear great bodily harm or death, they have time to decide whether the shot must be fired.

Did the popcorn thrower say, as he was assaulting the ex-cop, "I'm gonna punch your lights out"? What did the popcorn thrower's wife know that made her try to restrain her husband? If you know the answers to those questions, tell me what you know.

[Uncle Chip]

Please do yourself a favor —

Read Post #243 and think about it long and hard before thinking about responding again.

[William Tell]

kiryandil said: "I actually doubt that Reeves has a CCW, so going on about CCW is just a waste of everyone's time. "

I think you are probably right about Reeves.

The relevance to CCW is that the victim may well have behaved very differently if he had had a CCW and the theater had not disallowed it.

I repeat a question I asked previously about throwing popcorn in someone's face, "Who does that?"

I don't. Do you?

[dirtboy]

Now do you acknowledge that it is not reasonable to suggest brandishing the firearm as an alternative to leaving it concealed?

I give up. Debating you is like trying to nail Jell-O to a tree.

Any sane, reasonable CCW proponent would prefer brandishment as an alternative escalation in that situation. And brandishment suffices in over 90 percent of self-defense uses of firearms.

And here you are nit-picking away that CCW success story and feeding right into the gun grabber talking points that only fearful, rage-crazed loons who cannot control themselves CCW. Hope you are proud.

[William Tell]

PreciousLiberty said: "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. "

Is it perfectly permissible to shoot?

[Uncle Chip]

<>I repeat a question I asked previously about throwing popcorn in someone’s face, “Who does that?”<>

Your hero the shooter Curtis Reeves does that:

“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

Please read before responding —

[William Tell]

dirtboy said: "And here you are nit-picking away that CCW success story and feeding right into the gun grabber talking points that only fearful, rage-crazed loons who cannot control themselves CCW. Hope you are proud. "

I've pointed out that there are jurisdictions considering relaxing the requirements for brandishing a firearm.

Is that a good idea or will that "feed right into the gun grabber talking points"? If something less than the reasonable fear of great bodily harm or death becomes the standard, will that be good for CCW? Or will this generate a rash of unjustified escalations from arguments into deadly force situations?

Pointing out that the ex-cop may not have been justified in brandishing his firearm IS NOT an attempt to justify the ex-cop shooting the popcorn thrower. In fact, it would be just the reverse.

[dirtboy]

[William Tell]

Uncle Chip said: "Please read before responding —"

Sure. Here's my favorite nugget:
Mr. Reeves was put behind bars and charged with second degree murder, with the incident another example of Florida's eccentric criminal landscape and insane gun laws.

Very helpful. I wonder which insane gun laws they were referring to?

I went to some length to explain in a prior posting that there is a bright line between a verbal argument and physical assault. I suggested that it was possible that the "texter" intentionally threw the popcorn to provoke a response that would justify beating up the ex-cop.

I also included that the culpability of the cop increases if it was he who crossed that line, trying to provoke a response from the texter which he could use as justification to escalate the matter.

There's a reason why it is important to consider whether the ex-cop was the first to throw an object at the other person. This "minor assault" might well cause a reasonable person to retaliate in the heat of the moment. It would be far more difficult, as we are seeing, to make a rational claim that the retaliation was cause to expect great bodily harm or death.

Evidently, it DOES make a difference whether the cop threw popcorn or not. I claim that it also made a difference whether the texter threw popcorn or not.

[William Tell]

Is it "nit-picking" to discuss the laws against brandishing a firearm?

I'm not the one who suggested that as an alternative.

Is it "nit-picking" to point out that the justification for displaying a firearm is the same as that for using the firearm?

Is it "nit-picking" to ask you whether you agree with my last statement regarding justification?

Is it "nit-picking" to ask whether you recommend a change to the brandishing laws and what change you would support"?

Is it "nit-picking" to ask you whether changing the laws regarding brandishing could lead to more problems rather than fewer?

[dirtboy]

You’re right - you are not a nit-picker. Just an idiot. Later.

[Uncle Chip]

Did your hero the nutcase throw popcorn first:

Yes or No.

[William Tell]

Uncle Chip said: "Did your hero the nutcase throw popcorn first: Yes or No."

There are reports of such. It will be evidence when testified to under oath.

Assuming my "hero" (as you have termed him, not me) did start the physical confrontation by throwing popcorn, doesn't it strike you as just a little ironic that the texter, given all the circumstances surrounding this irrationally irate ex-cop's behavior, just might have had a fear of a lethal attack and might have been justified in using deadly force; that is, in light of the fact that the ex-cop did, in fact, throw popcorn evidently with the intention of provoking a response that he could use to rationalize drawing a gun?

Now we have the reverse of what I originally stated. I considered the possibility that the texter might have thrown popcorn as a way to provoke the ex-cop into a response which would have provided an excuse for the texter to do great bodily harm to the ex-cop. People suggested that was absurd.

Now the consensus seems to be forming that the ex-cop did that very thing. That the ex-cop threw popcorn in order to provoke a response which an irrational person might use to justify deadly deadly force.

Is it still absurd to consider the possibility that a person throwing popcorn is considering a deadly attack?