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 ...
I think you are confusing "Stand Your Ground" with "Castle Doctrine". My understanding of Florida's Stand Your Ground law is that one is not obligated to retreat from anyplace that one has a right to be, subject to exceptions if law-breaking is going on.
Stand Your Ground simply removes the obligation to retreat if a reasonable person would think it possible to do so safely. Stand Your Ground does not in any other way change the circumstances in which self-defense is justified, including self-defense with a deadly weapon.
The Sheriff has the cart before the horse. If he wanted to say something meaningful, then he should have stated that self-defense with a deadly weapon was not justified. In such a case, Stand Your Ground is irrelevant.
As for whether the "No Weapons" sign changes anything, that depends very much on the state's weapons and trespassing laws. In Texas, for example, if you wish to exclude people carrying concealed weapons, you are obligated to post signs at all entrances and there are specific wording and formatting requirements. Otherwise, the sign has no effect.
Furthermore, there are additional laws which permit the carrying of weapons by ex-cops which may or may not have permitted the shooter to have his weapon in the theater. Other than the shooting, did the shooter break any laws that would have excluded him from Stand Your Ground protection?
Fine. Some criminal assaults don't justify deadly responses. Some do.
There is no requirement that an attacker be armed in order to justify believing that great bodily harm or death is imminent.
Do you think the "knock out" players are entitled to a punch? Are they deserving of being shot? Some idiot went after a guy at a bus stop with a stun gun and was shot for it. Was that wrong? Should the man at the bus stop have spent some time trying to figure out whether the attack would continue?
If the theatre manager found out that he had a weapon on him in violation of theatre policy and told him to leave the theatre, did he have the right to stand his ground and refuse to move and pull out his weapon and shoot the manager forcing him to retreat to the door out??
A theatre is not your home or your car or even a public sidewalk that you might have a right to.
Your right to your seat in a theatre can be revoked by management at any time especially if you breach their No Weapons Allowed policy.
You need to rethink your argument.
No, you need to take it into account.
It would make a difference, wouldn't it? If the popcorn was not thrown, then there is no physical assault and less reason to believe that self-defense was justified.
What if the victim put his hand into his pocket and said to the shooter, "I'm gonna cut your guts out, m------ f-----!". That's a verbal assault and might be enough to fear for one's safety.
Self-defense classes teach that an attacker with a knife can cover twenty-one feet before a potential victim can draw a gun and fire. You can't afford to wait until they are within ten feet to decide what to do.
Give it up. You simply cannot make the case for taking a gun into a privately-owned theater with a posted no-gun policy, pick a fight with a texter, leave your seat and then return to the scene of the original fight, and then pull a gun, no matter what the guy said. Even if he said, “I’m going to shoot you.” He should have gotten the manager on his first trip out. Failing that, take his gun to the car and call the on-duty police and file a report. Failing that, move to another seat when he returned. He did none of those reasonable actions. He must either be mentally ill or have a death wish. Unfortunatly, he took a little girl’s daddy away for no good reason. Stop trying to make a silk purse out of this turd.
No, I don't think I do. I pointed out that the sign may or may not have legal effect on the ex-cop carrying.
In most jurisdicitons, signage does not constitute sufficient notice to a person that he is trespassing and not welcome. Until such time as the manager explicitly asks the ex-cop to leave, it may very well be that the ex-cop is completely legal.
I think you are also mistaken regarding whether the cop had a right to be at the theater. The ex-cop bought a ticket to view the movie and had an implied contract with the theater owner to do so. The shooter had every right to be in the theater at the time of the shooting.
If the shooting victim had disarmed in the ex-cop and, in the ensuing struggle, shot the ex-cop, would you deny the man protection of Stand Your Ground because he didn't have a right to be in the theater?
Give it up --
Even his lawyer has abandoned the popcorn defense as any kind of justification.
He's now migrated to that longshot of all longshots -- the UFO defense and searching the floor of the theatre for anything but Milk Duds to no avail.
The policy may or may not apply to ex-cops carrying firearms.
Albion Wilde said: " ... pick a fight with a texter, ..."
I have heard no evidence of a "fight" over the texting.
Albion Wilde said: "... leave your seat and then return to the scene of the original fight ..."
There was no "fight" up until that time. Contacting management was the right thing to do. Returning to his seat was the right of the ex-cop.
Albion Wilde said: ... and then pull a gun, no matter what the guy said. Even if he said, “I’m going to shoot you.”
You've got to be kidding me. Florida is a "shall issue" state. Any law-abiding citizen is entitled to be licensed to carry a concealed firearm. If you attempt to intimidate me and threaten to shoot me, I will draw and fire. Why would I not do so?
How would this be any different than if a robber accosts me and says, "Give me your wallet or I'm gonna cut you". You think I need to see the knife before reacting?
You've got an ex-cop who thought he was above the law.
He can break theatre policy by bringing in a weapon contrary to posted sign and then use it on another patron who didn't break that law.
That is what you are arguing for -- give it up.
Sure. The vast majority of responsible CCW holders will be smeared because of a tiny minority like Reeves who probably shouldn't have been carrying to begin with.
I thought that mention of a dark colored object was in one of the police reports. I had no idea that the lawyer just made it up.
That gives the person carrying the authority to be a jerk?
Do we at least agree that the victim did break a law? That throwing popcorn into another person's face is a criminal act?
Was Zimmerman guilty because unarmed Trayvon was only bashing George's skull into concrete and not threatening him with a gun?
Indications are that the shooter was a royal prick as well. He seems to have had a thing about hassling people at the movies. This apparently wasn't the first time he tried throwing his weight around.
That gives the person carrying the authority to be a jerk?
“You’ve got to be kidding me. Florida is a “shall issue” state. Any law-abiding citizen is entitled to be licensed to carry a concealed firearm. If you attempt to intimidate me and threaten to shoot me, I will draw and fire. Why would I not do so?”
This is the problem with Florida SYG in a nutshell (I am a FL permit holder).
In your home, in your car, the aggressor and the defender are easy to figure out. But in this situation, the shooter has a presumption that “I was in danger” is truthful, when, realistically, who can tell?
Neither is going to the movie with your spouse without being shot.
But he will have to prove that he believed he was in imminent danger of grave bodily harm or death, which is required by the law to justify the use of deadly force. Care to explain how he'll be able to do that?
I do not believe that in all the, “I was standing my ground” defenses asserted in court in Florida, one has been successful yet. Everyone cites George Zimmerman, but his lawyers never cited SYG. I do know several that were not successful and the defendants are currently serving time. And one involved a defendant with a knife in Tampa.
I think the report says that the shooter claimed a dark colored object was thrown — not that one was thrown or that they found one.
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.