Those of you now looking at a smoking hole in your screen, deserve it ;)
Posted on 01/15/2014 5:09:04 AM PST by Anton.Rutter
Edited on 01/15/2014 6:21:09 AM PST by Sidebar Moderator. [history]
The elderly man accused of shooting a movie theater patron in Florida after an argument over text messaging told police that he fired because he "was in fear of being attacked."
Pasco County Sheriff Chris Nocco said at a news conference today that the victim, Chad Oulson, 43, was texting his young daughter's babysitter when an argument erupted with Reeves over texting during previews before the movie "Lone Survivor."
(Excerpt) Read more at gma.yahoo.com ...
The law does not permit you to shoot another person because you are afraid that he might be planning to do something bad to you.
Thanks much. I expected to get flamed for my post, as I have been on other threads when I posted something similar.
My mistake. I took your post #52 to mean you were talking about Reeves and Oulson. Obviously you were describing another situation, like Abbott and Costello and Who's on First.
“...the ammunition you’re freely giving away to DU.”
I do not live my life thinking how a bunch of commies might interpret or use my views.
“He was worth a hell of a lot more than a senior citizen with a God complex”
He could well be worth more, but the other guy still had right to defend himself.
And what does that photo have to do with what had transpired? That tactic didn’t work with St. Trayvon and sure as hell it is not going to work with this guy.
I am done going in circles with you. Have a good day.
You did not answer the question. But I expected this. Have a good day.
I answered it — you just didn’t get the answer you wanted.
I've encountered numerous retired military officers (colonels and generals) with the same attitude. It's as if they never took off the uniform.
It is what was in the shooter's mind not what they found out to be fact.
Perhaps you can tell us what was in the shooter's mind and just how you would know that.
Most certainly not.
you are drawing a conclusion that does not logically follow from events at hand. "It doesn't matter to me why he did it; but that he did it, and that texting is not a reasonable excuse for shooting someone..."
What could possibly give you offense that I want to draw a distinction between the possible motive and the act of shooting someone? Many posters here simply could not let go of their point of view that texting in public is so annoying that they would take to a thread about a man shot dead to complain about texting in a movie, as if it were a justification for shooting.
It remains to be seen if a court will convict this man. If he gets off, it could just as well be a "blue line" defense, or a mental health defense, or any number of things.
Neither of us can possibly know the real truth of this or any other events anywhere -- that is God's prerogative. You say tomato, and I say tomahto. Remains to be seen how it all turns out.
No one knows, that is the point.
And what was in the shooter’s mind set got him charged with 2nd degree murder. Courts of law and juries operate on provable facts. And the provable fact is that the guy was not armed when he was shot.
But we do know what came out of what he was holding in his hand -- and that is what he is being charged for.
It’s better you keep your private reality to yourself, because no one paid a dime to see your freak show. A gun is to save your life, not your fragile and highly questionable dignity.
"Many posters here simply could not let go of their point of view that texting in public is so annoying that they would take to a thread about a man shot dead to complain about texting in a movie..."
The texting in and of itself isn't really that important. The person who was shot could just as easily been talking on the phone, kicking the seat in front of him, or smoking a cigarette.
Your entire basis for this line of argument is irrational based on a faulty chain of logic.
If he gets off, it could just as well be a "blue line" defense, or a mental health defense, or any number of things.
The most logical defense in this case is self defense.
"Neither of us can possibly know the real truth..."
I agree but we do know some truths.
1. The media is biased and will always portray a public self defense situation in the worst possible manner.
2. There is a well documented campaign by this administration to curtail the right of American citizens to own, carry, and use firearms.
3. People have the presumption of innocence by law.
I have never said this person is innocent. I don't have enough facts to determine this either for or against, however the media finding and reporting about witnesses that support their narrative (and only witnesses to support their narrative) and the prosecution trying their case in the press simply doesn't not rise to any standard of proof that I will believe. I don't know how anyone could, I would have thought people would have learned their lesson already on this. Maybe it's just a happy coincidence that the press can actually drive their narrative of evil gun owners by accurately reporting the facts without their normal bias, but I wouldn't bet money on it.
Actually, it's not. It's just less long-winded than yours, and I actually wished to communicate with others, not try to compete or show off ostensible erudition. So we're done here. Enjoy your moral and intellectual superiority. Try it on a policeman next time you're pulled over, dude.
Answering those questions is precisely what we have juries for.
I am obviously talking about trivial matters. I think going to a movie is pretty trivial. I think fishing is trivial. What don’t you get? Are you trying to impress someone with your stand on illegal immigration? Are you guarding the border right now? How many illegal immigrants have you personally prevented from taking space in this country? Tell us the details of all your efforts and successes in preventing illegal immigration. My guess is the only effort you have made is pounding a keyboard and trying to sound tough.
Joe sleeps with the fishes. In other words, he’s been zotted.
Those of you now looking at a smoking hole in your screen, deserve it ;)
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.