Police: Texting in movie theater sparks fatal shooting, retired officer arrested

[Peikko 1,575]

Yup.

Presumably the average person should carry a gun and just look out for themselves 24/7. Ready to blast at a moment's notice.

That is indeed the implication. The trouble is too many loud mouth gun owners think that is exactly what the US stands for, the right to go back to living life as a pioneer in an urban setting. It's pathetic.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Petty disputes settled by noon showdowns.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

How does the average person tell the difference between a legal gun owner who takes their gun to the cinema in a bid to prevent themselves becoming a victim of crime and a legal gun owner who takes their gun to the cinema as means of intimidation? Why wasn't the gun victim saved by another legal gun owner realizing that the legal gun owner who shot the unarmed texter was in fact a criminal disguised as a legal gun owner by shooting first? Surely this scenario illustrates exactly why allowing citizens to go around armed wherever they like is completely and utterly ridiculous?

The guy wasn't a criminal. He was a law abiding conceal carry permit gun owner. He is now going to be a criminal but he wasn't one when he entered the movie theater with his legally owned and legally concealed carried gun. Funny hat the gun aficionados didn't post this story under the header "Conceal Carry costs husband and father his life at the moves".

Edited January 14, 2014 by Mr. Big Dog

[SMOKE 1,426]

How does the average person tell the difference between a legal gun owner who takes their gun to the cinema in a bid to prevent themselves becoming a victim of crime and a legal gun owner who takes their gun to the cinema as means of intimidation? Why wasn't the gun victim saved by another legal gun owner realizing that the legal gun owner who shot the unarmed texter was in fact a criminal disguised as a legal gun owner by shooting first? Surely this scenario illustrates exactly why allowing citizens to go around armed wherever they like is completely and utterly ridiculous?

? ? (.) right? i'm fairly sure there is a no firearms placard at the theater door. so, he wasn't 'allowed' to carry it, he just did. the idea to limit a law abiding citizens right to defend themselves against a criminal that doesn't follow the law is..well stupid.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

i'm fairly sure there is a no firearms placard at the theater door. so, he wasn't 'allowed' to carry it, he just did.

Fairly sure? You'd be fairly wrong.

Licensed to carry: Movie theaters among Florida places where guns are allowed

[Peikko 1,575]

? ? (.) right? i'm fairly sure there is a no firearms placard at the theater door. so, he wasn't 'allowed' to carry it, he just did. the idea to limit a law abiding citizens right to defend themselves against a criminal that doesn't follow the law is..well stupid.

As I said, how do you tell the difference before a crime is committed? In this instance the person shooting the gun wasn't a criminal, he had the right to do what he did up until the point when he decided to shoot someone for not doing what he wanted them to do. Should the guy who was shot also have had a gun? Should he have somehow worked out that at some point the argument was going to turn into a showdown?

Should some random guy in the audience have been able to spot just when the altercation was going from stupid gits being stupid to stupid git getting his gun out to shoot innocent bystander and shot first?

[mota bhai 2,675]

The unasked question: didn't the guy kind of deserve to die?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The unasked question: didn't the guy kind of deserve to die?

Last I checked, texting in the movie theater did not carry the death sentence in the sunshine state (yet). So, no.

[SMOKE 1,426]

Fairly sure? You'd be fairly wrong.

Licensed to carry: Movie theaters among Florida places where guns are allowed

that's a stupid law. you people in florida need to do something about that.

As I said, how do you tell the difference before a crime is committed? In this instance the person shooting the gun wasn't a criminal, he had the right to do what he did up until the point when he decided to shoot someone for not doing what he wanted them to do. Should the guy who was shot also have had a gun? Should he have somehow worked out that at some point the argument was going to turn into a showdown?

Should some random guy in the audience have been able to spot just when the altercation was going from stupid gits being stupid to stupid git getting his gun out to shoot innocent bystander and shot first?

do you have any questions someone on this board can actually answer? or are you going to continue this ridiculous line of never ending unanswerable questions?

[GandD 5,966]

No joke

[Peikko 1,575]

The unasked question: didn't the guy kind of deserve to die?

Clearly the shooter thought so and equally clearly he'd forgotten that he should wait until there were no witnesses so his actions could be justified under the law of 'he who is left standing is right'.

[mota bhai 2,675]

Last I checked, texting in the movie theater did not carry the death sentence in the sunshine state (yet). So, no.

That's a legalistic argument. I don't really care about that. What I care about is justice in a more fundamental sense. Pedophiles deserve to die, for example. Regardless of the laws.

I am asking whether people who use their phones in a movie theater while a moving is playing deserve to die as well, in a fundamental way.

Maybe they do. This is a serious question and it deserves a serious response so please keep your legalistic nonsense out of it.

[GandD 5,966]

That's a legalistic argument. I don't really care about that. What I care about is justice in a more fundamental sense. Pedophiles deserve to die, for example. Regardless of the laws.

I am asking whether people who use their phones in a movie theater while a moving is playing deserve to die as well, in a fundamental way.

Maybe they do. This is a serious question and it deserves a serious response so please keep your legalistic nonsense out of it.

They don't. Neither do people that cut you off on the interstate.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

that's a stupid law. you people in florida need to do something about that.

Florida has been ruled by Republicans for a long time and we've got all the stupid laws to show for it. They've also fixed it so that that's going to continue for many years to come. You should see our gerrymandered districts here. Read lately that it takes about a vote and half for the Democrats to counter a single vote for Republicans. That's an uphill battle for change any way you look at it. And as long as we have Florida Republicans (a particularly bad breed) running the show, we'll have stupid laws like that on the books.

That's a legalistic argument. I don't really care about that. What I care about is justice in a more fundamental sense. Pedophiles deserve to die, for example. Regardless of the laws.

I am asking whether people who use their phones in a movie theater while a moving is playing deserve to die as well, in a fundamental way.

Maybe they do. This is a serious question and it deserves a serious response so please keep your legalistic nonsense out of it.

Well, the only person that deserved to die was the shooter. That would have been instant justice.

[mota bhai 2,675]

They don't. Neither do people that cut you off on the interstate.

Road rage is another thread. I would argue whether they deserve to die depends on the severity of the infraction. Truckers that swerve their trucks on purpose to intimidate nice people like me putzing along in their little Korean compacts do deserve to die.

As for this case, if a texter is asked a minimum of three times to take it outside and he refuses, I do think death is warranted. In fact, I think death serves the cause of justice.