backtop


Print 171 comment(s) - last by EricMartello.. on Jan 20 at 2:17 PM

Shooter has been charged with second degree murder

A Florida man was shot and killed during a screening of the new movie "Lone Survivor" over the weekend. The shooting happened near Tampa, Florida and the ruckus started because of text messages.
 
Chad Oulson, 43, who was there to see the film with his wife, was texting during the previews before the film despite being asked several times to stop by Curtis Reeves, a retired police officer. Oulson at the time stated he was texting his 3-year-old daughter.
 
Witnesses claim that Reeves left the theater to find a manager, and later returned by himself.
 
“Three seconds, four seconds later, the argument starts again,” Witness Charles Cummings told reporters outside the theater. “Their voices start going up; there seems to be almost a confrontation. Somebody throws popcorn, I’m not sure who threw the popcorn, and, bang, he was shot.”
 
Reeves, 71, was detained by an off-duty deputy sheriff in the audience and has been charged with second degree murder. Oulson’s wife was also wounded; she had placed her hand on her husband when the gun was fired.
 
Shooting someone for texting during movie previews is certainly an extreme, and unexpected outcome. Our electronic devices have invaded nearly every aspect of our daily lives and we rely heavily on them. Most recently, Google and a number of car manufacturers have pushed an initiative to make mobile communications and infotainment options readily available to the driver.

Source: NYT



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Just sad
By CaedenV on 1/14/2014 11:22:45 AM , Rating: 5
I wanted to post some witty dark-humored remark... but this is just sad. Guns and cell phones should both be checked at the door.

This is why I don't go to movie theaters. At home I get a better experience, and don't have to deal with other people's phones or guns.




RE: Just sad
By Devilpapaya on 1/14/2014 11:37:59 AM , Rating: 2
I got you covered.

"Where was the good guy with a gun to stop him?"

"It wasn't the gun, that 71 year old man could have used the popcorn bag to kill him."

Seriously though, I'm using humor to mask the sadness. This is just depressing.


RE: Just sad
By Beefmeister on 1/14/2014 11:40:30 AM , Rating: 3
The shooter probably thought he was the good guy.....


RE: Just sad
By Monkey's Uncle on 1/14/2014 11:56:46 AM , Rating: 2
I'm sure Harry Calahan did to:

quote:
I know what you're thinking, punk. You're thinking "did he fire six shots or only five?" Now to tell you the truth I forgot myself in all this excitement. But being this is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world and will blow you head clean off, you've gotta ask yourself a question: "Do I feel lucky?" Well, do ya, punk?


RE: Just sad
By Spookster on 1/14/2014 1:54:41 PM , Rating: 2
The shooter was a retired cop.


RE: Just sad
By GotThumbs on 1/15/2014 2:26:42 PM , Rating: 2
Was this a voice to text scenario, or did the texting create noise with each keystroke?

There has to be more to this than we know at this time.

I just can't see someone getting upset if there was zero noise to interfere with the movie sound.

I myself have had to ask people to stop talking during movies and respect everyone else who is only there to watch the movie.

Those people immediately get defensive, even though they are clearly outside good social standards.

Too many people (Adult children)today don't like to be called out on their failure to follow good social consideration of others.


RE: Just sad
By jRaskell on 1/16/2014 5:28:49 PM , Rating: 2
This wasn't even during the movie, but during the previews. He was shot before the movie even started.


RE: Just sad
By rs2 on 1/14/2014 10:57:18 PM , Rating: 2
Why don't we all just agree that movie theaters should be required to have Faraday cages installed in the walls? You know, to block stray cell-phone signals and prevent texting, talking, government eavesdropping, and other nuisances.


RE: Just sad
By Etsp on 1/14/2014 11:00:12 PM , Rating: 2
Because that is illegal. You can't have Faraday cages in places open to the public.


RE: Just sad
By kfonda on 1/15/2014 1:46:40 AM , Rating: 2
Why can't you have Faraday cages in public places?


RE: Just sad
By superstition on 1/15/2014 1:48:08 AM , Rating: 5
Because it makes it harder for the government to spy.


RE: Just sad
By inperfectdarkness on 1/15/2014 9:01:57 AM , Rating: 2
I lol'd!


RE: Just sad
By GotThumbs on 1/15/2014 2:30:48 PM , Rating: 2
It's a private business and entering that business you would understand and accept the situation...or not enter.

Too many people don't understand the difference between a business and government office.

Planes are owned by private companies...Each person rents that seat,but has to abide by the FCC rules and the owner of the business, else buy/rent your own plane.

Too many Adult Children running around without their mommys to correct their social failures IMO.

~Best wishes keeping what you earned.


RE: Just sad
By Strunf on 1/15/2014 8:08:45 AM , Rating: 2
But if there was an emergency then you would have no way to call anyone...

People just should stop being rude, as I see it being rude is almost cool nowadays!


RE: Just sad
By GotThumbs on 1/15/2014 2:42:51 PM , Rating: 2
But it's not cool...it only service to publicly display their level of ignorance and the failure on their parents part to raise a responsible citizen.

Examples:

See an individual with saggy pants and underwear proudly displayed. Walking like a weeble and constantly hiking up pants = The lower the pants the more ignorant the individual IMO.

Fueling up you car and another car pulls up with loud music and explicit lyrics such as "Ni___r this, Ni___r that, Bit_h this and Bit_h that = Ignorant and disrespectful individual.

I don't get mad about it anymore...I just use these as signs to recognize idiots, so I don't waste me time/effort with them. Keep in mind, I don't' care how much money someone has....they are still capable of showing who stupid they truly are IMO.

You may not agree, but thats your right and I respect your right to disagree with me.

~Best wishes keeping what you earned.


RE: Just sad
By GotThumbs on 1/15/2014 2:44:19 PM , Rating: 2
serves...not service.

No edit function.


RE: Just sad
By 91TTZ on 1/14/2014 12:06:19 PM , Rating: 5
It sounds like you're blaming the gun instead of the person who found it reasonable to kill someone over an annoyance.


RE: Just sad
By Flunk on 1/14/14, Rating: 0
RE: Just sad
By amanojaku on 1/14/2014 12:16:28 PM , Rating: 3
What are these laws that makes this possible? It is murder, which is AGAINST the law. Unless you're advocating for a ban on gun ownership? There are so many history lessons to point out why that's a bad idea.


RE: Just sad
By Devilpapaya on 1/14/2014 12:22:37 PM , Rating: 2
I think there may be some middle ground between banning gun ownership and allowing mentally unstable people from carrying them in movie theaters.

I say mentally unstable because that's the only reason I can think for a former police office, presumably someone who has had a life time of training and experience with firearms, to shoot someone over texting.


RE: Just sad
By bah12 on 1/14/2014 12:55:08 PM , Rating: 5
And how do you scan for this?

Look given what we know about this man he would pass just about any test that I can think of. A former police captain for Pete's sake, exactly what question on your mythical test would have excluded him from getting a license to carry?

Look ask any psychotherapist, and I be willing to bet that they'd all agree that every human has a line. Every person put under enough distress will have a psychotic break. Once that break occurs actions cannot be predicted. In "normal" people that break may occur after hours of horrendous torture, this guy just did after a silly confrontation. Some people may fight some may flight (in other words some may shoot some wouldn't).

Point is if you can agree that we all have the capacity to break from reality, and that during that break actions are not controlled. Then the question becomes how do you screen someone. The reality is you can't. It could take months or years of one on one therapy to uncover the button in each of us, but rest assured it is there. And the kicker is even if you did uncover it, there is no way to prove that when pushed it would result in a shooting.

The argument really becomes then is gun ownership worth the risk, because as I see it there is no other way to prevent this.

Now I'm for background checks to catch the obvious, but this one I'm afraid would have slipped through anything I can think of.


RE: Just sad
By Devilpapaya on 1/14/2014 1:14:30 PM , Rating: 2
You're right in general. Even with reasonable laws, some people will get through; I would bet on it being impossible to stop all crime even with crazy 1984 level laws. But we must do what we can to reduce the number of incidents without being unjust to law abiding people. It won't be perfect but it will be worthwhile. I think we're in agreement here, based on your last statement.

We'll probably never know for sure in this specific case whether or not such laws would have done any good. I say there is a good possibility because, at least from the report given, it seems like the man had severe anger control issues; but that is just my impression from the story given, I could be (and probably am) wrong. I'll admit it's a bit churlish of me to evaluate someone based off a news article.


RE: Just sad
By Jeffk464 on 1/14/2014 1:16:28 PM , Rating: 2
Yup, how many completely balanced people have you seen that go ape sh*t during a divorce. People aren't computers and I don't care who you are talking about they are not always rational.


RE: Just sad
By Xplorer4x4 on 1/15/2014 1:46:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
People aren't computers

People aren't computers yet
Fixed, no humor intended..


RE: Just sad
By Reclaimer77 on 1/14/2014 2:22:14 PM , Rating: 5
We have no evidence he was mentally unstable BEFORE the incident.

Also people keep saying he shot someone for texting, but this clearly isn't the case. There was an argument, words were said, tempers were flared and I believe some popcorn was thrown. Texting was the initial cause of the conflict, yes, but it's clearly not why violence ensued.

There's no blueprint for this stuff. The guy had a mental break, or some dementia, or just had a bad day. Who knows?

So because one guy lost it or went crazy, you want to take my rights away from me and leave me unable to protect myself when out in public?


RE: Just sad
By Rott3nHIppi3 on 1/14/2014 3:26:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
There was an argument, words were said, tempers were flared and I believe some popcorn was thrown.

I'd assume the whole "Stand Your Ground" is about to rear its ugly head again. Not sure if popcorn will serve as evidence of a threat or bodily harm, but hey.. worth a shot!


RE: Just sad
By Etsp on 1/14/2014 11:02:13 PM , Rating: 2
I believe the defense actually tried that, but they were shot down.


RE: Just sad
By kerpwnt on 1/15/2014 2:45:26 AM , Rating: 2
Stand Your Ground doesn't apply to this. SYG only states that there is no duty to retreat from a legally occupied location before using justifiable deadly force (some states require that you try to run away before fighting back). Justification for the use of deadly force must still be met (i.e. to prevent a forcible felony).

If this guy really did start the fight, none of this matters because the use of deadly force by an aggressor is not justifiable.


RE: Just sad
By Jaybus on 1/15/2014 4:12:04 PM , Rating: 2
It varies by state, but usually includes reasonable belief that deadly force against an attacker is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to yourself or someone else. The attack does not have to involve a weapon. For example, a 120 lb. woman could easily be beaten to death or severely harmed by a 200 lb. weaponless man, and a jury may well believe deadly force on the part of the woman was reasonable.

We don't know the details, so cannot say, but it is feasible that a jury would likewise believe that a 71 year old man may have a reasonable belief that he is in deadly peril if physically attacked by a much younger man, even though weaponless, (popcorn excepted).


RE: Just sad
By BSMonitor on 1/14/14, Rating: 0
RE: Just sad
By Reclaimer77 on 1/14/2014 5:50:43 PM , Rating: 2
I'm pretty sure monkeys could have made a better argument than this. You are actually HURTING the anti-gun movement with this garbage lol.


RE: Just sad
By BSMonitor on 1/14/14, Rating: -1
RE: Just sad
By Reclaimer77 on 1/14/2014 6:03:46 PM , Rating: 2
You can barely put forth a complete coherent sentence. I wouldn't be going around calling others simpletons if I were you.

Why am I the enemy exactly? I haven't shot anyone. I'm just an American who is exercising his LEGAL right to bear arms.


RE: Just sad
By BSMonitor on 1/14/2014 6:06:52 PM , Rating: 1
LMAO, grammar from the monkey?

It's a troll board if you haven't noticed.

And YOU brought up your ridiculous claim to a right in light of a man's death. Over nothing.

Reclaimer == Continuing to win at life == Oooo ooo ahh ahh


RE: Just sad
By Reclaimer77 on 1/14/2014 6:18:18 PM , Rating: 1
No, in light of a mans death people from your side of this debate instantly sought to politicize it and twist it to fit the anti-gun agenda.

You can troll all you want. I'm going to keep slamming the Second Amendment upside your face. I hear England or Australia is nice this time of year, why don't you go live there?


RE: Just sad
By BSMonitor on 1/14/2014 6:27:13 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
No, in light of a mans death people from your side of this debate instantly sought to politicize it and twist it to fit the anti-gun agenda.


The side of pro-life?? You are right. In light of someone dying needlessly, I look for better ways to "protect" people than outright lethal weapons for all.

Yup, even weaker argument... Slamming 2nd amend, blah blah blah... See the 21st amendment.

In case you cannot count higher that two... Monkeys only have 2 hands... The gist is that it repeals a prior amendment.


RE: Just sad
By StevoLincolnite on 1/14/2014 6:47:51 PM , Rating: 2
Australia really isn't nice this time of year, Spring or Autumn is a less extreme time to visit. ;)
Unless you think 45'C/110'F for a large portion of the continent currently is "nice".

As for the gun laws... Australia Banned it a few decades ago. - Are there still guns? Heck yes!
But we are a pretty laid back country anyway, majority of people still support the gun ban and we haven't had fire or black brimstone fall out of the sky hailing in the next apocalypse.

Besides, you can still get a gun in Australia, it's just tightly regulated, less chance of a drunk hippy getting a gun and shooting someone for stepping on their lawn that's for sure.

However, the American's are far different than us in that regard, do stand up for your rights in the constitution because if you don't, the rest will be taken away in due time.


RE: Just sad
By Jeffk464 on 1/15/2014 12:08:10 AM , Rating: 2
Hey, Australia is a pretty awesome place to be. Don't knock it unless you have spent some time there.


RE: Just sad
By Silver2k7 on 1/14/2014 6:44:35 PM , Rating: 1
"Why am I the enemy exactly? I haven't shot anyone. I'm just an American who is exercising his LEGAL right to bear arms."

Uhm why, just in case England choose to invade or something ?
I think less guns out there would mean less stuff like this happends... A fist fight would probably not have resulted in any deaths.


RE: Just sad
By Reclaimer77 on 1/14/2014 6:50:44 PM , Rating: 3
That's the great thing about rights, I don't have to justify them to you.

quote:
I think less guns out there would mean less stuff like this happends... A fist fight would probably not have resulted in any deaths.


So when someone breaks into your home it's, what, best fist-fighter wins?

Are you missing the point that the theater prohibited guns, and this ex-cop brought one in anyway?


RE: Just sad
By BSMonitor on 1/14/14, Rating: 0
RE: Just sad
By dgingerich on 1/14/2014 5:51:33 PM , Rating: 2
A non-lethal form of protection would not protect us against our own government. That's the big reason for the second amendment. Sure, protecting ourselves from petty crooks, murderers, and rabid dogs is important, but those could be done with other things. (knives, baseball bats, strong front doors, above all, using our brains.) We could not keep the government in check without keeping a certain percentage of citizens armed and able to resist tyranny. Without that, we would all be slaves to the government ruling class.


RE: Just sad
By BSMonitor on 1/14/2014 5:58:58 PM , Rating: 1
Yup, YOUR guns against their tanks, trained soldiers, bombers, etc etc..

Not to mention they are hands on at the all the munitions plants of this country.

Yeah, you'll last a few days.. Congrats.


RE: Just sad
By Solandri on 1/14/2014 9:52:14 PM , Rating: 3
And that is why people like you are incapable of winning a war. The point isn't to defeat tanks, trained soldiers, and bombers.

The point is to put up enough resistance that the soldiers driving the tanks and piloting the bombers think twice about what they're doing. If they're rounding up a passive population, they may just take the easier way out and do what their superiors tell them to do. If they're fighting a bunch of guys shooting back, they may stop to think "am I really on the right side here?"

Same reason we have a free press - your actions may be reported to the public at large, forcing you to stop to think, "am I really doing the right thing here?" Do you think someone with a camera and pen and paper can physically stop a tank? There's no way he can. But without the press the tank driver may decide it's easier to just follow orders and fire at the protesting civilians so he doesn't get in trouble. With the press, the tank driver doesn't want to become know as The Guy who fired a HE round into a bunch of unarmed civilians.

The Viet Cong understood this perfectly, which is why they won that war despite losing every major military engagement. The tanks, bombers, and guns are just force multipliers. Ultimately they're not as important as getting at the psyche of the persons directing that force.


RE: Just sad
By bodar on 1/14/2014 11:11:49 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
But without the press the tank driver may decide it's easier to just follow orders and fire at the protesting civilians so he doesn't get in trouble. With the press, the tank driver doesn't want to become know as The Guy who fired a HE round into a bunch of unarmed civilians.


I'm just spitballin' here, but wouldn't it be better to be part of the unarmed protesting mob, then? Because the guy with the AR-15 is gonna get shot. The tank driver can justify it to himself then: they're just crazy and armed. He had no choice but to defend his fellow soldiers, really. You appear to be countering your own arguments, by saying that both the unarmed and armed mob can impact the thought process of the soldier. Just sayin'...


RE: Just sad
By Spuke on 1/15/2014 10:54:32 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yup, YOUR guns against their tanks, trained soldiers, bombers, etc etc..
BTW, the US military is charged with supporting and defending the CONSTITUTION, not the government. You pledge yourself to do this when you enter service. Also, no military member is required to follow an unlawful order. That's part of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and, YES, every single line of that is enforced and, YES, people low and high have run afoul of that particular order. One last thing, the US military is not the Gestapo nor are they a bunch of robots. No one I served with would turn a gun on their own friends and family nor anyone elses nor would any commanding officer give or follow an order to do so.


RE: Just sad
By Spookster on 1/14/14, Rating: 0
RE: Just sad
By BSMonitor on 1/14/2014 6:09:09 PM , Rating: 1
Boom, logical human being.


RE: Just sad
By Reclaimer77 on 1/14/2014 6:35:15 PM , Rating: 2
No, I don't think my handguns are going to save me from a full on military assault.

Nowhere does the Second Amendment state our guns are to fight our own Government. We simply have the right, and I repeat RIGHT, to own them.


RE: Just sad
By BSMonitor on 1/14/2014 6:48:37 PM , Rating: 1
And "We the people" have the absolute right to change your rights.

Especially when one of them allows any idiot with cash to kill people as easily as a monkey could.

Shocking, right. With the 2nd being ordained by God and all.

Don't worry, there will probably still be porn. And maybe porn with girls holding guns.


RE: Just sad
By kerpwnt on 1/15/2014 3:07:51 AM , Rating: 2
Tyranny of the majority... An pure democracy can be just as dangerous as a dictatorship.

The U.S. is a democracy/republic hybrid that helps prevent the bigotry and frivolity of popular culture from perverting the nation. It isn't perfect, but comments like yours make me glad that "We the people" aren't allowed to undermine the constitution on a whim.


RE: Just sad
By Rukkian on 1/15/2014 5:14:43 PM , Rating: 2
I very rarely find my views in line with Reclaimer, but in this case, I basically do. I do not own any guns, and have no plans to at this point, but making them against the law really does not do anything. They will still be available, but will just be tougher for law abiding people to get them, which just makes everything worse.

I really see no reason for some people to feel the need for military style assault weapons, but it really doesn't matter, since you can do enough damage with a simple handgun.


RE: Just sad
By Mystickal on 1/14/2014 8:10:25 PM , Rating: 3
Seems like Syrian and Libyan rebels were able to resist the tanks, helicopters, and fighter jets owned by their government. They started with poor and often improvised weapons, but were eventually able to capture and utilize government weapons themselves.

Is one man with an assault weapon going to overthrow a tyrannical government? Of course not. It didn't happen in the 1776 and it wouldn't happen today. However, if enough citizens were to rebel, it would not end as quickly or easily as you imply.


RE: Just sad
By Spookster on 1/15/2014 1:32:59 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah and those rebels you speak of have a death toll over 110,000 so far and they would have been using military grade assault rifles which you won't have here. Although on a positive note that would be a good way to reduce the population of you redneck guntards. Viva la revolución!!! Go get 'em you hillbillies. Yeah!!


RE: Just sad
By FITCamaro on 1/15/2014 10:17:49 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yeah and those rebels you speak of have a death toll over 110,000 so far and they would have been using military grade assault rifles which you won't have here. Although on a positive note that would be a good way to reduce the population of you redneck guntards. Viva la revolución!!! Go get 'em you hillbillies. Yeah!!


What the heck do you think my AR-15 is? Other than the select fire switch to toggle between single shot and burst fire, there's little difference.

No one is calling for armed insurrection. But as long as the threat remains, that is what helps keep governments in check. Would there be a high cost? Sure. But there was for the citizens of the colonies during the Revolutionary War too who went up against the best equipped military in the world. And won. You act like if there ever was armed conflict again that none of the military or national guard would side with those fighting for their freedom. And it wouldn't take much for a town of armed citizens to overrun a National Guard armory and capture armored vehicles. You think all those National Guardsmen are going to fight and die against people fighting for their homes. Some of whom might be family?

Maybe you think the country as a whole believes it is a slave to the federal government and is to obey at every turn. But I can assure you that is not the case. Most in the military feel the same way as private citizens who believe in the right to own guns. They're just not allowed to express themselves openly and criticize Congress or the President in public.


RE: Just sad
By Spookster on 1/15/2014 12:04:00 PM , Rating: 2
I will even buy you guntards the ammo now go to your nearest government building and open fire. Your government is taking your rights away you should go do it now!!! Come on get going. You are going to save us all.


RE: Just sad
By FITCamaro on 1/15/2014 10:09:01 AM , Rating: 2
And which side do you think most police and men of service stand on? The "ban guns so the people can't shoot at us if we're ever ordered to oppress them" side? Or the "we're free men and women who have a right to be able to defend ourselves from all threats foreign and domestic" side?


RE: Just sad
By web2dot0 on 1/15/2014 7:05:37 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, because it was a unnecessary outcome. Our society treasures human life very highly.

So some people rob banks. It only happens once in a blue moon. Why do we need cops look after then? Why put resources to hunt them down?

Your logic can be applied to anything. It is simply flawed.

It comes down to our value system. If safety is not valued, why have police?
If don't value life, why have doctors? Let's nature sorts itself out right? We don't get sick too often right?


RE: Just sad
By BZDTemp on 1/14/2014 1:01:10 PM , Rating: 2
Banning gun ownership is logical. Considering the thousands of death and injuries caused by guns and the fear caused by all the guns it is the only right thing.


RE: Just sad
By Reclaimer77 on 1/14/2014 1:31:34 PM , Rating: 3
Move to Australia please. No gun ban is going to happen in America. Your ilk has rendered most of the Constitution useless, but the Second Amendment isn't going down.


RE: Just sad
By nafhan on 1/14/2014 3:17:43 PM , Rating: 2
As a fellow citizen of the US, if I'm going to worry about weapon ownership, I'm going to be worrying about why a local, rural police department just got an armored personal carrier. Even more worrisome: that's not enough info for you to figure out what part of the country I live in.


RE: Just sad
By Jeffk464 on 1/14/2014 4:59:44 PM , Rating: 2
They needed it so they could play GI Joe obviously.


RE: Just sad
By BSMonitor on 1/14/2014 5:29:56 PM , Rating: 3
Yup, billions of $$ at stake... People's NRA $$ hard at work lobbying.

Baaaahhhhh


RE: Just sad
By Reclaimer77 on 1/14/2014 5:44:31 PM , Rating: 1
Great counterpoint. I guess Liberalism is synonymous with retardation. If we already didn't know that...


RE: Just sad
By BSMonitor on 1/14/2014 6:01:02 PM , Rating: 2
LMAO, you don't even know what Liberalism means.

What does regarding human life have to do with Liberalism??

You are truly the poster boy for the FOX NEWS idiot regime.


RE: Just sad
By Reclaimer77 on 1/14/2014 6:11:02 PM , Rating: 2
So I have less of a regard for human life than you? That's very interesting.

quote:
You are truly the poster boy for the FOX NEWS idiot regime.


If this means I don't have to be a part of whatever crack-smoking regime you are, I'll take it.

Do you really not see how obnoxious and mentally deficient you are coming off here?


RE: Just sad
By BSMonitor on 1/14/2014 6:14:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Do you really not see how obnoxious and mentally deficient you are coming off here?


The worst kind of losing is losing at your own game.

Countless times you have been on this website belittling other points of view... And today, you are getting owned by the same tactics.

...

And now you are pouting about it.


RE: Just sad
By BSMonitor on 1/14/2014 6:22:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So I have less of a regard for human life than you? That's very interesting.


LMAO

If your position is that the 2nd Amendment is beyond reproach. That you believe that for all time you should be allowed lethal "protection".

Clearly.


RE: Just sad
By Reclaimer77 on 1/14/2014 6:30:50 PM , Rating: 2
The Constitution doesn't specify we need guns for our protection. What if I just like sport shooting? Am I an evil Fox News moron who has no regard for human life then?

I don't think you are mentally able to grasp an issue even half as complex as this frankly.


RE: Just sad
By BSMonitor on 1/14/2014 6:35:27 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
protect myself when out in public


Keep trying....

You'll eventually win.. Oh, right.. You won't.. Because the argument on your side is completely irrational.

Keep feeding the NRA corporations their billions and sleep well with your ED and your guns.

FYI, just suck it up and go to the doctor.. It's called Viagra and I am sure that even at your age they will get you some... Tell them, "Holding my gun is the only thing that gets me hard. And chicks don't like to F'ck with me holding my guns"...


RE: Just sad
By Reclaimer77 on 1/14/2014 6:42:14 PM , Rating: 2
Please. Not even Obama could gain any traction with a gun ban, not even from his own leftist party. You think there are two sides here?

The massive majority of this country supports gun rights. Deal with it. This vision you have of a gun-free America? Never going to happen.

And your last paragraph, much like every post you've made, is so immature as to not warrant a rebuttal.


RE: Just sad
By BSMonitor on 1/14/2014 7:09:27 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
And your last paragraph, much like every post you've made, is so immature as to not warrant a rebuttal.


Only because it made even you laugh! But deep down you know that for some of your NRA buddies this is absolutely spot on.

My vision has nothing to do with a gun-free America. My vision starts with us talking rationally about this without beating the 2nd Amendment drum and all the fear mongering that goes along with the NRA, Fox News, and your ilk.

Guns are relatively unsophisticated and messy for killing. Some day, they might advance into something completely untraceable. And you would still argue that anyone with cash has a right to any of them??


RE: Just sad
By kerpwnt on 1/15/2014 3:20:35 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
My vision starts with us talking rationally about this without beating the 2nd Amendment drum


Impossible. The 2nd Amendment is in the Constitution. You want gun laws to change, then you'll have to change the law to which all others must adhere.


RE: Just sad
By Jeffk464 on 1/15/2014 12:23:41 AM , Rating: 2
I think your right, shootings and mass shooting are just going to be a thing we live with in this country.


RE: Just sad
By FITCamaro on 1/15/2014 10:10:23 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
You are truly the poster boy for the FOX NEWS idiot regime.


You're like a poster right out of a 70s flower power rally. "Fox News regime". Seriously?


RE: Just sad
By JediJeb on 1/15/2014 3:30:45 PM , Rating: 2
Well FIT, people only make fun of the things they fear.


RE: Just sad
By Mathos on 1/14/2014 1:39:01 PM , Rating: 1
So.... by that logic, we should also ban doctors, since they kill 10 times more people than guns do every year statistically, via malpractice or misdiagnosis. And we should also ban anything that we think causes cancer, or heart disease, since those are the actual leading killers of people in the US.

I'm a true liberal, and even I'm against banning gun ownership. Because it doesn't actually solve the problem. And it would be also punishing the many for the stupidity of the very few. Not to mention, it would do nothing to stop actual crime, since I don't know too many criminals that actual care much about obeying the law.

That former police chief would of still had access to a gun. And you have no idea how mentally unstable some elderly people can be. He may have been sharp as a whip when he was younger. But, that obviously isn't true anymore. Some old people tend to overreact to situations. This was a very bad way to overreact.


RE: Just sad
By nafhan on 1/14/2014 1:43:29 PM , Rating: 2
So: banning knives, cars, swimming pools, dogs, going outside, yelling, scary movies, etc., etc. is logical?

Or maybe... your statement isn't logical.


RE: Just sad
By Rott3nHIppi3 on 1/14/2014 3:28:20 PM , Rating: 2
Don't be giving Bloomberg any ideas! He might just make that a reality!!


RE: Just sad
By Murloc on 1/14/2014 2:18:48 PM , Rating: 2
that's just ridicolous.

Just allow them to exit the house exclusively unloaded and in an appropriate locked case.
Of course this would deny the self-defense use too, except for home invasions.

It's a cultural choice as a society really. I think americans are content with theirs. In my country I don't feel unsafe and the crime and economic disparity is indeed way lower so no thanks. You're free to own and use anything you want though, just not carrying it for self-defense.
Countries who ban possession too are overdoing it.


RE: Just sad
By flatrock on 1/14/2014 3:29:20 PM , Rating: 2
Why don't we just ban murder? Shouldn't that take care of it?

As this story shows, there are crazy people out there, and as the murder rate shows, creating a law doesn't stop bad things from happening.

Taking guns away from law abiding people because a minority aren't law abiding isn't logical.

And while a gun needs to be treated with care it is not particularly more deadly than an automobile, and people don't become frightened every time they see someone driving a car down the road. Remember that there are tens of millions of gun owners in the US and the vast majority aren't a threat to anyone who isn't an imminent threat to them.

Logic has very little to do with anti-gun laws. Every time there is a terrible tragedy committed by someone with a gun, the same politicians bring out the same proposed laws that if you examine them would have made absolutely no difference in the crime that is the type they are claiming to be trying to prevent.


RE: Just sad
By BSMonitor on 1/14/2014 5:31:47 PM , Rating: 2
Yup, zero difference between the ease at which one can kill with a gun vs any other form of killing.

Zero.


RE: Just sad
By BSMonitor on 1/14/2014 5:35:13 PM , Rating: 2
Gun carrying outside your home should carry massive mandatory sentences.

Don't leave your home if you are afraid for your life of what's out there.


RE: Just sad
By kerpwnt on 1/15/2014 3:35:25 AM , Rating: 2
The world is dangerous. There are microbes, wild animals, and horrible people that couldn't give a f* if you washed up blue and bloated in a river. Some of the aforementioned would even be glad to put you there.

The world you want to live in will never exist. And if you think that guns are playing that big of a role in preventing your Utopia, you've got some serious issues.


RE: Just sad
By marvdmartian on 1/14/2014 3:13:12 PM , Rating: 1
Really too bad the rating system on DT stops at -1. Can we get a mod to -2 this person's remark??


RE: Just sad
By FITCamaro on 1/15/2014 10:00:31 AM , Rating: 2
I love liberals who blame inanimate objects for crimes committed by sentient beings.


RE: Just sad
By Devilpapaya on 1/14/2014 12:14:36 PM , Rating: 4
I'm blaming both.

It's the person's fault for thinking that murder is an appropriate response to popcorn throwing.

It's the guns fault for allowing him, in a moment of passion, to instantly and effortlessly end another human's life. Had he had no weapon, or pretty much any other weapon, the other man would probably still be alive.


RE: Just sad
By ebakke on 1/14/2014 12:37:55 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
or pretty much any other weapon, the other man would probably still be alive.
Doubtful. If this geezer thought his life was in danger, he likely would've used any weapon to exact maximum damage. And given that he had the element of surprise, it's not unreasonable to assume it would've been lethal.


RE: Just sad
By Devilpapaya on 1/14/2014 12:51:50 PM , Rating: 2
I don't know what other weapon would be as immediately fatal. Nothing that could have been done over a row of seats other than maybe some sort of blunt force head injury, but that would necessitate carrying around a baseball bat, or length of pipe or something.

Anything else would require much closer quarters and be much more easily stopped or avoided. A knife may be deadly, but typically allows for more time for aid to be obtained. hitting someone with a knife in such a way as to be immediately fatal requires force and accuracy - not something your average 70+ man has.

According to the source article, a nurse in the audience tried to revive him so presumably he was gone before EMTs arrived.


RE: Just sad
By ebakke on 1/14/2014 12:59:02 PM , Rating: 2
The linked NYT article says the victim was in the row in front of the shooter. Definitely close enough to stab the guy, particularly if you're in the top row. You have the height advantage for an easy jab to the throat, face, heart, etc.


RE: Just sad
By Jeffk464 on 1/14/2014 1:26:14 PM , Rating: 2
There is always another possibility when dealing with someone this age, they could be having early symptoms of dementia.


RE: Just sad
By FITCamaro on 1/15/2014 10:02:57 AM , Rating: 2
Does your keyboard feel bad about being used by you to express stupid opinions on how inanimate objects can be at fault for anything?

Are cars at fault for hit and run deaths?
How about baseball bats when used to beat people to death?


RE: Just sad
By Samus on 1/15/2014 3:22:57 AM , Rating: 2
Seriously. This is just stupid on so many levels. Even if ordinary citizens were banned from having guns, this guy would still have had one. He was an ex-police officer, I'm sure that gives him conceal and carry privileges anywhere.

It wasn't the guns fault. It was the shooter. As annoying as texting in theaters is, if this texter was doing it during a preview (when in most cases the lights haven't even completely dimmed yet) he was completely innocent of not only crimes, but being an annoyance.

The manager probably said to the guy "if he's doing it during the movie, I'll intervene." I mean, people text during previews practically every time I go to a movie and I don't think anything of it.


RE: Just sad
By kerpwnt on 1/15/2014 3:44:40 AM , Rating: 2
I hand't even though of that. Almost every gun law out there has a law enforcement exemption. Cops and retired cops are almost never required to give up their guns. They are legally permitted to carry their guns almost everywhere.

Even if civilian gun ownership was banned, this shooting would not have been prevented.


RE: Just sad
By Jeffk464 on 1/14/2014 1:12:48 PM , Rating: 2
Unfortunately the good guy with a gun would have stopped the shooter after the guy was already dead. By the way up until this point the shooter would have been considered a good guy with a gun.


RE: Just sad
By BSMonitor on 1/14/2014 5:37:49 PM , Rating: 1
STFU "Good guy with a guy" STFU NRA Ad


RE: Just sad
By Reclaimer77 on 1/14/2014 5:52:16 PM , Rating: 2
Hey moron. You are aware the NRA didn't write the Constitution, yes?


RE: Just sad
By Spookster on 1/14/2014 6:11:32 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe not but they are the ones abusing the intent of it in order to increase sales of guns for the gun manufacturing industry.


RE: Just sad
By JediJeb on 1/15/2014 4:55:34 PM , Rating: 2
Do you realize that the NRA was in favor of the first two gun control laws ever passed.

quote:
The NRA formed a legislative affairs division in response to debate concerning passage of the 1934 National Firearms Act,[23] some of the earliest federal gun control legislation in the United States. The NRA supported the act along with the Gun Control Act of 1968. The two acts collectively created a system to license gun dealers and imposed taxes on the private ownership of machine guns.[24]


The NRA isn't some kind of Santa Clause for guns trying to hand them out like candy to anyone and everyone. They support responsible ownership, not just blanket ownership of firearms. They are also the ones who provide the most classes in firearm safety and training to both individuals and government agencies. The US Military also uses marksmanship training methods which were developed by the NRA for training civilian marksmen to train soldiers in good marksmanship.

Does the NRA seem to go overboard when working to protect the right to bear arms? Sometimes it seems it does, but when you consider just how overboard the gun control advocates go with their push to completely get rid of gun it can be understandable.


RE: Just sad
By BSMonitor on 1/14/2014 7:24:02 PM , Rating: 2
Neither did you.


RE: Just sad
By EricMartello on 1/20/2014 2:17:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I got you covered.

"Where was the good guy with a gun to stop him?"


The guy with a gun was a liberal pro-union guy who voted for obama, just like that black guy, Dorner, who killed some cops in California (a liberal cesspool).

So your question should be "why aren't good people with guns taking aim at liberals with guns to end gun violence"?

Why are you warring against women? They can shoot too. Why can only "guys" have guns? Don't be so sexist.

Side note: Most gang bangers in chicago and LA would vote democrat if they voted at all but they are too busy shooting each other with guns they stole from law-abiding citizens.

quote:
"It wasn't the gun, that 71 year old man could have used the popcorn bag to kill him."


He could have pulled a knife and stabbed him, and then it wouldn't have been national news for more than 3 hours. In either case, blaming the instrument used to perpetuate a crime rather than the individual who committed said crime is a sign of mental retardation.

quote:
Seriously though, I'm using humor to mask the sadness. This is just depressing.


If I was you I'd probably be depressed as well. Fortunately I'm not and am exceptionally happy.


RE: Just sad
By chµck on 1/14/14, Rating: 0
RE: Just sad
By Flunk on 1/14/2014 12:09:38 PM , Rating: 5
I don't even need to read the article to know what country this happened in.


RE: Just sad
By FITCamaro on 1/14/2014 12:17:41 PM , Rating: 2
Why so you can't call for help or defend yourself when a crazy person comes in guns blazing? Maybe you like to be defenseless, but not everyone does.

I do support cell phone blocking technology in theaters but not confiscating my phone.


RE: Just sad
By Jeffk464 on 1/14/2014 1:18:31 PM , Rating: 2
If a guy decides to whip out a gun and shoot you its very unlikely you would know whats coming and even if you have a gun you aren't going to be able to defend yourself.


RE: Just sad
By FITCamaro on 1/14/2014 5:51:59 PM , Rating: 2
True. But if someone busts through a door from the outside and starts shooting, I can try to pull the gun out and shoot them before they kill a bunch of other people. Some of us like to have the ability to defend ourselves. Even if we wouldn't be able to use it in every single situation.


RE: Just sad
By Jeffk464 on 1/14/2014 1:11:16 PM , Rating: 2
Cop personality, they don't like not being able to control others.

Just another reason to watch movies on your own big screen. $5 dollar pizza, 50 cent cokes, you can hit pause to go to the bathroom, nobody talking, not using cell phones, and now nobody shooting you.


RE: Just sad
By Boze on 1/14/14, Rating: -1
RE: Just sad
By boobo on 1/14/14, Rating: 0
RE: Just sad
By JediJeb on 1/15/2014 4:59:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
His little 3 year old daughter needed his help. Clearly that should take precedence over some light entertainment.


I agree, and if that was how it started the person sending the texts should have been willing to go outside to take care of that problem before returning into the theater.


RE: Just sad
By invidious on 1/14/2014 2:55:10 PM , Rating: 2
Clearly the shooting was not a result of the texting but rather of the confrontation that arose AFTER the texting. Based on the details we have it appears that the shooter acted out of hand but we don't have the shooter's comments or any eye witness acounts. Its entirely possible that the "texter" was the one who elivated the argument to a physical confrontation and the shooter (an elderly man) was defending himself in the only way he could (versus a relatively able bodied younger man).

Obviously we can't know from the information at hand so let's leave the judgement to the courts. Certainly the last thing we need is sideline legistlative suggestions.


RE: Just sad
By jimbojimbo on 1/14/2014 5:38:39 PM , Rating: 2
If you're considerate and quiet you won't have to deal with someone's gun but you're still going to have to deal with the one a-hole messaging someone.
If he was texting to someone I wonder what the problem was. Likely he was receiving text messages as well which led to the altercation.
The fact isn't that he shot someone because he was texting. The texting led to an escalation at which point he was shot. What happened between the texting and the shooting is what the jury is going to have to decide. Maybe the texter tried to harm the other guy?? The facts have yet to come out.


RE: Just sad
By boobo on 1/14/2014 9:09:50 PM , Rating: 2
Dark humor wasn't my first impulse but I also feel bad that my first reaction was hoping "oh, please don't be a gamer. Please don't have any games installed in your computer at all." Not very sensitive of me.


Odd paragraph
By bah12 on 1/14/2014 11:51:28 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Shooting someone for texting during movie previews is certainly an extreme, and unexpected outcome. Our electronic devices have invaded nearly every aspect of our daily lives and we rely heavily on them.
Almost sounds as if you are defending the texter. Sure you don't shoot the guy, but there is no excuse to look at your phone in a theater, previews or not. If you feel the need to pull it out of your pocket GTFO of the theater first. That's right get out FIRST, don't pull it out to see who it is, just get up quietly and remove yourself from the theater first.

Your obsession shouldn't distract from my hard-earned bought and paid for experience. And guess what, you're not that important that whatever it is can't wait 2 hours. If you are then you shouldn't be in a theater.




RE: Odd paragraph
By ClownPuncher on 1/14/2014 11:56:24 AM , Rating: 3
Sure, but I think shooting someone over a petty disagreement is a bit more extreme.


RE: Odd paragraph
By bah12 on 1/14/2014 12:06:23 PM , Rating: 2
Oh absolutely, not try to distract from the tragedy here. He needs to be put away for sure.

Just pointing out the flaw in the authors paragraph. It isn't that we rely on them heavily, it is that we are obsessed to the point of losing track of social politeness. And if you do really rely on them that much, then maybe a movie isn't your best entertainment option. After all there are 100+ other people who paid for an experience that you may be ruining.

But yah clearly this old man had an axe to grind, and lost damn mind.


RE: Odd paragraph
By Rott3nHIppi3 on 1/14/2014 3:33:19 PM , Rating: 2
Clearly, you don't watch enough "COPS" on Spike TV! It's usually over women and drugs. Before too long, I suspect smartphones will be categorized as drugs since everyone has their addiction to them.


RE: Odd paragraph
By fleshconsumed on 1/14/2014 12:06:54 PM , Rating: 3
One, it's previews, who gives a crap about previews? Two, unless the person is constantly on the phone, it's a lot less distracting to quickly glance at the phone screen to see if it's anything important rather than getting out of your seat, walking in front of all the people and then getting back just to check your phone. You set your phone to silent, set brightness to the minimum, shield the screen with your other hand and no one will ever know you've checked your phone... as opposed to inconveniencing a dozen people in your row to get out into the hallway.


RE: Odd paragraph
By bah12 on 1/14/2014 12:28:31 PM , Rating: 3
1. I do. I enjoy previews, and since I only go to about 2 or so shows a year, I want and pay for the experience. The little slide shows with the lights up sure, raise hell, but when the lights go down turn it off.

2. Point taken walking out is disruptive too, but again once the lights go down either commit to what you are involved in or plan your entertainment to do something else. If you really can't put it down for 2 hours then, this is probably not the right choice.

Why is it that we've created a world world where being a little rude is ok as long as you're not really rude. Your example is rude either way, the extend of that rudeness is relative. Believe it or not we've existed for thousands of years where you may have to wait until you get home to find out what happened while you were gone. It is addicting, and I'm guilty of using it when I shouldn't doesn't excuse the fact that A) I don't really need to know right then and B) I'm still being rude.

Look all I'm saying is it's 2 hours, if that is too long for you to be disconnected then choose something else to do.


RE: Odd paragraph
By Jeffk464 on 1/14/2014 1:21:15 PM , Rating: 1
Guess what people are rude and self absorbed, if you are in public you have to deal with it.


RE: Odd paragraph
By fleshconsumed on 1/14/2014 4:12:55 PM , Rating: 2
Like you said, it's all relative and in the eye of the beholder. Back when I was still going to the movie theaters I didn't care for the previews, it was just another 15 minutes of my time that I had to waste while waiting for the movie I paid to watch. Same with using phone while in the movie, if one sets it to vibe and brightness to a minimum, unless you notice that person looking down in his lap you're not even going to know he has his phone out. At which point, the only objection you might have is on "moral" grounds as in he shouldn't be using the phone in the movie theater because I don't want him to even though he's not really disturbing you in any way. It's the same when talking on the phone while in the restaurant. As long as the person keeps his/her voice down below ambient noise level there is zero reason to be upset about it. Yet people get their tidy whities in a bunch because someone dared to speak on the phone and they can't hear the other side of the conversation. Both situations are unreasonable.


RE: Odd paragraph
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 1/14/2014 12:11:07 PM , Rating: 2
I think the paragraph just stresses that:

1) This was a ludicrous overreaction to someone texting
2) Some people have become so overly reliant on their smartphones that they feel that they MUST be connected to everyone at all times


RE: Odd paragraph
By bah12 on 1/14/2014 12:34:14 PM , Rating: 3
Guess my beef is with the phrasing, Reliance. They aren't reliant they are addicted. Big difference. I rely on oxygen, my wife is addicted to candy crush :)

Reliance gives it a pass, after all who can blame someone that relies on something. But let's call it as it is 99.9999% of that crap is a luxury and an obsession/addiction. Definitely not something that can't wait. And if it isn't then maybe you shouldn't be in a place that dictates that you disconnect for a couple hours.


RE: Odd paragraph
By Griffinhart on 1/14/2014 12:31:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Almost sounds as if you are defending the texter. Sure you don't shoot the guy, but there is no excuse to look at your phone in a theater, previews or not. If you feel the need to pull it out of your pocket GTFO of the theater first. That's right get out FIRST, don't pull it out to see who it is, just get up quietly and remove yourself from the theater first.

That's ridiculous. I would agree IF the person were talking on the phone to an extent, but texting? I can't see any issues with someone texting if the phone were in silent mode, even during the movie itself. One doesn't need "an excuse" to look at their phone in a theater.


RE: Odd paragraph
By bah12 on 1/14/2014 12:38:00 PM , Rating: 2
Therein lies the problem, your 5" screen is glaring and distracting. The fact that you think you have some right to disrupt my experience is the social problem here. Especially since most theaters ask you to turn off, several times during pre show.


RE: Odd paragraph
By Solandri on 1/14/2014 2:23:08 PM , Rating: 2
The theater in question prohibits cell phone use at any time, including the previews. Arguably the shooter was simply "enforcing" the rules. (Of course the theater also prohibits firearms so...)

While I agree the shooter's transgression was more serious, both the shooter and victim were in violation of the rules set by the private facility they were visiting. In that respect, both men were guilty of the same thing - having such an inflated sense of self-importance that they felt justified in violating rules laid out by the theater. One violation just had much more serious consequences for other visitors.

I see another lesson here too. Like piracy or zero tolerance school rules, a blanket prohibition can generate contrary results. People will feel being prohibited from using their phones when nothing is showing on the screen is silly, and the theater is being overbearing. Breaking that rule then becomes easy to justify in their minds. And at that point it becomes easy to justify breaking it a little more and continuing to use your phone during the previews.

For a rule to work well with society, it has to be reasonable. e.g. Allow cell phone use when the screen is blank, prohibit it when it's not. People can argue whether or not it's ok during the previews, but if the rules are reasonable in the easy cases, they are more likely to voluntarily submit to the theater's stance in the questionable cases even if they disagree with it.


RE: Odd paragraph
By invidious on 1/14/2014 3:09:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I can't see any issues with someone texting if the phone were in silent mode, even during the movie itself.
Inability to comprehend a transgression doesn't make it excusable.

What if your neighbor doesn't see anything wrong with sleeping in your house and borrowing your stuff while you are on vacation simply because you weren't there using it?


RE: Odd paragraph
By Ushio01 on 1/14/2014 1:13:04 PM , Rating: 2
He wasn't texting during the film he was texting during the ADVERTS'S big difference I use my phone a lot (solitaire) when the adds are playing as they often last at least 30 minutes from the advertised film start time.

I even paid extra once for an advert free showing that my cinema offered which then still had 15 mins of adverts I complained but they just said "so don't come again if you don't like it".

I really, really sympathise with pirates.


RE: Odd paragraph
By Jeffk464 on 1/15/2014 12:31:51 AM , Rating: 2
Just show up 15 min late to the movie.


Witholding judgement
By Cluebat on 1/14/2014 12:40:27 PM , Rating: 2
It just seems that we are not getting the full story here. I would not convict the guy if he was attacked by the texter and felt in fear for his life. But it does sound like an unforgivable overreaction.




RE: Witholding judgement
By chrnochime on 1/14/2014 1:16:49 PM , Rating: 3
Give me a break. Feared for his life? Unless the guy who got shot first pulled out a weapon, why the hell is there a need to pull out a gun to shoot him?


RE: Witholding judgement
By Cluebat on 1/14/2014 1:42:51 PM , Rating: 2
If I were an old dude carrying, and you were bashing my skull in, I would definitely take you out. Probably not the case. Just saying.


RE: Witholding judgement
By ProZach on 1/14/2014 2:14:44 PM , Rating: 2
Some theatre popcorn is quite salty. If the old geezer was temporarily blinded by the salt he probably was in fear of being unable to dodge any Coca Cola that might have been thrown at him next. That beverage is so sticky one could not possibly sit comfortably through an entire movie with it soaked in their clothing, so he had better shoot the guy in self-defense...

Oh wait, I guess he should have let the staff handle it and haggled for a couple free passes. But instead, everyone in the seating area had to go home without seeing the main attraction. What a dumb@ss!


RE: Witholding judgement
By Cluebat on 1/14/2014 2:29:18 PM , Rating: 2
Here you assume that the guy texting is the same guy that threw the popcorn. People are making an awful lot of assumptions here. I find it hard to believe that this is really how it went down. You may take every article that you read at face value, but this story smells fishy to me. I suspect that the facts are intended to implicate guns in general. The guy was texting his 3 year old daughter- did she also have a blog? The wife was shot in her hand "protecting" her husband. Did she impose herself between the to belligerents secret service style or was she trying to pull her husband off of the old timer he was attacking? Like I said- I'll wait for further details. Meanwhile STFU.


RE: Witholding judgement
By Reclaimer77 on 1/14/2014 2:39:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I suspect that the facts are intended to implicate guns in general.


NOOooooo. From OUR mainstream Liberal media? I can't believe you!

/s


RE: Witholding judgement
By Cluebat on 1/14/2014 2:42:30 PM , Rating: 2
I should have said "reported facts", since I believe that the inconvenient facts are left out of the original reporting.


RE: Witholding judgement
By ProZach on 1/14/2014 4:23:57 PM , Rating: 2
So- go do some investigating.

STFU back at you till then ;)


RE: Witholding judgement
By Cluebat on 1/14/2014 4:43:05 PM , Rating: 2
You are probably right and the guy needs to be locked up. But I really want to hear what the off duty LEO who grabbed his gun has to say first. I also would like to say that unfortunately, as we age our judgment may deteriorate and I have always advocated for periodic evaluations for older citizens with regard to operation of vehicles. I think that firearm ownership would fall under the same category.

Regards


RE: Witholding judgement
By Cluebat on 1/15/2014 12:53:22 PM , Rating: 2
Okay, I'm ready to join the mob now. Hand me a pitchfork please.


RE: Witholding judgement
By JediJeb on 1/14/2014 5:49:11 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
The guy was texting his 3 year old daughter


Why would your 3yo have a phone to read the text? And could they even read it?

Article also never says if they guy's phone was on silent or if he had some really obnoxious ringtone for his incoming texts.

Also the shooter first went to get a manager, then returns alone. Did his conversation with the manager or possibly not being able to speak to a manager elevate his aggravated state?

Definitely a lot of details missing to know the whole truth about what happened here. Though the final result is still the same.


It's not the mobile devices
By amanojaku on 1/14/2014 11:17:54 AM , Rating: 2
Don't place the blame on the phone, the tablet, etc... That's ignoring the responsibility of the parties involved. The device is a tool, nothing more, nothing less. The victim could have been shot simply for talking too much to his wife. Plenty of people are rude when using their mobile devices in public, but that doesn't mean the shooter had to kill someone over that.




RE: It's not the mobile devices
By drycrust3 on 1/14/2014 11:30:13 AM , Rating: 2
But it was when adverts were on! It wasn't during the movie. Sure, it isn't protocol, but it wasn't during what people paid to see.


RE: It's not the mobile devices
By Rukkian on 1/14/2014 1:07:03 PM , Rating: 3
Once the lights are down, other lights need to be off. Whether you want to see the previews or not, some do. If you do not want to see previews, then wait till after the previews to enter the theater.

People like you are a big part of the reason I hate going to theaters now, and usually just wait for Blu-Ray.


RE: It's not the mobile devices
By Ushio01 on 1/14/2014 1:16:50 PM , Rating: 2
No entry after lights off health and safety you could trip and hurt yourself after all (old people go to the cinema a lot)

Also they now show regular TV adverts in the cinema before the previews usually for 25 mins then 5 mins of actual film previews.


RE: It's not the mobile devices
By Rukkian on 1/14/2014 2:10:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
No entry after lights off health and safety you could trip and hurt yourself after all (old people go to the cinema a lot)


That is just trying to be argumentative, because no theater actually locks people in (or out) of a theater once the lights are off. There would big law suits on that one. I have never seen a theater without small lights lighting the way up/down ramps/steps to get back to your seat.

They may show adverts, that does not give you the right to be an asshole. While some theaters do show regular adverts (I now avoid any that do, no matter what), usually the lights are still on during that time, and usually the lights only go out for the movie previews.

Once the lights are off, you phone needs to be off as well. If you cannot turn it off for the 2 hours in the theater, don't go to the theater!


RE: It's not the mobile devices
By ven1ger on 1/15/2014 2:28:26 PM , Rating: 2
Lights are usually dimmed if not completely off. But who really waits til ads/previews are done before getting a seat. People arrive arrive early so they can get good seats, unless you like sitting in the very front rows and having a neck strain, or you get a seat behind a tall person sitting in front of you or you get stuck in the very middle, etc.

Generally, I don't go to the theaters for most of these reasons, and I don't like crowds. Easier and a whole lot cheaper to just watch it at home when it is available, and generally that can be just a few short months after it is no longer available at the theaters.

But other than that, there still is no excuse for this shooting, I see others saying that the victim should have left the theater (I agree), but the shooter could have moved also if he was irritated. I don't think trying to rationalize either behavior is important. You have a dead unarmed person and the shooter, no matter the behavior of the victim at this point, nor from what is being reported, was this a justified shooting.


RE: It's not the mobile devices
By Monkey's Uncle on 1/14/2014 11:54:24 AM , Rating: 2
Hey, this is FLORIDA.

Florida is about the most trigger happy states in the U.S.

Doesn't surprise me that an ex-cop is shooting someone because they might have threatened him with a punch in the nose.


RE: It's not the mobile devices
By 91TTZ on 1/14/2014 12:07:38 PM , Rating: 2
It's amazing how you stereotype an entire state full of people, as if they all behave the same way.


RE: It's not the mobile devices
By drlumen on 1/14/2014 12:16:47 PM , Rating: 2
The guy threw popcorn at him so naturally he decided to 'stand his ground'. :p

Yeah, I know that's lame but I bet he tries to use it as a defense.

As to the statement about 'where was the gun to keep from being shot?', there was the other sheriff, probably with a gun, that did stop any more possible deaths.


RE: It's not the mobile devices
By Jeffk464 on 1/14/2014 1:24:25 PM , Rating: 2
I thought Texas was the most trigger happy. You almost get the impression they are thrilled with the idea of someone breaking into their house so they get the chance to kill someone.


RE: It's not the mobile devices
By kwrzesien on 1/14/2014 1:37:10 PM , Rating: 2
Where was Zimmerman when we need him?


Bad title...
By Arkive on 1/14/2014 1:21:07 PM , Rating: 2

The title should probably say, "Texting in theater leads to argument that escalates to gunfire." Not condoning the actions of the gunman in any way, but it's not like he saw some guy texting and started shooting.




RE: Bad title...
By Jeffk464 on 1/14/2014 1:28:22 PM , Rating: 2
Yup if people are walking around with guns any argument has the potential to escalate until someone is shot.


RE: Bad title...
By ebakke on 1/14/2014 2:01:36 PM , Rating: 2
You reply to a lot of posts, but you seem to struggle with keeping your comments relevant to the particular thread. In this case the OP was discussing the article's title and how it's not really representative of what happened. How does your statement about prevalent gun possession relate to the misleading title?


RE: Bad title...
By Schrag4 on 1/14/2014 11:21:56 PM , Rating: 2
When I saw a similar title, that's exactly what I thought - that the old guy opened fire into the back of a texter. It's still early to tell what really happened. IMO, this would be a much better title:

"Movie theater texting leads to fatal confrontation"

I'm not letting the old guy off the hook just yet, but things might not seem so cut and dried against him if the dead guy is 6'7" 280lbs and was threatening to beat the old man to death. As I and others have said, we simply don't have enough info.


Too bad
By Trisagion on 1/14/2014 11:50:10 AM , Rating: 4
Apparently, Mr. Reeves was the lone survivor of that argument...




Guns in cinemas
By lemonadesoda on 1/14/2014 12:59:43 PM , Rating: 4
The movie hadnt even started. But as though that is even an excuse! What an dangerous idiot that ex cop is - previously employed by the police department, i wonder what the history is there - loses his temper with a stranger and shoots him dead. Who cares if it was the popcorn, spilled drink, noisy crisp packet, hat, or mobile phone. You dont go shooting people in a cinema or anywhere no matter when no matter what for - UNLESS YOUR LIFE IS BEING THREATENED by that person.




I guess...
By MrBlastman on 1/14/2014 2:09:11 PM , Rating: 2
... He wasn't the lone survivor. Heh heh.




RE: I guess...
By MrBlastman on 1/14/2014 2:11:53 PM , Rating: 2
I know. Totally in bad taste. So is texting in a movie theater. It shouldn't cost you your life though. That was one power-crazy ex-cop. He'll get a nice cell with Bubba in the big-house and learn a new meaning to the word, bow-legged.


during the damn trailers!?
By BillyBatson on 1/14/2014 2:31:17 PM , Rating: 2
If the movie ads, commercials, and yes even trailers are on people should still be allowed to txt! Once the movie starts it is all devices off!
Poor guy was killed for interrupting what was most likely a trailer to a movie the shooter was never going to see.




RE: during the damn trailers!?
By In2Boost on 1/15/2014 4:35:49 PM , Rating: 2
I respectfully disagree.

I for one can't stand all the flocks of backlit screens in front of me in low or zero light theaters. It's surprising to me that the victim was in his 40s. Usually, the ones who can't exercise a minimum of self-control and restraint in this environment are teenage children who don't know any better.

If you want to text or use your cell phone, leave the theater if it's absolutely that important that it can't wait. I'm all for Faraday cages in theaters. If there's an emergency, walk the thirty feet to leave the theater like a respectful adult. Check your texts or make your call from the hallway.

Nothing excuses the taking of a life. I wish the shooter was younger so he could rot in jail even longer than he will now for taking a young girl's father away from her forever.


By GotThumbs on 1/15/2014 2:24:41 PM , Rating: 2
Was this a voice to text scenario, or did the texting create noise with each keystroke?

There has to be more to this than we know at this time.

I just can't see someone getting upset if there was zero noise to interfere with the movie sound.

I myself have had to ask people to stop talking during movies and respect everyone else who is there to watch/hear the movie.

Those people immediately get defensive, even though they are clearly outside good social standards.

Too many people (Adult children)today don't like to be called out on their failure to follow good social consideration of others.




By RomanM5 on 1/15/2014 6:59:35 PM , Rating: 2
I read all comments and have impression that it was OK for the old man to shoot and kill.
How many more people have to die? What if one day you or someone close to you will be killed because he talked too loud, smiled too load was too tall or had jacket in color that shooter didn't like.
Do you really feel safer with person next to you having gun?
How do you explain your rights to bear arms to 3 year old whose dad won't come back home? What do you say to kids in New Mexico school shooting? How do you justify you rights to anyone close to those killed in Sandy Hook massacre?
It's just so sad.


just maybe
By Rage187 on 1/14/2014 4:02:38 PM , Rating: 1
I might let the guy walk if I was on the jury.




RE: just maybe
By stm1185 on 1/15/2014 1:50:43 AM , Rating: 2
Unless they can prove that the 71 year old started the physical interaction I wouldn't convict. For all I know from the story the texter might have gotten upset at the old man, tossed his pop corn at him, hit him, and the old guy shot.


Where did all the mangers go?
By rpsgc on 1/14/2014 12:56:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Witnesses claim that Reeves left the theater to find a manger , and later returned by himself.


What has this world come to if a man can't even find a manger?




Word
By damianrobertjones on 1/14/2014 5:50:07 PM , Rating: 2
"Most recently, Google and a number of car manufacturers have"

Blatant Google name drop which has NOTHING to do with a guy getting shot in a cinema. If he was shot in a car, yeah, but he wasn't.




the real issue
By ManuRajiTater on 1/14/2014 9:00:10 PM , Rating: 2
the real issue here is he was texting a 3yo...WTF...3 years old ????????




By stm1185 on 1/15/2014 1:48:47 AM , Rating: 2
Theaters suck. Inconsiderate jerks on their phones all the time. Lazy kids for employees who won't do something about it. Then you get someone who just snaps and shoots someone. And to top it off, obscene prices! $20 for two sodas and a large popcorn!

Someone needs to start selling a 4K version on BluRay same day as theater, so people can just bypass it all together. $60 would be perfectly acceptable.




people need to calm down
By mike8675309 on 1/15/2014 10:03:43 AM , Rating: 2
The only way this happens is you have two people that feel the need to escalate a conflict rather than walk away. Either one of these guys could have just left the theater, walked away instead of escalating the conflict. I'll be interested to hear how the guy explains his decision to pull his weapon and fire. Certainly a lesson to all of us that escalating an argument with someone you don't know is probably not a good idea. You never know what they are carrying.

That said, I don't really care why you are texting in the theater once the show starts Knock it off. Step outside if you have something important to say to your 3 year old. Others would like to enjoy the movie. (it doesn't help that some of the pre-show screen things ask you to pull out your phone and play along with their trivia.)




Disturbing story.
By Perry Tanko on 1/19/2014 4:55:35 PM , Rating: 2
So I googled Oulson and Reeves to find a story on ChristianPost, you may want to read it.
http://www.christianpost.com/news/retired-officer-...

I am sorry for the loss to Ms. Olson and their daughter.




“We do believe we have a moral responsibility to keep porn off the iPhone.” -- Steve Jobs














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki