Argument in cinema results in gunshot death

[Beachguyj]

He was exercising his constitutional right as an American silly.

Actually no, they are not allowed in that movie theater.

You don't have the right to take it everywhere with you, if it's not allowed don't go there.

 

[Beachguyj]

Note to self--stay out of Florida---it's going to be another stand your ground defense when old man says he felt threatened by texter.
Law enforcement say this is not a stand your ground defense---get some lawyers involved and we shall see,

No it's not. In the press conference the sheriff already said that this is not such a case, there are many witnesses to attest to that. Including the off duty cop who was there. But yeah stay away.

 

[Kahaih]

Because he feels entitled as a former police captain who no one ever said no to. So once someone stood up to him and his cantankerous self he shot them in cold blood. May he rot in hell soon.

You say that with such conviction that I have to figure that you know more about the case than has been reported in the BBC link.

Where did the bullet enter the victim's body? According to the posted article, he was sitting directly in front of the shooter. Was he shot in the back, or did he stand up and turn to face the shooter?

 

[Telstra]

You say that with such conviction that I have to figure that you know more about the case than has been reported in the BBC link.

Where did the bullet enter the victim's body? According to the posted article, he was sitting directly in front of the shooter. Was he shot in the back, or did he stand up and turn to face the shooter?

Sounds logical to me. The old bastard feels entitled to do anything as a former police captain.
He might abused a lot of people in his hey days as a police officer who knows.

 

[xbuzzerx]

As if you could recognize a dick. You demonstrate every day you don't give a crap about anyone. The deceased did not deserve to die, but he most certainly was a dick and precipitated the argument when he disrespected the rest of the audience. He had no idea he was pissing off a total psycho.

It would be tragic if he were not a dick.i

One questions why you're even pointing out who precipitated an argument as if that has any substance in considering why someone shot someone else. If I were to randomly show up and shoot you, would you reasonably expect people to "bear in mind" that you'd argued with me online before condemning me for it?

 

[dereperez]

The on-screen announcement warned the victim to turn off his cell and that the light from his screen would annoy other patrons.

Guess they may ramp up the warnings now: everyone's previously been obsessed with texting while driving.

The dead guy was a dick. He didn't deserve to die, but he provoked the argument by refusing to stop texting after the show (previews) started. Guess he proved he had the right to disregard everyone else.

Slight imbalance in the offense and the response, but only just. This would be another perfect thread to invoke karma for all those who use it for vendetta rationalization. The texter must have had one hell of a backlog according to the casual invokers of karma's appearance to balance the scales.

Turn off the phones in the dark.

Oh, and stop carrying guns around to kill texters.

The victim was a total dick, no doubt about it. But I would disagree that being shot was just a slight overreaction. The man got shot in cold blood over something extremely trivial in the relative scale of offenses. Mr. Reeves going to get the manager was the right move. Why not just move to a different seat? Yes, Mr. Reeves had the right to stay where he was seated without people around him annoying him but what gives him the right to whip out that gun because he was peeved? Texting in the theater shouldn't even need to escalate to throwing punches, IMO.

The day we deem that shooting people is appropriate for most offenses and only just a slight overreaction for most everything else is a scary day. Gun toters everywhere are licking their lips.

The story is also a bit fishy to me. Three-year-olds can text? I know kids are tech savvy these days but I can't imagine a 3-year old being able to read the messages from daddy and be able to text back responses. She must have a comprehension of the written word (as well as manual dexterity) beyond her age. Granted, the article didn't say if the texts were incoherent babble.

 

[xbuzzerx]

The victim was a total dick, no doubt about it. But I would disagree that being shot was just a slight overreaction. The man got shot in cold blood over something extremely trivial in the relative scale of appropriate punishment. Mr. Reeves going to get the manager was the right move. Why not just move to a different seat? Yes, Mr. Reeves had the right to stay where he was seated without people around him annoying him but what gives him the right to whip out that gun because he was peeved? Texting in the theater shouldn't even need to escalate to throwing punches, IMO.

The day we deem that shooting people is appropriate for most offenses and only just a slight overreaction for most everything else is a scary day. Gun toters everywhere are licking their lips.

The story is also a bit fishy to me. Three-year-olds can text? I know kids are tech savvy these days but I can't imagine a 3-year old being able to read the messages from daddy and be able to text back responses. She must have a comprehension of the written word (as well as manual dexterity) beyond her age. Granted, the article didn't say if the texts were incoherent babble.

Yup. If instead of a texter it had been a mom with a crying infant, should we bear in mind the mother's rudeness if some jackass shot her?

 

[zoltanspawn]

My guess is that Oulson was texting the babysitter.

 

[xbuzzerx]

It wasn't a random shooting. It was an escalation of an argument. It was an argument triggered by the guy with the texting not taking it outside.

That's one slanted interpretation.

The other side of this story is that it's an argument that escalated into a shooting because someone was in a theater with a gun.

As a former teacher and someone who undoubtedly had to instruct students or at least moderate classroom disputes or misbehavior, it's rather appalling that you seem to remotely connect the existence of an argument over something trivial with any form of qualification on the fact that someone got shot.

 

[pat grimshaw]

Yup. If instead of a texter it had been a mom with a crying infant, should we bear in mind the mother's rudeness if some jackass shot her?

No. the father should take 50% responsibility

 

[xbuzzerx]

No. the father should take 50% responsibility

Let the adults discuss, Pat.

 

[Gentleheart]

Senseless and unnecessary, to say the least. This is sad.

Another reason I stay my ass at home and don't go anywhere unless I have to. And even then...I leave people the hell alone. There are a lot of lunatics out there just itching to kill someone. I don't have the time for it.

I just don't know anymore.

 

[xbuzzerx]

Yes.

I'm not making a legal argument. I'm commenting that the argument in its entirety was preventable.

Your only point seems to be the misuse of a firearm. I concur on that, but it wasn't only about firearms -- it was about social disintegration. The cop had no reason to shoot, and there is no defense of his actions.

And I haven't defended his actions.

But I'm not ignoring that a dick was the victim. A lippy kid on the street could get knifed after saying the wrong thing and we aren't shedding a lotta tears for every street fight that ends in one dead street kid and another going to prison.

There is just more sympathy for this guy because he is being portrayed as innocent instead of a guy who started a fight in the theater. The mitigation of it being about his kid is banal. He could have been answering the NSA, and he still could have gotten up to go outside.

And part of being a grown-up, civil member of society is the fact that you have to accomodate all kinds of people with all kinds of behavior and all kinds of thresholds or sensitivities to politeness-- whether that's the loud neighbor you have in a compact apartment complex or someone not turning their ringer off on their cellphone in a movie theater, or a million other things that most of us encounter and deal with every single day.

And yet don't shoot people for.

Someone's behavior or demeanor not meeting your personal standard for politeness is immaterial to someone exceeding all moral and legal boundaries and attempting to kill them over a trivial verbal dispute in any scenario whatsoever other than that you believe someone not meeting your ruleset for proper behavior is a proper qualification on killing people. And that is the reasoning of a sociopath.

"Yeah it's rude when people are noisy with their phones in theaters" belongs in an entirely different discussion than "someone was shot in a movie theater" unless you are attempting to claim that the former is a valid basis for justifying the latter.

 

[dereperez]

It wasn't a random shooting. It was an escalation of an argument. It was an argument triggered by the guy with the texting not taking it outside. There is a lobby. 300 people could have an important reason to text, but every one of them can get his ass up and go outside. Ignoring the setting was the first event. Standing his own ground instead of apologizing and leaving was the second.

If there were a crying baby, there is a lobby, but there wasn't a crying baby. There was this dick who wanted to defend his right to text when and where he pleased. But the suggestion that a mom couldn't have equally been a dick about a crying baby would be to ignore how many people behave in the theater.

He didn't deserve to be shot, but he was a dick. I'm not glad the dick is dead, or that anyone had a gun, but I'm not going to pretend grief over one less dick texting away in the theater.

I can't fathom being a third-party bystander to a shooting of a theater texter and not feel appalled and disgusted over such a shooting. Thinking that theater texters are dicks are one thing, but not giving a rat's ass if they get shot is something else.

 

[xbuzzerx]

It is because I have taught that I am not so prone to buy the slanted story already given.

There are random acts of violence, but I never encountered one in person. This wasn't random. It was the undue escalation of an argument, an argument caused by the deceased presuming upon his neighbors one time too many.

The responsibility of the shooting is 100% on the ex-cop.

The responsibility for causing the argument is 100% the dead guy's.

That doesn't equate to 50/50. The law should and will only look at the 2nd degree murder guilt of the ex-cop. He has no defense for his actions.

And, despite all the hubbub, I haven't defended his actions. I've only aired my disdain for the dick with the cell phone, just as everyone has aired their disdain for the murderer.

Lots of disdain to spare.

Yet his texting in a movie theater by your own words expunges in your mind any reason to feel sorry for him getting killed. How is it that you expect to say that and have anyone reasonable believe that you are not saying you feel that the action and the reaction were proportional or justified?

 

[dereperez]

I think everyone is basically stating the same thing. Just worded differently. No one is saying that the texter was not a dick. He was. No one is saying that the shooting was the right punishment he deserved. It wasn't. Some just dislike theater texters more than others.

 

[Telstra]

As if you could recognize a dick. You demonstrate every day you don't give a crap about anyone. The deceased did not deserve to die, but he most certainly was a dick and precipitated the argument when he disrespected the rest of the audience. He had no idea he was pissing off a total psycho.

It would be tragic if he were not a dick.i

Stop changing the subject.
You are guilty as charged for blaming the victim for texting his daughter.

 

[xbuzzerx]

No, I didn't care about him before I learned of his death. Now, I don't care about him after learning of his death. Nothing changed.

I don't expect anyone to believe anything. This is JUB. There will be plenty of people ready to redefine everything said.

I have been explicit in every post that the shooting was not justified. You can accuse me of being a gun-owner or a member of the NRA, but it won't change reality. Believe away.

This is all hogwash to throw your hands up and say people are going to misunderstand anything when I have been addressing what you said, not vague impressions or fictionalizations of what you said. Nor did I even mention the NRA or make any comment of any kind as to whether you have a gun.

Yes, your statements directly imply an apathy to murder if you feel the victim was rude or broke a rule of common consideration of his neighbors. You're careful to hide that behind saying you don't legally defend what the shooter did, but we're not addressing whether or not the law covers what he did. I'm addressing whether in a civil world this was a remotely reasonable or even understandable response to the offense and the answer in your posts leans somewhere between "yes" and "neutral."

 

[Kahaih]

My guess is that Oulson was texting the babysitter.

OK, but that would leave the victim a liar, and the article inaccurate/questionable.

 

[Telstra]

It wasn't a random shooting. It was an escalation of an argument. It was an argument triggered by the guy with the texting not taking it outside. There is a lobby. 300 people could have an important reason to text, but every one of them can get his ass up and go outside. Ignoring the setting was the first event. Standing his own ground instead of apologizing and leaving was the second.

If there were a crying baby, there is a lobby, but there wasn't a crying baby. There was this dick who wanted to defend his right to text when and where he pleased. But the suggestion that a mom couldn't have equally been a dick about a crying baby would be to ignore how many people behave in the theater.

He didn't deserve to be shot, but he was a dick. I'm not glad the dick is dead, or that anyone had a gun, but I'm not going to pretend grief over one less dick texting away in the theater.

Another true colour. How nice you are.