Retired cop guns down man for texting at Florida movie

Who the hell is accepting it? Really? You are just wanting to be argumentitive. Show me one single post where anyone posted that the guy deserved to be shot or that we should accept it. Go ahead RR show me one F'n post. You certainly can't show me a post by me.

The old man should be punished and will be punished. That much is not in dispute and has never been in dispute, but you guys keep trying to deflect my point be trying to create things that were never posted or implied.

 

I hope you kept your popcorn as far away as possible from him.

 

You keep bringing up popcorn but refuse to acknowledge the physical altercation.

He is being charged with second degree murder, not capital murder or first degree. At the end he is probably gonna be found not guilty.

 

This story isn't much different from killings due to road rage. Defending your behavior that is generally looked down upon (but ultimately "harmless") makes people go crazy.

Example:

Guy cuts you off in traffic. You honk your horn, and get flipped off. Some people will attempt to get "revenge" by

• Speeding up and cut back in front
• Tailgate
• Shoot them

Obviously the last option is wrong, but it happens.

If the texter put his phone away, I'd put money that the old man doesn't shoot him.

If the manager gets someone to tell the texter to put his phone away and does, I'd put money that the old man doesn't shoot him.

If the texter didn't confront the old man after he left to get the manager and came back, I'd put money that the old man doesn't shoot him. I'd guess he'd just sit in the back and steam about it while watching the movie.

 

I didn't know this was an spelling class. Nice way to change the subject. If you want to debate or critique spelling be my guest if thats your thing.

 

"There should be a lesson here. Don't specialize in being a dick and don't go antagonizing people because you think your bigger then they are."

OK, you have taken logic in school, right? You do realize that when you say the lesson is "don't be a dick... and don't go antagonizing people...", combined with what happened, means that you're condoning the behavior? It's like this, since you're apparently too slow to get it:

Scenario 1: Guy goes to a movie theater. Texting during previews. Other guy gets angry. Texter starts acting like a jerk. Old man grabs phone and smashes it on the ground.

Lesson: Don't be a dick with your phone or someone might smash it.

Even in this instance, you MIGHT have a few that say, "Don't smash the guy's phone over it, but it's REASONABLE to say, "If you're a jerk, this is what can happen."

It is NOT REASONABLE to conclude that the main lesson to be learned from THIS PARTICULAR INCIDENT is that you shouldn't be rude. Unless you've got issues. Which apparently you have.

Again, hopefully the next time you're rude someone doesn't shoot you. Because you're going to be rude or inconsiderate at some point in the future (whether intentional or accidental- we all are), so hopefully your misguided lesson isn't thrown back at you.

So, to sum, yes, you are condoning his behavior. The fact that you don't get this is pretty sad.

 

That quote is good rules to live by since we live in a world with all kinds of people who are capable of killing. There is absolutely nothing in the quote that implies that I condone the old mans behavior by shooting the young man.

Once again, show me just one quote where I condone or think society should condone that killing.

 

That is justification. The argument put forward is:
Coulson was an ass that caused the situation so it logically follows that the old guy shot him. Now the old guy isn't right but it is logical that he shot Coulson. I don't think it is logical for the old guy to shoot Coulson because if it was that would mean there is an equivalency to the acts. Throwing popcorn isn't equivalent to getting shot.

The argument that y'all are presenting is a classic blaming the victim argument.

 

did the "elderly person" pray to his/her god for the sun to quit shining in his eyes? if so and after a lack of response from god, did the elderly person shoot at the sun for being a "jackass" and a "dick"?

 

That's completely different- if the texter started punching him, then yes the shooter would have justification. But there was a witness sitting two seats away who said absolutely nothing about punches, grabbing, etc. Merely about popcorn being thrown. Believe me, I'd be pissed if someone were doing this, and especially if the person threw popcorn on me.

But we cannot let it get to the point in our society where we accept killing as an accepted consequence for being rude. There are a number of alternatives- crackdown on cell phone use- heck, even a permanent ban for multiple violators- a fine- disturbing the peace, etc.

But incidents like this set a very bad precedent.

 

It's hard to argue with a person who only reads a thread title.

 

It only sets a bad precedent if the old guy gets off, receives a key to the city. All signs point to he will get a very long prison sentence.

There have been worse precedents set (like cops killing people and getting no time). Sorry, just watched Fruitvale station recently.

 

Of course there is- what are you, being purposefully ignorant?

When you say, "there is a lesson to be learned..." you are referring specifically to this incident. When you say, "don't do this...." - there is always an implied "or else"- unless you're stupid and can't understand that.

I mean, really, it's pathetic to have to explain to you how logic works- how many examples do you need?

Example from last night's game:

"There is a lesson to be learned. Don't go away from feeding the hot hand (Howard) and don't revert to ISO ball when Harden is having an off night."

You mean to tell me you don't understand that a "Don't..." lesson statement always has an implication? In this case, "Or else you might lose the game." Do you think you would really have to state that?

When someone is rude and they are killed over it, and you state "The lesson is "Don't do the rude thing.."- then yes, the "Or else you might get killed" is a justification. But rather than stating what any normal human being would, such as "even though the guy was out of line, there is no justification for being killed," you have to continue to prove your point.

I'm sorry if you've been bullied or picked on and now have this Billy badass complex that allows you to justify killing over rudeness, but it shouldn't be that way.

 

You probably got bullied a lot in school

 

You are right- if he is made an example of, then justice is served.

If we find out that the witness didn't see that the texter pulled out his own weapon or something like that, then the shooter was within his right. We'll see.

 

Not once did I say that being shot is a logical consequence of being an ass. What I said was that you control YOUR actions, not the actions of others. And as a result, you should make sure YOUR actions are in the best interest of YOUR safety. Escalating an argument, especially into a physical altercation (as described here), is NOT in the best interest of your safety. He could have avoided that. He chose not to. Perhaps because the shooter was an old man and seemed easy to push around, perhaps because he was goaded by the other man. Whatever the case, the VICTIM made choices that placed his safety at risk, escalated this situation, and lead to his eventual death.

Suppose the old man wasn't armed and they had just gotten into a fist fight. And suppose the older man somehow beat the younger man to a pulp. There wouldn't be too many folks defending the younger man (witness the response to the AC Transit Bus fight). The fact that the old man responded with a gun doesn't change the wrongeness of the younger man's actions.

 

You're right he deserved to get shot and killed, for messing up someone's preview at a movie. It's only fair.

 

people are going to text in movie theatres during the previews

GET THE **** OVER IT you sensitive cry babies.

if you want to have the illusion that you're the only one in the room them rent it and watch at home.

 

Sounds like another Stand Your Ground case. One guy was texting and the other guy stood his ground and shot him.

Or, more seriously, the defense will argue there was a physical altercation and the defendant felt his life was in peril because he was fighting a younger, stronger man who could cause him grievous injury, so he used deadly force to defend himself.

 

You are never going to get any responses with this type of post! You have to say texting/popcorn to make your point more dramatic! Also don't say both were in the wrong, you sound like a moderate, there's a special place in hell for moderates...
.......
.......
.......