Retired cop guns down man for texting at Florida movie

This is a fact. Nobody can argue that, but unless you can 100% guarantee me that the theater, the parking lot, the lobby, the restaurant, and the drive over are 100% free of guns, I think chl holders will continue to carry.

 

Tried it, but ended up moving to the family bathroom.

 

As a business, a 30.06 or 51% sign must be posted to ban chl holders from bringing in their handguns

 

no. Just pointing out that nobody really should need a gun in a movie theater.

 

Truth be known, I agree with you. it's uncomfortable to sit with the gun digging in your hip or hanging on your calf in the theater seats and I never say to myself, "I need my gun for the movie", i simply wear it always. After 7 years, it has become second nature.

 

So how would you enforce this? No one really needs a gun unless they relied on hunting for subsistence and can't figure out how to use traps or a bow.

That's why I posed the question about TSA style enforcement to make theaters and restaurants gun free.

"What we need is bullet control"
-Chris Rock

 

They have not but that is the logical extension of the thinking. Many are using terms like "having no sympathy" but there argument is that getting shot is a logical outcome of being a jerk. That is justification. It's not condoning it's not agreeing with it but it is drawing a logical tie that being a jerk means you get shot.

You are arguing it as though it is majority versus minority thinking and using terms as lock step thinking. I am not sure what the point of that is as I am not making any appeal to thinking in terms of majority. If anything it seems like a bare majority might seems to agree with placing the blame on the victim.

How so? Posters themselves have stated that Oulson brought it on himself through his actions. That right there is stating a logical cause and effect and a justification for why Reeves shot him.

Sure people shouldn't antagonize other people. I don't think anyone disagrees with that. What people disagree with is the idea that getting shot should be one of the outcomes over something like this.

And as I said I'm not rendering final judgement but am responding specifically to others people's comments. Anyway as more facts are coming out about Reeves there is evidence that he was likely the antagonizer given his history with people texting during a movie.

I agree which is why I find it so disturbing that so much blame is being placed on Oulson. You don't have to say that Oulson was an angel to point out how unsettling it is to just accept that we could be shot anytime we offend someone. I think many of y'all are longing for a more civil society to the point of accepting that murder is a consequence of incivility. We live in an open society where we often offend each other for all sorts of reasons not a society where we should be afraid that what we say or do, short of violence, might end up with us getting shot.

An armed society isn't a polite society. It is a fearful society.

 

I think this works too.

 

Not quite. If you fully believe that there is always a high potential of being shot that is more than just being cautious that is living in fear. Violent crime nationwide has been dropping for decades now so there shouldn't be a reason for people to expect that they might get shot. As bad as this situation was it is still a very rare occurrence but that is one reason why I find it so disturbing that people are arguing that this should be an expected consequence of being a jerk.

 

I'm just going to add to my post above by saying when I say "justify" I am not saying that most people here think that Reeves should go free, support or agree with his action. I am saying that many are arguing for his rationale for why he did it.

I will point out though that these type of arguments are exactly the type of arguments that a defense attorney is likely to make to defend Reeves and also that some posters have even stated these could be mitigating circumstances, the difference between Murder versus manslaughter.

 

I'm not refering to me being cautious in carrying a weapon. I am just being prepared. I am refering to others being cautious with who they confront and how far they want to take a confrontation.

I don't believe I have a high potential for being shot, or attacked, but i'm not going to be unprepared if it happens.

For the record, no jerk deserves to be shot just for being a jerk.

 

if only Reeves had a bag of popcorn.... it would have been a popcorn party...

 

That would have been the appropriate level of response.

 

The dude was TEXTING not talking on the phone so how does that make him the jerk.

 

The light is very very distracting.

 

So are gunshots.

 

I haven't advocated anything that needs enforcing. People shouldn't need a gun in a movie theater. If nobody brings one, nobody will get shot.

I'm not saying it has to be a law.

 

I totally respect your right for CHL. I was just adding on to someone who mentioned something about not texting, or being rude or whatever would have saved his life. I added that so would not having any guns in a movie theater, and it kept getting kicked a little more on it's own path.

 

And so it goes. I believe in getting to the root of the problem, which was the texting. Somewhere in the situation, someone needed to pull off the throttle and let things go. Neither one did and now one is dead and the other is going to jail. Both made mistakes in how they handled the situation. The shooter is definitely in the wrong. Being an jerk isn't a crime, but killing someone is.

 

Whenever my family and I go out we wear kevlar body armor and military issue helmets -- just in case.

Hope for the best, but be prepared for the worst.