No discussion on the theater shooting?

[weso1]

Also, wasn't the Aurora shooter wearing heavy armor as well?

I remember reading he was wearing some heavy stuff.

You or I bringing a pistol with a few rounds, probably would've have saved that guy.

It usually takes about 10-15 shots to knock the armor off and then another 5-10 shots to bring the guy down. At least this is my experience when dealing with enemies that wear heavy armor.

[Hawk]

The mere fact that you invoked that asshat Hobbes virtually invalidates your position as far as I'm concerned. The "state of Nature" is such a laughable fiction--that you employ is for formulating "rules of thumb," and as anything beyond a fun little discursive hypothetical, is pretty rich.

Bellum omnium contra omnes, bitch.

I don't understand why I can't say **** or *** but I can say bitch.

[zitothebrave]

There are a couple of elements that I would hone in on if I were a member of the defense:

- The shooter was 71-years old (the victim 30 years his junior). The trauma of having a bucket of popcorn thrown at a man that age is exponentially greater. It could have damaged his eye, or caused him to go into cardiac arrest. As the theater was dark he probably did not realize immediately that it was popcorn that hit him. He could have thought it was any number of things.

- The shooter was a trained SWAT police officer -- clearly he understands the virtues of deadly force -- so an argument could easily be sustained that he did view himself as being in danger of grievous bodily harm, especially given the inherent flimsiness of Florida's self-defense laws.

- The article says that the victim's wife suffered a gunshot wound to the hand because she was trying to calm her husband down (by reaching her hand across his chest, presumably to hold him back.) Again, we don't see any violence from the shooter until he pulls the trigger, but we have two fairly straightforward instances of outward aggression on the part of the victim before that moment.

As for the beer thing, that's really my entire point. You pour a beer over somebody's head when you are in an argument, what do you expect to happen? You've opened yourself up to any number of things based on the insecurity of the person you assaulted. Nevertheless, you instigated -- and in the state of nature, especially Hobbes', just about anything could happen. Rule of thumb: don't be an unrepentant asshat, or you just might wind up getting shot and killed by a guy who will, in all likelihood, be acquitted (and considered a hero by some).

1. What the hell would hit your face like popcorn that would give you the idea that your life is in danger that you need to use a firearm? As far as trauma and damaged whatnots, that's irrelevant when it comes to use of a firearm.

2. He was trained years ago, doesn't mean he knows what to do now.

3. Trying to calm down and holding back are 2 different. Maybe she was holding her hand on his chest telling him to stop arguing and chill. Not restraining him. You're speculating. We don't see any violence before you're right, but he was verbal and people indicated he came back looking very irritated. And there's one instance of "outward aggression" and that's throwing something. We don't know what either of them was doing body language wise, so you're just speculating.

4. There are various levels of assault that justify self defense. It's up to a lawyer to prove it was excessive or necessary. Throwing popcorn, pouring beer, etc. is not something that justifies getting shot at. An attorney who's not incompetent will have this guy behind bars. He'll need a wonder defense attorney. This isn't Trayvon Martin, this is clear second degree murder.

4.

[Krgrecw]

There are a couple of elements that I would hone in on if I were a member of the defense:

- The shooter was 71-years old (the victim 30 years his junior). The trauma of having a bucket of popcorn thrown at a man that age is exponentially greater. It could have damaged his eye, or caused him to go into cardiac arrest. As the theater was dark he probably did not realize immediately that it was popcorn that hit him. He could have thought it was any number of things.

- The shooter was a trained SWAT police officer -- clearly he understands the virtues of deadly force -- so an argument could easily be sustained that he did view himself as being in danger of grievous bodily harm, especially given the inherent flimsiness of Florida's self-defense laws.

- The article says that the victim's wife suffered a gunshot wound to the hand because she was trying to calm her husband down (by reaching her hand across his chest, presumably to hold him back.) Again, we don't see any violence from the shooter until he pulls the trigger, but we have two fairly straightforward instances of outward aggression on the part of the victim before that moment.

As for the beer thing, that's really my entire point. You pour a beer over somebody's head when you are in an argument, what do you expect to happen? You've opened yourself up to any number of things based on the insecurity of the person you assaulted. Nevertheless, you instigated -- and in the state of nature, especially Hobbes', just about anything could happen. Rule of thumb: don't be an unrepentant asshat, or you just might wind up getting shot and killed by a guy who will, in all likelihood, be acquitted (and considered a hero by some).

Hawk don't forget that the old man left the theatre to look for help but didn't find any theatre employees so he returned than he was bullied by the husband and then the husband poured popcorn on him.


Old man went looking for help. It's Manslaughter at best.

[jpx7]

Bellum omnium contra omnes, bitch.

Needless to say, I reject this fundamentally apolitical view of human "nature," man's nature being inherently political: any apolitical conception of "man" necessarily describes a different animal entirely.

I don't understand why I can't say **** or *** but I can say bitch.

Fearless Leader is a misogynist.

[zitothebrave]

Hawk don't forget that the old man left the theatre to look for help but didn't find any theatre employees so he returned than he was bullied by the husband and then the husband poured popcorn on him.


Old man went looking for help. It's Manslaughter at best.

Woo speculation!!

Maybe he found the manager or whatever and they told them to piss off.

[Hawk]

I'm not for banning guns, but I am for gun reform, mainly my common opinion is that someone has to go through a police type of training to own one and the crimes for using/possessing an unregistered weapon should be stronger. If you're not mentally fit to own a weapon, you shouldn't.

I agree with you here, but it's painful, because I don't fully embrace the idea of a national mental health check/centralized government database in relation to guns. But at the same time I respect the necessity for both if any meaningful strides are to be made to stem the tide of gun violence in our country.

I like the Israeli gun control model a great deal, it's rigid, but it works -- especially in a country that actually needs guns for survival.

[jpx7]

I like the Israeli gun control model a great deal, it's rigid, but it works -- especially in a country that actually needs guns for survival.

Well, "need" is a strong word, considering the circumstances: Israeli citizens wouldn't need guns if their government weren't systematically and violently oppressing the autochthonous population.

[Dalyn]

If only we had a way to regulate cuntrods, the rest would sort itself out.

[Hawk]

1. What the hell would hit your face like popcorn that would give you the idea that your life is in danger that you need to use a firearm? As far as trauma and damaged whatnots, that's irrelevant when it comes to use of a firearm.

A bucket, un-popped kernels, hot butter. This guy was 71-year old and in the dark (with Dolby Digital blaring). It's not irrelevant at all when it comes to determining self-defense vs. murder.

2. He was trained years ago, doesn't mean he knows what to do now.

Nonetheless he has a lifetime background in policing (and not writing tickets, dealing with hostages and high drama situations). He was a Captain, too.

3. Trying to calm down and holding back are 2 different. Maybe she was holding her hand on his chest telling him to stop arguing and chill. Not restraining him. You're speculating. We don't see any violence before you're right, but he was verbal and people indicated he came back looking very irritated. And there's one instance of "outward aggression" and that's throwing something. We don't know what either of them was doing body language wise, so you're just speculating.

I'm basing all of my opinion here on one article so speculation is going to happen -- that being said, my speculation about the wife holding him back makes more sense than her telling him to 'chill' given the way her body would have to be positioned to put her arm across his chest.

4. There are various levels of assault that justify self defense. It's up to a lawyer to prove it was excessive or necessary. Throwing popcorn, pouring beer, etc. is not something that justifies getting shot at. An attorney who's not incompetent will have this guy behind bars. He'll need a wonder defense attorney. This isn't Trayvon Martin, this is clear second degree murder.

I think you forget that a jury will be deciding.

[Hawk]

Well, "need" is a strong word, considering the circumstances: Israeli citizens wouldn't need guns if their government weren't systematically and violently oppressing the autochthonous population.

Nevertheless, their ... justifiable penchant for guns exists (unlike ours).

[The Chosen One]

It usually takes about 10-15 shots to knock the armor off and then another 5-10 shots to bring the guy down. At least this is my experience when dealing with enemies that wear heavy armor.

Lol meant to put "wouldn't". That's why i brought up the Armor thing. Someone with a ccw with a few rounds probably wouldn't have taken down Holmes.

[zitothebrave]

1. Hot butter? what the hell movie theater do you go to? And unpopped kernels? For real? I don't think if Nolan ryan threw a bucket from the wind up that i'd feel any serious pain. Much less fear for my life. Not saying guy isn't a doucher, cause he acted like one, but that doesn't justify self defense with deadly force.

2. That's fine, and who knows what his training did in that situaiton. Maybe he suffers from some form of PTSD and that triggered him? Which if that's the case he shouldn't be armed.

3. Have you ever been in a movie theater? There's not much space, how else would she grab him? Shoudler, check hand, hip, that's about it. We don't know what she did. Because no one knows.

4. A jury will decide, but again, it's second, not a capital offense so only a simple majority is needed and part of being a competent attorney is getting at least half the jury to be in your favor.

[Hawk]

Needless to say, I reject this fundamentally apolitical view of human "nature," man's nature being inherently political: any apolitical conception of "man" necessarily describes a different animal entirely.

I have to admit I'm a little perplexed by your reading of Hobbes.

Who do you subscribe to closest, in terms of political philosophy?

[Hawk]

1. Hot butter? what the hell movie theater do you go to? And unpopped kernels? For real? I don't think if Nolan ryan threw a bucket from the wind up that i'd feel any serious pain. Much less fear for my life. Not saying guy isn't a doucher, cause he acted like one, but that doesn't justify self defense with deadly force.

Yeah, but you are in your 20s (?) ... not 70. Dude, a slick sidewalk is a threat to a 70 year old.

2. That's fine, and who knows what his training did in that situaiton. Maybe he suffers from some form of PTSD and that triggered him? Which if that's the case he shouldn't be armed.

And that is not speculative, how?

3. Have you ever been in a movie theater? There's not much space, how else would she grab him? Shoudler, check hand, hip, that's about it. We don't know what she did. Because no one knows.

The article said she 'grabbed' her husband. On his chest. Where he was shot. It could go either way, but the language implies she was trying to defuse him not the situation.

4. A jury will decide, but again, it's second, not a capital offense so only a simple majority is needed and part of being a competent attorney is getting at least half the jury to be in your favor.

Given the shooter's age, standing in the community, and previous public duty, a majority is going to hard as hell to achieve.

[zitothebrave]

1. You're comparing the risk of falling to something that weighs a couple of ounces being thrown. It's freaking popcorn.

2. I'm speculating, but you're speculating that his training would make him make that decision. We don't know that.

3. Calming one party diffuses a situation. When do you diffuse a situation between 2 people, 1 you know and 1 you don't. I'm assuming since you're a male you've probably been involved in a potential altercation with someone you know and someone you don't. To stop the fight, what do you do? you calm down the person you know because you can, calming down a stranger you aren't familiar and reassuring to them.

4. Have to disagree. That stuff will play better for sentencing than it does for conviction. Only prayer he has in that regard is florida's 10-20-Life law meaning he would go to jail a minimum of 25, that may mean his age may come into play. But he deserves to be in jail the rest of his life. So I'm cool with 25.

[cajunrevenge]

Good thing that ex-cop didnt shoot a black guy, then he would really be in some deep ****.

[Hawk]

1. You're comparing the risk of falling to something that weighs a couple of ounces being thrown. It's freaking popcorn.

2. I'm speculating, but you're speculating that his training would make him make that decision. We don't know that.

3. Calming one party diffuses a situation. When do you diffuse a situation between 2 people, 1 you know and 1 you don't. I'm assuming since you're a male you've probably been involved in a potential altercation with someone you know and someone you don't. To stop the fight, what do you do? you calm down the person you know because you can, calming down a stranger you aren't familiar and reassuring to them.

4. Have to disagree. That stuff will play better for sentencing than it does for conviction. Only prayer he has in that regard is florida's 10-20-Life law meaning he would go to jail a minimum of 25, that may mean his age may come into play. But he deserves to be in jail the rest of his life. So I'm cool with 25.

Let's agree to come back to this when the trial actually starts.

[gilesfan]

Yeah, him and about ten other people most likely.

Again, I have nothing against responsible gun ownership. I think a lot of people on the left break out in hives when guns are brought up and I don't really know why. I think it's actually the aesthetic more than anything else.

Just a little anecdote. Most everyone here knows I'm a lobbyist working primarily with public schools. Last session, in the wake of the Newtown tragedy, there was a raft of anti-gun bills (all but one of which died) floating around the legislature. I was leaving one of the committees I was covering right before the multitude of gun-control opponents/proponents flooded the room. I was gathering up my stuff when the police chief from a small suburb that I do some work with sat down. I asked him what he thought about the proposal to let principals/teachers carry weapons. He didn't know me from Adam, but he gave me one of the best-reasoned responses to the issue I have heard and it stuck with me. Think of life as being a scale of zero-to-sixty with zero being no calm and sixty being danger. Most people are at zero (or close to it) most of the time. Cops are at about 30 when they are on duty and 20 when they are off duty. To expect someone who is not trained (and I mean someone who is simply able to pass a test and carry a permit) to put themselves into a dangerous situation and succeed is an extremely dicey proposition. It would be like going from zero-to-sixty in no time flat. It is difficult enough for cops to go from thirty-to-sixty, but they are trained to detect and react to situations that may turn tense (and sometimes dangerous). To ask someone to go from saying "Hey, the Dark Knight is really cool" to assessing a situation in a dark theater as to where a shooter is and how to put one's self into a position to take down the shooter without recklessly endangering the lives of other movie-goers is a hard sell to me.

I don't think gun owners are necessarily arrogant. But I believe the notion that "if I--or someone else--had only had my--their--gun, things would have been different," as in the "only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is for a good guy to have a gun" is really an arrogant proposition. It simply suspends reality and as a result is wishful thinking.

Unfortunately those without a gun had no chance.

[zitothebrave]

Let's agree to come back to this when the trial actually starts.

Fair point. There still will be issues at trial, but at least giving it time for more witnesses to come out and talk will do the story some good.