weso1
<B>Clique Leader</B>
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.
No discussion on the theater shooting?
- Thread starter zitothebrave
- Start date
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.
Bellum omnium contra omnes, bitch.
I don't understand why I can't say **** or *** but I can say bitch.
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
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.
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
Very Flirtatious, but Doubts What Love Is.
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.
Fearless Leader is a misogynist.
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
Woo speculation!!
Maybe he found the manager or whatever and they told them to piss off.
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
Very Flirtatious, but Doubts What Love Is.
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.
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.
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.
Nevertheless, their ... justifiable penchant for guns exists (unlike ours).
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
Connoisseur of Minors
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.
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.
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?
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.
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
Connoisseur of Minors
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.
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
Well-known member
Good thing that ex-cop didnt shoot a black guy, then he would really be in some deep ****.
Let's agree to come back to this when the trial actually starts.
Unfortunately those without a gun had no chance.
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
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.