zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
If an armed US Marine/Army, etc was in there you may have a point. Dude was lobbing tear gas into the crown in a dark theater, lots of screaming people around. That's not a quite trigger pull at a range.
No discussion on the theater shooting?
- Thread starter zitothebrave
- Start date
If an armed US Marine/Army, etc was in there you may have a point. Dude was lobbing tear gas into the crown in a dark theater, lots of screaming people around. That's not a quite trigger pull at a range.
50PoundHead
Hessmania Forever
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 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.
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
He had nothing to do with a scenario where someone had to use deadly force, he's innocent. If he brandished a knife or was beating him within an inch of his life you have a point. Being snark, yelling,a dn throwing popcorn doesn't make him not innocent. Even being a dick and even if we fought I wouldn't use deadly force on him. He wasn't the aggressor, he was a dick, the aggressor was the person who escalated from a verbal altercation with a minor assault to a gun fight. That's the aggressor. Not the dick.
No, he was the aggressor because he threw a bag of popcorn at somebody. Like it or not, that's assault. You are entitled to defend yourself at that point. Guy that got shot was a dumb ass, not saying he deserved to die. It's sad that his daughter will grow up without her father because he couldn't keep his manhood in check.
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
Throwing popcorn is at best simple assault. Most cops would probably not even bother bringing someone in on it. You are not entitled to use deadly force.
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.
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.
Throwing popcorn was the trigger event, but the guy was being held back by his wife which seems to demonstrate to me a continued escalation of aggression. Combine that with being in a dark theater and not being able to fully analyze the threat. The shooter's response was certainly reactionary but far from murderous.
Don't start physical **** with somebody unless you are prepared to reap the consequences, legal or not.
No, but it could have scared him away or incapacitated him (which would have perhaps prevented him from killing 12 people wholly unimpeded).
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
No him texting was the trigger event. From CNN
"Charles Cummings and his adult son were two seats away. Cummings said that when Reeves returned to the theater, there was no manager with him.
"He came back very irritated," Cummings recalled."
And then
"Voices were raised. Oulson threw a bag of popcorn at Reeves, police said. Then, the former police officer took out a .380 semi-automatic handgun and shot Oulson."
And
"Voices were raised. Oulson threw a bag of popcorn at Reeves, police said. Then, the former police officer took out a .380 semi-automatic handgun and shot Oulson."
I dunno about you man, but I don't consider throwing popcorn to starting "physical ****" that's like saying someoen poured a beer on their head so it's cool to shoot them.
I have not read a report that he was being held back by his wife, but who knows. As far as the setting, you're right, but it's not an excuse for deadly force. Unless he was able to see a brandished weapon, there's no reason for deadly force.
Deadly force is the key, using deadly force as any cop would tell you is a last resort. For this guy it was his first resort, not a good thing.
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
Or he could have entered a state of panic and fired even more rounds into the audience and killed more people. You're again just aimlessly speculating. No one provoked him maybe that kept his kill count down. No one knows what would happen, we do know that someone entered a theater armed and killed someone that wouldn't have happened if he didn't bring that pistol.
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
That's almost as speculative as someone armed could have saved lives in Aurora. Speculation when it comes to events like this brings nothing to the table.
Dalyn
Fredi Gonzalez Supporter
So is saying he wouldn't have killed anyone if he didn't have the pistol. So is saying cops wouldn't bring him in for throwing popcorn. etc etc Lots of speculation going on. That's part of any discussion like this.
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).
It was not just a pistol, though. It was a host of weapons; smoke grenades, explosives, and a full compliment of tactical gear. His apartment was full of homemade grenades and gasoline. This guy wanted to kill and he was going to do it by any means necessary.
It may be speculation, but it's earnest and grounded in reality. Guns are just as much deterrents as they are threats, and unless all the guns are gone (an improbable pipe dream), you always want to have balance.
jpx7
Very Flirtatious, but Doubts What Love Is.
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 it for formulating "rules of thumb," and as anything beyond a fun little discursive hypothetical, is pretty rich.
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
Sorry should have made it clear, the someone in my example is the topic of the thread, not the aurora shooter.
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.