Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Hopefully this old gakbag gets the rest of his life in prison and this story gets around so all the other wee penis-compensators out there think twice before pulling out their piece.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
CptJake wrote: It seems a bit lazy to believe he escalated and shot the guy for throwing popcorn.
Heck, at a minimum the 'throwing popcorn' actually was the texter standing up to face the shooter, reaching into the shooter's lap grabbing his popcorn then reaching back towards the shooters face to throw the popcorn into it. Once you start coming over the seat and grabbing/throwing into someones face that person very well could become worried about being physically harmed.
To the point of blowing him away however, feth no. You'll get hit with some popcorn, boo-hoo.
And, honestly, if he hits you, still not justification to kill him, IMO. Run away and call the cops. The only time a gun is the correct response is when they are actively trying to kill you.
There was no justification for this whatsoever, and this fether should be in jail for a long time, and never allowed to own a gun ever again.
If a guy comes over his seat to beat you senseless, and you are sitting in a movie theater seat, it is a bit difficult to 'run away and call the cops'. And frankly, the whole point of Stand Your Ground laws is you have NO obligation to run away. Period. If he hits you you have no obligation to assume he will only hit you once or twice and does not intend to really hurt you.
The question the judge/jury are looking at is did the shooter have a legitimate fear of being beaten? That is it. If he did, the law should protect him. If not, he will go to trial for murder. You're dislike of guns and belief folks should not have the right to defend themselves have no bearing on the legal issue being looked at.
Your defense of this is actually delegitimizing the rationale for a conceal and carry. I get you want to protect the right but some standard has to be in place beyond what the shooter "felt" in the moment. Which let us honestly admit, can be retroactively applied by the shooter and you seemingly will just assume they told the truth.
The man wasn't going to get beaten to death in a movie theater we can throw that arguement right out.
There is a standard and the statutes make it very clear that there has to be a reasonable fear of imminent harm. What constitutes "reasonable"? That's what we have DA's prosecutorial discretion and jury trials to determine. The other thread in here about the guy who shot a kid over playing the car stereo too loud shows that when the reasonable standard isn't met the shooter gets a prison sentence.
That is an utterly subjective concept. It is subject to the whims of the jury, the person pulling the trigger and the relative skill of the prosecution and defense. There is no actual standard, just a vague concept of when you can use deadly force and how well you can argue that point.
CptJake wrote: It seems a bit lazy to believe he escalated and shot the guy for throwing popcorn.
Heck, at a minimum the 'throwing popcorn' actually was the texter standing up to face the shooter, reaching into the shooter's lap grabbing his popcorn then reaching back towards the shooters face to throw the popcorn into it. Once you start coming over the seat and grabbing/throwing into someones face that person very well could become worried about being physically harmed.
To the point of blowing him away however, feth no. You'll get hit with some popcorn, boo-hoo.
And, honestly, if he hits you, still not justification to kill him, IMO. Run away and call the cops. The only time a gun is the correct response is when they are actively trying to kill you.
There was no justification for this whatsoever, and this fether should be in jail for a long time, and never allowed to own a gun ever again.
If a guy comes over his seat to beat you senseless, and you are sitting in a movie theater seat, it is a bit difficult to 'run away and call the cops'. And frankly, the whole point of Stand Your Ground laws is you have NO obligation to run away. Period. If he hits you you have no obligation to assume he will only hit you once or twice and does not intend to really hurt you.
The question the judge/jury are looking at is did the shooter have a legitimate fear of being beaten? That is it. If he did, the law should protect him. If not, he will go to trial for murder. You're dislike of guns and belief folks should not have the right to defend themselves have no bearing on the legal issue being looked at.
Your defense of this is actually delegitimizing the rationale for a conceal and carry. I get you want to protect the right but some standard has to be in place beyond what the shooter "felt" in the moment. Which let us honestly admit, can be retroactively applied by the shooter and you seemingly will just assume they told the truth.
The man wasn't going to get beaten to death in a movie theater we can throw that arguement right out.
There is a standard and the statutes make it very clear that there has to be a reasonable fear of imminent harm. What constitutes "reasonable"? That's what we have DA's prosecutorial discretion and jury trials to determine. The other thread in here about the guy who shot a kid over playing the car stereo too loud shows that when the reasonable standard isn't met the shooter gets a prison sentence.
That is an utterly subjective concept. It is subject to the whims of the jury, the person pulling the trigger and the relative skill of the prosecution and defense. There is no actual standard, just a vague concept of when you can use deadly force and how well you can argue that point.
I like how some people are trying to pass this off as a formality of law.
A guy was fething shot and killed, over a fething bit of popcorn and harsh language. Where in all of the insanity does one step back and go "OK, maybe that was a bit extreme" but nope. Most are trying to say "stand your ground" is a solid and infallible law that totally won't cater to wannabe tough guys or chip on your shoulder types.
America, this is why the rest of the world sometimes see your gun laws and views on self defense no better than the fething wild west. Holy gak.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Slip, I think that's more of a police officer attitude rather than a gun owner attitude. Most officers aren't like that (I believe), but when you meet one who is, it really makes an impression.
Let's include the wanna be cops and we'll call it a deal.
Obligatory:
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/24 22:53:13
If only the camera had been panned a couple degrees to the right there would have been no question one way or the other. Also, what kind of phone did the guy throw at the old man? Some of those things are pretty big and heavy.
As it currently stands it does look like the old man is going away for unnecessary use of deadly force.
I would like to share a somewhat similar thing that happened in college. On one Tuesday night I was walking back home from a 40k game hosted by the local store being held at the college Union building. Things went pretty late that night. The walking path back to my dorm twisted back and around a slightly wooded area.
A few minutes after I reached my dorm room campus cops were knocking at my door asking my why I was stalking a young woman. It turns out that during my walk I had accidentally scared another student. She was 4'11" tall, probably 85 pounds. I was 6'5" tall, 320 pounds, wearing leather, walking unusually fast (as I tend to do), muttering to myself (about how I lost my game), and had a shiny object on my belt (tape measure) that I kept holding onto.
What I thought was a jogger, and barely noticed, was a girl afraid for her safety. It was an honest mistake, and the girl later apologized, but from her point of view I can see how I looked like a credible threat. I was 4 times her size, it was dark, and she was alone. Had I attacked her her options would have been severely limited.
I shared this to point out that to some people what constitutes a "viable" threat is significantly different to what others perceive. He was a frail old man. Getting into a fist fight could have very well been either fatal or crippling.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/24 23:48:03
It's pretty clear from the video that he pulled the trigger long before there was any danger of a fist fight.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
CptJake wrote: It seems a bit lazy to believe he escalated and shot the guy for throwing popcorn.
Heck, at a minimum the 'throwing popcorn' actually was the texter standing up to face the shooter, reaching into the shooter's lap grabbing his popcorn then reaching back towards the shooters face to throw the popcorn into it. Once you start coming over the seat and grabbing/throwing into someones face that person very well could become worried about being physically harmed.
To the point of blowing him away however, feth no. You'll get hit with some popcorn, boo-hoo.
And, honestly, if he hits you, still not justification to kill him, IMO. Run away and call the cops. The only time a gun is the correct response is when they are actively trying to kill you.
There was no justification for this whatsoever, and this fether should be in jail for a long time, and never allowed to own a gun ever again.
If a guy comes over his seat to beat you senseless, and you are sitting in a movie theater seat, it is a bit difficult to 'run away and call the cops'. And frankly, the whole point of Stand Your Ground laws is you have NO obligation to run away. Period. If he hits you you have no obligation to assume he will only hit you once or twice and does not intend to really hurt you.
The question the judge/jury are looking at is did the shooter have a legitimate fear of being beaten? That is it. If he did, the law should protect him. If not, he will go to trial for murder. You're dislike of guns and belief folks should not have the right to defend themselves have no bearing on the legal issue being looked at.
Your defense of this is actually delegitimizing the rationale for a conceal and carry. I get you want to protect the right but some standard has to be in place beyond what the shooter "felt" in the moment. Which let us honestly admit, can be retroactively applied by the shooter and you seemingly will just assume they told the truth.
The man wasn't going to get beaten to death in a movie theater we can throw that arguement right out.
There is a standard and the statutes make it very clear that there has to be a reasonable fear of imminent harm. What constitutes "reasonable"? That's what we have DA's prosecutorial discretion and jury trials to determine. The other thread in here about the guy who shot a kid over playing the car stereo too loud shows that when the reasonable standard isn't met the shooter gets a prison sentence.
That is an utterly subjective concept. It is subject to the whims of the jury, the person pulling the trigger and the relative skill of the prosecution and defense. There is no actual standard, just a vague concept of when you can use deadly force and how well you can argue that point.
Our standards for self defense haven't changed, they predate stand your ground laws and Florida being a shall issue state. You've always been able to defend yourself from imminent harm prior to any harm being done to you. Use of lethal force has always needed to be evaluated in the context of the specific situation to determine if it was justifiable. That's why we have a criminal justice system to evaluate people's actions and motivations and determine if laws were broken. Do you have a better suggestion for how we should evaluate the justification of lethal force other than determining if it was reasonable for the person employing lethal force had a legitimate imminent threat of bodily harm?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/25 00:56:16
CptJake wrote:You're dislike of guns and belief folks should not have the right to defend themselves have no bearing on the legal issue being looked at.
This is a bit of a strawman. I own 3 rifles, a shotgun, and 3 pistols, have a concealed carry permit, and think that the shooter is a murderer who should spend the rest of his life in prison.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Your 'Stand Your Ground' law is fething ridiculous.
It's a widely misunderstood law, but SYG laws are not, in fact ridiculous. Here are some (simplified) concepts you may not be aware of:
In the US, you can use deadly force if you reasonably believe yourself or someone else are in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury. All of these concepts vary by state, some being looser and some being tighter, but this is the most common phrasing.
Then, there are 3 different scenarios governing use of force across the US.
Duty to retreat: In some states, you are required to attempt to escape. If a home invader breaks into your house, you must attempt to flee your home, and can only use deadly force if you cannot escape. If a guy breaks in and chases you with a knife, in your house, and you shoot him without trying to escape the house, you can be prosecuted.
Castle doctrine: In other states, you have a duty to retreat, but it doesn't apply to your home - you do not have to attempt to flee your home before employing deadly force, again using the same reasonable/imminent criteria. Castle doctrine states commonly extend to your vehicle as well when you're in it. If a guy breaks into your house you have a strong defense against prosecution, if you're being carjacked you can defend yourself, if you see someone stealing your car and you shoot them - you're gonna go to jail. Make sense?
Stand your ground: In SYG states, you do not have a duty to retreat from any place you legally have the right to be. It's not a license to kill, you can't go into your neighbors house and decide to shoot him because "you felt scared". It simply means that if you reasonably believe yourself or someone else are in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury, you don't have to attempt to flee. To be honest I think this is the most reasonable version of a self-defense law.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/02/25 03:38:19
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
CptJake wrote: It seems a bit lazy to believe he escalated and shot the guy for throwing popcorn.
Heck, at a minimum the 'throwing popcorn' actually was the texter standing up to face the shooter, reaching into the shooter's lap grabbing his popcorn then reaching back towards the shooters face to throw the popcorn into it. Once you start coming over the seat and grabbing/throwing into someones face that person very well could become worried about being physically harmed.
To the point of blowing him away however, feth no. You'll get hit with some popcorn, boo-hoo.
And, honestly, if he hits you, still not justification to kill him, IMO. Run away and call the cops. The only time a gun is the correct response is when they are actively trying to kill you.
There was no justification for this whatsoever, and this fether should be in jail for a long time, and never allowed to own a gun ever again.
If a guy comes over his seat to beat you senseless, and you are sitting in a movie theater seat, it is a bit difficult to 'run away and call the cops'. And frankly, the whole point of Stand Your Ground laws is you have NO obligation to run away. Period. If he hits you you have no obligation to assume he will only hit you once or twice and does not intend to really hurt you.
The question the judge/jury are looking at is did the shooter have a legitimate fear of being beaten? That is it. If he did, the law should protect him. If not, he will go to trial for murder. You're dislike of guns and belief folks should not have the right to defend themselves have no bearing on the legal issue being looked at.
Your defense of this is actually delegitimizing the rationale for a conceal and carry. I get you want to protect the right but some standard has to be in place beyond what the shooter "felt" in the moment. Which let us honestly admit, can be retroactively applied by the shooter and you seemingly will just assume they told the truth.
The man wasn't going to get beaten to death in a movie theater we can throw that arguement right out.
There is a standard and the statutes make it very clear that there has to be a reasonable fear of imminent harm. What constitutes "reasonable"? That's what we have DA's prosecutorial discretion and jury trials to determine. The other thread in here about the guy who shot a kid over playing the car stereo too loud shows that when the reasonable standard isn't met the shooter gets a prison sentence.
That is an utterly subjective concept. It is subject to the whims of the jury, the person pulling the trigger and the relative skill of the prosecution and defense. There is no actual standard, just a vague concept of when you can use deadly force and how well you can argue that point.
Our standards for self defense haven't changed, they predate stand your ground laws and Florida being a shall issue state. You've always been able to defend yourself from imminent harm prior to any harm being done to you. Use of lethal force has always needed to be evaluated in the context of the specific situation to determine if it was justifiable. That's why we have a criminal justice system to evaluate people's actions and motivations and determine if laws were broken. Do you have a better suggestion for how we should evaluate the justification of lethal force other than determining if it was reasonable for the person employing lethal force had a legitimate imminent threat of bodily harm?
One thing that we don't talk about is that it gives people the wrong mindset. It place emphasis on if you feel relative danger to self, you may take measures to lethally protect yourself as quickly as possible. However, the wrongfulness is only considered after the fact, so after somebody has been murdered that you argue justifiability. In other words SYG laws protect the shooter only. They don't protect anybody else. They don't protect somebody that may not even be the original instigator from being shot because one side felt a little more threaten than the other side.
Say I got in a shouting match with a guy in a bar parking lot. Say other guy strikes me and realizes he will lose the fight. So when I motion to maybe retaliate, I get shot because the other guy now fears for his life. The shooter can now be charged with murder, yes but that isn't a guarantee. SYG laws will give the shooter the benefit of the doubt and the justification, I will just be dead.
This is a flaw in the concept as far as I'm concerned. The only way SYG could be improved is if the shooter must prove innocence rather than be proven guilty, but our law doesn't work that way so to me the law doesn't function very well.
CptJake wrote: It seems a bit lazy to believe he escalated and shot the guy for throwing popcorn.
Heck, at a minimum the 'throwing popcorn' actually was the texter standing up to face the shooter, reaching into the shooter's lap grabbing his popcorn then reaching back towards the shooters face to throw the popcorn into it. Once you start coming over the seat and grabbing/throwing into someones face that person very well could become worried about being physically harmed.
To the point of blowing him away however, feth no. You'll get hit with some popcorn, boo-hoo.
And, honestly, if he hits you, still not justification to kill him, IMO. Run away and call the cops. The only time a gun is the correct response is when they are actively trying to kill you.
There was no justification for this whatsoever, and this fether should be in jail for a long time, and never allowed to own a gun ever again.
If a guy comes over his seat to beat you senseless, and you are sitting in a movie theater seat, it is a bit difficult to 'run away and call the cops'. And frankly, the whole point of Stand Your Ground laws is you have NO obligation to run away. Period. If he hits you you have no obligation to assume he will only hit you once or twice and does not intend to really hurt you.
The question the judge/jury are looking at is did the shooter have a legitimate fear of being beaten? That is it. If he did, the law should protect him. If not, he will go to trial for murder. You're dislike of guns and belief folks should not have the right to defend themselves have no bearing on the legal issue being looked at.
Your defense of this is actually delegitimizing the rationale for a conceal and carry. I get you want to protect the right but some standard has to be in place beyond what the shooter "felt" in the moment. Which let us honestly admit, can be retroactively applied by the shooter and you seemingly will just assume they told the truth.
The man wasn't going to get beaten to death in a movie theater we can throw that arguement right out.
There is a standard and the statutes make it very clear that there has to be a reasonable fear of imminent harm. What constitutes "reasonable"? That's what we have DA's prosecutorial discretion and jury trials to determine. The other thread in here about the guy who shot a kid over playing the car stereo too loud shows that when the reasonable standard isn't met the shooter gets a prison sentence.
That is an utterly subjective concept. It is subject to the whims of the jury, the person pulling the trigger and the relative skill of the prosecution and defense. There is no actual standard, just a vague concept of when you can use deadly force and how well you can argue that point.
Our standards for self defense haven't changed, they predate stand your ground laws and Florida being a shall issue state. You've always been able to defend yourself from imminent harm prior to any harm being done to you. Use of lethal force has always needed to be evaluated in the context of the specific situation to determine if it was justifiable. That's why we have a criminal justice system to evaluate people's actions and motivations and determine if laws were broken. Do you have a better suggestion for how we should evaluate the justification of lethal force other than determining if it was reasonable for the person employing lethal force had a legitimate imminent threat of bodily harm?
One thing that we don't talk about is that it gives people the wrong mindset. It place emphasis on if you feel relative danger to self, you may take measures to lethally protect yourself as quickly as possible. However, the wrongfulness is only considered after the fact, so after somebody has been murdered that you argue justifiability. In other words SYG laws protect the shooter only. They don't protect anybody else. They don't protect somebody that may not even be the original instigator from being shot because one side felt a little more threaten than the other side.
Say I got in a shouting match with a guy in a bar parking lot. Say other guy strikes me and realizes he will lose the fight. So when I motion to maybe retaliate, I get shot because the other guy now fears for his life. The shooter can now be charged with murder, yes but that isn't a guarantee. SYG laws will give the shooter the benefit of the doubt and the justification, I will just be dead.
This is a flaw in the concept as far as I'm concerned. The only way SYG could be improved is if the shooter must prove innocence rather than be proven guilty, but our law doesn't work that way so to me the law doesn't function very well.
No SYG doesn't offer you any legal protection if you instigate an altercation with somebody. SYG removes a legal obligation to flee that's it and it is dependent on the invoker being the victim of a crime. If I am attacked I don't have to flee but I don't have to use force of any kind either if I choose to use force then the justification of the amount of force I use is judged on its own merits independent of the SYG law. Not running away doesn't mean I can use deadly force and it's not legal to pick a fight with somebody and then resort to deadly force if it escalates. The laws are designed to protect the person that is being victimized. I'm not responsible for avoiding a confrontation somebody else chooses to initiate with me. I'm allowed to defend myself from an imminent threat of bodily harm that my attacker chose to create. The laws don't protect the aggressor because the laws only apply to the defender under circumstances that put the aggressor in the wrong.
This whole "he is an old man" argument is ridiculous. I work in a nursing home. I once watched an ex boxer punch a retired navy man/ex merchant marine so hard I thought he broke his jaw. I was pretty sure mine would have been. The guy turned around, spit, then gave it right back to him. You guys act like you hit a certain age and your bones turn to glass. This simply is not true and it is a ridiculous argument to make.
Freddy Kruger wrote: I like how some people are trying to pass this off as a formality of law.
A guy was fething shot and killed, over a fething bit of popcorn and harsh language. Where in all of the insanity does one step back and go "OK, maybe that was a bit extreme" but nope. Most are trying to say "stand your ground" is a solid and infallible law that totally won't cater to wannabe tough guys or chip on your shoulder types.
America, this is why the rest of the world sometimes see your gun laws and views on self defense no better than the fething wild west. Holy gak.
I like how you seem to have read the wrong thread. Now calm the feth down and reread the posts.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
I can't really blame people for not understanding how SYG laws actually work. The reporting on them is atrocious, even by our gakky media standards, and they are often intentionally misrepresented by opposing legislators.
I suspect that if you asked people "do you feel that if yourself or someone else is in imminent mortal danger, you are required to try to run away, or you could be prosecuted" a comfortable majority (at least in the US) would find that to be a unreasonable expectation. Yet that's rarely how these laws are actually characterized.
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
Ouze wrote: I can't really blame people for not understanding how SYG laws actually work. The reporting on them is atrocious, even by our gakky media standards, and they are often intentionally misrepresented by opposing legislators.
I suspect that if you asked people "do you feel that if yourself or someone else is in imminent mortal danger, you are required to try to run away, or you could be prosecuted" a comfortable majority (at least in the US) would find that to be a unreasonable expectation. Yet that's rarely how these laws are actually characterized.
The problem I see with what I'm reading about SYG laws is they put power in to the hands of the defender to make a snap judgement. That judgement might be wrong and they might go to jail for it, but I think criticism is levelled at the idea SYG encourages that in the first place.
This guy might go to jail because he made the wrong judgement, but it doesn't bring back the person he killed so the question comes up why was he the one making the judgement in the first place?
SYG sounds fine when everyone has a reasonable ability to judge the danger of a situation. But people make mistakes and some people might be extra jumpy or maybe watched too much crime drama on HBO or maybe have early stage dementia and at that point giving people a gun and telling them they're allowed to stand their ground if they're in "imminent danger" has made everyone else in the community much less safe. It's not really a comforting thought that after you've been shot, killed and buried over a misunderstanding that maybe 3 years later a judge will decide the person was in the wrong and put them in jail.
All that said I tend to be very middle of the road on the whole gun ownership and gun rights debates. I think it's always going to be a balancing act of individuals' rights vs what the community as a whole wants.
Have you guys even been to a movie theatre lately? With the prices they charge for concession snacks throwing a man's popcorn in his face should be a shootable offense.
Obviously he was badly shaken and traumatized from the armed robbery of buying that popcorn, only to see it thrown in his face before the movie had even started. What sort of sane man wouldn't have just reason to shoot up the place?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/25 04:55:38
AllSeeingSkink wrote: SYG sounds fine when everyone has a reasonable ability to judge the danger of a situation. But people make mistakes and some people might be extra jumpy or maybe watched too much crime drama on HBO or maybe have early stage dementia and at that point giving people a gun and telling them they're allowed to stand their ground if they're in "imminent danger" has made everyone else in the community much less safe. It's not really a comforting thought that after you've been shot, killed and buried over a misunderstanding that maybe 3 years later a judge will decide the person was in the wrong and put them in jail
I'd like to say that I would have no real problem with making it tougher to get a carry permit - at least in my state, it was incredibly easy. I'm a pretty gakky second amendment advocate - I don't have a problem with people carrying, obviously, but I'd also like to know those people were required to take at least some sort of classes on escalation of force, de-escalation, and ffs, maybe show some basic proficiency once in a while.
The issue, though, is that I also don't think that would significantly impact levels of violent crime. The vast majority of homicides in this country are not committed by lawful permit holders. I'm not buying into the fallacy of "as long as something is worse anywhere else, we can't solve any problem" but in a world with limited political will to effect legislation, I can't see it as a useful way forward. After all, this was a retired police officer, a captain who trained SWAT teams - clearly, he would have passed any sort of basic tests you'd hope for to weed out people who psychologically shouldn't have guns, anyway.
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
stanman wrote: Have you guys even been to a movie theatre lately? With the prices they charge for concession snacks throwing a man's popcorn in his face should be a shootable offense.
Obviously he was badly shaken and traumatized from the armed robbery of buying that popcorn, only to see it thrown in his face before the movie had even started. What sort of sane man wouldn't have just reason to shoot up the place?
Dreadwinter wrote: This whole "he is an old man" argument is ridiculous. I work in a nursing home. I once watched an ex boxer punch a retired navy man/ex merchant marine so hard I thought he broke his jaw. I was pretty sure mine would have been. The guy turned around, spit, then gave it right back to him. You guys act like you hit a certain age and your bones turn to glass. This simply is not true and it is a ridiculous argument to make.
I can list a number of times people in their 70's have broken bones just moving wrong. As a worker in a nursing home, I would imagine you are well familiar with this as well as people's spines and joints giving out.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/25 06:00:28
Oh I understand how SYG laws work. It is flawed though, everyone believes they are reasonable and it's only for a judge or a jury to say otherwise. Experts and lawyers can add testimony or legal arguments and the shooter can offer his account but they don't decide, yet they're told they do in the moment. It all ties into this alternative facts the alt right pushes. The crime rate is the lowest it's ever been but it *feels* like it's bad so it's okay to act like it is. Your life may not be in danger but it *feels* like it is, so it's okay to put others in danger,
On reflection, and re-reading the posts, the newspaper articles and the evidence we have, the shooter has to go to jail for a long long time.
It's crystal clear that the shooter escalated the situation, and as a former policeman of many years, a reasonable person would ask why he didn't try to de-escalate the situation by drawing on his former training or letting cinema management sort it out or even phoning 911.
Yes, he's probably been retired a number of years, but I personally wouldn't expect to see a former policeman 'panicked' because popcorn was thrown at him. He was probably involved in worse than that in his career.
This situation was entirely avoidable, unnecessary, and somebody is dead because of it.
I hope the state of Florida throws the book at him.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Freddy Kruger wrote: I like how some people are trying to pass this off as a formality of law.
A guy was fething shot and killed, over a fething bit of popcorn and harsh language. Where in all of the insanity does one step back and go "OK, maybe that was a bit extreme" but nope. Most are trying to say "stand your ground" is a solid and infallible law that totally won't cater to wannabe tough guys or chip on your shoulder types.
America, this is why the rest of the world sometimes see your gun laws and views on self defense no better than the fething wild west. Holy gak.
"Most"?
Your teachers failed you, particularly your Math and English Teachers.
Most people in this thread have condemned the old man for being a dick and ignored SYG. Only a couple of people bothered to defend SYG, as it is an unnecessary law. Either a shot is justifiable as self defense, or it isn't.
The potential danger of SYG is that it may encourage the escalation of violence by validating people's possible desire not to back down in a tense situation.
Freddy Kruger wrote: I like how some people are trying to pass this off as a formality of law.
A guy was fething shot and killed, over a fething bit of popcorn and harsh language. Where in all of the insanity does one step back and go "OK, maybe that was a bit extreme" but nope. Most are trying to say "stand your ground" is a solid and infallible law that totally won't cater to wannabe tough guys or chip on your shoulder types.
America, this is why the rest of the world sometimes see your gun laws and views on self defense no better than the fething wild west. Holy gak.
"Most"?
Your teachers failed you, particularly your Math and English Teachers.
Most people in this thread have condemned the old man for being a dick and ignored SYG. Only a couple of people bothered to defend SYG, as it is an unnecessary law. Either a shot is justifiable as self defense, or it isn't.
Indeed, I said "most" in error, as a better word would have been either "few" or "a couple". Let my emotions cloud my posting judgment for that post. Besides, I'm just glad that many are calling the old guy out, and the silliness of the SYG law.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: SYG sounds fine when everyone has a reasonable ability to judge the danger of a situation. But people make mistakes and some people might be extra jumpy or maybe watched too much crime drama on HBO or maybe have early stage dementia and at that point giving people a gun and telling them they're allowed to stand their ground if they're in "imminent danger" has made everyone else in the community much less safe. It's not really a comforting thought that after you've been shot, killed and buried over a misunderstanding that maybe 3 years later a judge will decide the person was in the wrong and put them in jail
I'd like to say that I would have no real problem with making it tougher to get a carry permit - at least in my state, it was incredibly easy. I'm a pretty gakky second amendment advocate - I don't have a problem with people carrying, obviously, but I'd also like to know those people were required to take at least some sort of classes on escalation of force, de-escalation, and ffs, maybe show some basic proficiency once in a while.
The issue, though, is that I also don't think that would significantly impact levels of violent crime. The vast majority of homicides in this country are not committed by lawful permit holders. I'm not buying into the fallacy of "as long as something is worse anywhere else, we can't solve any problem" but in a world with limited political will to effect legislation, I can't see it as a useful way forward. After all, this was a retired police officer, a captain who trained SWAT teams - clearly, he would have passed any sort of basic tests you'd hope for to weed out people who psychologically shouldn't have guns, anyway.
Well he is in his 70's, I don't want to be presumptuous but a lot of people start losing it around that age. If this story is true...
CptJake wrote: It seems a bit lazy to believe he escalated and shot the guy for throwing popcorn.
Heck, at a minimum the 'throwing popcorn' actually was the texter standing up to face the shooter, reaching into the shooter's lap grabbing his popcorn then reaching back towards the shooters face to throw the popcorn into it. Once you start coming over the seat and grabbing/throwing into someones face that person very well could become worried about being physically harmed.
To the point of blowing him away however, feth no. You'll get hit with some popcorn, boo-hoo.
And, honestly, if he hits you, still not justification to kill him, IMO. Run away and call the cops. The only time a gun is the correct response is when they are actively trying to kill you.
There was no justification for this whatsoever, and this fether should be in jail for a long time, and never allowed to own a gun ever again.
If a guy comes over his seat to beat you senseless, and you are sitting in a movie theater seat, it is a bit difficult to 'run away and call the cops'. And frankly, the whole point of Stand Your Ground laws is you have NO obligation to run away. Period. If he hits you you have no obligation to assume he will only hit you once or twice and does not intend to really hurt you.
The question the judge/jury are looking at is did the shooter have a legitimate fear of being beaten? That is it. If he did, the law should protect him. If not, he will go to trial for murder. You're dislike of guns and belief folks should not have the right to defend themselves have no bearing on the legal issue being looked at.
Your defense of this is actually delegitimizing the rationale for a conceal and carry. I get you want to protect the right but some standard has to be in place beyond what the shooter "felt" in the moment. Which let us honestly admit, can be retroactively applied by the shooter and you seemingly will just assume they told the truth.
The man wasn't going to get beaten to death in a movie theater we can throw that arguement right out.
There is a standard and the statutes make it very clear that there has to be a reasonable fear of imminent harm. What constitutes "reasonable"? That's what we have DA's prosecutorial discretion and jury trials to determine. The other thread in here about the guy who shot a kid over playing the car stereo too loud shows that when the reasonable standard isn't met the shooter gets a prison sentence.
That is an utterly subjective concept. It is subject to the whims of the jury, the person pulling the trigger and the relative skill of the prosecution and defense. There is no actual standard, just a vague concept of when you can use deadly force and how well you can argue that point.
Our standards for self defense haven't changed, they predate stand your ground laws and Florida being a shall issue state. You've always been able to defend yourself from imminent harm prior to any harm being done to you. Use of lethal force has always needed to be evaluated in the context of the specific situation to determine if it was justifiable. That's why we have a criminal justice system to evaluate people's actions and motivations and determine if laws were broken. Do you have a better suggestion for how we should evaluate the justification of lethal force other than determining if it was reasonable for the person employing lethal force had a legitimate imminent threat of bodily harm?
One thing that we don't talk about is that it gives people the wrong mindset. It place emphasis on if you feel relative danger to self, you may take measures to lethally protect yourself as quickly as possible. However, the wrongfulness is only considered after the fact, so after somebody has been murdered that you argue justifiability. In other words SYG laws protect the shooter only. They don't protect anybody else. They don't protect somebody that may not even be the original instigator from being shot because one side felt a little more threaten than the other side.
Say I got in a shouting match with a guy in a bar parking lot. Say other guy strikes me and realizes he will lose the fight. So when I motion to maybe retaliate, I get shot because the other guy now fears for his life. The shooter can now be charged with murder, yes but that isn't a guarantee. SYG laws will give the shooter the benefit of the doubt and the justification, I will just be dead.
This is a flaw in the concept as far as I'm concerned. The only way SYG could be improved is if the shooter must prove innocence rather than be proven guilty, but our law doesn't work that way so to me the law doesn't function very well.
No SYG doesn't offer you any legal protection if you instigate an altercation with somebody. SYG removes a legal obligation to flee that's it and it is dependent on the invoker being the victim of a crime. If I am attacked I don't have to flee but I don't have to use force of any kind either if I choose to use force then the justification of the amount of force I use is judged on its own merits independent of the SYG law. Not running away doesn't mean I can use deadly force and it's not legal to pick a fight with somebody and then resort to deadly force if it escalates. The laws are designed to protect the person that is being victimized. I'm not responsible for avoiding a confrontation somebody else chooses to initiate with me. I'm allowed to defend myself from an imminent threat of bodily harm that my attacker chose to create. The laws don't protect the aggressor because the laws only apply to the defender under circumstances that put the aggressor in the wrong.
In this particular case we are discussing, SYG is being used to defend the actions of the instigator. So here already we can see its still fairly subjective and how you view the situation. The old man started it, lost control of the situation and then killed somebody and SYG is envoked to justify him killing somebody.The age of the shooter is being used to reinforce the justification of the shoot, he was the instigator but he is old and can't be as aggressive as the person he started the fight with so he had to shoot.
Furthermore, how many people are actually aware of the full extent of the responsibilities of SYG laws? Do they know the whole thing or do they only "remember" the part where you can use lethal force to protect yourself? Not knowing the full law can lead to these discount Rambos. Once they have done what they have done, somebody then has to prove that they were wrong, which can be difficult. You can see the issues with a barely understood law that authorizes somebody to kill somebody if they "feel" they had to and all we can do later is punish after the fact. Yet, we are still essentially encouraging shoot first and ask questions later mentality.
374th Mechanized 195pts 
5000pts 
6000pts 
3000pts
