In what has turned out to be an awful tragedy, a man and his wife were shot (the man killed) by an ex-cop after an argument from the man apparently texting during the movie previews.
this is just a discrase for police ingeneral, there the individuals after all whom society deems the most responsible to use fire arm, and here we have an officer using a fire arm in the most irresponsible manner imaginable. shamful, in that we expect the best from and for our police both on the job and retired.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Collaborative Pub: Ice Cold Thoughts Always On Tap Twitter- RogueSource.
Decks: "Name one! I probably got it built In one of these boxes."
--------------------------------------------------- Vintage will rise again!Buy a Mox today!
---------------------------------------------------
[I]Some call it dig through time, when really your digging through CRAP!
Merfolk! showing magic players what a shower is since Lorwyn!
Wonder if this ex-cop has a history of prior aggression that wasn't documented. I would think it's rare that someone would just snap like this over texting.
Apparently the attorney for the shooter attempted to use Florida's "Stand your Ground" rationale to deflect the second-degree murder charges. The attorney tried to paint the shooter as the victim for getting hit...with popcorn.
Apparently the attorney for the shooter attempted to use Florida's "Stand your Ground" rationale to deflect the second-degree murder charges. The attorney tried to paint the shooter as the victim for getting hit...with popcorn.
In what has turned out to be an awful tragedy, a man and his wife were shot (the man killed) by an ex-cop after an argument from the man apparently texting during the movie previews.
Such a sad and disproportional response, even with tempers.
I wouldn't be all too surprised if the cop has some issues. I don't whether it's part and parcel of being a policeman, but many retired police end up broken or imbalanced people.
In other crazy news, a 12-year-old kid in NM pulled a shotgun from a musical instrument case and shot two other kids. Thankfully, considering the circumstances, he was stopped by a teacher who wasn't entirely acting out of courage but because it was the only reasonable and rational thing to do.
Seriously, though, why is it always Florida when you hear about stuff like this? Does the American media just like to focus on Florida news?
One Floridian I met had a theory. He said it could be one or a combination of the following factors: 1. Florida experiences a lot of immigration from the US and Cuba, so it is in a constant state of social instability, 2. Related to the first part, a lot of people move to Florida without their families and don't have social support, and 3. Florida doesn't have a really good system for helping the mentally ill.
One Floridian I met had a theory. He said it could be one or a combination of the following factors: 1. Florida experiences a lot of immigration from the US and Cuba, so it is in a constant state of social instability, 2. Related to the first part, a lot of people move to Florida without their families and don't have social support, and 3. Florida doesn't have a really good system for helping the mentally ill.
I have heard about the poor healthcare and mental healthcare support in Florida, but a lot of other states suffer from that problem too.
I did a quick Google search and found two articles on Florida and its weirdness:
Apparently the attorney for the shooter attempted to use Florida's "Stand your Ground" rationale to deflect the second-degree murder charges. The attorney tried to paint the shooter as the victim for getting hit...with popcorn.
It's not a rationale; there is no rationale for murder, and there will never be a rationale for murder.
What it is a provision for the right to use deadly force and a defence for murder if conditions are met.
I am reading more about this crazy shooting, and it seems that it is more horrible than it seems. The deceased and the accused had an exchange of words, then the deceased chucked something - now known to be a bag of popcorn - at the accused. The accused then pulled a gun and then its trigger because he thought it was justified. It wasn't that the gomer was simply violent; indeed, the deceased had an argument with him. Instead, the deceased did aggravate the situation, to which the gomer responded as he did.
Sure, there's probably no one here that would like to argue with anyone else and have something, namely, a bag of popcorn, chucked at them, but how on earth is it reasonable to shoot someone because of it?
Now what is really messed up is guns are permitted in theaters. I don't see this gun thing changing in our lifetime but you would think that there would be a little temporary increase in security after all those theatre shootings. Apparently that isn't the case.
And this is why people have problems with others walking around with guns because they can. It's not that I think a gun carrier is insane; it's that whether or not he is insane cannot be known just by sight. Thus, it is hard to appropriately judge the threat level - which is a good case for thumbing down the foolish "Stand Your Ground" laws, as well, in addition to all the false claims of SYG when it absolutely does not apply.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Now playing Transformers: Legends. 27-time top tier finisher and admin of the TFL Wikia site.
It's not a rationale; there is no rationale for murder, and there will never be a rationale for murder.
What it is a provision for the right to use deadly force and a defence for murder if conditions are met.
Thanks for the clarification. I don't have a law background, so I'm not current on my "legalese." I was just trying to point out the absurdities of explaining why lethal force is an appropriate response to getting hit with popcorn.
Now what is really messed up is guns are permitted in theaters. I don't see this gun thing changing in our lifetime but you would think that there would be a little temporary increase in security after all those theatre shootings. Apparently that isn't the case.
That isn't actually the case with most theaters, as most theater chains in the US have strict no-weapons policies in place.
Theater violence is nothing new. Less than two years ago, an Aurora, Colorado, cineplex was the scene of a shooting massacre that left 12 people dead.
Theater chains had already moved to ban handguns. Cobb Theater, which owns the Grove 16 and more than 120 other theaters, says posters displaying its zero weapons policy are posted on its front doors. Other chains have also stepped up safety measures.
Now what is really messed up is guns are permitted in theaters. I don't see this gun thing changing in our lifetime but you would think that there would be a little temporary increase in security after all those theatre shootings. Apparently that isn't the case.
What? First of all, you seem to be misinformed about the gun policies of the theaters in question; the shooters in both Aurora and Tampa were in violation of them. You also seem to be implying that there's something special about theaters because two news-making shootings have taken place in them over the last two years. But there isn't. It's just a coincidence. The attacks have nothing else in common. Holmes was targeting a large gathering of people in a confined area; it might have been a food court or a sporting event or a church. And Reeves apparently just exploded after an escalating argument; it could have happened just about anywhere two strangers bump into each other. So saying "Let's tighten security at theaters to prevent future shootings like these!" is pretty asinine. If we want to prevent the attacks through increased security, it's gonna have to be increased security at every public location. And simply instituting rules against guns won't work; as we've seen, those rules are already in place, and these shootings demonstrated that they're an ineffective deterrent for people who are disposed to break rules. We'd have to be talking full security checkpoints with guards and metal detectors at the entrances.
And no, I don't think it's "really messed up" that theaters, and other places of business, have failed to protect their clientele with security checkpoints. Because walking through a security checkpoint any time you want to go anywhere is crazy.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I wouldnt say security checkpoints anywhere is crazy. It makes sense that airports and courthouses/correctional facilities would have them but more commonplace social gathering sites like movies, restaurants, theme parks, etc, I agree. Its overboard. Overall gun and/or weapon reform is the more logical next step.
We'd have to be talking full security checkpoints with guards and metal detectors at the entrances.
And no, I don't think it's "really messed up" that theaters, and other places of business, have failed to protect their clientele with security checkpoints. Because walking through a security checkpoint any time you want to go anywhere is crazy.
It's already crazy. I have to take off belt and shoes and go through metal scans to get on a boat to go to Ellis Island, which is all tourist now.
The movie theaters can have rules saying "No guns allowed!" and they can post those signs. But if they're not actually doing anything to enforce it, why bother?
It's going to take a lawsuit, but there will eventually be one, and your "crazy" will come to fruition out of corporations' desire to avoid further litigation because of out-of-control patrons who arm themselves with deadly force. Sadly, this is a problem that is growing in America, and, thus, will need to be dealt with. And, since our government is absolutely unwilling to stand up to the NRA and paranoid, fanatical gun owners, that may be our only option.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Now playing Transformers: Legends. 27-time top tier finisher and admin of the TFL Wikia site.
Thanks for the clarification. I don't have a law background, so I'm not current on my "legalese." I was just trying to point out the absurdities of explaining why lethal force is an appropriate response to getting hit with popcorn.
Legalese is an anti-intellectual word. Besides, it's a time-honoured tradition, so currency is no matter.
I was being pedantic, so pardon me.
That isn't actually the case with most theaters, as most theater chains in the US have strict no-weapons policies in place.
It's going to take a lawsuit, but there will eventually be one, and your "crazy" will come to fruition out of corporations' desire to avoid further litigation because of out-of-control patrons who arm themselves with deadly force. Sadly, this is a problem that is growing in America, and, thus, will need to be dealt with. And, since our government is absolutely unwilling to stand up to the NRA and paranoid, fanatical gun owners, that may be our only option.
Wow, won't that be ironic, as well as sad (how many more senseless shootings, whether mass or not, must the US witness? why must the only course of action be legal action?)?
In brief, what is the power of the NRA and what is up with gun politics in the US?
Who else is cares? Who else is crying on the inside? This is just bloody bonkers.
Yay! Another violent crime happens, and the focus goes right to WE NEED GUN CONTROL ERHMAHGAWD!
Close to 90 million gun owners didn't shoot someone yesterday.
A fraction of a percent did.
Most of the ones who did weren't lawful owners to begin with.
A fraction of them were.
Drunk drivers likely killed more people yesterday than gun owners.
If only the government had the guts to stand up to Anheuser-Busch and all those alcoholic beer chugging lunatics!
Bloody bonkers! We need more car control, or alcohol control!
No thanks, I'll keep my second amendment. I have never even drawn any of my guns on another human being. I hope that I never have to. But you know what they say, better to have one and not need it than need one and not have it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
Legalese is an anti-intellectual word. Besides, it's a time-honoured tradition, so currency is no matter.
Got you.
I work with a lot of aviators, and they're obsessed with maintaining their flight currency, as it's (understandably) a big deal for them. I think their lingo has washed off on me! Hence the choice in words.
In brief, what is the power of the NRA and what is up with gun politics in the US?
Who else is cares? Who else is crying on the inside? This is just bloody bonkers.
If you're a politician running in a district or state with any amount of rural religious conservatives, being seen as anti-2nd Amendment will mean the end of your career. Hence why we have so many southern and rural Democrats who are staunchly pro-gun. And why every politician during a campaign has a picture taken at the rifle range, carrying some ridiculous rifle one of their aides passed them and trying not to look like an idiot.
It's really unfortunate but I don't think it will ever change.
Yay! Another violent crime happens, and the focus goes right to WE NEED GUN CONTROL ERHMAHGAWD!
Close to 90 million gun owners didn't shoot someone yesterday.
A fraction of a percent did.
Most of the ones who did weren't lawful owners to begin with.
A fraction of them were.
Drunk drivers likely killed more people yesterday than gun owners.
If only the government had the guts to stand up to Anheuser-Busch and all those alcoholic beer chugging lunatics!
Bloody bonkers! We need more car control, or alcohol control!
No thanks, I'll keep my second amendment. I have never even drawn any of my guns on another human being. I hope that I never have to. But you know what they say, better to have one and not need it than need one and not have it.
9909, THIS is one of the reasons we can't even start the discussion in the US. As soon as someone hints at the prospect of regulating guns even a little bit over the current mess of state regulations, the pro-gun crowd acts like that person wants to take every single gun away, even if that's not remotely near that person's actual stand on guns.
I believe we should start by actually enforcing the laws already on the books as they should be enforced. Then, we can determine if more is necessary. And it may well be. But we don't even have the will to enforce existing statutes.
That's why it will take successful litigation to produce changes that we may, in the end, be fully uncomfortable with.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Now playing Transformers: Legends. 27-time top tier finisher and admin of the TFL Wikia site.
Yay! Another violent crime happens, and the focus goes right to WE NEED GUN CONTROL ERHMAHGAWD!
...
If only the government had the guts to stand up to Anheuser-Busch and all those alcoholic beer chugging lunatics!
Bloody bonkers! We need more car control, or alcohol control!
No thanks, I'll keep my second amendment. I have never even drawn any of my guns on another human being. I hope that I never have to. But you know what they say, better to have one and not need it than need one and not have it.
Are you serious? I am asking because you do not seem to be expressing yourself very reasonably or rationally. I feel like utterly stupid for taking you, well, seriously.
An individual who fails to play fair and by what are very sensible rules loses his or her liberty and his or her driver's licence. Similarly, gun control laws - and, yeah, no law will be perfect - aims to adversely affect those do not play well with others.
It's not at all analogous to suggest that a car or alcohol is like a gun (comparing the makes, models, and features of and purposes of alcohol, cars, and guns, really?) and it is, but for misinterpretation of the text, completely unreasonable to presume that the 2nd Amendment permits people to possess guns. However, regardless of what lawyers and law-makers believe, there is too much momentum in favour of guns to effect any change. So be it.
Anyway, this is beside the point of this thread and you know it.
For the record, are you some sort of constitutional law expert?
If you're a politician running in a district or state with any amount of rural religious conservatives, being seen as anti-2nd Amendment will mean the end of your career. Hence why we have so many southern and rural Democrats who are staunchly pro-gun. And why every politician during a campaign has a picture taken at the rifle range, carrying some ridiculous rifle one of their aides passed them and trying not to look like an idiot.
It's really unfortunate but I don't think it will ever change.
Jesus.
So, then, will there be a day when this is no longer shocking and we no longer discuss people - random people or known people (or their singular counterparts) - being shot?
If not, why the damn hell won't things change? What's up with the culture where the gun is supreme?
9909, THIS is one of the reasons we can't even start the discussion in the US. As soon as someone hints at the prospect of regulating guns even a little bit over the current mess of state regulations, the pro-gun crowd acts like that person wants to take every single gun away, even if that's not remotely near that person's actual stand on guns.
It's cracked.com, so do you seriously expect me to click on the link?
From what I got from the URL, there are six (and six things only) things that gun lovers and gun haters can agree on. What could that be? Agreeing to disagree isn't even something that can be agreed upon.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/14/justice/florida-movie-theater-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_c2
The things people won't do...
-LEGACY-- RUR SpellDelver UWU Superfriends with Benefits
-MODERN- GBG B/G GoodGrief GRG R/G Go[o]dstuff
-CHROME- GGG Mean Green WUB Spirit Tribal
-PAUPER-- WBG Enchantments RUG RUG Delver
-1v1 EDH-- UB Lazav's Grindhouse BB Death by Sheoldred
If I had a dollar for every time I missed playing a Counterspell ...
I'd be missing my Mana Drain s instead.
this is just a discrase for police ingeneral, there the individuals after all whom society deems the most responsible to use fire arm, and here we have an officer using a fire arm in the most irresponsible manner imaginable. shamful, in that we expect the best from and for our police both on the job and retired.
Twitter- RogueSource.
Decks: "Name one! I probably got it built In one of these boxes."
---------------------------------------------------
Vintage will rise again! Buy a Mox today!
---------------------------------------------------
[I]Some call it dig through time, when really your digging through CRAP!
Merfolk! showing magic players what a shower is since Lorwyn!
Wonder if this ex-cop has a history of prior aggression that wasn't documented. I would think it's rare that someone would just snap like this over texting.
Its Florida. We let murderers go free here.
Seriously, though, why is it always Florida when you hear about stuff like this? Does the American media just like to focus on Florida news?
So cray, cray.
Such a sad and disproportional response, even with tempers.
I wouldn't be all too surprised if the cop has some issues. I don't whether it's part and parcel of being a policeman, but many retired police end up broken or imbalanced people.
In other crazy news, a 12-year-old kid in NM pulled a shotgun from a musical instrument case and shot two other kids. Thankfully, considering the circumstances, he was stopped by a teacher who wasn't entirely acting out of courage but because it was the only reasonable and rational thing to do.
One Floridian I met had a theory. He said it could be one or a combination of the following factors: 1. Florida experiences a lot of immigration from the US and Cuba, so it is in a constant state of social instability, 2. Related to the first part, a lot of people move to Florida without their families and don't have social support, and 3. Florida doesn't have a really good system for helping the mentally ill.
I have heard about the poor healthcare and mental healthcare support in Florida, but a lot of other states suffer from that problem too.
I did a quick Google search and found two articles on Florida and its weirdness:
Warning for Trolling - Jay13x
It's not a rationale; there is no rationale for murder, and there will never be a rationale for murder.
What it is a provision for the right to use deadly force and a defence for murder if conditions are met.
I am reading more about this crazy shooting, and it seems that it is more horrible than it seems. The deceased and the accused had an exchange of words, then the deceased chucked something - now known to be a bag of popcorn - at the accused. The accused then pulled a gun and then its trigger because he thought it was justified. It wasn't that the gomer was simply violent; indeed, the deceased had an argument with him. Instead, the deceased did aggravate the situation, to which the gomer responded as he did.
Sure, there's probably no one here that would like to argue with anyone else and have something, namely, a bag of popcorn, chucked at them, but how on earth is it reasonable to shoot someone because of it?
Now what is really messed up is guns are permitted in theaters. I don't see this gun thing changing in our lifetime but you would think that there would be a little temporary increase in security after all those theatre shootings. Apparently that isn't the case.
The MirroCube - 420 card Mirrodin themed cube
And if I've offended you, I'm sorry, but maybe you need to be offended. But here's my apology and one more thing...
Thanks for the clarification. I don't have a law background, so I'm not current on my "legalese." I was just trying to point out the absurdities of explaining why lethal force is an appropriate response to getting hit with popcorn.
That isn't actually the case with most theaters, as most theater chains in the US have strict no-weapons policies in place.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/15/justice/florida-movie-theater-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
From the article:
Not that it did a lot of good in this instance.
What? First of all, you seem to be misinformed about the gun policies of the theaters in question; the shooters in both Aurora and Tampa were in violation of them. You also seem to be implying that there's something special about theaters because two news-making shootings have taken place in them over the last two years. But there isn't. It's just a coincidence. The attacks have nothing else in common. Holmes was targeting a large gathering of people in a confined area; it might have been a food court or a sporting event or a church. And Reeves apparently just exploded after an escalating argument; it could have happened just about anywhere two strangers bump into each other. So saying "Let's tighten security at theaters to prevent future shootings like these!" is pretty asinine. If we want to prevent the attacks through increased security, it's gonna have to be increased security at every public location. And simply instituting rules against guns won't work; as we've seen, those rules are already in place, and these shootings demonstrated that they're an ineffective deterrent for people who are disposed to break rules. We'd have to be talking full security checkpoints with guards and metal detectors at the entrances.
And no, I don't think it's "really messed up" that theaters, and other places of business, have failed to protect their clientele with security checkpoints. Because walking through a security checkpoint any time you want to go anywhere is crazy.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Yes, I'd agree with BS that you shouldn't need to go through a security check point to go virtually anywhere.
I'll, however, disagree with a lot of forum members that most people should not be able to get weapons.
It's already crazy. I have to take off belt and shoes and go through metal scans to get on a boat to go to Ellis Island, which is all tourist now.
The movie theaters can have rules saying "No guns allowed!" and they can post those signs. But if they're not actually doing anything to enforce it, why bother?
It's going to take a lawsuit, but there will eventually be one, and your "crazy" will come to fruition out of corporations' desire to avoid further litigation because of out-of-control patrons who arm themselves with deadly force. Sadly, this is a problem that is growing in America, and, thus, will need to be dealt with. And, since our government is absolutely unwilling to stand up to the NRA and paranoid, fanatical gun owners, that may be our only option.
The MirroCube - 420 card Mirrodin themed cube
And if I've offended you, I'm sorry, but maybe you need to be offended. But here's my apology and one more thing...
I was being pedantic, so pardon me.
Oh.
Indeed.
Wow, won't that be ironic, as well as sad (how many more senseless shootings, whether mass or not, must the US witness? why must the only course of action be legal action?)?
In brief, what is the power of the NRA and what is up with gun politics in the US?
Who else is cares? Who else is crying on the inside? This is just bloody bonkers.
Close to 90 million gun owners didn't shoot someone yesterday.
A fraction of a percent did.
Most of the ones who did weren't lawful owners to begin with.
A fraction of them were.
Drunk drivers likely killed more people yesterday than gun owners.
If only the government had the guts to stand up to Anheuser-Busch and all those alcoholic beer chugging lunatics!
Bloody bonkers! We need more car control, or alcohol control!
No thanks, I'll keep my second amendment. I have never even drawn any of my guns on another human being. I hope that I never have to. But you know what they say, better to have one and not need it than need one and not have it.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
Got you.
I work with a lot of aviators, and they're obsessed with maintaining their flight currency, as it's (understandably) a big deal for them. I think their lingo has washed off on me! Hence the choice in words.
No worries.
If you're a politician running in a district or state with any amount of rural religious conservatives, being seen as anti-2nd Amendment will mean the end of your career. Hence why we have so many southern and rural Democrats who are staunchly pro-gun. And why every politician during a campaign has a picture taken at the rifle range, carrying some ridiculous rifle one of their aides passed them and trying not to look like an idiot.
It's really unfortunate but I don't think it will ever change.
9909, THIS is one of the reasons we can't even start the discussion in the US. As soon as someone hints at the prospect of regulating guns even a little bit over the current mess of state regulations, the pro-gun crowd acts like that person wants to take every single gun away, even if that's not remotely near that person's actual stand on guns.
I believe we should start by actually enforcing the laws already on the books as they should be enforced. Then, we can determine if more is necessary. And it may well be. But we don't even have the will to enforce existing statutes.
That's why it will take successful litigation to produce changes that we may, in the end, be fully uncomfortable with.
The MirroCube - 420 card Mirrodin themed cube
And if I've offended you, I'm sorry, but maybe you need to be offended. But here's my apology and one more thing...
Are you serious? I am asking because you do not seem to be expressing yourself very reasonably or rationally. I feel like utterly stupid for taking you, well, seriously.
An individual who fails to play fair and by what are very sensible rules loses his or her liberty and his or her driver's licence. Similarly, gun control laws - and, yeah, no law will be perfect - aims to adversely affect those do not play well with others.
It's not at all analogous to suggest that a car or alcohol is like a gun (comparing the makes, models, and features of and purposes of alcohol, cars, and guns, really?) and it is, but for misinterpretation of the text, completely unreasonable to presume that the 2nd Amendment permits people to possess guns. However, regardless of what lawyers and law-makers believe, there is too much momentum in favour of guns to effect any change. So be it.
Anyway, this is beside the point of this thread and you know it.
For the record, are you some sort of constitutional law expert?
Jesus.
So, then, will there be a day when this is no longer shocking and we no longer discuss people - random people or known people (or their singular counterparts) - being shot?
If not, why the damn hell won't things change? What's up with the culture where the gun is supreme?Oh, my question was answered.
Thanks, goc.
Thanks, BS.
It's cracked.com, so do you seriously expect me to click on the link?
From what I got from the URL, there are six (and six things only) things that gun lovers and gun haters can agree on. What could that be? Agreeing to disagree isn't even something that can be agreed upon.