Newell Steamer
Diamond Member
- Jan 27, 2014
- 6,894
- 8
- 0
JManInPhoenix
Golden Member
- Sep 25, 2013
- 1,500
- 1
- 81
We need to stand our ground against those that stand their ground against ground standers that have had their ground stood against ground standers having their ground standing against the ground standerers.
Londo_Jowo
Lifer
thraashman
Lifer
- Apr 10, 2000
- 11,112
- 1,587
- 126
thraashman
Lifer
- Apr 10, 2000
- 11,112
- 1,587
- 126
I think I'm just going to start murdering anyone I see with a gun and say I felt threatened and was standing my ground... Also those with camera tripods.
shira
Diamond Member
- Jan 12, 2005
- 9,500
- 6
- 81
I don't think you understand what statistics is.
You wrote that the "good guy with a gun" argument means that a killer will continue his rampage until he encounters armed resistance. But what you fail to comprehend is that the odds of being the "armed good guy" that encounters a mass-murder killer in the act are less than the odds of winning the Mega Millions lottery, and way, way, way, way, way, way less than the odds of being an "armed person in a heated argument."
So maybe, just maybe, if you take the "armed" out of the "armed person in a heated argument," you might avoid shootings like that in the OP.
I'm honestly surprised that I have to explain this.
Start with deleted.
Wishing death upon a fellow member is not allowed.
admin allisolm
Last edited by a moderator:
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
Uhh.. no. The jury hung on the murder charge and the prosecution has elected to retry, so even without the attempted murder convictions, he'd probably still be held in jail without bail.
SpatiallyAware
Lifer
- Sep 7, 2009
- 12,960
- 3
- 0
In many states you would walk free.
And our justice system supports this.. Better let 10 guilty wall than jail 1 innocent man.
Fellow implies community. McOwned sees himself as superior to the rest of us Oil Cartel Thugs.
"Whether it's a legitimate argument is out of scope for this thread since it's completely unrelated to the topic (an argument ending in a single-victim homicide)."
Do you seriously not understand the difference between presenting an argument and explaining the rationale behind an argument?
There's a video of the attacker. From the vid a strong case for good shoot can be made.
Assaulting a senior in Florida is a forcible felony.
The assailant was not shot for texting. He was shot for his attack and imminent threat to the victim.
Don't attack people. You may get dead.
Assaulting a senior in Florida is a forcible felony.
The assailant was not shot for texting. He was shot for his attack and imminent threat to the victim.
Don't attack people. You may get dead.
Jaskalas
Lifer
- Jun 23, 2004
- 36,449
- 10,733
- 136
Geosurface
Diamond Member
- Mar 22, 2012
- 5,773
- 4
- 0
Just watched the video.
You don't shoot someone dead for grabbing your popcorn and tossing it at you, which appears to pretty clearly be what the deceased did.
You don't.
That's not a threat to your life. Popcorn tossed in your face is not a threat to your life. It is not an indication that any threat to your life is coming on the horizon from that person, either. You're in a crowded movie theater with people all around. The guy is with his wife, the guy just told you he'd been texting his young daughter.
This man has a family. This man is someone YOU started shit with over texting DURING THE FUCKING PREVIEWS NOT THE FILM ITSELF. So, you start shit with him, he loses his cool and grabs your popcorn and tosses it in your face (he should not have done this no matter how big of a dick you were being, granted) and you fucking instantly whip out your pistol and end his life? Depriving his wife of a husband and his daughter of a father... over some popcorn in your face?
Fuck that shit. Completely, totally, 100% unacceptable and anyone who would argue that the law should support that needs to rethink their position. That's the kind of assertion that makes the elimination of all reasonable self-defense statutes more likely, because it paints those of us who believe in self-defense and SYG as unreasonable and crazy.
It's like with the Trayvon thing. If Trayvon had merely punched Zimmerman, and did nothing to get on top of him or follow up from that punch with anything further, I would not support Zimmerman having shot him. It was the prolonged restraint and beating as Zimmerman screamed in terror, all seen by a disinterested witness, the injuries, and the seeming complete unwillingness on Trayvon's part to cease the assault, which made me support that.
The Jordan Davis thing was much less clear. But if he made legitimate verbal threats which were convincing, that he was going to kill Dunn, I could see at least the first few shots. That was a tricky one.
Popcorn in the face from someone you'd been dickish to, justifying ENDING THEIR LIFE? Holy shit, not in a million years. I don't even think that would rise to the level of management kicking him out, maaaaybe... maybe kicking you BOTH out.
That's the kind of shit which results in you saying to your wife "man I can't believe that asshole threw popcorn in my face" on the car ride home, not the kind of shit which results in someone dead and a little girl without a father for the rest of her life.
You don't shoot someone dead for grabbing your popcorn and tossing it at you, which appears to pretty clearly be what the deceased did.
You don't.
That's not a threat to your life. Popcorn tossed in your face is not a threat to your life. It is not an indication that any threat to your life is coming on the horizon from that person, either. You're in a crowded movie theater with people all around. The guy is with his wife, the guy just told you he'd been texting his young daughter.
This man has a family. This man is someone YOU started shit with over texting DURING THE FUCKING PREVIEWS NOT THE FILM ITSELF. So, you start shit with him, he loses his cool and grabs your popcorn and tosses it in your face (he should not have done this no matter how big of a dick you were being, granted) and you fucking instantly whip out your pistol and end his life? Depriving his wife of a husband and his daughter of a father... over some popcorn in your face?
Fuck that shit. Completely, totally, 100% unacceptable and anyone who would argue that the law should support that needs to rethink their position. That's the kind of assertion that makes the elimination of all reasonable self-defense statutes more likely, because it paints those of us who believe in self-defense and SYG as unreasonable and crazy.
It's like with the Trayvon thing. If Trayvon had merely punched Zimmerman, and did nothing to get on top of him or follow up from that punch with anything further, I would not support Zimmerman having shot him. It was the prolonged restraint and beating as Zimmerman screamed in terror, all seen by a disinterested witness, the injuries, and the seeming complete unwillingness on Trayvon's part to cease the assault, which made me support that.
The Jordan Davis thing was much less clear. But if he made legitimate verbal threats which were convincing, that he was going to kill Dunn, I could see at least the first few shots. That was a tricky one.
Popcorn in the face from someone you'd been dickish to, justifying ENDING THEIR LIFE? Holy shit, not in a million years. I don't even think that would rise to the level of management kicking him out, maaaaybe... maybe kicking you BOTH out.
That's the kind of shit which results in you saying to your wife "man I can't believe that asshole threw popcorn in my face" on the car ride home, not the kind of shit which results in someone dead and a little girl without a father for the rest of her life.
Deadly force VS simple assault?:thumbsdown:
Assault on a senior is a felony.
Don't felony assault people when they have no means to retreat from you.
You may get dead.
Last edited:
ch33zw1z
Lifer
- Nov 4, 2004
- 39,838
- 20,433
- 146
Murderer, and a hypocrite. I am Jack's complete lack of surprise.
Not Reeves first rodeo. Good thing Ms. Dixon didn't brandish her popcorn.
Last edited:
wtf is wrong with texting in the movie theater. All the useless old fart has to do is not look at him and mind his own business.
I wonder what it was like to grow as such a coward that you consider having popcorn thrown at you as assault? This guy is a massive chickenshit, maybe you are family?
Geosurface
Diamond Member
- Mar 22, 2012
- 5,773
- 4
- 0
I think they should go back and film special editions of all those movies over the years where girls in theaters dump popcorn on the heads of their boyfriends for trying to put the moves on them too fast, and in the new versions the boyfriend whips out a gun and blows her away instantly after she does that.
Same with all the movies where she dumps a drink over his head for some faux pas on his part.
Same with all the movies where she dumps a drink over his head for some faux pas on his part.
bshole
Diamond Member
- Mar 12, 2013
- 8,315
- 1,215
- 126
Thanx for clearing that up. So assault is dependent on age? I can legally beat the shit out of a 5 year old now? Interesting.... Well I'm off to the local elementary school with baseball bat to have some fun.....
LOL
HumblePie
Lifer
- Oct 30, 2000
- 14,665
- 440
- 126
Well the video is hard to see. What I do see on it is Chad Oulson reaching for Curtis's Reeves popcorn out of the cup holder and throwing it in his face. Which Chad is reaching for the popcorn, Curtis reaches for his gun. Curtis does not go for the gun after the popcorn is thrown but before it is. However, Curtis looks to fire AFTER the popcorn hits in the face while Chad's hand is still out stretched.
You have a senior citizen sitting down in a chair talking to an obviously irate younger and better shape man. Chad is obviously saying some offensive language and is angry enough to reached for Curtis's popcorn in Curtis's seat.
Here is where it gets tricky. The situation shows a disparity of force. The young man is capable of harming the old man seriously if he tries from his position. The act of him reaching towards Curtis for his popcorn shows an implied threat against Curtis. A reasonable person can't possibly know what Chad is only going to grab popcorn and throw it. From that perspective Curtis can easily be shown to reasonably have to defend himself from what looks to be an imminent attack.
However, since Curtis fires after the popcorn is thrown, it becomes much trickier here for Curtis's defense of his actions. He was still in the motion of pulling out is gun and then having to reach forward to shoot. So he could have stopped his action after he realized it was only popcorn. But you have to be reasonable from a person from HIS perspective. Which means he can probably plead to his age hampering reaction time at that point in stopping his motion to already fire. It's pretty weak, but who knows.
This isn't as clear cut as it looks after watching the video for either side. Chad reaching at Curtis to grab the popcorn from Curtis to throw it at him IS enough to to legally constitute an imminent threat with a disparity of force (old man sitting down versus Young healthy man standing over him). Curtis reaching forward and firing after it was only popcorn that hit him in the face is not exactly stopping an imminent threat.
Nor was the threater all that packed with patrons. Most of the nearby seats were empty. So there was no one directly nearby to hear what being said. The wife of Chad had also put her hand in front of Chad's chest as a precursor to the popcorn throwing. Which means she is demonstrating the need to restrain the actions Chad might make in this situation to Curtis. So the old guy sitting down see's a young man saying angry words (some may have been threatening) and his wife putting a restraining hand across his chest. I wouldn't want to be the jury on this one as it could go either way with the evidence from the video.
Tragic case all around.
You have a senior citizen sitting down in a chair talking to an obviously irate younger and better shape man. Chad is obviously saying some offensive language and is angry enough to reached for Curtis's popcorn in Curtis's seat.
Here is where it gets tricky. The situation shows a disparity of force. The young man is capable of harming the old man seriously if he tries from his position. The act of him reaching towards Curtis for his popcorn shows an implied threat against Curtis. A reasonable person can't possibly know what Chad is only going to grab popcorn and throw it. From that perspective Curtis can easily be shown to reasonably have to defend himself from what looks to be an imminent attack.
However, since Curtis fires after the popcorn is thrown, it becomes much trickier here for Curtis's defense of his actions. He was still in the motion of pulling out is gun and then having to reach forward to shoot. So he could have stopped his action after he realized it was only popcorn. But you have to be reasonable from a person from HIS perspective. Which means he can probably plead to his age hampering reaction time at that point in stopping his motion to already fire. It's pretty weak, but who knows.
This isn't as clear cut as it looks after watching the video for either side. Chad reaching at Curtis to grab the popcorn from Curtis to throw it at him IS enough to to legally constitute an imminent threat with a disparity of force (old man sitting down versus Young healthy man standing over him). Curtis reaching forward and firing after it was only popcorn that hit him in the face is not exactly stopping an imminent threat.
Nor was the threater all that packed with patrons. Most of the nearby seats were empty. So there was no one directly nearby to hear what being said. The wife of Chad had also put her hand in front of Chad's chest as a precursor to the popcorn throwing. Which means she is demonstrating the need to restrain the actions Chad might make in this situation to Curtis. So the old guy sitting down see's a young man saying angry words (some may have been threatening) and his wife putting a restraining hand across his chest. I wouldn't want to be the jury on this one as it could go either way with the evidence from the video.
Tragic case all around.
Many places in the law protect the elderly to a greater degree. Are you really this stupid?
SpatiallyAware
Lifer
- Sep 7, 2009
- 12,960
- 3
- 0
You have no clue how self defense laws in this country works.
This case is a perfect example of disparity of force. Poor (supposedly) defenseless old man shouldn't have to wait and see if he's throwing a knife, acid, or whatever.
Of course you and your disgusting thug supporters expect people just to lay down and get beat. That's what this old man did:
http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/local/police-robber-attacks-man-mcdonalds-bathroom-fract/nd3h7/
And he ended up dying. Over getting pushed into the wall at a urinal. Stories like that are why these older people just blow away a thug who threatens them.
That's the crux of these situations... Legal or not, don't go around threatening and intimidating people. They may now know the law or might not care. So just because you know the law enough to skirt the line while bullying old people doesn't mean you won't get trayvon'd over it.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter