• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Florida Man Is Shot to Death for Texting During Movie Previews

Page 19 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
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.
 
SpatiallyAware said:
How quickly they forget that the ONLY reason dunn is in jail is due to shooting at a vehicle leaving the scene. That's it.

He could've trayvon'd jordan right in the heart and he would've walked.. even after ordering pizza...
Click to expand...

You're a sick an disturbed individual, you know that?
 
Venix said:
I don't think you understand what a strawman is.

You sarcastically said, "I'm sure all of this could have been prevented had the guy had his own gun or at least some other "good guy with a gun" was present!" That is a strawman. No firearm proponent believes that a "good guy with a gun" or that the victim carrying a firearm would have prevented this shooting.

The "good guy with a gun" argument simply states that in a mass murder situation, the killer will continue his rampage until he encounters armed resistance. If his victims are armed, he's likely to be neutralized sooner than if they have to wait for a police response. 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).

I'm honestly surprised that I have to explain this.
Click to expand...

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.
 
thraashman said:
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.
Click to expand...

Start with deleted.


Wishing death upon a fellow member is not allowed.
admin allisolm
 
Last edited by a moderator:
SpatiallyAware said:
How quickly they forget that the ONLY reason dunn is in jail is due to shooting at a vehicle leaving the scene. That's it.

He could've trayvon'd jordan right in the heart and he would've walked.. even after ordering pizza...
Click to expand...

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.
 
thraashman said:
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.
Click to expand...


In many states you would walk free.

And our justice system supports this.. Better let 10 guilty wall than jail 1 innocent man.
 
shira said:
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.
Click to expand...

"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.
 
spidey07 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Deadly force VS simple assault? :colbert: :thumbsdown:
 
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.
 
bshole said:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/03/1...ie-goer-for-texting-sent-text-moments-before/
Click to expand...

Murderer, and a hypocrite. I am Jack's complete lack of surprise.


The file also contains an interview with Jamira Dixon, a 35-year-old woman who said that in December, Reeves became upset with her because she was texting in the same movie theater. During the incident, she said, Reeves complained to a manager, then continued to stare at her throughout the movie and made her feel uncomfortable.
Click to expand...

Not Reeves first rodeo. Good thing Ms. Dixon didn't brandish her popcorn.
 
Last edited:
spidey07 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
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.
 
spidey07 said:
Assault on a senior is a felony.
Click to expand...

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
 
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.
 
bshole said:
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
Click to expand...

Many places in the law protect the elderly to a greater degree. Are you really this stupid?
 
bshole said:
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
Click to expand...


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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top