He got off easy

[Yorkshire pud]

And how do you know this, again?  Link to your source?

Or did you just make it up because you like the story better that way?

Well I guess the actuality might be voices in his head told him to shoot the MFing texter/ popcorn thrower.

[DigitalPigSnuggler]

Do I like the story better that way? Thank you in advance for not putting words in my mouth. I don't like the story at all, nor do I particularly like any justification for senseless killing. It's all a lovely exercise in abstracts, except for the dead man, his family, the ex-cop and his wife.

I can see that my mistake was feeding you material to continue being outraged and thus ignore the question.

It's a simple question, please answer it: What is your source for this comment: "someone felt personally entitled to shoot him over it"? 

[UnscreenedCaller]

I can see that my mistake was feeding you material to continue being outraged and thus ignore the question.

It's a simple question, please answer it: What is your source for this comment: "someone felt personally entitled to shoot him over it"?

Actually, I was responding to another poster, and hadn't read your post.

Again, you are making assumptions. I'm not outraged. I don't take anonymous internet posts seriously enough to be outraged over anything. I'm amused by the 'quote your source' requests, that's all. It seems to be a new internet 'thing'.

[Yorkshire pud]

I can see that my mistake was feeding you material to continue being outraged and thus ignore the question.

It's a simple question, please answer it: What is your source for this comment: "someone felt personally entitled to shoot him over it"?

How would you suggest a bloke got deliberately shot by someone else if that someone else didn't decide to do it? In other words took it on themselves to assume entitlement to commit such an act?.

[DigitalPigSnuggler]

Well I guess the actuality might be voices in his head told him to shoot the MFing texter/ popcorn thrower.

You guys are spraying off in all directions.

It's very simple.  I can find no reference to ANYONE saying that the shooter "felt entitled" to blast this guy because he was texting.  Not the cops, not the media, not the victim's family.  Unless UC can provide a basis for her statement, it means that she made it up.  That should tell her, and the rest of you, plenty about how you see this case and probably other things in your lives.  It won't though, because you'll never find what you're not looking for.

And now the obligatory disclaimer: I don't think it's right that the victim was shot for texting, or that anyone should be shot for using a cell phone in a theatre in any way at any time during the showing.  It's a very sad situation, even tragic, particularly for the wife and kids of the victim.

[DigitalPigSnuggler]

Actually, I was responding to another poster, and hadn't read your post.

Is that so?

Re: He got off easy
« Reply #59 on: Today at 09:49:11 AM »

Quote from: DigitalPigSnuggler on Today at 09:32:27 AM

    And how do you know this, again?  Link to your source?

    Or did you just make it up because you like the story better that way?

Do I like the story better that way? Thank you in advance for not putting words in my mouth. I don't like the story at all, nor do I particularly like any justification for senseless killing. It's all a lovely exercise in abstracts, except for the dead man, his family, the ex-cop and his wife.

Hey, lady, if it's so important to you to maintain your preferred view of the case that you have to resort to this sort of outrageous lie, then have at it.  You clearly don't need me to bust up your party with reality.

I'm amused by the 'quote your source' requests, that's all. It seems to be a new internet 'thing'.

Indeed.  It's amusing that anyone would want to know whether something is a fact, or something pulled out of someone's ass.  Must be a new internet thing, this desire to deal with reality.  These kids today, eh?

[Yorkshire pud]

You guys are spraying off in all directions.

It's very simple.  I can find no reference to ANYONE saying that the shooter "felt entitled" to blast this guy because he was texting.  Not the cops, not the media, not the victim's family.  Unless UC can provide a basis for her statement, it means that she made it up.  That should tell her, and the rest of you, plenty about how you see this case and probably other things in your lives.  It won't though, because you'll never find what you're not looking for.

Unscreened Caller said he felt entitled; There's your reference. I have no idea because I haven't bothered looking into it, but I imagine half the US talking heads will fall into 'How can this happen in the 21sts century' and the other half into the 'Yeah, well, it's very sad, but the fact remains, he was entitled to have a firearm even if he wasn't capable of controlling his anger; It's just tough shit. How sad never mind; And today Kim Karda.....'

[UnscreenedCaller]

Is that so?

Hey, lady, if it's so important to you to maintain your preferred view of the case that you have to resort to this sort of outrageous lie, then have at it.

Outrageous lie?  My original comment was to quote another poster. It's that to which I was referring, and to your post preceding it. Why the fuss? Nothing outrageous about it, except a misunderstanding.

You clearly don't need me to bust up your party with reality.

You do realize I might say the same?

[DigitalPigSnuggler]

Unscreened Caller said he felt entitled; There's your reference.

Say buddie, did you know that the shooter actually wanted to murder the children in cold blood, but the dad caught on to his diabolical scheme and made a heroic stand in the theatre, defending himself with nothing but popcorn? 

What, you want a reference?  I said it, there's your reference.

I give up.  Keep making up stuff to make the shooter look more and more evil, never advancing the discussion in any productive direction, never coming to any conclusions, but never tiring of it either. 

[UnscreenedCaller]

Now you're being rather silly. The thread hasn't exploded because I or Yorkshire Pud disagree with you. You are picking apart my words like a compiler, checking the semantics. Well, the dictionary says entitle means to give a right to. Synonyms include: empower, validate, enable, validate, warrant. Not a big stretch to go from a. this man going to get his gun to b. this man believing he has the right to use it in this situation.

[eeieeyeoh]

Say buddie, did you know that the shooter actually wanted to murder the children in cold blood, but the dad caught on to his diabolical scheme and made a heroic stand in the theatre, defending himself with nothing but popcorn? 

What, you want a reference?  I said it, there's your reference.

I give up.  Keep making up stuff to make the shooter look more and more evil, never advancing the discussion in any productive direction, never coming to any conclusions, but never tiring of it either.

Interesting effort of perverting reality to promote gun control laws.

I read the original report and watched the vid. My impression was that the Mayor of City that appoints Police Chief needs further investigation into understanding how Officers are developed w/such behavior in civilian life. Seems most likely there were many other seats the ex-cop could have moved to to enjoy movie w/o that patron's visual or sound of concern. Also could have complained to manager on duty of theatre.

Obviously the ex-cop needs removal from society of rational people. Possibly no rehabilitation is possible to gain freedom again even if never allowed to own gun again, because he might get angry at someone in supermarket for no good reason that gets upset of confrontation by stranger in public place and throws a hand full of fresh shrimp at the guy and the ex-cop grabs a mop handle or 5# canned ham and beats the shrimp thrower over the head to death.

[Heather Wade]

Society has become so constrictive, we should expect this kind of shit and not be surprised.

We were never meant to live this way.  Squeeze people hard enough, for long enough, and they will snap.

The dude is not entitled to shoot anyone, and yes, he had crazy eyes in his photo... but, we should be asking ourselves what made him so crazy in the first fucking place.

[Yorkshire pud]

Society has become so constrictive, we should expect this kind of shit and not be surprised.

We were never meant to live this way.  Squeeze people hard enough, for long enough, and they will snap.

The dude is not entitled to shoot anyone, and yes, he had crazy eyes in his photo... but, we should be asking ourselves what made him so crazy in the first fucking place.

And then what would the logical preventative measures be in your opinion?

[Heather Wade]

And then what would the logical preventative measures be in your opinion?

My opinion means nothing.  That said, the best preventative measure would be a society that holds more value for each other, and accepts that whether we like it or not, the mental/ emotional health of everyone effects everyone.

I mean, no one in the shooter's life knew he was crazy?  No one could talk to him?  No one had enough sense to keep him out of the theater that day?  No, I am sure no one gave a shit about this guy, and look what happened.

We run our lives based on greed, lack, struggle, and neglect.  What the hell do people expect to happen? 

I haven't had espresso yet.   : 

[slippingaway]

My opinion means nothing.  That said, the best preventative measure would be a society that holds more value for each other, and accepts that whether we like it or not, the mental/ emotional health of everyone effects everyone.

We run our lives based on greed, lack, struggle, and neglect.  What the hell do people expect to happen? 

You are hitting on a very important note here: It's not a gun control problem, it's a social issue that needs addressing at the core.  It is NOT OKAY to shoot someone. It is NOT OKAY to hurt someone.  It is ONLY ACCEPTABLE to take a life when it is in the defense of yourself or others, i.e. when it's kill or be killed.

The OP that made it sound justifiable that someone should be allowed to be murderous (or even a dick) to others.  The guy was using his cellphone during the previews of a movie. SO WHAT?  That justifies starting an altercation that leads to rage induced murder?! Maybe it's the weaker approach, but the movie hadn't started, so why didn't he get an usher?

[West of the Rockies]

I am getting bored with this mostly fruitless discussion.  Yes, I injected blatant emotionalism into my argument; emotional appeal is part of human interaction (none of us being, sadly, even half-Vulcan).  The shooter certainly responded in an emotional fashion.  Those who wrap up in the flag resort to patriotic appeal.

I don't care to debate semantics, such as if the death is a "tragedy" or just SOP in today's very volatile world.  We will all decide for ourselves. 

I do enjoy articulate debate, and that is very much on display on this thread.  I just feel it's gotten to dense with "nuance" and ego. 

[onan]

I am somewhat perplexed that there is much discussion on this. I thought the thread was going to spiral into a gun control debate. Instead it seemed to wallow in what is an appropriate response.

Look it is simple. Both guys were assholes. One much more so than the other but both assholes. Deeming only one as the asshole really misses the point. Violence resolved nothing here. Aggressive posturing did nothing here. But because one used deadly force the smaller unacceptable behavior is being judged as acceptable, and it isn't. Anytime, anyone, anywhere infringes on another's innocent existence they are in the wrong. It is that simple.

[slippingaway]

Anytime, anyone, anywhere infringes on another's innocent existence they are in the wrong. It is that simple.

Ding Ding Ding! That's the truth of the matter, pure and simple.  If this were a points game, I'd give you 10, Onan.

[West of the Rockies]

Agreed, Onan, both may have been jerks, but the shooting seems to me to have a few supporters.  That astounds me.  I don't know, maybe it is a bit like Columbine where some people said, "well, the two boys were bullied, so maybe the killings were at least a teeny-tiny bit justified."  We live in a complex, stupefying world.  Ok, the victim was perhaps a self-important AH.  No argument.  And perhaps no one here truly feels he deserved death.  It is just hard to tell sometimes when sarcasm and "humor" are introduced.

[PB the Deplorable]

... Look it is simple. Both guys were assholes...

Correct. 

There are so many other things in this world to expend emotional energy on, when two assholes like this or others out looking for trouble find it, it's really hard for me to have sympathy for what happens next.  I feel bad for the 3 year old kid.

[Tarbaby]

DigitalPigSnuggler: Well, for one thing your example is  about people repeatedly posting a POV but your opening post happened before anyone posted anything.

"And I hope that it is also self-evident that one can agree that people should not let their children drink poison, AND also like funny cat videos.  It's not one or the other.  And it should be equally self-evident that just because someone doesn't assert an objection to letting children drink poison in every post doesn't mean they are on the threshold of poisoning some children." - DPS

But the fact that they focus on irrelevencies and/or trivial side-issues suggests a potential for misplaced values or a subliminal empathy more toward the perp than the victim. Which could eventuate in a similar behavior. I mean, look, this 71 year old cop did the crime so we know the mindset isn't impossible. I have a hunch there are many more people like him out there. In fact, I know many.

"Does it make sense now?" DPS

I didn't say it didn't make sense. I just suggest the things we focus on reveal to some degree our values in our internal heirarchy of wants/needs.

If someone said, "That man poisoned that baby because the baby was crying too loudly!" And another person then said, "I hate crying babies! They shouldn't be allowed on airplanes!" He has focused on a true yet trivial side-issue, which is itself dismissive of the heinous act. Which is why I said that I censored my own facetious response.

I'm sorry but your last paragraph makes no sense to me at all. The fact that you "YES, butters" don't see MY point actually supports my point. That you don't see how insensitive it is to side with the perp, even to whatever degree while ignoring the vastly greater inhuman act. And that that very decision based on internal values could in certain isolated cases indicate a predisposition toward similar thinking that led the cop to his behavior.

I'll add since I haven't said it yet that I think the victim may have been rude to not take his cellphone outside. I can't say how much his behavior contributed to the whole incident since I wasn't there and don't know the exact flow of events.

I appreciate your patience in explaining your position.

[WhiteCrow]

Onan has it correct. Both parties were in the wrong.
What hasn't been talked about yet, is the foolishness of the texter to not back down.
If he would of walked away or stopped texting and been apologetic, he would probably still be alive.

With that settled, we can now turn our attention to this thread's proper discussion topic....
Another gun control debate!

[Tarbaby]

DigitalPigSnuggler: "It's a simple question, please answer it: What is your source for this comment: "someone felt personally entitled to shoot him over it"?"

It's a simple question, yes, and there's a simple answer: someone felt entitled to shoot the cellphone user because he did it, he shot him. Ergo, he felt entitled by definition. If he didn't feel entitled he would have not decided to pull the trigger.

[Tarbaby]

DigitalPigSnuggler, what is your source and link(s) for your statement, "I don't think it's right that the victim was shot for texting…"?

[jazmunda]

I can't believe people would suggest that it is the onus of the texter to have backed down so that he would not have been shot.

I'm not saying he should be allowed to text or that he shouldn't have gotten into an argument about it or that he shouldn't have backed down.

I'm simply pointing out how crazy the argument is that if he had just backed down he would be alive. I guess you have to consider not getting into arguments with people who live in a culture where guns are your god given right lest you get shot for being an asshole.

If that was the way things happened on this site it would stink of gunpowder in here.

[Tarbaby]

(added after reading yet more posts)
DigitalPigSniggler: Now I don't understand your position. Are you saying you think UC is making up the story about the guy being shot for texting? Clearly not because you named this thread and you quoted the story in the opening post.

So are you accusing her of making up facts by saying the perp felt "entitled"? Because this is just a semantic issue, as I said above. If he did it (which he did) he must have felt entitled.

[Tarbaby]

Keep making up stuff to make the shooter look more and more evi…

No, no one is escalating the cop's evilness. Just that he murdered someone over a trivial argument in a theater. Are you suggesting with this statement that he might have been justified? That he is less evil than people are alleging?

never advancing the discussion in any productive direction…

What productive direction are you thinking of?

never coming to any conclusions

everyone has come to a conclusion. The demented cop was wrong to do what he did.

but never tiring of it either.

Our zeal only matches your own! 

Redacted: "We should be asking ourselves what made him so crazy in the first fucking place?"

Well, could simply be genetic. Not necessarily environment. But I like your points!

Onan: Yup.

Jazmunda: testing! testing!

[onan]

I can't believe people would suggest that it is the onus of the texter to have backed down so that he would not have been shot.

I'm not saying he should be allowed to text or that he shouldn't have gotten into an argument about it or that he shouldn't have backed down.

I'm simply pointing out how crazy the argument is that if he had just backed down he would be alive. I guess you have to consider not getting into arguments with people who live in a culture where guns are your god given right lest you get shot for being an asshole.

If that was the way things happened on this site it would stink of gunpowder in here.

It wasn't just an argument. Chad Oulson assaulted Curtis Reeves. He didn't deserve to be shot and killed, but he wasn't some innocent sweet lovable victim either. Again to reiterate, he didn't deserve to be killed. Certainly the more grievous crime was committed by Reeves. It stinks all around. 

[jazmunda]

It wasn't just an argument. Chad Oulson assaulted Curtis Reeves. He didn't deserve to be shot and killed, but he wasn't some innocent sweet lovable victim either. Again to reiterate, he didn't deserve to be killed. Certainly the more grievous crime was committed by Reeves. It stinks all around.

I wasn't aware that texting during a film was considered a crime.

What amendment does freely texting whenever the hell you want to without being shot fall under?

[FallenSeraph]

Say, check out the funny cat in this YouTube video!

http://youtu.be/TKmm7oGyPHw

(Sorry. Somebody had to do it.)