Dad's texting to daughter sparks argument, fatal shooting in movie theater

[okalb 78]

normiss

I was lead to believe they serve alcohol here.

Not sure if it changes anything, but they serve alcohol upstairs on the balcony level but not downstairs in the main area.

Time flies like an arrow....fruit flies like a banana

[base698 1]

The probability of being a victim is likely lower than dying from a no pull. Even if it isn't and it is equal there is some chance of added risk of grumpy old men desiring to be a hero adding risk above that of being a victim.

[rehmwa 2]

I find it disturbing that people are making a deal of the point that it was a Dad texting his daughter. This is completely a non factor is so many ways other than just to generate an emotional reaction.

It would be just as wrong to shoot someone texting anybody for any reason. (acknowledging the smarty pants people here - excepting silly scenarios like the shooter knew it was someone texting an activation code for a bomb, etc....)

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[SkyDekker 1,123]

Just the cost of having your second amendment.

Thankfully I live where the far majority of people are able to be civil without the threat of lethal force.

[SkyDekker 1,123]

rehmwa

I find it disturbing that people are making a deal of the point that it was a Dad texting his daughter. This is completely a non factor is so many ways other than just to generate an emotional reaction.

It would be just as wrong to shoot someone texting anybody for any reason. (acknowledging the smarty pants people here - excepting silly scenarios like the shooter knew it was someone texting an activation code for a bomb, etc....)

Just human nature. Just like it is human nature to hold a cop with SWAT training to a higher standard.

[normiss 622]

I have a few friends that refuse to get a CWP, although they do carry.
The laws are difficult to clearly understand while the penalties are MUCH more serious once you have the CWP if you step over the line.

Think outlaw bikers in bars. It's my understanding getting caught with a concealed weapon, while in a bar, when you have a CWP.
Less trouble to just have a gun in your pocket for some odd reason.

Lawyers. hmpf.

[devildog 0]

RonD1120

***I was lead to believe they serve alcohol here.

Yep, I think the serving of alcohol adds a stipulation to the theater in question.
Alcohol doesn't matter in the case of the movie theater. It has to be a place that's primary purpose is the selling and consuming of alcohol on the premise (e.g. a bar). You can carry in a movie theater legally (and they can ask you to leave) and you can carry in a restaurant that serves alcohol (but stay away from the bar).

You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

[normiss 622]

Depending on the judge you're standing in front of.

[champu 1]

davjohns

I think if people knew you could call them out so easily, there would be more courtesy. Kind of like the old west. You tipped your hat to a lady and left your gun in the holster lest twenty other cowboys use you for target practice.

There are too many people today that are too self-absorbed to even notice they're being rude to you. And everyone being constantly "plugged-in" is only going to make it worse over time*. Having your smart phone on you all the time creates that same anti-social barrier you get when you're inside the glass and steel of an automobile driving. It subconsciously strips the people around you of their humanity. I'll boldly state it does this to a greater extent than carrying a handgun on you does. (yes, obviously with different consequences if things go pear-shaped.)

This incident reminds me of the Louis CK bit when he's talking about letting kids watch TV all day. He said, "If you don't think it's bad to let kids watch TV all day, try this. Sneak up behind them while they're watching it and just turn it off and see how they react."

"Hey! MEEEH! WAH!"

"You think that's healthy?!?"

This ex-cop was known for bringing more SWAT-like behavior to the day-to-day police force, and responded here how police are more and more likely to respond as time goes on. And the idiot responded as more and more people are going to when asked to interact with people in their immediate vicinity.

* he complained... on the internet...

[rehmwa 2]

SkyDekker

Just human nature. Just like it is human nature to hold a cop with SWAT training to a higher standard.

Agreed - and I find that aspect of human nature to be distressing. I makes people focus on the wrong things

the nature/classification of the victim is meaningless. the problem problem lies with the aggressor. And the aggressor has no idea why the other guy is texting. non factor

aside to your comment - I 'expect' better behavior from the guy with training. But, I would want us to punish him for a transgression exactly the same as someone without the training that did the exact same thing. So, I don't consider that 'holding' him to a higher standard - which, to me, implies how we respond to failures, in addition to our expectations.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[kallend 1,625]

rehmwa

I find it disturbing that people are making a deal of the point that it was a Dad texting his daughter. This is completely a non factor is so many ways other than just to generate an emotional reaction.

It would be just as wrong to shoot someone texting anybody for any reason.

Why the big deal over this murder. On a typical day in the USA some 30 people are murdered with firearms for a variety of reasons (or no reason at all).

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Boogers 0]

This thread reminds me of the another story in the news:
http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/story/24453054/2014/01/15/shopper-accused-of-attacking-man-at-checkout-counter

What the heck makes people respond with violence to such petty offenses? I don't get it. These guys are wound way too tight...

I can see the cop, a law and order guy, used to having people obey the rules. And also used to having people obey him when he gives orders. The texting guy was probably shot more for "contempt of cop" than for texting. How dare he not obey my orders!

[lurch 0]

Champu your statement contains several elements of classic "moral panic" along the same lines as the exaggerated and dramatized supposed consequences of violent videogames.

"Having your smart phone on you all the time creates that same anti-social barrier you get when you're inside the glass and steel of an automobile driving. It subconsciously strips the people around you of their humanity. "

Really? Is your "humanity" so fragile it can be stripped from you just by someone nearby being in posession of a PHONE?

I have my smartphone on me all the time. I find it a useful tool of the digital age. Little did I know that its' presence in my pocket was somehow "creating an antisocial barrier" and "stripping people around me of their humanity". I didn't know my crappy obsolete first-gen Evo had THAT kind of power. Is there an app for that?

What ridiculous, oversensitive overdramatization. Comes off like the classic modern american behavior of desperately seeking something, anything, to be offended by. When I see someone using a phone nearby I'm not dehumanized in the slightest. All I see is, "Someone is using a phone". What's the big deal?

And "to a greater extent than carrying a handgun on you does."
So having a gun somehow does this too? What if its concealed? This stripping effect... can people feel it when the hidden gun begins this stripping? Or is it like a gun-fear forcefield thats only active when the weapon is visible? Please explain the mechanism. How about other weapons. I always carry a small utility knife. Its meant as a cutting tool but in a pinch I could defend myself quite effectively with it. Does that also "strip people of their humanity"?

Jesus christ. *shakes head in disgust*
-B

Live and learn... or die, and teach by example.

[champu 1]

I think your response is 25% us disagreeing and 75% me perhaps not having clearly said what I meant.

lurch

Champu your statement contains several elements of classic "moral panic" along the same lines as the exaggerated and dramatized supposed consequences of violent videogames.

"Having your smart phone on you all the time creates that same anti-social barrier you get when you're inside the glass and steel of an automobile driving. It subconsciously strips the people around you of their humanity."

Really? Is your "humanity" so fragile it can be stripped from you just by someone nearby being in posession of a PHONE?

What I meant was that when you're inside your car looking out at other cars, there's a tendency to see them as lifeless objects/obstacles. The humanity of the other drivers can easily become lost on you. That's what I meant by, "subconsciously strips the people around you of their humanity." It doesn't effect the other people, it affects how you see them.

Insofar as a person buries their nose in their smart phone all day texting, reading facebook, twitter, sport scores, whatever, they are putting up that same kind of barrier. People around them just become moving obstacles. I'm assuming you've encountered people walking down the street reading/typing on a smartphone.

lurch

I have my smartphone on me all the time. I find it a useful tool of the digital age. Little did I know that its' presence in my pocket was somehow "creating an antisocial barrier" and "stripping people around me of their humanity". I didn't know my crappy obsolete first-gen Evo had THAT kind of power. Is there an app for that?

What ridiculous, oversensitive overdramatization. Comes off like the classic modern american behavior of desperately seeking something, anything, to be offended by. When I see someone using a phone nearby I'm not dehumanized in the slightest. All I see is, "Someone is using a phone". What's the big deal?

If your phone is in your pocket, no. Just like simply owning a car doesn't change your behavior. This is where I was very much not clear, I should have said "Using your smart phone all the time" rather than "Having your smart phone on you all the time."

lurch

And "to a greater extent than carrying a handgun on you does."

So having a gun somehow does this too? What if its concealed? This stripping effect... can people feel it when the hidden gun begins this stripping? Or is it like a gun-fear forcefield thats only active when the weapon is visible? Please explain the mechanism. How about other weapons. I always carry a small utility knife. Its meant as a cutting tool but in a pinch I could defend myself quite effectively with it. Does that also "strip people of their humanity"?

Jesus christ. *shakes head in disgust*
-B

Again, I didn't mean to say that this actually does anything to other people, I'm saying it changes the way you will see/evaluate/treat others.

/edited: I apparently can't spell "obstacles."

[kelpdiver 2]

it still has a Get-Off-My-Lawn Grandpa feel to it.

These people you decry used to be the same way with ipod/walkmen.

[GeorgiaDon 340]

Quote

What I meant was that when you're inside your car looking out at other cars, there's a tendency to see them as lifeless objects/obstacles. The humanity of the other drivers can easily become lost on you. That's what I meant by, "subconsciously strips the people around you of their humanity." It doesn't effect the other people, it affects how you see them.

I regularly encounter students who cannot not answer their phone, even when they have to interrupt a conversation with a real person to do so. The person right in front of them is always the one who gets "put on hold". If a student does that to me, "office hours" are over until they learn some manners.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[jakee 1,255]

Quote

Kind of like the old west. You tipped your hat to a lady and left your gun in the holster lest twenty other cowboys use you for target practice.

Well ah do declare you surely have the finest pair of rose tinted glasses ah have ever seen!

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[PiLFy 0]

"aside to your comment - I 'expect' better behavior from the guy with training. But, I would want us to punish him for a transgression exactly the same as someone without the training that did the exact same thing. So, I don't consider that 'holding' him to a higher standard - which, to me, implies how we respond to failures, in addition to our expectations."

Sorry, but I disagree. Police Officers are peace officers. They're supposed to spend many hours learning how to maintain that peace. They're trained to calm tense situations down, & de-escalate confrontations. The guns on their hips should always be last resorts. There were any number of ways that this jerk could've enforced that vital policy of no cell phone use in the theater. He grossly mishandled the situation. He took someone's life. Someone without the benefit of all that training would know not to do what he did. A retired police Chief w/oodles of training should definitely have behaved far better. This is inexcusable. He has probably spent his retirement years re-reading old Jeff Cooper articles, & watching John Wayne reruns ...

Can't see why you'd want to give him a pass. Do you not believe in any Tort Laws, as well? If a Surgeon botches a repair on you, & leaves you disabled. Do you think he should've had no more knowledge & experience than a layman?

[kelpdiver 2]

PiLFy

Can't see why you'd want to give him a pass. Do you not believe in any Tort Laws, as well? If a Surgeon botches a repair on you, & leaves you disabled. Do you think he should've had no more knowledge & experience than a layman?

He didn't say 'give him a pass.' He said, give him the same punishment as you would any other guy with a CCW that (if proven) inexcusably used a gun to kill someone for a social faux paux.

I don't fully agree - I think the judge can elect to impose the full penalty in this situation, whereas maybe there could be reasons to be more lenient on someone that lost his cool. The guy trained his whole life to keep his cool, and when I hear this immediate statement to the arresting officers, it sounds like a guy that knew exactly what he was doing, trying to establish the self defense ploy.

Of course, at 71, giving him 15, 20, or life is really the same sentence.

[grue 1]

PiLFy

Can't see why you'd want to give him a pass. Do you not believe in any Tort Laws, as well? If a Surgeon botches a repair on you, & leaves you disabled. Do you think he should've had no more knowledge & experience than a layman?

Since you brought up the medical side of thing, I don't think people should be able to sue except in cases of gross negligence. There's risk in EVERY surgery, and nobody is immune to mistakes.

cavete terrae.

[PiLFy 0]

"He didn't say 'give him a pass.' He said, give him the same punishment as you would any other guy with a CCW that (if proven) inexcusably used a gun to kill someone for a social faux paux."

Perhaps a misunderstanding. I meant "Free Pass" in the sense that the shooter's many years of ethical training & resposibilities should be forgotten. Articles like this come to mind:
[Url]http://cantonohio.gov/police/?pg=316[/url]

[PiLFy 0]

I was referring to gross negligence. IMO, gunning someone down because they irritated you, is gross negligence of office...

[Andy9o8 0]

PiLFy

I was referring to gross negligence. IMO, gunning someone down because they irritated you, is gross negligence of office...

May I digress? Forgive me, as I'm about to be anal about semantics and vocabulary. That example would not be gross negligence of office, it would be willful misconduct. Gross negligence is a level of "intent" one tick below that of willful misconduct.

[rehmwa 2]

PiLFy

Can't see why you'd want to give him a pass.

why don't you read my post again and get it right

a cop kills someone illegally, he should be punished under the law just like anyone else


how do you misconstrue wanting people to be punished equally as giving this specific individual a "pass" I'll never know

Quote

this is inexcuseable

apparently it's inexcusable for a cop, but perfectly excusable for anyone else? I think murder is inexcusable regardless. seems to me you want to give random punks a pass

Quote

If a Surgeon botches a repair on you, & leaves you disabled. Do you think he should've had no more knowledge & experience than a layman?

that's an odd one.

If a layman botches a surgery on me, he'll be guilty of kidnapping, assault, illegally practicing medicine and an entire host of other laws - vs a surgeon that is hired.

I guess I agree that if I contract a bricklayer or a high school teacher to take out my appendix and he botches it up, I can't sue him for malpractice. You win one there.

do you frequently let laymen conduct your operations?


What I think is the appropriate analogy is this?
If some punk attacks me in an alley with a knife and cuts me, vs a surgeon attacks me in an alley with a knife and cuts me.

I guess you'd think the surgeon should be charged with a 'special' class of assault and battery since he has better knowledge of where to cut me? (despite you having no idea if the punk has special forces training, has read books on anatomy, or even watches a lot of Steve Segall movies)

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

kelpdiver

I think the judge can elect to impose the full penalty in this situation, whereas maybe there could be reasons to be more lenient on someone that lost his cool.

this is not inconsistent - if a judge wants to max out a sentence for someone that did it while in control vs someone that 'lost it'. He can do that. The fact that the criminal is "in control" could be for any reason

as I said - I 'expect' better and more controlled behavior from someone that has training of any kind. But I don't think unequal punishment for the same act is fair at all. A cop kills someone in the theater for texting, or a punk, or a soccer mom, kills someone in the theater for texting. EXACT SAME CRIME.

The fact that I'm surprised that a cop could get through all that training and then he still violated my expectations of someone like that is interesting, but we punish the cop based on his actions, not my outrage.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants