Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
My understanding is that a "no guns" sign has no legal weight in regards to concealed carry law. That was the case in Pennsylvania, where I am from and according to what I could ascertain by a quick online search - the same applies here. The only time a sign actually means anything (from a legal standpoint) is if it's located at a place where concealed carry is legally prohibited. Generally such signs will list the state/federal statute number at the bottom, or something similar.
In regards to signs on private property, there is one caveat, if you are "discovered" to have a weapon on your person and are asked to leave - failing to do so could lead to armed trespassing. It's common practice for concealed carry owners to disregard such signs - treating them as "for informational purposes only" - due to not having any real force of law. However, any responsible permit-holder would leave when asked if their gun were somehow discovered. But, realistically - concealed means concealed. If nobody knows you have it, then it's not there.
How does not backing down equal shooting and killing someone with a gun?
Again.....
In the world that I live in....
Popcorn being thrown at me doesn't equal "harm" or "assault"......because I'm not a p#ssy.
In fact....you could even throw the popcorn container at me and I still don't believe I have a right to shoot and kill someone.....
I lean towards picking up the container and throwing it back at the a-hole rather than killing someone...
I guess I'm crazy.
I don't agree the guy should have shot the other, nor that deadly force was justified, however, consider this:
1) The movie previews were playing, this means the only light in the room is what's being reflected from the screen. We do not know how light or dark it was at the time.
2) If you had been watching a bright screen and turn away from it to argue with someone, you will have a difficult time focusing.
3) You're incredibly paranoid.
4) You used to be a cop and feel like everyone should respect your wishes and/or authority even though you're no longer in a position of authority.
5) From having been a cop, perhaps you've had weapons pulled on you in the past. I'll even go so far as to say, perhaps someone has thrown debris of some sort in your face at some point in an attempt to blind, incapacitate or otherwise gain some advantage during an altercation that occurred as part of your job.
6) From having been a cop, you know you must make split second decisions that could mean the difference between life and death.
7) People have been killed in theaters in recent years.
8) This guy's 70 and his vision is not likely as good as it was decades ago.
So with all of that being said, this may have just been a perfect storm situation where experiences of the past, a dark theater, verbal exchange, someone gets up to start a physical altercation and next thing you know some substance is hitting your face; you draw your weapon and shoot. I wasn't there, I don't know either guy, I would find it very doubtful I'd draw my weapon in such a situation, but, this guy's life has been completely different than likely any of ours and in his brain, he may have viewed this as a life and death situation if he made that decision based on past experiences and an inability to clearly see what was actually happening. If that's what actually occurred, he may very well get out of this legally. Or, he could also just be crazy, was well aware of what was happening, and snapped. That's the legal system's job to figure out at this point.
What about the fact that it was ILLEGAL for the shooter to have the weapon in the theater in the first place?
From what I understand, the theater has a clearly marked "no firearms" under any circumstances policy...
Why the hell would you bring a gun to a movie?
That's like wearing an anti shark suit to go swimming in your pool.
"It happened in Colorado so it could happen here" duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuhhhhhhhhhhh......
It happened alright.....
It was the guy who brought his gun to "protect everyone" from the "crazy people" out there who winds up killing an unarmed man...
Who'd have thought it?
Ridiculous.
HWTechGuy answered the legality question. Regarding your analogy, that makes no sense at all. Your pool on your property is easily known to you to not have sharks, and you can easily confirm it just by looking in the water before getting in. A theater, or a 16 screen theater for that matter, is a place that typically has a massive parking lot with many potential hiding places and escape routes, potentially up to 5000 people you don't know, who may or may not be armed, who may or may not be crazy, who may or may not intend to rob, kill or otherwise harm you or your family, so of course some people feel the need to carry a gun there. I don't carry a gun when I go to my friends' homes, but I do carry my gun concealed when I go to the shopping mall or Publix for example. Has anyone been killed at International Plaza? I doubt it, but I also will do my best to avoid being the first.
HWTechGuy answered the legality question. Regarding your analogy, that makes no sense at all. Your pool on your property is easily known to you to not have sharks, and you can easily confirm it just by looking in the water before getting in. A theater, or a 16 screen theater for that matter, is a place that typically has a massive parking lot with many potential hiding places and escape routes, potentially up to 5000 people you don't know, who may or may not be armed, who may or may not be crazy, who may or may not intend to rob, kill or otherwise harm you or your family, so of course some people feel the need to carry a gun there. I don't carry a gun when I go to my friends' homes, but I do carry my gun concealed when I go to the shopping mall or Publix for example. Has anyone been killed at International Plaza? I doubt it, but I also will do my best to avoid being the first.
I was basically referring to your "chances" of something happening in either situation....
I shop at International Mall all the time...if I'm the first person to be killed there...I guess it was just my day to go...and I went doing something I liked...I don't live a fear based life...I don't worry about a million different scenarios that might befall me...
I have no doubt that the shooter will get away with it.
The numerous posts here defending the shooter, giving the shooter every benefit of the doubt while making every negative assumption of the victim is amazing. "That poor sweet elderly alleged murderer just couldn't see that it was popcorn and feared for his life. He had no choice put to place the gun point blank into the victim's chest and shoot." Never mind that the victim was texting during the previews. The movie hadn't started and in every theater I've attended, the movie request to put away phones comes after the previews.
Everyone seems to agree that the alleged murderer was the initial aggressor. He decided that the victim must abide by his demand to put his phone away during the previews. The victim obviously felt obliged to explain to the alleged murderer that he was texting his three year old daughter, as everyone around them knew this. So the alleged murderer keeps making his demands to the victim, saying the guy must live by his rules and then stomps out to tell the manager. Of course, the victim couldn't have imagined that this guy would escalate it to the point of shooting. So the guy comes back, continues to berate, the victim in frustration tosses his popcorn and the guy pulls out a gun and kills him. The articles describe the scene as blood gushing from the victim's mouth as he collapses while the alleged murderer puts the gun in his lap.
And this poor elderly alleged murderer has apparently made big scenes in the theater before as described by another couple. Ironically, they stopped texting while the alleged murderer's wife's phone rang in the theater. It's amazing she lived I guess. And yes, the couple has the right to go to the press with their experience. There are probably records establishing much of what happened, including the wife's phone going off in the theater as they described. A pattern of behavior.
The alleged murderer didn't hesitate to bring all his friends to the arraignment so they could talk about what a great guy he was and how he was not a threat. The victim's family has the right to show that others had a different experience.
I shop at International Mall all the time...if I'm the first person to be killed there...I guess it was just my day to go...and I went doing something I liked...I don't live a fear based life...I don't worry about a million different scenarios that might befall me...
I don't fear for my life at all. I carry a gun because I have the right to, I do it safely, I take great responsibility in doing so and if I happen to be in a situation where I need it at some point in my life, I'll be glad I had it. I'll be much happier if I never need it except for having fun at the range.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seacove
I have no doubt that the shooter will get away with it.
The numerous posts here defending the shooter, giving the shooter every benefit of the doubt while making every negative assumption of the victim is amazing. "That poor sweet elderly alleged murderer just couldn't see that it was popcorn and feared for his life. He had no choice put to place the gun point blank into the victim's chest and shoot." Never mind that the victim was texting during the previews. The movie hadn't started and in every theater I've attended, the movie request to put away phones comes after the previews.
Everyone seems to agree that the alleged murderer was the initial aggressor. He decided that the victim must abide by his demand to put his phone away during the previews. The victim obviously felt obliged to explain to the alleged murderer that he was texting his three year old daughter, as everyone around them knew this. So the alleged murderer keeps making his demands to the victim, saying the guy must live by his rules and then stomps out to tell the manager. Of course, the victim couldn't have imagined that this guy would escalate it to the point of shooting. So the guy comes back, continues to berate, the victim in frustration tosses his popcorn and the guy pulls out a gun and kills him. The articles describe the scene as blood gushing from the victim's mouth as he collapses while the alleged murderer puts the gun in his lap.
And this poor elderly alleged murderer has apparently made big scenes in the theater before as described by another couple. Ironically, they stopped texting while the alleged murderer's wife's phone rang in the theater. It's amazing she lived I guess. And yes, the couple has the right to go to the press with their experience. There are probably records establishing much of what happened, including the wife's phone going off in the theater as they described. A pattern of behavior.
The alleged murderer didn't hesitate to bring all his friends to the arraignment so they could talk about what a great guy he was and how he was not a threat. The victim's family has the right to show that others had a different experience.
I'm not defending his actions, but I am defending our country's legal system. The law doesn't care if the victim was a nice guy and great dad; our laws are not written to lessen the burden of proof because the victim of a crime was nice to others. If he was a nice guy, that may come into play at the sentencing phase should he be found guilty.
The shooter is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. In the court of public opinion, we already know the shooter was an a-hole that stalked people around the theater complex over phone use, but that doesn't mean he committed a crime no matter how much most of us would like to see him be convicted of a crime, given the currently available information. We also have no way of knowing what the perceived threat was since none of us were in the theater. Everyone is so quick to judgement against the shooter when we all know next to nothing. Should it pan out in the end that the victim simply said some nasty words to him and threw popcorn at him, then sure, I'll be 'outraged' just like everyone else before any evidence has come out, but if the lights were off, the previews were in between scenes or displaying dark content and the only thing some old guy who's probably had weapons pulled on him in the past can see is a shadow coming towards him and things being thrown, well, I won't know how I feel about that until I read the actual testimony and see the evidence, regardless of whether he's an a-hole or not.
I shop at International Mall all the time...if I'm the first person to be killed there...I guess it was just my day to go...and I went doing something I liked...I don't live a fear based life...I don't worry about a million different scenarios that might befall me...
Exactly...
Simpletons falling victim to fear mongering.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
