Wesley chapel Grove movies shooting (Spring Hill, Rio: credit, cost, medical)

[Spring Hillian]

Originally Posted by DUNNDFRNT

I get it, you use logic to piece together your version of the events, everyone else is speculating. You don't see the hypocrisy in that.

If you bothered to read it, I said I was also speculating. I am just going with logic over emotions.

I do not believe that anyone pulls a gun and shoots someone else for no reason at all unless they are criminals and with criminals all bets are off. We have a man, 71 years old, retired LEO, head of the SWAT team, head of security at a major theme park. A solid citizen.

Then we have so 40 something guy who apparently is a person who enjoyed thrill, action, adventure.
To me those types of people usually have a "my crap doesn't stink" attitude and play the role of "joe tough guy". He pushed his luck too far.

You and many others here have used YOUR logic, or lack thereof, to immediately brand the shooter as a mentally incompetent angry old man.

You have your opinion of what went down and I have mine. But since you do not approve of my logical assumptions it annoys you to the point of your continually questioning my opinion.

That's fine. But if you disagree with my point of view, please deliver a point of view that weighs the known facts of the situation instead of thinking the victim was Mr. Goody Good Guy. He should have:
1. Respected the request of a fellow customer since he was acting outside of the accepted standards by using his phone in the theater.

2. Sucked it up after the got reported for his violation of the policy instead of first verbally, then physically assaulting the shooter.

3. He instead of loosing his temper with the man who angered him he and his wife should have moved to another part of the theater and enjoy the movie.

After all, why should a paying customer be denied the right to enjoy the previews without being annoyed by someone not following the rules.

I anticipate your first response is going to be "well, the shooter broke the rules by having a gun in the theater". That "rule" may be simply to avoid liability in the event a shoot out takes place in their theater
and someone tries to sue them for not posting -a firearms ban when they knew that there have been previous shootings in theaters.


k

[Spring Hillian]

Originally Posted by D-R-B

Your "logical thinking" is a$$ backwards.

Your emotionally driven non-logical thinking is a$$ backwards.

[Spring Hillian]

I am sure you believe that Zimmerman shot Trayvon during a face to face standing up conversation which took place after he stalked Trayvon through the housing complex grounds. That he shot the kid because he thought it was the best thing to do.

That has been proven not to be the case in a court of law. If you look up that discussion you will see that I also supported Zimmerman in that matter.

Understand - it was not the popcorn that shooter worried about but what violence may occur after that point. Obviously the victim in was very upset about the entire matter.

Do you see me attacking anyone because of their point of view? I see a few of you sunk to that level while attempting to communicate your point of view.

Originally Posted by vaughanwilliams

c

Bodily harm? I know old people are frail but I didn't think popcorn could cause anyone bodily harm.

I'll tell ya Spring, if you honestly, deep in your heart believe this was a justifiable murder, your thinking is not logical-it's pathological. For your sake and the sake of those you interact with, I hope you're arguing the point just to be arguing and don't actually believe some of the stuff you're posting.

[D-R-B]

Originally Posted by Spring Hillian

If you bothered to read it, I said I was also speculating. I am just going with logic over emotions.

I do not believe that anyone pulls a gun and shoots someone else for no reason at all unless they are criminals and with criminals all bets are off. We have a man, 71 years old, retired LEO, head of the SWAT team, head of security at a major theme park. A solid citizen.

Then we have so 40 something guy who apparently is a person who enjoyed thrill, action, adventure.
To me those types of people usually have a "my crap doesn't stink" attitude and play the role of "joe tough guy". He pushed his luck too far.

You and many others here have used YOUR logic, or lack thereof, to immediately brand the shooter as a mentally incompetent angry old man.

You have your opinion of what went down and I have mine. But since you do not approve of my logical assumptions it annoys you to the point of your continually questioning my opinion.

That's fine. But if you disagree with my point of view, please deliver a point of view that weighs the known facts of the situation instead of thinking the victim was Mr. Goody Good Guy. He should have:
1. Respected the request of a fellow customer since he was acting outside of the accepted standards by using his phone in the theater.

2. Sucked it up after the got reported for his violation of the policy instead of first verbally, then physically assaulting the shooter.

3. He instead of loosing his temper with the man who angered him he and his wife should have moved to another part of the theater and enjoy the movie.

After all, why should a paying customer be denied the right to enjoy the previews without being annoyed by someone not following the rules.

I anticipate your first response is going to be "well, the shooter broke the rules by having a gun in the theater". That "rule" may be simply to avoid liability in the event a shoot out takes place in their theater
and someone tries to sue them for not posting -a firearms ban when they knew that there have been previous shootings in theaters.


k

How is this assessment of the DEAD GUY not "emotionally driven"?

[Spring Hillian]

Originally Posted by D-R-B

How is this assessment of the DEAD GUY not "emotionally driven"?

It is. Obviously. What most of you are saying is it is OK to yell, scream and jump up and down in front of someone and when that does not phase your opponent throw something at him or escalate it to a physical altercation such as he did.

I disagree with that methodology.

Instead of attacking the man, victim should have apologized for interrupting the mans enjoyment of his time at the theater that he paid for.

[D-R-B]

Originally Posted by Spring Hillian

It is. Obviously. What most of you are saying is it is OK to yell, scream and jump up and down in front of someone and when that does not phase your opponent throw something at him or escalate it to a physical altercation such as he did.

I disagree with that methodology.

Instead of attacking the man, victim should have apologized for interrupting the mans enjoyment of his time at the theater that he paid for.

What you are saying is that it's perfectly acceptable to shoot and kill a man for yelling, screaming, and "jumping up and down" in front of someone and then throwing popcorn on them...

I disagree with that ridiculous, garbage opinion.

[DUNNDFRNT]

Originally Posted by Spring Hillian

If you bothered to read it, I said I was also speculating. I am just going with logic over emotions.

I do not believe that anyone pulls a gun and shoots someone else for no reason at all unless they are criminals and with criminals all bets are off. We have a man, 71 years old, retired LEO, head of the SWAT team, head of security at a major theme park. A solid citizen.

Then we have so 40 something guy who apparently is a person who enjoyed thrill, action, adventure.
To me those types of people usually have a "my crap doesn't stink" attitude and play the role of "joe tough guy". He pushed his luck too far.

You and many others here have used YOUR logic, or lack thereof, to immediately brand the shooter as a mentally incompetent angry old man.

You have your opinion of what went down and I have mine. But since you do not approve of my logical assumptions it annoys you to the point of your continually questioning my opinion.

That's fine. But if you disagree with my point of view, please deliver a point of view that weighs the known facts of the situation instead of thinking the victim was Mr. Goody Good Guy. He should have:
1. Respected the request of a fellow customer since he was acting outside of the accepted standards by using his phone in the theater.

2. Sucked it up after the got reported for his violation of the policy instead of first verbally, then physically assaulting the shooter.

3. He instead of loosing his temper with the man who angered him he and his wife should have moved to another part of the theater and enjoy the movie.

After all, why should a paying customer be denied the right to enjoy the previews without being annoyed by someone not following the rules.

I anticipate your first response is going to be "well, the shooter broke the rules by having a gun in the theater". That "rule" may be simply to avoid liability in the event a shoot out takes place in their theater
and someone tries to sue them for not posting -a firearms ban when they knew that there have been previous shootings in theaters.


k

You didn't, you said this is what happened "point 1,2,3,4 everybody else needs to stop speculating, what's the problem" even when you admit that everyone is speculating, you do a back handed I do logic you guys emotion, I would say you are using emotion, fear and paranoia, I can not get my head around being in a place where someone lunges at me and my first reaction is I have to shoot him otherwise he is going to kill me, ditto with popcorn or even a punch, in my logic that doesn't fit.

[D-R-B]

Spring,

You mentioned using the "known facts of the case" in an earlier post......

Well.....

The "known facts of the case" so far are pointing in the direction of the old man being in the wrong for shooting and killing a man.

It certainly seems like the sheriff and judge believe that too.

[Seacove]

Originally Posted by Spring Hillian

What can I say about the victim? In a tantrum, he yelled, screamed and eventually threw popcorn at the elderly man who then shot him in the chest

It is a shame you weigh an individual based on their position on firearms.

It's a shame you are so obsessed with the right to shoot innocent people that you will overlook the descriptions given by those around as well as another couple that said they had a similar encounter with the alleged murderer.

I'm starting to think if the guy had shot everyone you would say they probably were mean to him because he was old and it was their fault. Your defense of him so beyond keeping an open mind, you sound like you are paid by the NRA.

[D-R-B]

Spring,

Are you married?...

And if so....

What is your wife's opinion on this situation?