Former cop kills man in a Florida cinema over texting

Page 3 of 4 [ 51 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

xenon13
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Dec 2008
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,638

18 Jan 2014, 1:41 am

Cop worship is America's foremost religion and the jury will probably rule accordingly.



Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

18 Jan 2014, 12:07 pm

xenon13 wrote:
Cop worship is America's foremost religion and the jury will probably rule accordingly.


Cops are a necessary evil and not worthy of worship.


_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson


Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,670
Location: Seattle-ish

18 Jan 2014, 4:35 pm

Raptor wrote:
:roll: :roll:
I just knew you wouldn't be able to let this go without comment.


He's just exercising his first amendment right to make ignorant comments in public, like he always does.


_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez


visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

21 Jan 2014, 11:33 am

Raptor wrote:
We are in a position to at least know the the intent of the SYG laws of where we live if that state has such laws. Each state has its own laws.
SYG isn't going to cause the streets to run red with blood. The intent of the law is meant to benefit the would be victim, not their assailant. If that comes at the cost of a wrongful shooting once in a while it's not going to be an issue for me. The rare wrongful shooting, if that's what this turns out to be, is hardly enough to cause a paradigm shift.


The issue isn't what the legislature intended, the issue is what the law means. Legislative intention is a useful tool that courts can use to interpret statute, but it is not the only tool, and it does not bind the courts.

And you need to keep another class of people in mind--people who are prevented from relying on SYG laws. Just as there have been a handful of people who have successfully relied upon it, there have also been a handful who have been convicted despite the existence of SYG laws. Those cases are also relevant to the judicial interpretation of the statute.


_________________
--James


Schneekugel
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jul 2012
Age: 45
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,612

21 Jan 2014, 11:52 am

I simply dont get it, why someone gets so angry about texting? At least I suppose, that like most peopke, the texting guy did not have his phone settings in a way, that he made sounds with texting in the cinema? I mean, I do really fully understand the wish of people in an cinema to enjoy the film in an quiet surrounding, but according to the future times, when I will be forced to watch high quality films like "Barbie and the pink farting unicorn" or "Cave men boy and his adventures in stupid moron land." with kids, I really hope to be at least be tolerated playing some games on the smartphones meanwhile, as long as I do it in silence. I really dont get it, why the ex-police men got so upset about it.



Dillogic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Nov 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,339

21 Jan 2014, 12:31 pm

Negligent homicide in the least

Firing in response to an "object" means the threat wasn't identified -- you first must ID the lethal threat to yourself/others before you're able to respond with lethal force.



TallyMan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 40,061

21 Jan 2014, 1:30 pm

I hope the cop was thoughtful enough towards the other people in the cinema to put a silencer on his gun before shooting the man.


_________________
I've left WP indefinitely.


Max000
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Apr 2012
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,547

21 Jan 2014, 2:46 pm

There are a lot of clues in this article.

Quote:
"It was like, 'There's a new sheriff in town,' " former employee Dave Cock recalled. "He was used to telling people what to do, and they would do it."


Yep, and when someone didn't do what he was told to do, he shot him.

Quote:
"To me, he wasn't a terrible person — he was just a control freak," Cock said.


As a control freak he just had to make it his job to enforce the rules in the theatre. When the theatre management wouldn't do anything about it, he took care of the matter himself.

Closer look at Curtis Reeves shows theater shooter's two sides

And that is the type of "good guy" who the NRA gun nuts want to have carrying guns into crowded theaters.



Dillogic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Nov 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,339

21 Jan 2014, 3:39 pm

Max000 wrote:
And that is the type of "good guy" who the NRA gun nuts want to have carrying guns into crowded theaters.


I doubt anyone wants murderers carrying weapons. The problem is, it's hard to tell who is a potential murderer or not in cases where there's no prior problems with the accused -- not to mention that there's nothing stopping these people from carrying weapons anyway.

(Not to mention again, he could have easily clubbed the victim over the head -- same effect.)



Magneto
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jun 2009
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,086
Location: Blighty

21 Jan 2014, 6:11 pm

Plus, he's the sort of person the anti-gun folk think should be the only ones carrying weapons, or he was when he was a cop. The news I hear from America suggests that the people there who are most dangerous with weapons are the police themselves.



Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

21 Jan 2014, 6:55 pm

Magneto wrote:
Plus, he's the sort of person the anti-gun folk think should be the only ones carrying weapons, or he was when he was a cop. The news I hear from America suggests that the people there who are most dangerous with weapons are the police themselves.


Yep!
"Only the police have the training and expertise to be trusted with carrying and using a deadly weapon". they screech.
And this guy was a captain. You don't rise to the rank of captain over night on the planet I live on. And I also think I read something about him being instrumental in forming and/or commanding the SWAT team in his department.


_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson


Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

21 Jan 2014, 7:11 pm

visagrunt wrote:
Raptor wrote:
We are in a position to at least know the the intent of the SYG laws of where we live if that state has such laws. Each state has its own laws.
SYG isn't going to cause the streets to run red with blood. The intent of the law is meant to benefit the would be victim, not their assailant. If that comes at the cost of a wrongful shooting once in a while it's not going to be an issue for me. The rare wrongful shooting, if that's what this turns out to be, is hardly enough to cause a paradigm shift.


The issue isn't what the legislature intended, the issue is what the law means. Legislative intention is a useful tool that courts can use to interpret statute, but it is not the only tool, and it does not bind the courts.

Yes, but we have to have a grasp of the wording and intent of the law to exercise what it provides. You want to have a good idea of where the boundaries and limitations lie before you have to invoke it, not afterwards when you're shelling out $$$$ to a defense attorney during your criminal trial.

Quote:
And you need to keep another class of people in mind--people who are prevented from relying on SYG laws. Just as there have been a handful of people who have successfully relied upon it, there have also been a handful who have been convicted despite the existence of SYG laws. Those cases are also relevant to the judicial interpretation of the statute.

That's because they f*cked up then tried to pull the SYG card after the fact to see if it would stick. I would too if I were in their shoes. Most of them had a good enough idea of their state's SYG law but whatever they did was outside of that and they knew it. Having said that, I would never be in favor of changing / revoking any states SYG laws just because of a few bad apples any more than I'd be in favor of lowering the speed limit on the freeways for the same reason.


_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson


Max000
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Apr 2012
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,547

21 Jan 2014, 11:29 pm

Dillogic wrote:
Max000 wrote:
And that is the type of "good guy" who the NRA gun nuts want to have carrying guns into crowded theaters.


I doubt anyone wants murderers carrying weapons.


The NRA has called for armed guards in every school in the United States. Who better to do the jobs then retired cops? They have firearms training. They have law enforcement experience. They are the perfect person for the job. Until some little kid challenges the old kooks authority and throws an eraser at him. Then the old kook snaps and responds by shooting the kid.

No normal person in the United States would feel the need to carry a firearm into a movie theater for self protection. Millions of Americans, men, women, children go to movies unarmed with no fear for their personal safety. Despite the fact, that we have so many armed maniacs walking around. The only people who would do that, are power tripping psychopathic wannabe murders. It should come as no surprise to anyone, when one of them try to carry out their murderous fantasies.



Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

22 Jan 2014, 12:07 am

Max000 wrote:
Dillogic wrote:
Max000 wrote:
And that is the type of "good guy" who the NRA gun nuts want to have carrying guns into crowded theaters.


I doubt anyone wants murderers carrying weapons.


The NRA has called for armed guards in every school in the United States. Who better to do the jobs then retired cops? They have firearms training. They have law enforcement experience. They are the perfect person for the job. Until some little kid challenges the old kooks authority and throws an eraser at him. Then the old kook snaps and responds by shooting the kid.

I must have missed that NRA meeting (insert sarcasm). My suggestion has been to allow individual school employees with carry licenses to carry a concealed handgun on their person while on school grounds if and only if they are comfortable doing so. No cost for hired guns and no single point failure. I'll also add that one bad retired cop does not make all or even many retired cops bad.

Quote:
No normal person in the United States would feel the need to carry a firearm into a movie theater for self protection. Millions of Americans, men, women, children go to movies unarmed with no fear for their personal safety.

We carry where we go and see no particular need to take our guns back to our cars just because we're going into a theater. Whether we feel we need protection specifically in a theater is irrelevant. We went through rather long theater shooting discussions two years ago with the antis having nothing to logicaly counter the rationale for carrying a handgun for protection.

Quote:
Despite the fact, that we have so many armed maniacs walking around.

That would be the rationale for non-maniacs being armed while walking around.

Quote:
The only people who would do that, are power tripping psychopathic wannabe murders. It should come as no surprise to anyone, when one of them try to carry out their murderous fantasies.

Am I to understand we're all now murderer wanna-be's? :roll:


_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson


Max000
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Apr 2012
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,547

22 Jan 2014, 2:30 am

Raptor wrote:
Max000 wrote:
Dillogic wrote:
Max000 wrote:
And that is the type of "good guy" who the NRA gun nuts want to have carrying guns into crowded theaters.


I doubt anyone wants murderers carrying weapons.


The NRA has called for armed guards in every school in the United States. Who better to do the jobs then retired cops? They have firearms training. They have law enforcement experience. They are the perfect person for the job. Until some little kid challenges the old kooks authority and throws an eraser at him. Then the old kook snaps and responds by shooting the kid.

I must have missed that NRA meeting (insert sarcasm).


I hope you are being sarcastic, because it was widely reported everywhere.

Raptor wrote:
Quote:
No normal person in the United States would feel the need to carry a firearm into a movie theater for self protection. Millions of Americans, men, women, children go to movies unarmed with no fear for their personal safety.

We carry where we go and see no particular need to take our guns back to our cars just because we're going into a theater.


Yeah, whatever, and if the guy in the next row happens to pull out is cell phone and begins texting during the movie, you will have your gun ready to shoot him, if you so choose.



Last edited by Max000 on 22 Jan 2014, 1:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.

TallyMan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 40,061

22 Jan 2014, 5:08 am

(Thread moved from News to PPR)


_________________
I've left WP indefinitely.