General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsRetired police captain kills texter in theater during movie trailer
http://abcnews.go.com/US/texting-triggers-fatal-movie-theater-shooting/story?id=21517988Texting Triggers Movie Theater Shooting by Retired Police Captain
An argument between a retired police captain and a couple who was texting inside of a Florida movie theater erupted into gunfire today that left one man dead and a woman wounded.
Police said that two couples began arguing before a showing of "Lone Survivor" over one couple's text messaging.
The shooting suspect, identified as retired Tampa police officer Curtis Reeves, 71, became annoyed when a couple sitting in front of him were texting during the movie's previews, according to the Pasco County Sheriff's office.
Police said that Reeves asked Chad and Nichole Oulson several times to stop, and then Reeves left the theater. When Reeves returned, Chad Oulson asked Reeves if he reported his phone use to the theater managers, police said. That prompted an argument which ended when Reeves pulled out a gun and shot Oulson in the chest, police said.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Warpy
(111,255 posts)but there have got to be better ways out there.
Reporting him as a hacker who was preparing to film a movie to bootleg it might have been more effective.
WeekendWarrior
(1,437 posts)and ignoring rather than acting like a fucking gun-happy Neanderthal.
MADem
(135,425 posts)FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)he thought "What the heck - whats 1 more for being a Phone Clod"
Response to FreakinDJ (Reply #103)
Post removed
meadowlark5
(2,795 posts)What a waste of life. Over something so mundane as texting. Three lives forever changed. Well, one lost 
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)
pinboy3niner
(53,339 posts)Another theater rage story, just with a different weapon...
By Chris Morran March 10, 2010
This might make you think twice about asking someone to shush the next time you’re at the movies. According to police, a man in Lancaster, CA, recently made such a request to some fellow moviegoers, who retaliated by stabbing him in the neck… With a meat thermometer.
Police say the incident occurred at a recent showing of the Martin Scorsese thriller Shutter Island. The unidentified victim had complained about a woman in the theater because she was speaking on her cellphone during the film.
The woman and her two male counterparts then left the theater, but returned shortly after. And that’s when things turned stabby.
The victim was stabbed in the neck with a meat thermometer, which the suspects left behind when they fled. He was taken to the hospital in serious condition. The suspects remain at large.
http://consumerist.com/2010/03/10/man-complains-about-cellphone-talker-at-movie-theater-gets-stabbed-in-neck-with-meat-thermometer/
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)However unless the unclear reporting is unclear, it also seems that these idiots went out and got a meat thermometer to stab the victim with. That is both premeditated and entirely weird, although perhaps buying a weapon at a convenience store limits one's choices.
Renew Deal
(81,856 posts)That's an intemperate thing to do.
warrant46
(2,205 posts)Knives too--- they are dangerous and can kill
lpbk2713
(42,757 posts)OMFG
giftedgirl77
(4,713 posts)but during the 30 minutes of previews is a bit ridiculous.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)This is why we don't want concealed weapons being toted around by gun nuts.
DragonBorn
(175 posts)Where he is a retired police officer? Not the average gun owner but ignore that it's cool.
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)I don't think a person needs to bring a gun with them to the movie theater, their previous occupation does not make a gun any more necessary.
Glassunion
(10,201 posts)Via federal law a retired officer can carry a firearm in all 50 states. Your average gun nut cannot. During the assault weapons "ban" of the 90's he would still have been able to purchase newly manufactured prohibited items because of his status.
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)There is no reason retired police officers need to carry concealed weapons any more than other people do.
Glassunion
(10,201 posts)The police associations are all for the laws as long as it does not effect them. NY's recent law restricting magazine size to 7 rounds had to be quickly amended because they forgot the usual exemptions for the police and retired law enforcement IIRC.
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)I am sure many of the police associations would scream if anyone tried to change the law, but that does not make it a good law. I see no reason a retired cop should need to be extra heavily armed in public places.
Glassunion
(10,201 posts)People love to toss around the statements that the "police backed" measure to reduce gun crime, "police associations" support this law or that. But what is rarely mentioned is that the police support them because in no way does it effect them. I dare a lawmaker to come up with a law that does not include the standard police exemptions and see how much backing or support they get for the law.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)Who gives a fuck what cop lobbyists want?
Glassunion
(10,201 posts)But, sadly that is not how it works. If you have enough $$$, you get the laws you want, and block the ones you don't. It's the 'Murican way.
Dawson Leery
(19,348 posts)Jenoch
(7,720 posts)law enforcement be barred from collective bargaining?
Glassunion
(10,201 posts)Jenoch
(7,720 posts)Glassunion
(10,201 posts)evidence, cover up misdeeds and re-instate violent officers, intentionally prolong investigations, etc... then they do to improve the quality of life for officers.
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)My two brothers' union did not do that sort of thing. Niether worked for big city departments.
Glassunion
(10,201 posts)There are departments that run great, then there are others that have long histories of corruption and cover up.
I just recently read about an officer who they sustained charges (it took 2 years of investigation) of assault, abuse of powers, false arrest, etc... by the department's IA, however he was not fired, nor even suspended, or given desk duty. Since he was due to retire, they decided to wait and let him just leave when his retirement date came up and dropped all charges at the request of the union. He retired 6 months later and was honored with dedication, professionalism and personal sacrifice for his service on the department.
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)of assaulting a bar patron while off duty. The guy the cop struck fell to the pavement of a bar patio. The union did not defend him. He was convicted and sentenced to 43 months. Unfortnately, his victim has had three brain surgeries and is permanently disabled.
gopiscrap
(23,759 posts)Dawson Leery
(19,348 posts)and running PR campaigns to smear victims of police brutality. For these reasons, both Calvin Coolidge and FDR opposed unions for those with the enforcement capacity of the government.
Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)Dream of revenge upon those that put them there, retired or not. Thats why this law exists.
Lost_Count
(555 posts)... but not for the reasons you think.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Glassunion
(10,201 posts)My point is that retired police are exempt from a lot of firearms laws. In NY a retired officer can purchase and own a "high capacity" magazine in exemption to the law that prohibits the sale or possession of "high capacity" magazines.
http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/07/ny-gun-law-amended-in-middle-of-night-to-exempt-retired-cops-from-magazine-limit/
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)It is not true that they are not subject to gun purchasing laws. I have a brother who is a retired cop. When he buys a long gun from a Minnesota FFL he has to complete form 4473 and go through a background check. He neees a "permit to purchase" a handgun or "assault rifle". That permit includes a more thorough background check conducted by the local law enforcement agency. My brother does not regularly conceal carry.
Glassunion
(10,201 posts)He does indeed need to follow the same purchasing laws. However he can purchase more than the average bear.
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)the number of gun purchases allowed per month like some states do. I believe that is a relatively rare law.
Barack_America
(28,876 posts)...than the "average" gun owner? Wouldn't that be the general expectation?
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)pipoman
(16,038 posts)Be set by a Toyota mechanic than a 71 yo demented doctor..
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)makes him an even more responsible gun owner simply exercising his 2nd amendment rights.
WeekendWarrior
(1,437 posts)joeybee12
(56,177 posts)But hey, if it helps you defend your fetish to ignore facts, go for it.
Coexist
(24,542 posts)NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)DOOOOVVAAAHHHHKKKIIIIHHHHNNNNNN
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)I do.
I didn't like violent vigilantism then and I still don't.
Not with a gun, not with your hands. None of it.
valerief
(53,235 posts)lillypaddle
(9,580 posts)jeezus. unreal.
Barack_America
(28,876 posts)Florida 
valerief
(53,235 posts)NightWatcher
(39,343 posts)valerief
(53,235 posts)took it out and used it.
It didn't just "appear" in his hand.
NightWatcher
(39,343 posts)Simply carrying a firearm when legal doesn't cross the threshold for premeditation. Now if he left a note at home saying he was gonna kill somebody at the theater, there ya go.
2nd degree is easier to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
madinmaryland
(64,933 posts)Hence to me it was premeditated.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)for use of a firearm in commission of 2nd degree murder, and even further penalties for use of a concealed firearm for 2nd degree murder.
However, impulse killing is still less of a crime than premeditated murder.
madinmaryland
(64,933 posts)I believe that anyone who carry's a gun is intending to use it, thus making "impulse" a moot point and making the killing pre-meditated.
If a person does not intend use the gun, then why would they bother to carry it??
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)One really has to have a specific plan. Carrying a gun, which act I think ought to be generally prohibited for obvious reasons, really isn't "a plan".
kwassa
(23,340 posts)
spin
(17,493 posts)unless I am attacked by an individual who wants to put me in the hospital for an extended stay or six feet under and is armed or much larger and younger than I am. In my state I have every right to defend myself in such a situation using lethal force if necessary to stop the attack.
I'm not a cop or a vigilante and I don't go looking for trouble. The last thing I ever hope to ever do is to shoot another person.
An overwhelming number of those who legally carry have the same attitude as I do. Of course there are a few exceptions who misuse their firearms and make national headlines. Rarely mentioned, except at the local level, are the many incidents where a legally armed citizen is able to stop an attack. In most cases no shots are fired. The bad guy runs when he realizes his victim is armed.
I realize that it is great fun to stereotype citizens who legally carry weapons as bloodthirsty killers looking for an opportunity to blow someone away. Fortunately this is far from the truth or we would see numerous shootings involving those with a carry permit on a daily basis. In Florida alone there are over 1,000,000 residents with a concealed weapons permit.
madinmaryland
(64,933 posts)believe are valid situations.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Just pointing out how silly such a saying really is.
Defending oneself lawfully is not 'taking the law into your own hands'-- that would assume that the only lawful use of force is by the state-- a damned dangerous proposition.
spin
(17,493 posts)or kill me until he actually chops my arm or my head off?
"Justification does not make a criminal use of force lawful; if the use of force is justified, it cannot be criminal at all."
Dennis J. Baker, Glanville Williams Textbook of Criminal Law (London: 2012) at Chapter 21.
Obviously, if I decide that I am in fear for my health or life, I best be right as my actions will be closely examined by the authorities.
Use of Deadly Force Law & Legal Definition
Deadly force is generally defined as physical force which, under the circumstances in which it is used, is readily capable of causing death or serious physical injury. In order for deadly force to be justified there must be an immediate, otherwise unavoidable threat of death or grave bodily harm to yourself or other innocents. Deadly force is that force which could reasonably be expected to cause death or grave bodily harm.
The use of force is generally illegal unless it fits within the strict requirements of one of the four legal justifications. They are: self-defense, defense of a third person, crime prevention, and law enforcement. Each of these areas has specific requirements that must be met to avoid criminal liability. You may only use the amount of force that is reasonable and necessary in the situation.. This is judged by what a reasonable person would have done under the circumstances. In a self-defense situation, it is only when the aggressor uses or attempts to use deadly force that you have the right to respond with deadly force. Laws vary by state, so local law should be consulted for the applicable requirements in your area....emphasis added
http://definitions.uslegal.com/u/use-of-deadly-force/
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)more walkers, so carefully consider your situation, your best move with zombies is to run quietly away. Actually, come to think of it, your best move for all these situations is to not be there, not to play rambo.
spin
(17,493 posts)Therefore if I ever run into a Zombie, I will follow your advice.
Your second piece of advice makes total sense to me. That's why I practice situational awareness. I don't walk down dark streets with a cell phone glued to my ear but am instead alert to my environment and those in it. That significantly lowers any chance that I will be attacked.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)if you have no intention of using it why cary it?
I have little doubt this old guy was afraid for his life. His fear more than likely was unjustified but that's the problem with carying a gun. You may see something as life threatening that is not.
spin
(17,493 posts)I legally carry a concealed weapon but I have absolutely no intent to use it ..unless I am attacked by an individual who wants to put me in the hospital for an extended stay or six feet under and is armed or much larger and younger than I am.
If you do legally carry concealed and you feel you have a reason to use your weapon for legitimate self defense, you better be right. Otherwise you could land in jail for a long time or financially ruined.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)someone is still dead
spin
(17,493 posts)That's why it is critical to make damn sure the person you are shooting at is a serious threat to your health or life.
However, I disagree with your assertion that if you do shoot someone with a handgun the wound will be fatal.
One Bullet Can Kill, but Sometimes 20 Don’t, Survivors Show
By JOHN ELIGON
Published: April 3, 2008
A man in North Carolina was shot roughly 20 times in 1995 and lived to tell about it. The rapper 50 Cent was shot nine times in 2000 and has since released three albums. And in 2006, Joseph Guzman survived 19 gunshot wounds during the 50-shot fusillade by police detectives that killed Sean Bell.
While surviving numerous gunshots could be a miraculous feat, doctors who have treated gunshot victims say that being shot is not automatically a death sentence.
When major organs — the heart and brain especially — and blood vessels are avoided, the chances of survival are good, they said. The catch, of course, is that there is no science to preventing a bullet from hitting a vital part of the body.
“It’s a matter of total, straight luck,” said Dr. Vincent J. M. DiMaio, the former chief medical examiner in Bexar County, Tex., and the author of a book on gunshot wounds first published in 1985.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/03/nyregion/03shot.html
snooper2
(30,151 posts)So maybe the old bastard went to his car to get his gun?
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)That doesn't prove premeditation, but it heavily suggests it should be looked into.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)I heard this morning that he left to get management, then either changed his mind or failed to find anyone and went back to his seat and killed the person. I agree that seems rather premeditated and I expect the charges will be upped.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Impulse killing is second degree murder. The penalties are huge.
valerief
(53,235 posts)Barack_America
(28,876 posts)Like a note or social media post beforehand stating intent to shoot anyone who texts in a movie theater.
whopis01
(3,512 posts)Premeditation can be formed in a mere moment. It doesn't have to be stated to anyone or displayed anywhere.
It is very subjective - but basically comes down to whether or not the attacker had the opportunity to reflect upon the consequences of the act.
In "Berube v. State", the Florida District Court of Appeal found that Premeditation is a fully formed conscious purpose to kill and that "This purpose to kill may be formed a moment before the act but must exist for a sufficient length of time to permit reflection as to the nature of the act to be committed and the probable result of that act."
Beaverhausen
(24,470 posts)I can't believe some here think it means a plan or a note.
valerief
(53,235 posts)However, being a Florida retired police captain, he won't serve any time. He'll be Zimmermanned.
whopis01
(3,512 posts)Just a couple weeks ago a former Florida police captain received a life sentence for murder. Not too far away from this location.
http://www.bradenton.com/2013/12/26/4906287/former-bradenton-police-capt-fleming.html
And regarding the premeditation - I was supporting your point. It ends up being a bit subjective but it can happen in a moment.
The fact that he is charged with only second degree murder right now doesn't mean that much. If there are multiple potential charges it is common to initially arrest and hold on one charge, often a lesser charge, to buy time while other charges are investigated.
valerief
(53,235 posts)whopis01
(3,512 posts)So it appears they are taking it serious so far.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Again, "impulse killing" is not 1st degree murder. This, unless there is evidence otherwise, is a textbook impulse killing.
Why the difference? Again, I'm not a lawyer, but I think the theory is that we all have issues controlling our emotions, so getting angry and acting out and killing somebody is a different level of guilt than, for example making a plan to go to a movie theater and murder anyone who dares use their phone.
The Colorado batman movie killer is an example of somebody who made a plan and went to a movie theater and carried out that plan. I happen to think he is batshit crazy and should be treated accordingly, but what he did is premeditated murder.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)If they search his house and find a note saying he is headed to the movies to shoot some people then they can charge him with first degree. I'm sure second degree will be enough to lock him away forever.
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)Trajan
(19,089 posts)No more and no less ...
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)
damnedifIknow
(3,183 posts)Glassunion
(10,201 posts)As a retired law enforcement officer he is permitted via federal law to carry a firearm in all 50 states regardless of state or local law.
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)If not I think your head is in the sand.
Glassunion
(10,201 posts)If you have a 50 state ban on concealed carry laws, this incident would have still occurred.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Glassunion
(10,201 posts)Concealed carry in this particular incident would have no bearing on the outcome. I'm bar far, in no way, suggesting that this sort of incident would not occur more and more with the proliferation of concealed carry. Now that it is in all 50 states, we shall see.
My point was that if concealed carry, and stand your ground was repealed in all 50 states, this particular incident would still have occurred, as the shooter would still be allowed to carry a concealed firearm due to his status as a retired police officer. He would be covered by federal law in permitting him to carry a firearm in all 50 states regardless if it is legal to do so in that state.
spin
(17,493 posts)Florida has had "shall issue" concealed carry since Oct. 1987 and during that 25 year period of time only 168 permits have been revoked for the commission of a crime involving a firearm after the license was issued.
(ref: http://www.freshfromflorida.com/content/download/7499/118851/cw_monthly.pdf)
Kaleva
(36,298 posts)issued by the agency where he served as a police officer and has met the standards for qualification in firearms training for active law enforcement officers among other requirements.
FatBuddy
(376 posts)concealed carry has already taken hold.
Illinois (i think) was the last state without it until recently.
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)Bettie
(16,104 posts)Period. End of story.
Sadly, it is Florida, so he can say "I was scared of the texting man" and "I stood my ground" and walk on murder.
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)AM THE LAW!
Bettie
(16,104 posts)I used to tell my kids that the police are there to help.
Now, not so much. I have boys, three of them and as they approach the teen years, the main thing we need to teach them is to be very careful around these potentially dangerous people.
gopiscrap
(23,759 posts)Incitatus
(5,317 posts)He must have forgot for a second he can't get away with it without a badge.
Hassin Bin Sober
(26,326 posts)I'm sure he will say he was in fear for his life.
Although, I think the witnesses and the defensive wound through the victim's wife's hand will sink him.
firsttimer
(324 posts)Some People need to realize no one wants to listen to your conversation
at a grocery check out lane , standing in line at a coffee shop etc...
And turn the phone off when it's your turn to order , don't fricking order than continue talking
while the person behind the counter makes your coffee then tries to get your attention when it's ready .....
The world doesn't revolve around you
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)
malaise
(268,987 posts)goldent
(1,582 posts)During the main feature, maybe it would be justifiable?
MADem
(135,425 posts)
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)In recent months, Florida juries have made it a point to acquit half-assed stand-your-ground vigilantism, no matter how outrageous the defense...
MADem
(135,425 posts)they?
spin
(17,493 posts)people licensed to carry in Florida you first have to understand that since October 1987, the date when "shall issue" concealed carry went into effect, Florida has issued 2,581,087 concealed weapons permits. Only 168 permits have been revoked for the commission of a crime involving the use of a firearm after the license was issued in that time frame. (ref: http://www.freshfromflorida.com/content/download/7499/118851/cw_monthly.pdf)
Currently 1,215,708 concealed weapons permits are valid but 161,139 are owned by people who live outside the state. Therefore over 1,000,000 resident Floridians have a valid license to carry (1,054,569 to be exact) (ref: http://www.freshfromflorida.com/content/download/7502/118869/cw_active.pdf)
In any sample of over one million people in any state, you would find a higher rate of firearm misuse than exists among those licensed to carry in Florida. In fact if you took a random sample of one million people who live in Florida, you would find a higher rate of firearm crime than exists within the concealed weapons group.
Of course since Florida is the leading state in the number of people who have carry permits and since the main stream media is basically against anti-gun rights, it is logical that any incident involving the misuse of a firearm in Florida by a person with a concealed weapons permit will receive national attention. Sure, it makes Florida look bad but the media rarely mentions the facts I have presented above.
Still not all people who are licensed to carry in Florida are angels. A very small percentage misuse their license to carry with tragic results. A much higher percentage use their firearms to stop an attack in legitimate self defense which rarely receives national attention. Often such stories do not even make local news as no shots are fired. Predators often run when they realize their victims are armed.
If anything the fact that very, very few citizens of Florida who have carry permits ever misuse their permit to murder or commit crime shows that the Florida Concealed Weapons program is a success not a failure. Reports from other states that allow "shall issue" concealed carry (such as Texas) show the same results.
MADem
(135,425 posts)coming home from the store with a candy and a drink, still has his permit.
The problem isn't that so few permits are revoked, it's that they're given to fucking idiots and they aren't taken away when they screw up.
And FL can't hold an election to save their life. I know President (Fucked Over) Gore agrees with me!
spin
(17,493 posts)and flashed his handgun to gain leverage. In that case Martin may have been "standing his ground" and in and fear for his life.
Unfortunately the evidence was not there to convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman murdered Martin. Like it or not that is the way our legal system is set up. The jury didn't rule that Zimmerman was innocent by any means.
Florida has set up what is my opinion an excellent system that insures the OVERWHELMING majority of those who they allow to carry concealed are responsible and honest citizens who handle their firearms in a responsible manner. Realistically it is impossible to totally eliminate every individual who will misuse their state granted right to carry a concealed weapon.
The question is if having a "shall issue" concealed weapons program in a state is positive or negative. One way to determine this is to look at the violent firearm crime rate in the state. Surely if "shall issue" concealed carry was a poor idea and over 1,000,000 residents of Florida had a permit to carry, we would see a rise in firearm crime.
Florida firearm violence hits record low; concealed gun permits up
Posted: 01/09/2013
By: Jacob Carpenter, Scripps Howard News Service
NAPLES, FL - In the so-called Gunshine State, home to the most gun permits in the country, firearm violence has fallen to the lowest point on record.
As state and national legislators consider gun control laws in the wake of last month's Connecticut school shooting, Florida finds itself in a gun violence depression. The firearm-involved violent crime rate has dropped 33 percent between 2007 and 2011, while the number of issued concealed weapons permits rose nearly 90 percent during that time, state records show.
Read more: http://www.abc15.com//dpp/news/national/florida-firearm-violence-hits-record-low-concealed-gun-permits-up#ixzz2qPkMgAzf
Of course there are many factors in the violent crime equation and the fact that Florida leads the nation in the number of concealed weapons permits is just one. Still it seems logical that since allowing responsible, honest and trained citizens to legally carry concealed has not led to a dramatic increase in violent crime, the program is overall a success.
As far as Al Gore and the vote in Florida, I personally feel that Al Gore was a weak candidate who lacked the charisma to beat Bush the Younger. Al Gore lost his home state which is highly unusual in a Presidential election. Had he won Tennessee, Florida would have been irrelevant.
I will remind you that Florida went for Obama in both the 2008 and 2012 elections. That may be due to the fact that he ran against two weak opponents in these races. Obama is definitely the best campaigner that I have watched during my 67 years of life. Had Al Gore had half the charisma that Obama has, he would have won hands down.
MADem
(135,425 posts)George Bush was a fucking idiot--he was not "charismatic" unless you think that stupidity is attractive. Al was a victim of Big Money and the whole Money Equals Speech thing. He had the right message--we'd never have gone to war if he had become President. All our lives would be very different.
I guess we have zero points of convergence on these topics.
spin
(17,493 posts)Al Gore was too "wooden" to appeal to many voters.
Gore and the Bore Effect
Vice President Gore on the campaign trail. (AP)
By Kevin Merida
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, June 7, 1999; Page C01
More than a description, it's a condition, an albatross, an image worth ditching. It speaks to something many people are but nobody wants to be. White paint, brown socks, plain yogurt, Lite beer.
Boring.
To bore is to attack the senses with a fusillade of monotony, to weary the world with blandness. Boring is so boring that Webster's devotes little of its precious space to the adjective: "Dull, tiresome, etc." End of definition.
But let's take it further: Think high school chemistry class and a bouquet of carnations. Dockers slacks, K Street office buildings, the Chevy Lumina. Insurance adjusters and fiscal responsibility. Marshmallows, Martha Stewart and those fishing programs on cable TV.
Which brings us to Al Gore, the highest-ranking boring man in the land. Or so the polls say. He is, these surveys suggest, the vanilla pudding of the species. This doesn't have to be an absolute truth to be a problem. In America, when an impression takes root it multiplies until it becomes commonplace until it becomes parody until it becomes accepted fact. And then it's too late. It has become legend. We don't have to speculate about this phenomenon. We have Al Gore. We have political science:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/campaigns/wh2000/stories/gore060799.htm
Of course the Washington Post is conservative and you will criticize my source. Still this article summed up the much of the weaknesses that cost Al the election.
I personally believe that Gore would have made a far better President than Bush the Younger. Still the fact remains that many people voted for Bush. One of the problems with our current system to elect our representatives and Presidents is that the most likable candidate usually wins and that largely depends on how he comes across on short TV campaign ads. Voters often ignore the policies that the candidates support and instead vote totally based on who they would like to invite to dinner or drink a beer with.
Unfortunately the most charismatic candidate often lacks true leadership skills. I hate to say this but I personally believe Obama has largely failed to exhibit the necessary leadership skills to move our nation forward in the manner I hoped for. Of course the Republicans deserve a lot of credit for the fact that we have not recovered from the Great Recession but still the sign of a great leader is that he is able to overcome opposition. I had great hopes that in the future he might be viewed in the same light that Lincoln or FDR is but it looks like he will be seen as a good but not great President.
I will agree that we appear to have "zero points of convergence on these topics." You suggest that Al Gore was a victim of Big Money but that doesn't explain the fact that Obama has won two Presidential elections.
MADem
(135,425 posts)as VP, and no one minded. We knew him. We knew what he was like. His behavior and demeanor were out there for all to see for eight years prior to that election.
It only became an issue when Rove sold it as one.
One good thing about 2000, it has improved the ability of many Americans to detect that kind of thing, though it still can be sold if one isn't paying attention.
spin
(17,493 posts)and had a good sense of humor.
If so, it was tragic that he was unable to show more of his real personality during his Presidential campaign.
meadowlark5
(2,795 posts)He was standing his ground against that dangerous popcorn. He was simply defending his life. It'll work. It's Florida.
Arger68
(679 posts)Or so I've been told by many NRA types...
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)
MisterP
(23,730 posts)centuries of getting gunned down
whattya expect from America's Albert Rosenberg?
malaise
(268,987 posts)That is one out of control old man - yes texting and using cell phones in the cinema is very annoying but you go for a gun and kill a man with a wife and three year old child for that.
Throw away the key.
`My step father, who is the same age, has mild dementia and the biggest change we've noticed, besides forgetting everything, is that he is super combative and sometimes gets violent. Cops were at the house today even though I told my mother not to call.
I wouldn't be surprised if something like the beginnings of dementia, which sometimes shows up as paranoia and belligerence, was behind this behavior.
In any case, just another example of how unsafe we are around armed lunatics.
enough
(13,259 posts)is one of the most visible symptoms for many people in the early and middle stages of dementia.
Also, with my father at that stage I noticed that he had no ability to differentiate between big problems and small hassles. Everything seemed to have the same importance. He was just as likely to get totally riled up over a tiny inconvenience as over a serious problem.
This is why the problem of gun-ownership for people with dementia is so very difficult to deal with.
Marr
(20,317 posts)Cofitachequi
(112 posts)Niceguy1
(2,467 posts)I kinda feel sorry for the guy that was killed, mostly. Manners would have avoided the situation entirely.
Cofitachequi
(112 posts)...but manners grease the gears of a society. common respect breeds common respect.
Niceguy1
(2,467 posts)town often over the years and manners go a long way to prevent problems. Many people over look that option.
Response to Cofitachequi (Reply #73)
Ed Suspicious This message was self-deleted by its author.
Skip Intro
(19,768 posts)
NoGOPZone
(2,971 posts)That the retired cop did
uppityperson
(115,677 posts)
jeff47
(26,549 posts)
Cofitachequi
(112 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)Thread's still up there.
Cofitachequi
(112 posts)brilliant.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Cofitachequi
(112 posts)What the adults on this thread have pointed out is that the old fashioned idea of manners is a behavior developed through time to reduce the friction in a society which could have prevented this tragedy. Common coutesy and mutual respect make the world a better place.
uppityperson
(115,677 posts)Cofitachequi
(112 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)The only way the texter's manners become relevant is if you put the blame on the texter. Meaning the shooting was justified.
No, actually those make the world a worse place. They are a mechanism for reinforcing the status quo.
For example, it was horribly bad manners for Suffragettes to go out and protest. It was horribly bad manners for those kids to sit at Woolworth's lunch counter. Those "Occupy" people are terribly ill-mannered. And so on.
The thing that could have prevented this tragedy is to not back the delusions of gun fanatics that are fanned by gun manufacturers.
Cofitachequi
(112 posts)
Quixote1818
(28,930 posts)So perhaps the old man could have used some manners by not hounding them until after the movie started:
Snip:
Is It OK to Use Your Phone Before the Movie Starts?
Yes. Of course. The lights are up, so who is it going to bother, except the friend sitting next to you who you’re ignoring so you can text your friend sitting on the other side of him. In fact, I often wear headphones and catch up on TV shows while I’m waiting for the film to start because it ensures that no one will speak to me and I won’t have to hear their boneheaded guesses at the pre-movie trivia. When you’re attending screenings of movies like Grown Ups 2, it’s important not to be able to inadvertently eavesdrop on others’ conversations, lest you lose all faith in humanity.
Is It OK to Use Your Phone During the Previews?
This is a tougher call. It’s definitely OK during the pre-movie commercials, but use your judgement during the previews. If you’re in a very crowded theater, I would strongly discourage it. But on the other hand, glaring at someone or asking them to turn off their phone during the previews is also kind of a dick move, too. They’re trailers: Try not to get a bug up your ass if someone’s phone light is illuminated during the trailer for The Smurfs 2.
http://www.pajiba.com/miscellaneous/a-discussion-of-proper-phone-etiquette-during-a-movie-screening.php
Blue_Adept
(6,399 posts)I know I often pull my phone out during the trailers to jot down the name of a movie that I want to look into more later on. I know that two hours later, I'm often hard pressed to remember each trailer, never mind the names.
ScreamingMeemie
(68,918 posts)the theater. I applaud them.
Marr
(20,317 posts)It sounds like he was being a twat, yes. But escalating that to a shooting makes the shooter orders of magnitude worse.
MADem
(135,425 posts)They were running the coming attractions--who cares about those?
If there was a lot of beeping and blooping while the actual film was playing, that is when you lean over and say "Please do that in the lobby; you're disturbing those of us watching the film."
If the guy doesn't respond, go get the manager and tell him the guy is filming the movie with his iPhone, and he'll be thrown out on his ass. Problem solved.
TransitJohn
(6,932 posts)n/t
Vashta Nerada
(3,922 posts)
mcar
(42,316 posts)My family saw the last Harry Potter there. There were a few teens a couple rows up texting during the film. It was annoying but I never once thought about shooting them.
RKP5637
(67,108 posts)or anything? Maybe he heard some beeps? Or the light from the screen bothered him? Yet another WTF in a WTF world. How did he even know he was texting?
Systematic Chaos
(8,601 posts)Thank doG that fine, upstanding gentleman had a firearm so that he would not have to endure having his enjoyment of some movie previews hampered.
Next thing you know, someone else would have run to get their popcorn or drink refilled, or maybe made a last-minute bathroom run! Can you imagine trying to enjoy some previews during all that bedlam?
Fuck it. I'd just go to the theater with an armed and ready tactical nuke.
If there was a "good guy with a gun" should he have shot the retired officer, after the officer murdered the guy?
Response to jsr (Original post)
Post removed
AnalystInParadise
(1,832 posts)He didn't get to see Lone Survivor? Too bad it was a great movie
Quixote1818
(28,930 posts)It doesn't really bother me until the movie starts. Here is an interesting stat:
Here is a shocking statistic revealed by the study: 55% of people polled admit that they have texted during a movie.
http://www.fandango.com/movieblog/social-media-survey-says-theatergoers-want-texting-tweeting-in-movie-theaters-do-you-agree-711078.html
If we killed off 55% of movie goers then revenues would really drop! 
Logical
(22,457 posts)Quixote1818
(28,930 posts)A lot of people think it's okay and people are still filing in to the theater. I would never in a million years get on someone for texting during the previews. For one, there is debate about whether it's rude or not, so if you do confront someone you may actually be the one being rude because they may think what they are doing is perfectly fine.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)The real story is some overly aggressive nutbar was unwilling or unable to peaceably solve a minor conflict (ironic, given his former career), made a conscious choice to introduce gunfire into the conversation, and killed an unarmed person just to prove who was "right"... If it wasn't texting, it would have been something else -- Maybe the victim's baseball cap was blocking the view; or maybe his t-shirt was too yellow, or maybe he was breathing up too much air...
And pay no attention to the trolls and stand-up gallows comedians trying to make jokes or mitigate this...If there was a crying baby and the nutbar shot it while in a red-mist rage, there wouldn't be any jokes here even though we *all* hate loud crying babies in public places...Nevermind the fact that if every breach of etiquette or polite manners meant a summary death sentence, there wouldn't be anyone left alive on the planet...
Skip Intro
(19,768 posts)be a jerk, you take your chances...
Hate to ever read about a life cut short, and of course the guy doing the killing (the guy, not the gun) should probably be in prison the rest of his life, pending full knowledge of what happened and how it happened.
Historic NY
(37,449 posts)wait isn't thet f--king crazy. Florida needs to rein in their law or give guns to every citizen to protect themselves.
ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)That's hardcore. At least wait until the studio logo.
Quixote1818
(28,930 posts)Snip>
Is It OK to Use Your Phone Before the Movie Starts?
Yes. Of course. The lights are up, so who is it going to bother, except the friend sitting next to you who you’re ignoring so you can text your friend sitting on the other side of him. In fact, I often wear headphones and catch up on TV shows while I’m waiting for the film to start because it ensures that no one will speak to me and I won’t have to hear their boneheaded guesses at the pre-movie trivia. When you’re attending screenings of movies like Grown Ups 2, it’s important not to be able to inadvertently eavesdrop on others’ conversations, lest you lose all faith in humanity.
Is It OK to Use Your Phone During the Previews?
This is a tougher call. It’s definitely OK during the pre-movie commercials, but use your judgement during the previews. If you’re in a very crowded theater, I would strongly discourage it. But on the other hand, glaring at someone or asking them to turn off their phone during the previews is also kind of a dick move, too. They’re trailers: Try not to get a bug up your ass if someone’s phone light is illuminated during the trailer for The Smurfs 2.
Snip>
How Do You Deal with Someone Who Is Texting in Your Vicinity?
People who are rude enough to text or talk on the phone during a movie are not likely the kind of people who are going to respond to your passive agressiveness. You can give them the stink eye and/or the stink-eye/loud sigh combination all damn day, but it’s probably not going to get you anywhere. These people also have an inordinate amount of pride, so if you ask them to put away their phone, you’re probably only going to rile them up. I would also discourage you from seeking the manager, because 1) you’ll miss part of the movie, 2) no one likes a snitch, and 3) you’re not likely to get the manager. You’re more likely to get the teenager who is ripping ticket stubs in half, and God knows he doesn’t want to say anything to the rude guy any more than you do. You’ll just make his terrible job even more terrible.
The best thing to do, honestly, is just to get up and move.
If that, however, is not an option, what the a rude texter will respond to is crazy. People are scared of crazy people, even if you’re slight of frame. So here’s what you do: Remove your shoes and socks. Place your shoes on top of the armrests. Remove all of the contents of your pocket and place them inside of your shoes. Pull your arms inside of your shirt sleeves. Begin quietly slapping yourself with your loose shirt sleeves.
http://www.pajiba.com/miscellaneous/a-discussion-of-proper-phone-etiquette-during-a-movie-screening.php
quinnox
(20,600 posts)Are there no limits?
Quixote1818
(28,930 posts)Anyone who can be persuaded in that direction has some real evil in them.
quinnox
(20,600 posts)Agschmid
(28,749 posts)
Beacool
(30,247 posts)This must be akin to road rage. People get so incensed that they lose control. I sympathize with the man's frustrations, but it was only a movie.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Reading the article, it looks like Oulson confronted Reeves after Reeves lodged a complaint with management- we don't know if Oulson started whaling on Reeves for that action, or if Reeves just up and shot Oulson.
Quixote1818
(28,930 posts)but management didn't respond because it was still in the previews. When Reeves returned Oulson asked if he had talked to management and then an argument erupted and someone threw popcorn then the shots were fired. Witnesses said it was over about as fast as it started and they were not sure who threw the popcorn.
Snip>
Cummings said the man in the back row got up and left the auditorium, presumably to get a manager. But he came back after a few minutes, without a manager and appearing upset. Moments later, the argument between the two men resumed, and the man in the front row stood up. Cummings said the men started raising their voices.
"Somebody throws popcorn. I'm not sure who threw the popcorn," Cummings said. "And then bang, he was shot."
Snip>
A man sitting next to the shooter grabbed the gun out of his hand, and the suspect did not attempt to get away, Cummings said.
"I can't believe people would bring a pistol, a gun, to a movie," Cummings said. "I can't believe they would argue and fight and shoot one another over popcorn. Over a cellphone."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/13/tampa-bay-movie-theater-shooting_n_4590721.html
El_Johns
(1,805 posts)Quixote1818
(28,930 posts)Looks like he has a daughter without a Daddy now
FB page: https://www.facebook.com/chad.oulson
Rex
(65,616 posts)
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Really jacks up the fear factor for them if they do happen to get into some sort of confrontation, they are subconsciously expecting the other person to pull out a gun, they wouldn't be carrying a gun in the first place if they didn't at least have that in the back of their mind.
spin
(17,493 posts)I see is armed.
I often get a good laugh out of posts like yours.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)
spin
(17,493 posts)Subconscious
***snip***
The subconscious and instinct
The subconscious mind is a composite of everything one sees, hears and any information the mind collects that it cannot otherwise consciously process to make meaningful sense. The conscious mind cannot always absorb disconnected information, as it would be an information overload, so the subconscious mind stores this information where it can be retrieved by the conscious mind when it needs to defend itself for survival (and for other reasons, such as solving puzzles).
The subconscious mind stores information that the conscious mind may not immediately process with full understanding, but it stores the information for later retrieval when ”recalled” by the conscious mind, or by an astute psychoanalyst who can draw out information stored in the subconscious, bringing it to the individual's conscious awareness.[7] This can especially be observed with heightened sensitivity of victims of violence and other crimes, where victims "felt something" "instinctually" about a person or situation, but failed to take action to avoid the situation, for whatever reason, be it embarrassment, self-denial or other reasons to ignore instinct, as they disregard internal warning signals....emphasis added
A precise example of the subconscious mind at work and related phenomena can be found in a book written by psychoanalyst Gavin De Becker, "The Gift of Fear". He describes how a victim "knew something was wrong", but initially discredited her own instinct/subconscious mind, opting instead to respond to the perceived threat in a normal, "socially acceptable" manner, completely ignoring that the subconscious mind tried to tell the conscious mind "that something is wrong." De Becker tapped into the mind of the victim regarding her "prior awareness by the subconscious mind that caused her to act instinctively" allowing her to realize that the perpetrator was going to kill her. The analyst brought her conscious mind to recognize how her subconscious was working on her conscious mind, by eliciting her original "inner thoughts/voice" through a series of events to which her subconscious mind ultimately drove her conscious mind to behave in such a manner as to protect her from being killed. Gavin was able to elicit her subconscious mind's recognition of a dangerous situation that compelled her conscious mind to act to save her through its basic survival instinct, bringing to the victim's conscious mind that it was the "subtle signal that warned her." The victim describes this as an unrecognized fear that drove her to act, still unaware consciously of precisely why she was afraid. Her conscious mind had heard the words, "I promise I won't hurt you, while her subconscious mind was calculating the situation much faster than the conscious mind could make sense out of WHY the fear was there. The victim stated that "the animal inside her took over."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subconscious
A Practical Guide to Situational Awareness
Security Weekly
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 14, 2012 - 16:47
By Scott Stewart
***snip***
More Mindset than Skill
It is important to note that situational awareness -- being aware of one's surroundings and identifying potential threats and dangerous situations -- is more of a mindset than a hard skill. Because of this, situational awareness is not something that can be practiced only by highly trained government agents or specialized corporate security teams. Indeed, it can be exercised by anyone with the will and the discipline to do so. Situational awareness is not only important for recognizing terrorist threats, but it also serves to identify criminal behavior and other dangerous situations.
The primary element in establishing this mindset is first to recognize that threats exist. Ignorance or denial of a threat make a person's chances of quickly recognizing an emerging threat and avoiding it highly unlikely. Bad things do happen. Apathy, denial and complacency can be deadly.
A second important element of the proper mindset is understanding the need to take responsibility for one's own security. The resources of any government are finite and the authorities simply cannot be everywhere and cannot stop every potential terrorist attack or other criminal action. The same principle applies to private security at businesses or other institutions, like places of worship. Therefore, people need to look out for themselves and their neighbors.
Another important facet of this mindset is learning to trust your "gut" or intuition. Many times a person's subconscious can notice subtle signs of danger that the conscious mind has difficulty quantifying or articulating. I have interviewed many victims who experienced such feelings of danger prior to an incident but who chose to ignore them. Trusting your gut and avoiding a potentially dangerous situation may cause you a bit of inconvenience, but ignoring such feelings can lead to serious trouble.
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/practical-guide-situational-awareness
I actually started to practice situational awareness over 30 years ago when I learned of the technique from one of the highest ranked judo instructors in our nation, Ed Maley, who was teaching a judo class in Tampa which my daughter attended. He also offered a jujitsu class oriented toward self defense which I attended along with my wife and daughter. You can read about him at:
http://www.teddwebb.com/legends/prof_ed_maley.html
You might feel that practicing situational awareness shows that a person is unnecessarily paranoid. I will agree that the chance that you will be attacked tomorrow on a street is slim to none as violent crime in our society is approaching levels last seen in the 1960s. You may be not be attacked for the next five, ten or twenty years. But the odds show that you will have a good chance of being attacked by someone who can and will put you in the hospital or six feet under at least one time in your life. Situational awareness could enable you to avoid such an encounter.
I legally carry a concealed weapon and have for well over 20 years. That's my choice and your opinion is largely irrelevant to me. I have over 45 years of experience with shooting handguns and don't abuse alcohol or take mind altering drugs either legally prescribed by a doctor or illegal. I suffer no anger management problems and I realize that I am not a cop or a vigilante.
I doubt if I will ever have to use my legally concealed revolver for legitimate self defense but in the unlikely event that I am attacked by an individual who threatens my life or health, I will have it with me to use as a last resort to stop his attack.
I don't live in fear as many who oppose concealed carry and often oppose firearm ownership insist. Why should I? I am prepared and armed and have the skills and the means to defend myself if necessary.
LiberalElite
(14,691 posts)those skills and means? I don't have them and I'm not afraid.
spin
(17,493 posts)Probably much depends on the differences in how we were raised, where we have lived and our life experiences.
Neither of us lives in fear. My skills enable me to be reasonably prepared for most violent encounters I might be unfortunate enough to find myself in if my situational awareness fails me. You say you lack such skills.
Hopefully we will never find ourselves in a truly bad situation where we face serious injury or death from an attacker. The odds of this happening are not all that great so most likely we both have little to worry about.
BeyondGeography
(39,374 posts)An old entitled crank with a gun.
ScreamingMeemie
(68,918 posts)An entitled old crank meets an entitled young shithead...enter a gun, and someone is going to lose his life.
spin
(17,493 posts)a newspaper report.
Considering how newspapers often get the details wrong, it might be wise to wait for the evidence to be presented in a legal procedure.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)Mind Readers this is sarcasm!
BootinUp
(47,144 posts)
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)B Calm
(28,762 posts)will alert. One must use the sarcasm tag in GD or face the wrath.
ManiacJoe
(10,136 posts)Unlabeled sarcasm has never carried well on this site.
bobGandolf
(871 posts)Who knows what the other guy was ready to do.