He got off easy

[b_dubb]

FightTheFuture is a supporter of cold blooded murder. Who else supports cold blooded murder?

Great. All you fucks move to Mexico. The rest of us can get back to life in Bedford Falls.

[FightTheFuture]

Says it all! A man dies and all you can do is try to score some puerile point. I wonder if you'd have a different point of view if it was someone close to you who had been murdered in similar circumstances..Than again, probably not, a slave to what was written down 250 years ago (By men only-wonder how it would go these days?), rather than reality now.

[DigitalPigSnuggler]

But its not about the gun, its about the responisble vs. the irresponsible gun owner, as it clearly was in this case.

That's where the gun-huggers get it wrong, every time, because they stop thinking right there.  Okay, it's not about the gun, it's about an irresponsible gun owner.  What should we do about that?  How about separating the gun from the irresponsible gun owner?  "Tarnation!  Yew ain't a-gonna dew THAT!!  Yew all cin take that thar gun when yew can pry hissum cold dead fingers from it!"  We can't take those guns away; ownership is sacrosanct.  So what's the alternative, some sort of incentive program to nudge irresponsible guns owners into a moment of responsibility, and give up access to their firearms?

Like all of the political thinking on the right wing, it's all about NO.  There's rarely any serious alternative policy proposed by the right; rather, they just sit there and say NO to everything without offering alternatives.

[edit] I feel the need to note that I'm not attacking you personally here Falkie, just the idea.  Your post was pretty good, although I disagree with it.  I can see that you're trying.

[DigitalPigSnuggler]

But I do think simply calling it a breach of etiquette is a bit weak. It is a willful disregard for others pursuit of happiness and their property. If I disrupt your dining experience in a restaurant, I can be charged with several crimes, including simple assault. I don't see texting in a theater any differently.

What seems to be getting the attention is that this is a WHITE guy with young children that he was purportedly texting to (or the babysitter, if you prefer).  Call me cynical, but if the deceased was a black guy in saggy pants wearing a shirt that reads "Fuck y'all," I have an idea that the multiple admonishments against texting displayed by the theatre and the shooter's multiple requests to stop texting would be foregrounded in this story.

From the information given, it seems that the guy was being a gigantic asshole.  I don't care that he was texting his kid or that he's a former Eagle scout or whatever.  He didn't deserve to die, but on the other hand, his behaviour led to that outcome.  Tragic?  Not sure that word applies to someone who behaves like an asshole and reaps the whirlwind.  I'm going with "unfortunate."

[UnscreenedCaller]

Thank god being an asshole isn't punishable by death, eh?  :

[FightTheFuture]

What seems to be getting the attention is that this is a WHITE guy with young children that he was purportedly texting to (or the babysitter, if you prefer).  Call me cynical, but if the deceased was a black guy in saggy pants wearing a shirt that reads "Fuck y'all," I have an idea that the multiple admonishments against texting displayed by the theatre and the shooter's multiple requests to stop texting would be foregrounded in this story.

From the information given, it seems that the guy was being a gigantic asshole.  I don't care that he was texting his kid or that he's a former Eagle scout or whatever.  He didn't deserve to die, but on the other hand, his behaviour led to that outcome.  Tragic?  Not sure that word applies to someone who behaves like an asshole and reaps the whirlwind.  I'm going with "unfortunate."

No, unfortunate is  finding yourself in a movie theater with a person texting during the coming attractions portion of the movie.

On the other hand, tragic is losing your life for sitting in a theater texting a loved one during the coming attractions.

To confuse the two, is  twisted.

[Yorkshire pud]

Thank god being an asshole isn't punishable by death, eh?  :

Or a woman wearing a short skirt and a plunging neckline 'asked for it' when she was raped. No-one thinks that these days fortunately.


If the shooter hadn't been an ex WHITE cop, but had been a black guy, no doubt some of the apologists would be taking a very different stance in the same circumstances.

[ItsOver]

FightTheFuture is a supporter of cold blooded murder. Who else supports cold blooded murder?

Great. All you fucks move to Mexico. The rest of us can get back to life in Bedford Falls.

Don't have to, dubb.  Mexico's moved here.

[Tarbaby]

The evolution of humanity beyond atavism, that is, evolving beyond ancestral propensity to violence, must occur for civilization to ever succeed. As an experiment it is failing. Look not only at the Middle East look at our own society. A thin facade on top of bestial anarchy and personal amorality. The poor dears are just too diverse in type and are too socially dysfunctional to live within any social contract.

Let's look a bit closer: The fact is individual want/need heirarchy (ie, the order in which each person lists, largely subconsciously by the time they are adults, their core needs; food, shelter, sex, clothing, companionship, defense, etc) makes social uniformity impossible, for now. Which is why simple issues like 'gun control' never get resolved. Or murder over phone-messaging in a fucking movie theater occurs and is then poorly rationalized. Because about half of mankind or more is psychotic and has no self-control. But, hey, it's what got us to the top of the food chain.

And of course we know that it's the testosterone-laden chest beating alpha male with rampant anger-management and control issues who is the loosest cannon. That's me, anyway.

[DigitalPigSnuggler]

Thank god being an asshole isn't punishable by death, eh?  :

Ouch.  Well played, madam. 

[West of the Rockies]

Or a woman wearing a short skirt and a plunging neckline 'asked for it' when she was raped. No-one thinks that these days fortunately.


If the shooter hadn't been an ex WHITE cop, but had been a black guy, no doubt some of the apologists would be taking a very different stance in the same circumstances.

I think we would be hearing about how blacks are out hunting whites for sport...  I am with you on this one, YP.  A three-year old is now without her daddy.  No bloody excuse is acceptable.

[DigitalPigSnuggler]

A three-year old is now without her daddy.  No bloody excuse is acceptable.

And while we're on the subject of Thank Gods, thank god that the courts consider evidence and reasoned arguments over strident emotionalism.

[Yorkshire pud]

And while we're on the subject of Thank Gods, thank god that the courts consider evidence and reasoned arguments over strident emotionalism.

Belief in invisible deities aside: When a court's jury thinks that texting in public or throwing popcorn (no matter how irritating) is justification for someone going home to get a gun to return and shoot who in his opinion deserves to die; is the time to revoke any self determination they had. A society who believes execution like this (and that's what it was) as a right, isn't fit or mature enough to have self determination, let alone have anything that can harm them or others. 

[DigitalPigSnuggler]

Belief in invisible deities aside: When a court's jury thinks that texting in public or throwing popcorn (no matter how irritating) is justification for someone going home to get a gun to return and shoot who in his opinion deserves to die; is the time to revoke any self determination they had. A society who believes execution like this (and that's what it was) as a right, isn't fit or mature enough to have self determination, let alone have anything that can harm them or others.

You are vastly oversimplifying things.  If the situation was as you describe, the case would be exceedingly unlikely to come to trial. 

On the other hand, were a jury to take WotR's approach, and say the ONLY thing that matters is that the father of a little girl was killed, they would be violating their sworn oath to render a verdict based on the evidence and the law.  The jury is specifically admonished to NOT decide based on emotion. 

While either of these situations COULD occur (and probably has), it represents a case where the system broke down and did not produce a just verdict.

[Juan]

What seems to be getting the attention is that this is a WHITE guy with young children that he was purportedly texting to (or the babysitter, if you prefer).  Call me cynical, but if the deceased was a black guy in saggy pants wearing a shirt that reads "Fuck y'all," I have an idea that the multiple admonishments against texting displayed by the theatre and the shooter's multiple requests to stop texting would be foregrounded in this story.

That's rather racist. 

[gbneely]

When a court's jury thinks that texting in public or throwing popcorn (no matter how irritating) is justification for someone going home to get a gun to return and shoot who in his opinion deserves to die...

Where has it been reported he returned home to get his gun?

Based on what I've seen about this case, the shooter deserves to be put away for what will amount to the rest of his life. However, we have a court system so people aren't convicted on the basis of media reports.

[Yorkshire pud]

You are vastly oversimplifying things.  If the situation was as you describe, the case would be exceedingly unlikely to come to trial. 

On the other hand, were a jury to take WotR's approach, and say the ONLY thing that matters is that the father of a little girl was killed, they would be violating their sworn oath to render a verdict based on the evidence and the law.  The jury is specifically admonished to NOT decide based on emotion. 

While either of these situations COULD occur (and probably has), it represents a case where the system broke down and did not produce a just verdict.

Having been on jury service (twice) I know that the verdict has to be arrived at based on and ONLY on the evidence presented in court. It's why in recent years over here, certain jurors have been arrested for contempt for (incredibly) admitting to googling the defendent or going on Fartberk and telling everyone what they're doing.

But I also suspect that either side will play much on what they think will appeal to the human side of the jurors (It's what lawyers do well-I've seen it)..On one side (defendant) we'll have an old man who fought for his country (Cue: Teary eyed, wrap him in the Stars and Stripes) ex cop who loved his community, (well, some of them) just had a problem with his temper, and deliberately went home to return to shoot the victim ..and on the other we'll have a young father with a young family who was perhaps being an arsehole; that's it. The jury will have a hard time with that.

But I return to my previous point; If the ex cop had been black (or even if he was just black or Hispanic) some of the comments on here would have been very different, and no benefit of the doubt would be forthcoming..

[Yorkshire pud]

Where has it been reported he returned home to get his gun?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-25726591

The initial report on here was he had done so, but it seems he hadn't.

[West of the Rockies]

You're an interesting person, DigitalPigSnuggler... you opened this thread in, I suspect, a largely joking fashion.  Yeah, we all hate rude morons in the theater and they deserve to be offed or otherwise marked as rude morons (cutting off their hands).  I think there may have been a bit of candid sentiment in the thought as well... you tell me.

Others here jumped onto that point whole-heartedly and without reservation or even (seemingly) much consideration:  Hell, yeah, the victim deserved what he got!
Others may have taken your original joking intent as though you truly meant it utterly.  My guess is that you were maybe 85% joking, 15% earnest.

You make the truly excellent point that in light of this shooting, it is utterly off the table to some Americans to even ponder the idea that some sort of gun control could be useful to all of us.

You later suggest that my pointing out that a three-year-old girl will never again see her father come home at night, will never pick her up and tickle her and tease her and teach her, is blatant emotionalism.  By doing this, you suggest my argument is entirely emotion-based.  As I've mentioned a couple times on this forum, I come from 13 years in law enforcement; I was a crime scene investigator, evidence technician, investigative assistant (non-sworn).  I actually do have some sense of what sways a jury, what is and is not admissible in court.  There are elements that certainly will come up in the eventual trial:  the suspect's mental health (it is suggest he is suffering from dementia).  The criminal histories of the shooter and victim will certainly come up. 

If the victim has no significant criminal history and did not physically or verbally threaten the suspect, I suspect the jury will not be moved by the claim of his assholeishness some people on this forum are pushing.

I stand by my position.  Murdering someone cuz the damn previews were marred because of the illumination and chirping of a cell phone is unacceptable.  When it becomes acceptable, I will join Barry McGuire and say we're on the eve of destruction.

[aldousburbank]

Maybe I'm just high and I'm not excusing violence but how surprising is it that somebody shoots someone in a movie theatre, considering the content of the viewing matter?  Are there guns fired in the movie that these outstanding individuals were about to enjoy?  Just wondering. I don't go movies as I get my shooting and other adventuring done by my own direction. I'm just saying, isn't this a little like somebody getting fucked in a porno theatre?

[jazmunda]

Maybe I'm just high and I'm not excusing violence but how surprising is it that somebody shoots someone in a movie theatre, considering the content of the viewing matter?  Are there guns fired in the movie that these outstanding individuals were about to enjoy?  Just wondering. I don't go movies as I get my shooting and other adventuring done by my own direction. I'm just saying, isn't this a little like somebody getting fucked in a porno theatre?

I think you mean getting raped in a porno theatre. Even with that correction your analogy is warped.

Also your suggestion that violence in movies contributed to this is not supported by the millions and millions of people who watch violent movies and don't kill people. But one white crow ....

[aldousburbank]

I think you mean getting raped in a porno theatre.

No, I wanted it.

[jazmunda]

No, I wanted it.

Touché.

[gbneely]

No, I wanted it.

Well, I didn't want it and it was horrible... at first. The worst part was once I started to enjoy it, it was over.

[DigitalPigSnuggler]

You're an interesting person, DigitalPigSnuggler... you opened this thread in, I suspect, a largely joking fashion.  Yeah, we all hate rude morons in the theater and they deserve to be offed or otherwise marked as rude morons (cutting off their hands).  I think there may have been a bit of candid sentiment in the thought as well... you tell me.

Others here jumped onto that point whole-heartedly and without reservation or even (seemingly) much consideration:  Hell, yeah, the victim deserved what he got!
Others may have taken your original joking intent as though you truly meant it utterly.  My guess is that you were maybe 85% joking, 15% earnest.

You make the truly excellent point that in light of this shooting, it is utterly off the table to some Americans to even ponder the idea that some sort of gun control could be useful to all of us.

You later suggest that my pointing out that a three-year-old girl will never again see her father come home at night, will never pick her up and tickle her and tease her and teach her, is blatant emotionalism.  By doing this, you suggest my argument is entirely emotion-based.  As I've mentioned a couple times on this forum, I come from 13 years in law enforcement; I was a crime scene investigator, evidence technician, investigative assistant (non-sworn).  I actually do have some sense of what sways a jury, what is and is not admissible in court.  There are elements that certainly will come up in the eventual trial:  the suspect's mental health (it is suggest he is suffering from dementia).  The criminal histories of the shooter and victim will certainly come up. 

If the victim has no significant criminal history and did not physically or verbally threaten the suspect, I suspect the jury will not be moved by the claim of his assholeishness some people on this forum are pushing.

I stand by my position.  Murdering someone cuz the damn previews were marred because of the illumination and chirping of a cell phone is unacceptable.  When it becomes acceptable, I will join Barry McGuire and say we're on the eve of destruction.

There's a lot of meat for discussion in your post.  Let me see if I can do it justice.

I started it in a provocative way because I wanted to stimulate some discussion.  That's all. 

Topics like this one, where there is a relatively trivial conflict that escalates into one person shooting another, seem to quickly organize into two camps.  In one camp, you have the "true tragedys."  They focus on the senseless nature of the killing and the pain and heartbreak of the situation.  In doing so, they foreground heartstring-tugger facts to emphasize, or even embellish the tragic nature of the crime: "texting his daughter," "out on a date night," "three year old child without a daddy." 

In the other camp, you have the "yes butters."  They acknowledge that no rational person could justify the shooting based on the victim's behaviour.  To them, there doesn't seem to be any argument: everyone agrees that it was wrong.  Open and shut.  For that reason, they try to talk about things about which there could be some reasonable differences of opinion: "cell phone use in a theatre is annoying," "people shouldn't consider themselves exempt from social rules," "it's hard to sympathize with someone who behaves like a pluperfect asshole."  Onan's post was an excellent example of this.

The True Tragedy camp are agast that anyone would dare to befoul the immaculate image of the victim they have constructed by associating them with these base human behaviours, so they try to hoot the Yes Butters off the stage.  For example, if someone should suggest that the victim was an asshole, there will inevitably be someone from the True Tragedy crowd who huffs that she can't believe that anyone would dare claim that this justifies the shooting -- even though the suggester never said any such thing.  I don't have a problem with the position of the True Tragedy crowd; in fact, I agree with them substantially.  But we part company on the need to maintain the purity of the tragic nature by assassinating anyone who dares to speak a discouraging word.  It can still be tragic if it's complex and conflicted.  Life is often that way.

In the case of this thread, I felt that this talking past each other had reached a nadir when you wrote, "A three-year old is now without her daddy.  No bloody excuse is acceptable."  Whatever the true facts are in this case, to make a sweeping statement that nothing, legally or morally, could possibly justify the shooting is simply absurd.  It's the worst kind of emotionalism, one that reduces a news story that doesn't contain all of the facts, which plainly leaves some unanswered questions, and which is likely slanted by a rapacious, swine-like media who doesn't give two fucks about the truth into a strawman choice between right and wrong.  And then kicks one of those choices away.

I wish you could see the irony in your denial of any appeal to emotion: "You later suggest that my pointing out that a three-year-old girl will never again see her father come home at night, will never pick her up and tickle her and tease her and teach her, is blatant emotionalism. "  Well.  When you put it THAT way, how could I possibly believe that you're selling emotion?  Then you declare that you're standing by your position: no one should be shot for using a cell phone during previews.  Did anyone argue otherwise, other than in your head? 

Just to set the record straight, I don't believe that the guy should have been shot for using his cell phone in a theatre.  I don't think anyone else believes that, either.  I also think it's possible to believe that the victim was acting like an asshole, but that such behaviour STILL doesn't justify shooting him.  And given all of that, we're probably not teetering on the brink of a breakdown in the social order, at least not on bellgab.  So calm down.

[Tarbaby]

WotR: Nice post.

Aldus: I get your point. Do we know what the movie was, by the way?

Jaz: Could be that the millions of people who aren't prompted by violent movies aren't as susceptible to such influences. Values are contextual.  Many people, however, ARE. CAN be pushed over the tipping point in their own muddled thoughts and values. Saying desenitivity does not exist by giving examples of people who were not desentitized is not proof. You'd have to examine the cases of people who DID go over the moral and legal boundaries. Laws don't deter behavior (though we keep creating new ones obsessively); people have to govern their own impulses. Which is what "religion" has tried to do, instill a moral foundation. Hasn't worked either. And people who are on the edge of self-control often re-calibrate their propensity for anti-social behavior when exposed to the right morally ambiguous context. (more to you below)

DigitalPigSnuggler:
But, as I said above to Jaz, there are untold numbers of people who are susceptible to trivialization about such events. Who just can't recognize  sarcasm/satire. I think I saw such here. Do we have any responsibility for those people? Some of those who focused on how much they hated people with cellphones in theaters were NOT focused on how inappropriate the ex-cop's response was. They could be not all that far from doing the same themselves at some point.
   Oh! BTW, I was 95% certain you're thread here was tongue-in-cheek. But there was 5% doubt.

Minds can be easily influenced, (e.g., kids who fall into gangs and gang values) and often the person who roots   for the outlaw murderer (who seems to epitiomize their own sense of "don't tread on me") has anger-management issues of their own… and aren't actually satirizing.

I almost responded to your opening post by saying "I was wondering were I there at the theater which one of my meditational mantras I would invoke to put me back into a state of composure where I could ignore the shooting next to me and get back into the movie!" but after seeing one or two serious responses I thought it would be inappropriate. And not ever reader sees sarcasm or parody as such.

Jaz: The 71 year old cop did shoot the offender in a trivial social brush. So obviously he is an example of someone who cannot distinguish between appropriate stimulus/reponse and inappropriate. I imagine he loved Clint Eastwood's Dirty Harry quips and Charles Bronson's Death Wish movies. I bet he identified completely. And conflated movie reality with reality itself.

[DigitalPigSnuggler]

Some of those who focused on how much they hated people with cellphones in theaters were NOT focused on how inappropriate the ex-cop's response was. They could be not all that far from doing the same themselves at some point.

I must be doing something wrong.  I thought I addressed this in very clear terms with this comment:

"They acknowledge that no rational person could justify the shooting based on the victim's behaviour.  To them, there doesn't seem to be any argument: everyone agrees that it was wrong.  Open and shut.  For that reason, they try to talk about things about which there could be some reasonable differences of opinion"

Let me try explaining it another way.  Let's look at a test case.  Suppose I started a thread and posted "Don't let your children drink poison."  And some people replied and said "Uh...okay.  Say, how about those Niners?  Think they'll win it all this time?"  or  "Got it.  Say, check out the funny cat in this youtube video."  And after reading these replies, suppose I said, "What's the matter with you guys?  Why aren't you focusing on keeping poison away from children?  Do you care about a cat video more than dying children?  Maybe you're thinking about poisoning your own kids and that's why you won't discuss it."

One way of interpreting this exchange is that everyone agrees that it's important to not let children drink poison, there doesn't really seem to be ANY disagreement, by anyone.  So with that settled, why not move on to talking about something else that might have discussion potential?  Why continue posting over and over again the same POV that everyone is in unanimous agreement about?  And I hope that it is also self-evident that one can agree that people should not let their children drink poison, AND also like funny cat videos.  It's not one or the other.  And it should be equally self-evident that just because someone doesn't assert an objection to letting children drink poison in every post doesn't mean they are on the threshold of poisoning some children.

Does it make sense now?  Because if not, I am at a loss at how else I can explain it to you.  If nothing else, try and understand that us Yes, But-ers don't agree with what you're saying.  We can't make you understand why, but the fact that we are TRYING to disagree with you should reassure you that we are not itching to gun down cell phone violators at the slightest provocation.   

[UnscreenedCaller]

Jaz: The 71 year old cop did shoot the offender in a trivial social brush.

Exactly. Thinking in the abstract separates from the hard reality that this man is lying dead in the morgue because he texted during movie previews and someone felt personally entitled to shoot him over it, another depressing example of meaningless, random violence in America.

[DigitalPigSnuggler]

someone felt personally entitled to shoot him over it

And how do you know this, again?  Link to your source?

Or did you just make it up because you like the story better that way?

[UnscreenedCaller]

And how do you know this, again?  Link to your source?

Or did you just make it up because you like the story better that way?

Do I like the story better that way? Thank you in advance for not putting words in my mouth. I don't like the story at all, nor do I particularly like any justification for senseless killing. It's all a lovely exercise in abstracts, except for the dead man, his family, the ex-cop and his wife.