Texting in the theater in Florida? I don't think so...

[Brock]

Originally Posted by kcfanXIII

you guys are right. he should have just let the guy beat his ass. what the hell was I thinking...

No, of course the only logical thing to do is kill a man with your gun in a crowded theater.

[Pablo]

Originally Posted by Brock

No, of course the only logical thing to do is kill a man with your gun in a crowded theater.

If you're ever frightened or intimidated in any manner; the best policy is to just shoot until you aren't scared anymore.

[kcfanXIII]

Originally Posted by Brock

No, of course the only logical thing to do is kill a man with your gun in a crowded theater.

You are operating under the assumption it went text, text, bang. I'm operating under the assumption that physical force was attempted and this man defended himself. I never said one was logical, and the other wasn't. I said we don't have enough information about the incident. Does it sound logical that a retired law enforcement official, who is far more trained at interpreting the CCW laws of florida than you or I, would illegally shoot a man? He obviously kept up with his training with his gun, and was composed enough to only fire once. Why was the wife's hand in the way of the bullet if she isn't trying to hold her husband back? There just isn't enough info out there to claim beyond a shadow of a doubt that this shooting wasn't justified.

[Fish]

Originally Posted by kcfanXIII

You are operating under the assumption it went text, text, bang. I'm operating under the assumption that physical force was attempted and this man defended himself. I never said one was logical, and the other wasn't. I said we don't have enough information about the incident. Does it sound logical that a retired law enforcement official, who is far more trained at interpreting the CCW laws of florida than you or I, would illegally shoot a man? He obviously kept up with his training with his gun, and was composed enough to only fire once. Why was the wife's hand in the way of the bullet if she isn't trying to hold her husband back? There just isn't enough info out there to claim beyond a shadow of a doubt that this shooting wasn't justified.

So.... without having all the info, you automatically assume the worst and would retaliate with deadly force?

JFC.....

[kcfanXIII]

Originally Posted by Fish

So.... without having all the info, you automatically assume the worst and would retaliate with deadly force?

JFC.....

Obviously if I was involved, I would have all the information, and be able to make a judgment. As I was not there, I don't know all the details. Only some, and I'm left to assume the rest.

[Fish]

Originally Posted by kcfanXIII

you guys are right. he should have just let the guy beat his ass. what the hell was I thinking...

Sorry, but your justification is bullshit. I'm a huge proponent of gun ownership. But you do an incredible disservice to the idea of personal gun ownership by alluding that people should kill someone over a disagreement that might have otherwise resulted in fisticuffs.

[BigRichard]

Originally Posted by Fish

Sorry, but your justification is bullshit. I'm a huge proponent of gun ownership. But you do an incredible disservice to the idea of personal gun ownership by alluding that people should kill someone over a disagreement that might have otherwise resulted in fisticuffs.

What if it was a 71 year old lady? Would fisticuffs be ok then?

[PunkinDrublic]

To paraphrase Chris Rock. I'm not saying he should've killed him but I understand.

[Pablo]

Originally Posted by Fish

Sorry, but your justification is bullshit. I'm a huge proponent of gun ownership. But you do an incredible disservice to the idea of personal gun ownership by alluding that people should kill someone over a disagreement that might have otherwise resulted in fisticuffs.

Back in my day, when two guys had a disagreement, they took it outside and settled it like men!

Nowadays, you just get shot inside a movie theater. Kind of takes the bravado out of the whole scenario.

[kcfanXIII]

Originally Posted by Pablo

Back in my day, when two guys had a disagreement, they took it outside and settled it like men!

Nowadays, you just get shot inside a movie theater. Kind of takes the bravado out of the whole scenario.

If it was two men of equal stature, I would agree. If Someone in their thirties attacks a 71 year old man, well, that is different.

[Pablo]

Originally Posted by kcfanXIII

If it was two men of equal stature, I would agree. If Someone in their thirties attacks a 71 year old man, well, that is different.

Well, there was a 28 year difference between the two men.

Are we supposed to assume that a 50 year old man can't reasonably defend himself without a weapon from a 22 year old? Is the difference in age what makes it alright to use a gun to resolve a disagreement instead of engaging in fisticuffs?

Or are you just assuming that all 71 year olds are weak and fragile, and can't fend for themselves?

[kcfanXIII]

Originally Posted by Fish

Sorry, but your justification is bullshit. I'm a huge proponent of gun ownership. But you do an incredible disservice to the idea of personal gun ownership by alluding that people should kill someone over a disagreement that might have otherwise resulted in fisticuffs.

and I say to you, I have no obligation to take a physical assault without defending myself. There is no guarantee that the attacker will stop, and it IS a life endangering event. Don't want to get shot? Don't start a fight.

[Fish]

Originally Posted by kcfanXIII

and I say to you, I have no obligation to take a physical assault without defending myself. There is no guarantee that the attacker will stop, and it IS a life endangering event. Don't want to get shot? Don't start a fight.

Yeah, OK George Zimmerman. I thought I was talking to a man who could handle himself...

[kcfanXIII]

Originally Posted by Fish

Yeah, OK George Zimmerman. I thought I was talking to a man who could handle himself...

I don't go out looking for trouble, and I'm mature enough I don't feel the need to get into "fisticuffs" anymore. If you want to come start shit with me, that is on you. It doesn't make you more of a man to start fights, just like it doesn't make me a man to have a gun in my hand. That's not what this is about. This is about defending yourself. If that's how you judge manhood just move along because we will never see eye to eye.

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by kcfanXIII

and I say to you, I have no obligation to take a physical assault without defending myself. There is no guarantee that the attacker will stop, and it IS a life endangering event. Don't want to get shot? Don't start a fight.

If his only orther recourse is going Dirty Harry, the 71 year old man needs to shut the **** up, move, or step back and let the theater employees handle it. Instead, this dipshit apparently decided to play Billy Badass because the guy threw a bag of popcorn at him, and he'll now be spending the rest of his life at the ironbar hotel.