One dead in movie theater shooting in Florida

[Mewtilation]

Unless they come out and say that Chad had a weapon and was threatening that old mans life with it.... There's no way I'll see him as a frail old man and that poor young guy as a bully. There was no reason to shoot him over anything unless he had a weapon and was a threat.... The same thing officers are taught from day one in the academy. There's never a reason to shoot someone unless they are a definite threat to your life.... Words, popcorn and various things of the sort are not a life threatening situation... period. If the young guy had a weapon, by all means old guy shoot away! However, that doesn't appear to be the case. He was an old dude with a bunch of built up anger inside and this guy just was the straw that broke the camels back. Sad for him. However, this old man gets none of my sympathy. No matter what kind of swing anyone tries to put on it, you don't shoot unless you're life is in danger.... It wasn't. I can't tell you how many times I've yelled out threats in anger.... I'd have been dead years ago if shooting for that was okay in any way. :roll:

 

[Steinhauer]

this is what I see - you've come to understand that Chad is a bully and Reeves is a frail old man... and you are analyzing and slanting the situations solely based on that.

Not exactly. I am trying to see it that way. I am making an attempt to see if there are any holes ... any logical fallacies.

Sometimes, nothing makes sense. For one thing, Curtis Reeves does not appear to be a frail old man. He looks like a tough guy. I am sure with the job he had, he demanded respect. Being disrespected by some young "punk" probably got him pissed off.

Chad probably thought it was ridiculous to be told to turn off his cellphone by a complete stranger. During the previews??? OMG!!! What gall!!! he was texting his daughter's daycare too ... really important stuff!!! (just adding for emphasis).

To a retired police officer used to doing things by the book, it didn't matter that it was during the previews ... rules are rules ... and rules apply to everybody (which they do). And, having enforced the law during his career, seeing someone "breaking the rules" no matter how slight the infraction, was like a nail head sticking out that just needed to be hammered into place. It irked him. Probably instinctively irked him. It was completely natural for Curtis Reeves to "correct" that rule breaking punk. He was, after all, breaking the rules. All cellphones were supposed to be off. Serious business. He couldn't let it slide. If he did, then someone else would break the rules, and he couldn't have that. It would be chaos in Curtis Reeves little part of the universe. All these ungrateful young rule breaking punks with their fancy schmancy cellphones and doo dads, breaking the rules.

So, he did what was completely natural for a retired cop to do. And when he did it, he imposed his little tiny part of his universe onto Chad's unassuming peaceful and tranquil text convo with his 3 year old's babysitter - thereby, disturbing Chad's fragile inner peace and harmony. Chad didn't take kindly to this ... he didn't care that the rules were the rules. He didn't care that minor tiny little infractions that annoyed the crap out of Curtis Reeves (like breaking rules) applied to him. Chad felt that he was somehow, above that pettiness. This only exacerbated and irked Curtis even more - he was starting to see the true colors emerge from this perfect stranger, and began to see him as a "rabble rouser'.

And it escalated from there ..

That is how I try to put things together - but I actually do it much faster than I can type ...

What happened was two guys got into an argument over who was right and neither could walk away from it. Walking away is the absolute best option when arguing with a senior ... just an FYI

 

[Steinhauer]

Unless they come out and say that Chad had a weapon and was threatening that old mans life with it.... There's no way I'll see him as a frail old man and that poor young guy as a bully. There was no reason to shoot him over anything unless he had a weapon and was a threat.... The same thing officers are taught from day one in the academy. There's never a reason to shoot someone unless they are a definite threat to your life.... Words, popcorn and various things of the sort are not a life threatening situation... period. If the young guy had a weapon, by all means old guy shoot away! However, that doesn't appear to be the case. He was an old dude with a bunch of built up anger inside and this guy just was the straw that broke the camels back. Sad for him. However, this old man gets none of my sympathy. No matter what kind of swing anyone tries to put on it, you don't shoot unless you're life is in danger.... It wasn't. I can't tell you how many times I've yelled out threats in anger.... I'd have been dead years ago if shooting for that was okay in any way. :roll:

It actually is ok in some States. That is why it is very important to keep a cool head. There is such a thing as "threatening with menace" and it is a serious charge. There does not need to be a weapon, just the ability to do physical harm.

Can a 43 year old do physical harm to a 71 year old?

Yes.

There are so many variables in this case.

 

[Foxrac]

Not exactly. I am trying to see it that way. I am making an attempt to see if there are any holes ... any logical fallacies.

Sometimes, nothing makes sense. For one thing, Curtis Reeves does not appear to be a frail old man. He looks like a tough guy. I am sure with the job he had, he demanded respect. Being disrespected by some young "punk" probably got him pissed off.

Chad probably thought it was ridiculous to be told to turn off his cellphone by a complete stranger. During the previews??? OMG!!! What gall!!! he was texting his daughter's daycare too ... really important stuff!!! (just adding for emphasis).

To a retired police officer used to doing things by the book, it didn't matter that it was during the previews ... rules are rules ... and rules apply to everybody (which they do). And, having enforced the law during his career, seeing someone "breaking the rules" no matter how slight the infraction, was like a nail head sticking out that just needed to be hammered into place. It irked him. Probably instinctively irked him. It was completely natural for Curtis Reeves to "correct" that rule breaking punk. He was, after all, breaking the rules. All cellphones were supposed to be off. Serious business. He couldn't let it slide. If he did, then someone else would break the rules, and he couldn't have that. It would be chaos in Curtis Reeves little part of the universe. All these ungrateful young rule breaking punks with their fancy schmancy cellphones and doo dads, breaking the rules.

So, he did what was completely natural for a retired cop to do. And when he did it, he imposed his little tiny part of his universe onto Chad's unassuming peaceful and tranquil text convo with his 3 year old's babysitter - thereby, disturbing Chad's fragile inner peace and harmony. Chad didn't take kindly to this ... he didn't care that the rules were the rules. He didn't care that minor tiny little infractions that annoyed the crap out of Curtis Reeves (like breaking rules) applied to him. Chad felt that he was somehow, above that pettiness. This only exacerbated and irked Curtis even more - he was starting to see the true colors emerge from this perfect stranger, and began to see him as a "rabble rouser'.

And it escalated from there ..

That is how I try to put things together - but I actually do it much faster than I can type ...

The movie theater doesn't allow any weapons, including firearm, so Curtis broke the rule.

Chad already died and Curtis is on 2nd degree homicide charge, so if he found guilty so he could spend rest of his life in state prison (Florida Department of Corrections).

This situation isn't same as Zimmerman vs. Martin case, so it is very different situation.

 

[Foxrac]

Shoot at someone over thrown popcorn - Oh my jesus.

I think it will be easy ground to be guilty in homicide if victim dies and that why Curtis got charged with homicide instantly.

 

[Steinhauer]

The movie theater doesn't allow any weapons, including firearm, so Curtis broke the rule.

Chad already died and Curtis is on 2nd degree homicide charge, so if he found guilty so he could spend rest of his life in state prison (Florida Department of Corrections).

This situation isn't same as Zimmerman vs. Martin case, so it is very different situation.

Foxrac, Curtis was a retired police officer. He had a "special privilege" and could carry his weapon anywhere and in any State. He was not bound by the Movie Theaters weapon's policy and was not violating any State or Federal laws by carrying concealed.

I **think** it is called HR 218 but I am not sure.

http://www.fop.net/legislative/issues/hr218/hr218faq.pdf

Do I need a concealed carry permit from
my State or any other documentation to
carry lawfully?
No. Qualified active and retired law enforcemen
t officers do not need any additional concealed
carry permits or licenses. Federal law
exempts
them from local and
State prohibitions on the
carriage of concealed firearms.

 

[Foxrac]

Foxrac, Curtis was a retired police officer. He had a "special privilege" and could carry his weapon anywhere and in any State. He was not bound by the Movie Theaters weapon's policy and was not violating any State or Federal laws by carrying concealed.

I **think** it is called HR 218 but I am not sure.

http://www.fop.net/legislative/issues/hr218/hr218faq.pdf

This law doesn't apply to private properties, especially movie theater and they can ban anyone to carry gun in private properties. You have to leave the guns in car if private properties don't allow anyone to carry.

If Curtis is on public property, such as government buildings or courthouses, so situation will be different.

 

[Foxrac]

I found it - I'm correct.

Is the exemption provided by the law total—can I now carry anywhere at any time?

No. The new law exempts all qualified active and retired law enforcement officers from State and local laws with respect to the carrying of concealed firearms. These officers are not exempt from Federal law or regulation, which governs the carriage of firearms onto aircraft or other “common carriers,” Federal buildings, Federal property, or national parks.

In addition, State (not local) laws which prohibit the carriage of firearms onto State or local government property and State (not local) laws which allow private entities to prohibit firearms on their private property would still apply to qualified active and retired law enforcement officers.

HR 218 change "no carry in posted stores"? - 1911Forum

http://www.fop.net/legislative/issues/hr218/hr218faq.pdf (See page 4)

 

[Steinhauer]

I found it - I'm correct.



HR 218 change "no carry in posted stores"? - 1911Forum

http://www.fop.net/legislative/issues/hr218/hr218faq.pdf (See page 4)

But the recent Supreme Court ruling on the 2nd Amendment stated that signs carry no legal weight. That it is an individual right to carry a firearm.

HR 218 was signed into law in 2004 and I ***think*** qualified retired officers are legally allowed to carry on private property.

I am not sure though ...

(and no, I am not trying to quibble ... I just think the recent ruling may have changed everything)

 

[Jiro]

But the recent Supreme Court ruling on the 2nd Amendment stated that signs carry no legal weight. That it is an individual right to carry a firearm.

HR 218 was signed into law in 2004 and I ***think*** qualified retired officers are legally allowed to carry on private property.

I am not sure though ...

(and no, I am not trying to quibble ... I just think the recent ruling may have changed everything)

if you are not sure... then your post is most likely not factual.

and I don't know what is this Supreme Court ruling on 2nd Amendment you're talking about. What I know is that it overturned Chicago gun ban law but nothing about signs carrying no legal weight.

 

[Jiro]

Not exactly. I am trying to see it that way. I am making an attempt to see if there are any holes ... any logical fallacies.

Sometimes, nothing makes sense. For one thing, Curtis Reeves does not appear to be a frail old man. He looks like a tough guy. I am sure with the job he had, he demanded respect. Being disrespected by some young "punk" probably got him pissed off.

Chad probably thought it was ridiculous to be told to turn off his cellphone by a complete stranger. During the previews??? OMG!!! What gall!!! he was texting his daughter's daycare too ... really important stuff!!! (just adding for emphasis).

To a retired police officer used to doing things by the book, it didn't matter that it was during the previews ... rules are rules ... and rules apply to everybody (which they do). And, having enforced the law during his career, seeing someone "breaking the rules" no matter how slight the infraction, was like a nail head sticking out that just needed to be hammered into place. It irked him. Probably instinctively irked him. It was completely natural for Curtis Reeves to "correct" that rule breaking punk. He was, after all, breaking the rules. All cellphones were supposed to be off. Serious business. He couldn't let it slide. If he did, then someone else would break the rules, and he couldn't have that. It would be chaos in Curtis Reeves little part of the universe. All these ungrateful young rule breaking punks with their fancy schmancy cellphones and doo dads, breaking the rules.

So, he did what was completely natural for a retired cop to do. And when he did it, he imposed his little tiny part of his universe onto Chad's unassuming peaceful and tranquil text convo with his 3 year old's babysitter - thereby, disturbing Chad's fragile inner peace and harmony. Chad didn't take kindly to this ... he didn't care that the rules were the rules. He didn't care that minor tiny little infractions that annoyed the crap out of Curtis Reeves (like breaking rules) applied to him. Chad felt that he was somehow, above that pettiness. This only exacerbated and irked Curtis even more - he was starting to see the true colors emerge from this perfect stranger, and began to see him as a "rabble rouser'.

And it escalated from there ..

That is how I try to put things together - but I actually do it much faster than I can type ...

What happened was two guys got into an argument over who was right and neither could walk away from it. Walking away is the absolute best option when arguing with a senior ... just an FYI

I find it extremely disturbing that in your line of reasoning... anybody must walk away from somebody with CCW even if that person started it first.

 

[Foxrac]

But the recent Supreme Court ruling on the 2nd Amendment stated that signs carry no legal weight. That it is an individual right to carry a firearm.

HR 218 was signed into law in 2004 and I ***think*** qualified retired officers are legally allowed to carry on private property.

I am not sure though ...

(and no, I am not trying to quibble ... I just think the recent ruling may have changed everything)

Your statement about US Supreme Court ruling doesn't relate to retired LEO to carry guns, so US Supreme Court ruling applies to any local or state can't ban citizens from own firearm in their properties, especially DC and Chicago.

That's not correct, under HR 218, retired LEO could carry guns concealed in any places that allow guns, but they are not allowed to carry in any private properties that doesn't allow to carry guns, especially movie theater.

Review my post above - private entities refer to movie theater, restaurant, fast food, grocery store, bowling, any private places.

 

[Steinhauer]

if you are not sure... then your post is most likely not factual.

and I don't know what is this Supreme Court ruling on 2nd Amendment you're talking about. What I know is that it overturned Chicago gun ban law but nothing about signs carrying no legal weight.

In Florida, a sign that says "firearms prohibited" does not carry the weight of law. All a business owner can do is ask you to leave. If you refuse to leave the premises, then trespassing charges can be filed against you. there is no duty to inform a business owner that you are a concealed carry permit holder that is carrying concealed.

 

[Jiro]

In Florida, a sign that says "firearms prohibited" does not carry the weight of law. All a business owner can do is ask you to leave. If you refuse to leave the premises, then trespassing charges can be filed against you. there is no duty to inform a business owner that you are a concealed carry permit holder that is carrying concealed.

that's not what I asked. exactly what is this Supreme Court ruling saying that sign holds no legal weight? where?

 

[Steinhauer]

I find it extremely disturbing that in your line of reasoning... anybody must walk away from somebody with CCW even if that person started it first.

I never stated that Jiro. you are again, putting words in my mouth that I never said, or implied.

why do you feel the need to do this? Elevate your argument by lying?

What I said was, two guys got into an argument and could not walk away from it. I also added some friendly advice about walking away from an argument with an elder - there was no implication that one should walk away from a person with a CCW, so how did you come to that conclusion?

 

[Steinhauer]

that's not what I asked. exactly what is this Supreme Court ruling saying that sign holds no legal weight? where?

I was talking about Florida State law in regards to signs, and federal law in regards to the 2nd amendment.

Clearer now?

oh yeah, and HR 218

 

[Foxrac]

I was talking about Florida State law in regards to signs, and federal law in regards to the 2nd amendment.

Clearer now?

oh yeah, and HR 218

In bold, where is source to support your claim about US Supreme Court - sign holds no legal weight?

 

[Steinhauer]

In bold, where is source to support your claim about US Supreme Court - sign holds no legal weight?

I thought I already cleared that up. I am waiting on an answer from Jiro on why he persistently accuses me of saying things I have never said, so in the meantime, I will try and clear this up.

Curtis Reeves is a qualified retired police officer in accordance with HR 218. He is also a qualified United States citizen, and has the individual right to carry a firearm http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/29/us/29scotus.html?_r=0 . He is also a Florida State resident and signs prohibiting firearms in private businesses hold no legal weight in the State of Florida.

However, since you made the claim that Curtis Reeves was in violation of the law, please show me the Florida State statute that he was violating. Thank you, I would greatly appreciate that.

 

[Steinhauer]

<appears someone is furiously googling >

Ok guys, have a great night

 

[ChicagoBlue2]

if you are not sure... then your post is most likely not factual.

and I don't know what is this Supreme Court ruling on 2nd Amendment you're talking about. What I know is that it overturned Chicago gun ban law but nothing about signs carrying no legal weight.

IL has begun to allow CCW's here in the state. However, if a business does not want a CCW to be brought into that place, they MUST post a sign that is given out by the IL State Police, and nothing else. They will not allow any other signs prohibiting firearms inside stores and the likes-- it has to be one by the ISP. Now, Chicago tried to ban guns inside the city altogether (see my other thread on this topic), but now they've been given six months to allow guns to legally be sold in the city, and I wouldn't be surprised if regulations inside the city are tougher than the state's, because of the number of homicides we get yearly.