This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
I have yet to see any evidence that a theater's no cell phone policy does NOT start until the feature starts. There are people who want to enjoy the previews. If you don't care about the previews, then why do you NEED to be in the theater while they are playing?
The triggerman also has a now alleged history of being an anti texting stalker lunatic... I think this is extremely telling of who this wackadoo is!
Oh, it's not a minor annoyance, it's a MAJOR annoyance. Well, in that case.....................what?
Spock is doing great work here.
Read the thread. No they don't. Suggesting the victim did anything wrong is an abomination to some people in here. They even think people suggesting it are doing it for shtick.
Texting in a dark movie theater (even if it is only previews) is a minor annoyance. Doing so and acting like a d-bag about it and throwing a bag (bowl?) of popcorn for someone asking you to stop is a major annoyance, happy?
she was cracking her chomping on her gum with her mouth open, you know how annoying that is
So you need to hear the side of the man who murdered someone over a completely insignificant disagreement? I think the lone incident is more than enough to conclude the shooter is completely off his rocker and a danger to everyone around him. The girl's corroborating story is just a superfluous nail in the coffin.
I think he doesn't bring a gun into a theater that has a "no weapons" policy if it isn't concealed.
Regardless of the law, most cops, retired or active, carry at all times. They never know when they're going to run into someone they cuffed.
So you really still haven't seen the eye witnesses saying that the shooter was the first to throw popcorn? And also, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ####### POPCORN!!!!
This is wrong because you're focusing on the very small number of events like this that we see. If you wanted we could post a hell of a lot more cases where good samaritans SAVED lives due to having a gun. But you discount those for some reason. Of course, you pretty much discount the constitution on a daily basis so I'm not really surprised that you'd discount other evidence that doesn't agree with your world view.
You could have a bad temper and still understand it is wrong to take another person's life. Are you saying someone in a bar (that is sober) gets pissed off and breaks a beer bottle and then slices someone else with it, you think these people are sane? It's pretty clear you want to blame the gun, guns don't kill people, people kill people.
The old guy obviously lost his mind. That's probably why he followed her a few weeks ago. But "probably" leaves open the possibility that he didn't. All we know is her side of the story of that incident. He and his wife might testify that he went to go pee. Or, she and her husband could be completely lying about the incident and it didn't even happen. We don't know.
He went to report it to management, and refused to wait while the manager was speaking to another customer. He went back to his seat, angry, and took matters into his own hands. You keep ignoring that in your desire to say he did nothing wrong.
No I haven't, I'm not hanging on every single detail of this story like some people in this thread are. I read this CNN article that makes no mention of what you are talking about.
You are insinuating that Reeves comes back, Oulsen asks Reeves if he went to tell on him and then Reeves starts throwing popcorn at Oulsen? Good luck with that.
You have done nothing but bait in this thread, be proud of that.see icon
I think you're assuming he started out nice which is a pretty big assumption based on everything known, and I can't for the life of me guess why you would want to give him the benefit of the doubt here.
That's not what I am insinuating. That's what eye-witnesses are saying. Good lord...No I haven't, I'm not hanging on every single detail of this story like some people in this thread are. I read this CNN article that makes no mention of what you are talking about.
I agree with you completely up to this point. Not only was he angry at the father, now he had reason to be angry at theater management being too busy to help him.
Because I disagree with the bolded. When he came back, according to numerous testimonies, the father took issue with him tattle taling on him. The father obviously had something to say to him when he returned. Now you have two people, both with issues to take with the other. How it unfolded at that point is where the testimonies get muddy.
It's possible he went back to handle it himself. It's also possible when he got back, the father escalated it for being tattled on. It's hard to know what happened at that point with the testimony.
yeah, that does seem like an unlikely action for the man who would soon pull out a gun and kill a man in front of his wife.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/01/15/ex-cop-s-shooting-of-texting-moviegoer-end-in-tragedy.html
You keep ignoring this. He didn't wait to to talk to the theater manager, went back to his seat more agitated, and took matters into his own hands.
I'm pretty sure he's the spitting image of a "GET OFF MY LAWN" old man. Everything he did up until the point of pulling out the gun and killing him is still not wrong.
I watch the local news every day and I can tell you that stories of shootings where someone loses their cool outnumber stories of good samaritans saving lives with their gun by at least 100 to 1.
