TexasCHLforum.com

Jumping Frog wrote:

CoffeeNut wrote: Shooter was a retired cop and I don't think he'd have to comply, correct?

Why do you think a retired cop would be exempt from a "no guns" posting in general?

Because "no guns" signs have no force of law in FL, and they don't have 30.06. So even if they do post, it means nothing to licensed concealed weapons carriers.

http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/florida.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

30.06 was a good thing, WAS...and I get that it helped get the CHL laws on the books passed. That being said Florida Permit Holders have nothing to worry about when it comes to posting.

And once again, seeing that the vast majority of the mass news media is distinctly leftist biased (and thus anti-2A and anti-firearm), I would be VERY surprised if that story tells what happened without it being "spun". While it indeed sounds like a deadly incident occurred over a very trivial thing, we don't know the all-important details. Maybe after the former LEO came back into the theater, the man texting threatened to do bodily harm to him for complaining. I'm not saying that happened, either, but it is plausible. In fact, its just as plausible as a 71-year old former LEO just shooting a guy for texting. And yes, I am that cynical and disbelieving when it comes to anything in the mass media, period.

K.Mooneyham wrote:And once again, seeing that the vast majority of the mass news media is distinctly leftist biased (and thus anti-2A and anti-firearm), I would be VERY surprised if that story tells what happened without it being "spun". While it indeed sounds like a deadly incident occurred over a very trivial thing, we don't know the all-important details. Maybe after the former LEO came back into the theater, the man texting threatened to do bodily harm to him for complaining. I'm not saying that happened, either, but it is plausible. In fact, its just as plausible as a 71-year old former LEO just shooting a guy for texting. And yes, I am that cynical and disbelieving when it comes to anything in the mass media, period.

I agree that all of the details aren't known but there were enough witnesses, including an off duty LEO, to result in the shooter being charged with second degree murder rather than being questioned and released for a justifiable shooting. Regardless of how the media spins it this man will get his day in court and have the chance to explain why he felt it was necessary to use lethal force.

My questions are:
1) Why didn't he request a refund and come back at a later date after complaining about the person texting?
2) Why did he engage in a confrontation while armed?
3) Did he try to disengage or did he continue to push the issue?
4) Why didn't he change seats?
5) Why did he feel texing/talking during the 15 minutes of previews before the feature was worth an argument in the first place?

Even though he may have had a very valid reason to shoot it would have occurred after he continued to engage in a verbal argument that was getting more and more heated. There's always talk on this forum about being responsible and frankly it sounds like this guy just was the complete opposite in this circumstance.

If things change then I'll eat my words but until then...

CoffeeNut wrote:

K.Mooneyham wrote:And once again, seeing that the vast majority of the mass news media is distinctly leftist biased (and thus anti-2A and anti-firearm), I would be VERY surprised if that story tells what happened without it being "spun". While it indeed sounds like a deadly incident occurred over a very trivial thing, we don't know the all-important details. Maybe after the former LEO came back into the theater, the man texting threatened to do bodily harm to him for complaining. I'm not saying that happened, either, but it is plausible. In fact, its just as plausible as a 71-year old former LEO just shooting a guy for texting. And yes, I am that cynical and disbelieving when it comes to anything in the mass media, period.

I agree that all of the details aren't known but there were enough witnesses, including an off duty LEO, to result in the shooter being charged with second degree murder rather than being questioned and released for a justifiable shooting. Regardless of how the media spins it this man will get his day in court and have the chance to explain why he felt it was necessary to use lethal force.

My questions are:
1) Why didn't he request a refund and come back at a later date after complaining about the person texting?
2) Why did he engage in a confrontation while armed?
3) Did he try to disengage or did he continue to push the issue?
4) Why didn't he change seats?
5) Why did he feel texing/talking during the 15 minutes of previews before the feature was worth an argument in the first place?

Even though he may have had a very valid reason to shoot it would have occurred after he continued to engage in a verbal argument that was getting more and more heated. There's always talk on this forum about being responsible and frankly it sounds like this guy just was the complete opposite in this circumstance.

If things change then I'll eat my words but until then...

Everything you said sounds quite reasonable and also like things any of us would be taught in the CHL classes we've attended. I won't try to argue against any of it. I'm just sick of the mass media and their agenda. Instead of this being handled as a local crime, CNN and others are going to use it as propaganda. And THAT is what chaps my hide.

Some people just lose control of their temper. I get bothered by texters too, but not until after the theater runs the little diddy about no texting. Before that runs, have at it. I would have simply let the theater manager handle it and that would have been that. With so many things to get upset about, I cannot imagine getting so worked up over texting.

CoffeeNut wrote:

03Lightningrocks wrote:I have a hundred bucks that says the theater this happened in, responds by posting no guns allowed.

Shooter was a retired cop and I don't think he'd have to comply, correct?

To be honest, I have no idea. But it is a good question.

CoffeeNut wrote:

Jumping Frog wrote:

CoffeeNut wrote: Shooter was a retired cop and I don't think he'd have to comply, correct?

Why do you think a retired cop would be exempt from a "no guns" posting in general?

Because iirc retired police officers still have a badge and limited police powers so why would they have to comply with a "no guns" posting geared toward the general public. An off duty police officer in the theater is the one who detained the shooter and I'm guessing he had his firearm.

Leaving aside Florida specifics (where signs have no force of law), in most states retired police officers have to follow the same "no gun" zone restrictions as ordinary citizens. Specifically the federal LEOSA provisions explicitly state retired LEO's must adhere to state-specific no gun zones to be under the federal exemption.

Of course, individual states can grant additional or specific privileges to retired police, but that is not the general case.

My anti gun friend on Facebook has already posted it and added my name, just so I wouldn't miss it.

I didn't read if he was a CHL or not.

philip964 wrote:My anti gun friend on Facebook has already posted it and added my name, just so I wouldn't miss it.

I didn't read if he was a CHL or not.

Ask your friend if he/she would have felt better if the retired cop used a hatchet or knife? And then direct the friend to that story you just posted the link to.

jmra wrote:Yep, texting kills.
This isn't about texting. It's about a guy who lost it, probably a while before he entered the theater.

this looks to be an old man who still remembers the good ole days and has become sickened by what this country has become. he found his breaking point and now i'm sure alot more will pay for his mistake in regards to more movie theatres being posted. There are only two around me that aren't and when they do become posted i'll just be supporting redbox.....

Ultra_Solo_Sig_0904 wrote:

jmra wrote:Yep, texting kills.
This isn't about texting. It's about a guy who lost it, probably a while before he entered the theater.

this looks to be an old man who still remembers the good ole days and has become sickened by what this country has become. he found his breaking point and now i'm sure alot more will pay for his mistake in regards to more movie theatres being posted. There are only two around me that aren't and when they do become posted i'll just be supporting redbox.....

It sure looks like this might be the situation. Now the cranky old guy is going to spend his golden years sitting in a prison cell instead of fishing from a pier.

The shooter is crazy, or so me believeth

http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafe ... er/2160784" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Doesn't look promising for the arrested party, but who knows.

I'm waiting for the facts to be revealed before I pass any judgement, but I think it's a forgone conclusion he'll most likely be charged. I found it interesting that the wife had her hand in front of the husband. Was she restraining her him or protecting him?

CoffeeNut wrote: Because iirc retired police officers still have a badge and limited police powers so why would they have to comply with a "no guns" posting geared toward the general public. An off duty police officer in the theater is the one who detained the shooter and I'm guessing he had his firearm.

You sure about that? Once a badge carrying LEO, always a badge carrying LEO? How are their "powers" reduced or limited?
I understand that the peace officer thing sticks with you, but a badge? What badge do they give retired LEOs?