Well let me stop you before you wear out your google hand. There is no such amendment. Just letting you know before you waste even more time searching for the amendment that gives people the right to not be offended by people belching loudly at an elegant restaurant or having someone call their grandmother a goat felching cunt. Is the constitution the only moral compass these days? Or do you believe that anything that isn’t illegal is a-ok? Also, I’m assuming the theater thinks I have that right since they post an announcement for everyone to turn off their mobile devices.
This guy is going to need George Zimmerman’s defense lawyer.
He’ll walk.
And, like Zimmerman, when he does, you know what? They’re going to hand his gun back to him on his way out of the courthouse.
There is no way this guy will get away with shooting someone that threw a box of popcorn at him.
That doesn’t come close to meeting the standard for self defense.
-cough- Zimmerman walked. -cough-
See how this works? One fucking gun nut murdering prick gets to hide behind a State’s deeply dysfunctional laws concerning gun use and murder and they all do.
Pretty neat, huh?
:mad:
I sure as hell hope he doesn’t walk, but unfortunately, though there is no amendment that says I have the right not to be offended by another’s cel phone light, this fucked up state does have a so called “stand your ground law”. Just mentioning, since Snowboarder Bo seems to give a lot of consideration to laws and all.
I have no idea how that happened. Very puzzling.
In the context of this discussion, where SYG laws are being thought of and legal arguments considered, rights are specific things; I didn’t realize you were only talking about your own views on minor distractions and annoyances that are a part of every day life for people.
No, the constitution isn’t the only moral compass these days.
Your next question is a non-sequiter and not deserving of a response.
I’m sure the theater (and nearly 100% of movie-goers, including me) can agree that you deserve the courtesy of being able to watch the film you paid for without undue distractions or interruptions, but it still isn’t a legal right, not even if they post it on the wall of the theater.
Re: the notice to shut off mobile devices: every theater I’ve been too enjoins people turn off their cel phones and other mobile devices during the feature presentation. Since the feature wasn’t yet running, no, I don’t think Mr. Reeves or you or anyone else should have had any problem with Mr. Oulson texting.
I thought it was pretty evident that I was expressing my own view on the subject. You are the one who brought amendments into it.
If the constitution isn’t your moral compass than why did you mention searching for constitutional law?
Why is my question / statement a non-sequiter? It speaks to civil behavior within social boundaries.
So is it your position that I have the right to attend a movie without undue distractions or not? Part of the movie going experience includes previews, whether you find them interesting or not. The movie going experience starts the second money is exchanged.
And, while it’s thankfully not gotten this far for me, I know that if I go to a manager and demand my money back because someone is being disruptive, i.e, using their mobile, I have no doubt I will be getting a full refund, if not vouchers for popcorn.
According to the Judge’s instructions to the Jury in the Zimmerman case, as long as the shooter felt his life was in danger, even if he is wrong about that threat, he has a right to use deadly force and must be found Not Guilty. This guy could and probably very likely will walk.
No No No…you’ve got this all wrong, it’s pretty typical of the libruls to mis-state everything.
It’s pretty obvious to me what has actually happened here.
You’ve got a fit and strong 43 year old, who quite obviously has a history of thuggish, threatening behaviour and who gives of a justifiable vibe of “criminal bully” acting in a deliberately provocative way.
He threatened the poor defenceless infirm 73 year old, who was in fear for his life and that of the lady with him, and had he not been carrying a weapon, as is his constitutional right, we would now have two dead grandparents and a whole plethora of their family having to suffer through the loss of the awesome guiding mentor of their lives.
We’re actually LUCKY that everybody has the right to carry guns. The only shame here is that more people in the theatre weren’t carrying, or this may have been stopped even earlier and the wonderful upstanding citizen wouldn’t even have to have suffered the dignity and life threatening situation of being hit by a few kernals of popcorn.
No. You mentioned rights. I was discussing something you said. You started this exchange, I was merely the responder.
Do you make any arguments or ask any questions which aren’t filled with gratuitous leaps of so-called logic or that don’t ignore information which immediately preceded it? It’s astounding how many assumptions you can make in just a dozen words or so.
For instance, when did I say the the constitution isn’t my moral compass?
The way you phrased the question is ridiculous. You really can’t see that?
Right? No, I wouldn’t go that far. Maybe you have some other definition of what you think a “right” is, but no, I wouldn’t say that attending a movie without undue distractions would fall under any but the loosest, most asinine definition of “right”.
The movie going experience starts the minute you leave your house, but you wouldn’t be able to defend your position if you acknowledged that, so you conveniently ignore that fact, I notice. And as I noted, the admonition I see is to turn off devices during the movie, not “when the movie-going experience starts”.
In any case, the courtesy you desire is a private property issue, being something that needs to be announced by the property owner and enforced by same, as with any other dress code or code of conduct. It’s not up to the paying customers to fight amongst themselves, and Mr. Reeves conduct was out of line in nearly every regard, if the information we’re reading now is accurate.
Yes, and you should complain and if the theater has any credibility and desire to retain customers, not to mention a desire to head off bad word-of-mouth advertising they should act to ameliorate. What you shouldn’t do is shoot the disruptive person in the chest with your pistol. That’s wrong, even if he was texting during the film.
Aye, I mention that he had said the magic words in post #60.
The shooter was just as bad as the texter. He should have used a silencer to keep from disturbing the audience.
I have no idea how that happened. Very puzzling.
[/QUOTE]
I believe Ellen Cherry waved her magic mod-wand and sprinkled some dope-dust, and it was done!
In Zimmerman’s situation, however I got there, I would feel my life at risk.
But popcorn?
Nonetheless, one does not bring popcorn to a gunfight. 
I know you aren’t interested in logic or reason but if you looked at it unemotionally you would see some big differences. In the Zimmerman case they were initially reluctant to bring charges because of the difficulty of getting a conviction. At the time before the story blew up and the threads got out of hand there were several of us who were able to try to explain the problems with the case, particularly under Florida law.
In this case there pretty much insurmountable evidence against the shooter and he has been arrested, arraigned on murder charges and denied bail.
After looking at the Zimmerman case I was sure he would be found not guilty. That is not going to happen in this case. Of course his lawyer will mount a defense. Most people don’t march meekly off to prison. And he may wind up pleading to a lesser charge. But I will bet you he doesn’t walk.
I don’t know about that, he could successfully claim self-defense. I mean, have you seen the popcorn served at movie theaters these days? That’s practically a deadly weapon!
You bet it won’t. The dead guy is a 40ish white guy.
That’d do the trick.
Well, you do if you want to have a snack while you spectate.
That was the part that made me snort out loud - first, that you have to have a weapons policy in the first place, and second, that if failed so spectacularly.
No, people shouldn’t be shot for texting during the previews at a movie theatre, but people shouldn’t be texting during movies, either (someone texting during the previews who gets into a fight over it wasn’t going to stop during the movie, either). People are getting away with anti-social shit all the time; you get to be 71 years old, you’re tired of all that shit from everyone all the time.