Gun pulled in theater over a fight and how the media lies.

[Deleted]

Wow... This is especially weird given the fact that you spend the rest of this post accusing me of making assumptions about the situation.

Except someone would have to have impacted hearing or vision to not notice a teenager next to them kicking a seat in front of them. Your senses are literally wired to pay the most attention to what is happening in front of you, and unless this theater had unusually spacious seating then I just don't buy the father not being able to notice.

But I can fully buy him choosing to ignore it. Seems to go in line with a guy who would fist fight in defense of their child acting like a dick.

That's not what strawman means...

I thought the father was an adult too. My math is telling he me he has to be one if he has a 14-year-old.

He didn't start anything. He was reacting. And adults swear. It's rude, but adults do it.

You want to know to know what else adults do? Monitor their children.

No. Being armed changes nothing. We expect responsible handling of the gun, but that does not prevent them from pointing out someone acting like a dick and someone else allowing it to happen. You do not lose the right to complain by carrying a gun.

Except the teenager kicking his chair and the father allowing it to happen.

Unless someone else has a gun. Then you can be a dick and sit there doing nothing to stop the people you're responsible for from doing it.

The article doesn't have to point to him. I am accusing him of inaction. There would be nothing to point to.

Getting annoyed and swearing at a child is not a crime. It is not an indication of instability. People snap at things that annoy them. This is why people praise those that can handle it in a calm and even manner.

First off all, im not making assumptions, i said it MIGHT BE, i never stated anything for sure. I only stated that you could not know.

You do not know how hard he was kicking the seat, you do not know if the father was preoccupied. You simply do not know if he knew, that is all an assumption.

It does change something, when you have a gun on you and you start altercations left and right then chances are high that there will be this time where it goes wrong. Luckily it was not this time.

It does'nt matter that the father is an adult, stop beating this strawman. He is an adult, he should know better then to start cussing right away.

You dont' know if he was reacting, you do not know what he said. Again a boat load of assumptions on your part.

Euuh hur dur..

Again, you do not know if the father knew, that is speculation.

You accuse him again of something that he might not have known, again, that is speculation on your part.

Yes, it is an indication of instability, and when you can not control your self like that its best not to have guns on you.

What it all comes down to is that you blame the father for something, something that you can not know that happened. And you praise someone who can't control himself in public for not shooting an unarmed man. Im done with you.

[Citizen T]

You are not supposed to brandish a firearm unless you are planning to use it, aka using lethal force.

ANOTHER THING that would have been taught at a firearms class.

Actually my firearms class taught me to assess (if able) once drawn because just drawing the firearm can often cause a sudden cessation of hostilities - just as it did here. And NM has one of (if not the most) extensive requirements for conceal carry training in the nation - minimum of 16 hours of training.

[unholytestament]

You are not supposed to brandish a firearm unless you are planning to use it, aka using lethal force.

ANOTHER THING that would have been taught at a firearms class.

The bold part is not true, the rest is. Brandishing is not the same as assault with a deadly weapon. Brandishing is actually excused for "any person engaged in excusable or justifiable self-defense". The issue is if this can be considered justified.

[Citizen T]

First off all, im not making assumptions, i said it MIGHT BE, i never stated anything for sure. I only stated that you could not know.

You do not know how hard he was kicking the seat, you do not know if the father was preoccupied. You simply do not know if he knew, that is all an assumption.

It does change something, when you have a gun on you and you start altercations left and right then chances are high that there will be this time where it goes wrong. Luckily it was not this time.

It does'nt matter that the father is an adult, stop beating this strawman. He is an adult, he should know better then to start cussing right away.

You dont' know if he was reacting, you do not know what he said. Again a boat load of assumptions on your part.

Euuh hur dur..

Again, you do not know if the father knew, that is speculation.

You accuse him again of something that he might not have known, again, that is speculation on your part.

Yes, it is an indication of instability, and when you can not control your self like that its best not to have guns on you.

What it all comes down to is that you blame the father for something, something that you can not know that happened. And you praise someone who can't control himself in public for not shooting an unarmed man. Im done with you.

You're right. We don't know if the father knew. But, as a parent, it is his responsibility to be aware of his child at all times in public. He was either negligent in allowing this child to kick the seat or negligent in proper supervision of his child in public.

[zenkai]

You're right. We don't know if the father knew. But, as a parent, it is his responsibility to be aware of his child at all times in public. He was either negligent in allowing this child to kick the seat or negligent in proper supervision of his child in public.

This is correct but at the same time I couldn't see how he wouldn't know, I would see the movement in my peripheral vision. I stand by that both men are at fault for escalating at the decision.

I will say again if this had happen to me (as a father I can relate)
I would tell my son to apologize to the man for kicking his seat, then I would have told the man he needs to be more mature and ask nicely first, then show my son that's now how you act in a theater.

Boom, 2 life lessons in one.

[Citizen T]

This is correct but at the same time I couldn't see how he wouldn't know, I would see the movement in my peripheral vision. I stand by that both men are at fault for escalating at the decision.

I will say again if this had happen to me (as a father I can relate)
I would tell my son to apologize to the man for kicking his seat, then I would have told the man he needs to be more mature and ask nicely first, then show my son that's now how you act in a theater.

Boom, 2 life lessons in one.

Of course you would notice - just as I would - because we are responsible parents that are aware of our children at all time when we are in public.

[unholytestament]

First off all, im not making assumptions, i said it MIGHT BE, i never stated anything for sure. I only stated that you could not know.

You do not know how hard he was kicking the seat, you do not know if the father was preoccupied. You simply do not know if he knew, that is all an assumption.

The point is that the father should not BE preoccupied. He should be paying attention to his child. I have babysat my nieces and nephews enough to know that if you can miss a child kicking a seat then you can miss a child sneaking away. This father was not doing a good job of parenting.

It does change something, when you have a gun on you and you start altercations left and right then chances are high that there will be this time where it goes wrong. Luckily it was not this time.

Slippery slope is a fallacy for a reason... Plus he didn't start this.

It does'nt matter that the father is an adult, stop beating this strawman. He is an adult, he should know better then to start cussing right away.

That's not what strawman means!

You dont' know if he was reacting, you do not know what he said. Again a boat load of assumptions on your part.

Uh, we do know he was reacting. We don't know exactly what we said but we do know that he was demanding the child stop kicking his seat. That's a reaction.

Again, you do not know if the father knew, that is speculation.

I don't need to know. It is his responsibility to monitor his child. His inaction is the issue here.

Yes, it is an indication of instability, and when you can not control your self like that its best not to have guns on you.

No, it's not. You can't just say it is and have everyone agree with you.

What it all comes down to is that you blame the father for something, something that you can not know that happened.

For him not paying the due attention that a parent is supposed to.

And you praise someone who can't control himself in public for not shooting an unarmed man. Im done with you.

The fact that he didn't shoot him indicates he can control himself. You should really word these retorts better.

And I'm curious where I praised him...

- - - Updated - - -

Self-defense is only justified if your life is in imminent danger, otherwise your legal duty is to flee. Being punch multiple times is not imminent danger, unless you are about to pass out, which this guy clearly wasn't.

An elderly man being physically assaulted by an able bodied adult is imminent danger.

And why would you wait until you're about to pass out to take a threat seriously? If you're about to pass out that means you have most likely already taken serious damage.

[Citizen T]

Self-defense is only justified if your life is in imminent danger, otherwise your legal duty is to flee. Being punch multiple times is not imminent danger, unless you are about to pass out, which this guy clearly wasn't.

In Boston it may be your legal duty to flee if attacked. In my state of New Mexico and Kentucky have no stand your ground law but the state courts have upheld that you do NOT have a duty to retreat. If you are punched you have no way to know if you are about to pass out. Ever watch professional boxing, MMA, etc? All it takes is one punch and you're out. If attacked (at least here in NM and in KY) I can legally draw my weapon in self defense. Whether or not I use it would be very dependent upon the immediate actions of the person attacking me at that point and/or how badly or with what I'm being beaten.

[unholytestament]

Because using lethal force outside of "I'm about to die" is not legally justified.

But that's not what imminent danger means. You do not have to have suffered serious damage to be under threat of dying.

A single punch can kill, especially with a huge physical disparity between the attacker and the victim.

[zenkai]

Because using lethal force outside of "I'm about to die" is not legally justified.

If you had the choice of letting someone beat your ass or threaten them with a gun to stop, you would pick let them kick your ass?

[Citizen T]

Because using lethal force outside of "I'm about to die" is not legally justified.

This is not entirely accurate. At least in NM, the following are required:
In order to justify using deadly force generally three elements must be present. Your attacker must have (or you must be able to reasonably articulate that you believed they had) these:
1. Ability: the ability to inflict serious bodily injury or death (attacker is armed or reasonably appears to be armed with a deadly weapon or has the physical ability to inflict serious bodily injury)
2. Opportunity: the opportunity to inflict serious bodily harm (attacker is physically positioned to harm you)
3. Intent: attackers intent (hostile actions or words) indicates that he is means to place you in jeopardy - to do you serious or fatal physical harm.

Since the man was elderly, it would be a reasonable conclusion that ability to cause serious bodily injury is possible, the were in a physical confrontation so opportunity is certainly met. Intent is the only thing left that would be open to interpretation. Would a reasonable person feel they were in jeopardy of serious physical harm while being beaten in a fight.

The story never mentions any details of the fight so this is hard to determine. Perhaps he wasn't in jeopardy or serious physical harm, but again perhaps he had tried to retreat from the fight at some point and the father continued beating him. We don't know these specifics.

[unholytestament]

I don't understand how people think this is supposed to work. Are you supposed to take a beating despite the fact you have the means to defend yourself because you think they'll stop before they kill you? And we're just talking about brandishing a gun, not even firing it.

Do you know at what point you can stop to avoid killing an elderly man? That's a trick question because there are many different things that can kill you following a beating. A man can be alive and conscious when the fight ends but die later because of internal injuries.

[Polyxo]

This is a pretty good example of why the second amendment should be removed. There are far too many 'self defense enthusiasts/concerned citizens' who really just want to tote a gun around and pretend to be some ultimate badass. Inevitably, they pick a fight, and out comes a gun. Luckily this time, they didn't start shooting.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't understand how people think this is supposed to work. Are you supposed to take a beating despite the fact you have the means to defend yourself because you think they'll stop before they kill you? And we're just talking about brandishing a gun, not even firing it.

Do you know at what point you can stop to avoid killing an elderly man? That's a trick question because there are many different things that can kill you following a beating. A man can be alive and conscious when the fight ends but die later because of internal injuries.

Honestly, if I am as decrepit in my 60s as you guys are making this guy out to be, please someone kill me.

[unholytestament]

Honestly, if I am as decrepit in my 60s as you guys are making this guy out to be, please someone kill me.

How decrepit am I making him out to be? What would be more accurate, in your opinion?

[Citizen T]

The debunked good guy with a gun bollocks. More armed people in that theatre would have resulted in more dead bodies.

I guess we'll never know will we? These shooting keep happening in gun free zones and in states where gun ownership and carry is made as difficult as possible.

- - - Updated - - -

This is a pretty good example of why the second amendment should be removed. There are far too many 'self defense enthusiasts/concerned citizens' who really just want to tote a gun around and pretend to be some ultimate badass. Inevitably, they pick a fight, and out comes a gun. Luckily this time, they didn't start shooting.

- - - Updated - - -



Honestly, if I am as decrepit in my 60s as you guys are making this guy out to be, please someone kill me.

You are not exactly the average person. If I recall correctly from your previous posts, you were/are a competitive level athlete in one of the martial arts - judo I believe. Your level decrepitness (is that word?) would be vastly different than the other 99% of people.

[Dystemper]

Common sense really, your average person is not a professional MMA fighter and the chance of them landing a punch that disables you is pretty low. People inexperienced with fighting will just throw wild punches that lead to no where and even if they land they don't do that much damage. As I said, even watching those shitty street fight videos people almost always end up on the floor in a stupid rub fest and leads nowhere. I'm sure you've "seen things" but that doesn't make it some epidemic or even on the rise.

There's nothing wrong with learning self defense but lets stop pretending that the whole marketing of it isn't based on fear. Fear isn't an inherently bad thing

This is where you inexperience on the matter shows through. People throwing these wild punches are the ones that greatly increase you chances of being greatly harmed. The "lucky punch" . As I said it happens a great deal more then you seem to think it does. Talk to a trauma nurse or doctor sometime and have them tell you what people are like in the after math of a street fight. And because you see a fight end up on the ground, that does not mean that damage is not being done. Grappling can cause significant damage to joints , nerves and muscles. Once a fight ends up on the ground, if you have very little skill, then you lost.

If you think its based on fear, then there is nothing i can tell you to change your opinion. We can only agree to disagree. But when it comes to hand to hand fighting, you have a great deal to learn about t and the dangers it poses.

[Polyxo]

I guess we'll never know will we? These shooting keep happening in gun free zones and in states where gun ownership and carry is made as difficult as possible.

- - - Updated - - -



You are not exactly the average person. If I recall correctly from your previous posts, you were/are a competitive level athlete in one of the martial arts - judo I believe. Your level decrepitness (is that word?) would be vastly different than the other 99% of people.

DECREPITUDE

[Dystemper]

You are not supposed to brandish a firearm unless you are planning to use it, aka using lethal force.

ANOTHER THING that would have been taught at a firearms class.

You are another one who seems to think getting hit is just fine and does not lead to loss of ife or debilitating permanent injuries . Let me ask you, How many real life fights have you been in and have you ever had a beating so bad it required medical attention?

The fact is the man is 64. If he has a disability or medical condition, that can make him very prone to physical injury or even death. If the father attacked him physically and he feared for his life then he had the right to deescalate the threat using a force multiplier tool. The fact that he did not Shoot the father shows that he has probably had some training.

- - - Updated - - -

Actually my firearms class taught me to assess (if able) once drawn because just drawing the firearm can often cause a sudden cessation of hostilities - just as it did here. And NM has one of (if not the most) extensive requirements for conceal carry training in the nation - minimum of 16 hours of training.

Yep and a unfired firearm is used to stop a crime or to save a life atleast 2 million times a year by some accounts, with out having to fire a shot.

[Sedative]

There is no such thing as a fair fight. If I assault someone physically, and they have a CCW and they pull a gun on me, well perhaps I shouldn't be assaulting random people...

[Polyxo]

This is where you inexperience on the matter shows through. People throwing these wild punches are the ones that greatly increase you chances of being greatly harmed. The "lucky punch" . As I said it happens a great deal more then you seem to think it does. Talk to a trauma nurse or doctor sometime and have them tell you what people are like in the after math of a street fight. And because you see a fight end up on the ground, that does not mean that damage is not being done. Grappling can cause significant damage to joints , nerves and muscles. Once a fight ends up on the ground, if you have very little skill, then you lost.

If you think its based on fear, then there is nothing i can tell you to change your opinion. We can only agree to disagree. But when it comes to hand to hand fighting, you have a great deal to learn about t and the dangers it poses.

Basically none of this is true. The wild punches are largely harmless and kind of silly. Grappling causes significant damage to the body only if you know exactly what you're doing. Fights wind up with far more broken hands and fingers than head or torso injuries, and usually end with the participants half sitting, half laying down, usually on top of each other, breathing really heavy and ineffectually pushing at each other.