maybe the man was senile or otherwise emotionally/mentally unstable


so sad,,,

they were both wrong for having prohibited items, but one is wrong and dead,,,,,,


I hope its more an exception than the rule but it sure seems too many people take that 'stand your ground' too far,,,,
http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/13/justice/florida-movie-theater-shooting/

I doubt being threatened with a tub of popcorn justifies someone shooting someone else.

I didn't notice anything in the article referring to stand your ground.

So I assume you added that for..... ?

personal choice

the source that linked to the story was about stand your ground,,,,

So this case has nothing to do with stand your ground you just felt compelled to say it did because you got from some left wing site?

No one that supports the second amendment or the rights of individuals to protect themselves and their families from the imminent threat of death will attempt to justify this act of cold blooded murder.

I suppose if they were both black and on a street corner you and your left wing cohorts would blame poverty and racism.

the article didn't mention race,, so I assume you added it for?


lol


take a chill pill, it was an OPINION,,,

anything to destroy 2nd Amendment-Rights!
That's why that Site added that Red Herring!

Since that recent shooting has nothing to do with "stand your ground", it is rather foolish to mention "stand your ground" in the OP of a thread pertaining to that shooting.

how do we know it had nothing to do with 'stand your ground',,,

because it didn't mention it doesn't mean that it wasn't a factor

people misinterpret their rights and the laws all the time,,,


don't know if it was or wasn't, but I included my OPINION about it,, ,jeesh

Uh, first try demonstrating that it was a factor.

I don't have to demonstrate an opinion,,,,lol

Stand your ground had nothing to do with that shooting.
That wasn't defense.
It was murder.

I agree

don't know if the shooter would though,,

Who cares what the shooter would agree to?
He's a murderer. It makes no difference what he believes.

Very rude using a cell phone or being loud during a movie.

That's why I wait till it comes out on Red box.

Isn't a gunshot louder?

Yeah, a snub nosed 38 makes a bit of a bang.

Now, if he'd have adapted a silencer to it, that could be construed as premeditated.

in any case,, I can read , or copy and paste definitions

and I Can 'interpret' them based upon my perception with the best of them

(even supreme court justices don't agree unanimously when they interpret 'rights')


and I can be right or wrong in my interpretation, like everyone included in these threads,,,


back to the topic,,,,


the florida statute:


However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or



'Reeves said he "was in fear of being attacked" by Chad Oulson, 43, so he pulled his .380 semi automatic handgun from his pants pocket and shot the victim. Oulson's wife, Nichole, was wounded in the hand when she put it up to protect her husband'

http://abcnews.go.com/US/accused-movie-theater-shooter-fear-attacked/story?id=21523732

I would agree on using a cell phone, but sending a text is quiet and unobtrusive except for the glow of the screen if the ringer is off.

But by the same token, it would have been much politer if the individual would have taken it to the lobby.

Really hasn't got a thing to do with the Stand Your Ground-Law,except that the Law is a Thorn in the Side of the anti-Gunners,and they'd use any Skullduggery to have it repealed!

I am not into repeal, revision would work quite as well


the florida statute:


However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or



'Reeves said he "was in fear of being attacked" by Chad Oulson, 43, so he pulled his .380 semi automatic handgun from his pants pocket and shot the victim. Oulson's wife, Nichole, was wounded in the hand when she put it up to protect her husband'

http://abcnews.go.com/US/accused-movie-theater-shooter-fear-attacked/story?id=21523732

so, a citizen could interpret 'reasonably believes' or 'great bodily harm' in a manner that would excuse this behavior , if they honestly believed they were at threat of being harmed,,,,


of course that would be as much a stretch as assuming that an inherent right to the pursuit of happiness should extend to pursuing happiness by driving a car,,,,

but, as I said, we don't all have to agree, and this is just one POSSIBLE way people can misinterpret the stand your ground statute based upon what seems 'reasonable' to them and whether they can prove they are chicken *****,,,,.. sorry, in fear of 'great bodily harm'