Regal Cinema's new "security policy"

[brett636]

Show me a jury anywhere that would justify an 8 year old child being killed by a well-intentioned cop wannabe who missed.

A "cop wannabe" is a poor description of someone who is carrying a gun for protection. If I am in a movie theater with my gun, and I hear gun shots in the theater next to mine I am not going to rush in there to engage the perpetrator. My gun is there for my protection if my life or the life of someone I am with is in mortal danger. I would simply exit the building. If I am in a theater where the shooting is happening and I believe I have a good chance to take out said assailant then yes I would do so. The scenario of accidentally taking out bbsam's daughter by missing the shooter is a ridiculous one. Since he is too much of a wuss to carry his own firearm I would hope he is smart enough to grab his daughter and hit the floor as soon as the first shots rang out and crawl to the nearest unobstructed exit making them impossible to hit by a stray bullet.

 

[bbsam]

A "cop wannabe" is a poor description of someone who is carrying a gun for protection. If I am in a movie theater with my gun, and I hear gun shots in the theater next to mine I am not going to rush in there to engage the perpetrator. My gun is there for my protection if my life or the life of someone I am with is in mortal danger. I would simply exit the building. If I am in a theater where the shooting is happening and I believe I have a good chance to take out said assailant then yes I would do so. The scenario of accidentally taking out bbsam's daughter by missing the shooter is a ridiculous one. Since he is too much of a wuss to carry his own firearm I would hope he is smart enough to grab his daughter and hit the floor as soon as the first shots rang out and crawl to the nearest unobstructed exit making them impossible to hit by a stray bullet.

Ah. So it's my fault if you accidentally shoot my daughter. I'm sure a judge and jury would love to consider that idiocy.

 

[brett636]

Ah. So it's my fault if you accidentally shoot my daughter. I'm sure a judge and jury would love to consider that idiocy.

Lets analyze this logically. You are in a theater with your daughter where a madman bursts in and begins shooting everyone he is near. You and your daughter are, thankfully, far enough way that you aren't a target of this madman...yet...Do you

A: stand up and run in the direction of said madman with your daughter in tow
B: Attempt to reason with said madman on the terrible nature of guns in hopes he puts down his weapon/s or
C: get on the floor with your daughter and crawl as fast as you two can in the opposite direction of said madman to avoid getting noticed and get out of that theater.

Your constant focus on a concealed carry permit holder accidentally shooting your daughter is acknowledging to me that you would choose option A which I would hope for your daughter's sake you aren't that stupid. A concealed carry person will not be aiming for you or your daughter and if you have any sense of self preservation you won't be going anywhere near the James Holmes type character that the concealed carry person will be aiming for. I am just pointing out the fallacy of this argument of your child being shot accidentally by someone trying to stop a mentally unstable person from murdering both of you. If you want to place me in that theater as the concealed carry holder trying to return fire then so be it, but keep in mind my actions are to help prevent you and your daughter from being murdered in cold blood, not to facilitate it.

 

[bbsam]

Lets analyze this logically. You are in a theater with your daughter where a madman bursts in and begins shooting everyone he is near. You and your daughter are, thankfully, far enough way that you aren't a target of this madman...yet...Do you

A: stand up and run in the direction of said madman with your daughter in tow
B: Attempt to reason with said madman on the terrible nature of guns in hopes he puts down his weapon/s or
C: get on the floor with your daughter and crawl as fast as you two can in the opposite direction of said madman to avoid getting noticed and get out of that theater.

Your constant focus on a concealed carry permit holder accidentally shooting your daughter is acknowledging to me that you would choose option A which I would hope for your daughter's sake you aren't that stupid. A concealed carry person will not be aiming for you or your daughter and if you have any sense of self preservation you won't be going anywhere near the James Holmes type character that the concealed carry person will be aiming for. I am just pointing out the fallacy of this argument of your child being shot accidentally by someone trying to stop a mentally unstable person from murdering both of you. If you want to place me in that theater as the concealed carry holder trying to return fire then so be it, but keep in mind my actions are to help prevent you and your daughter from being murdered in cold blood, not to facilitate it.

Do you know why this is a topic? Because sober suggested a Good Samaritan rule would apply. He has since backed away from that somewhat. I stand by what I said earlier: there is no excuse for a "good guy" to miss and kill an innocent. Good intentions are not enough.

And I doubt the Shooting scenario contained any of the "logic" you think would be so common place under the circumstances.

 

[brett636]

Do you know why this is a topic? Because sober suggested a Good Samaritan rule would apply. He has since backed away from that somewhat. I stand by what I said earlier: there is no excuse for a "good guy" to miss and kill an innocent. Good intentions are not enough.

And I doubt the Shooting scenario contained any of the "logic" you think would be so common place under the circumstances.

Regardless of how the topic began, the premise was a ridiculous one. People don't go running towards a madman shooting up some place they run away from him/her. Especially with their child right behind them. This is why this scenario has not occurred in this manner as you are trying to suggest. By the time a concealed carry holder realizes what is going on, and retrieves his or her weapon most innocent people, i.e. future victims if that concealed carrier wasn't there, would be well out of the line of fire.

 

[UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)]

Regardless of how the topic began, the premise was a ridiculous one. People don't go running towards a madman shooting up some place they run away from him/her. Especially with their child right behind them. This is why this scenario has not occurred in this manner as you are trying to suggest. By the time a concealed carry holder realizes what is going on, and retrieves his or her weapon most innocent people, i.e. future victims if that concealed carrier wasn't there, would be well out of the line of fire.

Suppose something were to happen as bbsam and his daughter were making their way out of the theater. Suppose she tripped and fell and by the time she recovered it was too late to safely make it to the exits. At that same the cop wannabe has drawn his weapon and is pointing it at the gunman, who is between him and the little girl. Just as CW squeezes off a round the gunman ducks to the ground. The little girl doesn't know what hit her and what started off as a nice father /daughter "date night" has turned in to a parent's worst nightmare.

 

[brett636]

Suppose something were to happen as bbsam and his daughter were making their way out of the theater. Suppose she tripped and fell and by the time she recovered it was too late to safely make it to the exits. At that same the cop wannabe has drawn his weapon and is pointing it at the gunman, who is between him and the little girl. Just as CW squeezes off a round the gunman ducks to the ground. The little girl doesn't know what hit her and what started off as a nice father /daughter "date night" has turned in to a parent's worst nightmare.

Not really following your logic here as it simply isn't making sense. Mass shooter events are very rare, and this particular situation is almost certainly to never happen(thankfully). The fact that you equate a concealed carry holder as a cop wannabe nullifies your opinion on this matter and despite the fact that I could say more I simply won't.

 

[bbsam]

Not really following your logic here as it simply isn't making sense. Mass shooter events are very rare, and this particular situation is almost certainly to never happen(thankfully). The fact that you equate a concealed carry holder as a cop wannabe nullifies your opinion on this matter and despite the fact that I could say more I simply won't.

Yes. Mass shootings are very rare. That's why you haven't seen innocent kids gunned down by the "good guys:. Not because the scenario is outlandish but because the situation doesn't come up often.

 

[brett636]

Yes. Mass shootings are very rare. That's why you haven't seen innocent kids gunned down by the "good guys:. Not because the scenario is outlandish but because the situation doesn't come up often.

The situation you keep trying to refer back to is outlandish, and to my knowledge has never happened. Even if it did the way the criminal laws work in this country anyone shot in a situation that you mentioned would be attributed to the original gunman simply because it was his/her actions that caused the entire fiasco in the first place. This is why when multiple people commit a crime, and one of them gets killed in the commission of said crime the accomplices get charged with murder even if they weren't the ones who did the shooting.

 

[bbsam]

they would be just like in NY

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Dorner-Pickup-Truck-Settlement-204322271.html

The situation you keep trying to refer back to is outlandish, and to my knowledge has never happened. Even if it did the way the criminal laws work in this country anyone shot in a situation that you mentioned would be attributed to the original gunman simply because it was his/her actions that caused the entire fiasco in the first place. This is why when multiple people commit a crime, and one of them gets killed in the commission of said crime the accomplices get charged with murder even if they weren't the ones who did the shooting.

Of course it happens. The wrong people die all the time. There 8s no reason to believe it couldn't or wouldn't in a mass shooting with a "good samaritan " shooter involved.

 

[soberups]

Suppose something were to happen as bbsam and his daughter were making their way out of the theater. Suppose she tripped and fell and by the time she recovered it was too late to safely make it to the exits. At that same the cop wannabe has drawn his weapon and is pointing it at the gunman, who is between him and the little girl. Just as CW squeezes off a round the gunman ducks to the ground. The little girl doesn't know what hit her and what started off as a nice father /daughter "date night" has turned in to a parent's worst nightmare.

In your scenario, the nightmare began when a criminal walked into the theater and started shooting people. It is the criminal who set into motion the chain of events that led to the little girl being accidentally shot. And in your scenario, the actions of the "cop wannabe" do not in any way qualify as negligence. The blame for the little girls death would lie solely with the criminal, not with the law-abiding person who was acting in self defense.

 

[soberups]

Do you know why this is a topic? Because sober suggested a Good Samaritan rule would apply. He has since backed away from that somewhat. I stand by what I said earlier: there is no excuse for a "good guy" to miss and kill an innocent. Good intentions are not enough.

And I doubt the Shooting scenario contained any of the "logic" you think would be so common place under the circumstances.

I never intended that the term "Good Samaritan" be used as a legal term in this context.

I was merely pointing out that a legally armed person who was acting in good faith under the emergency circumstances of a mass shooting event would probably be given a considerable amount of leeway in a court of law if he were charged with "negligence" due to one of his rounds hitting an innocent bystander.

You brought up the term "collateral damage" in one of your posts, and while that phrase has come to be synonymous with a total lack of concern for the deaths of innocent civilians who are adjacent to a military target, it can also refer to the process of weighing the number of lives that will be saved by the destruction of a military objective versus the number of innocents who will die during its destruction.

Under the circumstances of a mass shooting incident.....where the murderer has entered a theater or school with the clear and obvious intent of killing as many people as possible.....the argument could be made that in order to save lives he must be taken out as quickly as possible and by any means necessary. If an innocent person does get killed in the crossfire it would certainly be tragic, but the alternative......doing nothing and allowing the murderer to continue his rampage unchecked.....could lead to many more deaths.

 

[soberups]

Yes. Mass shootings are very rare. That's why you haven't seen innocent kids gunned down by the "good guys:. Not because the scenario is outlandish but because the situation doesn't come up often.

Not only are mass shootings very rare, but they always occur in "gun free" zones and are committed by people who either passed a background check and legally bought the guns they used, or else stole them. Yet for some reason, the liberals continue clamoring for even more laws that by their own admission wont do anything to stop the rare events that are being used to justify them.

 

[bbsam]

Not only are mass shootings very rare, but they always occur in "gun free" zones and are committed by people who either passed a background check and legally bought the guns they used, or else stole them. Yet for some reason, the liberals continue clamoring for even more laws that by their own admission wont do anything to stop the rare events that are being used to justify them.

So is it your position that "gun free zones" have never prevented gun violence or that they don't prevent ALL gun violence?

 

[bbsam]

Google "Good Samaritan laws".

A person who is taking reasonable action during a crisis in order to save a life should not be held responsible for making an honest mistake, especially when it was the criminal actions of another that caused the situation in the first place.

How can you say you didn't intend that Good Samaritan laws should apply? What do you call this?

 

[bbsam]

I never intended that the term "Good Samaritan" be used as a legal term in this context.

I was merely pointing out that a legally armed person who was acting in good faith under the emergency circumstances of a mass shooting event would probably be given a considerable amount of leeway in a court of law if he were charged with "negligence" due to one of his rounds hitting an innocent bystander.

You brought up the term "collateral damage" in one of your posts, and while that phrase has come to be synonymous with a total lack of concern for the deaths of innocent civilians who are adjacent to a military target, it can also refer to the process of weighing the number of lives that will be saved by the destruction of a military objective versus the number of innocents who will die during its destruction.

Under the circumstances of a mass shooting incident.....where the murderer has entered a theater or school with the clear and obvious intent of killing as many people as possible.....the argument could be made that in order to save lives he must be taken out as quickly as possible and by any means necessary. If an innocent person does get killed in the crossfire it would certainly be tragic, but the alternative......doing nothing and allowing the murderer to continue his rampage unchecked.....could lead to many more deaths.

Et tu, Caiaphas?

 

[bbsam]

In your scenario, the nightmare began when a criminal walked into the theater and started shooting people. It is the criminal who set into motion the chain of events that led to the little girl being accidentally shot. And in your scenario, the actions of the "cop wannabe" do not in any way qualify as negligence. The blame for the little girls death would lie solely with the criminal, not with the law-abiding person who was acting in self defense.

I trust that cops are trained to handle such situations of intense pressure when employing deadly force and if they make a critical mistake, they are held responsible. Why should I expect less of you if you decide it is time to use deadly force? That lightweight sidearm carries heavy responsibility.

 

[wayfair]

So is it your position that "gun free zones" have never prevented gun violence or that they don't prevent ALL gun violence?

who is there to prevent them??? a sign???

 

[bbsam]

who is there to prevent them??? a sign???

That's a ridiculous question and shows a complete lack of thought. This might be above you.

 

[Lineandinitial]

These scenarios are even more ridiculous. What if bbsam's daughter gets hit and survives and the CCW kills the assailant who was later found to have 3 additional guns on him and a hand grenade.
Give me a break!

Better yet, what if bbsam used TOS as a human shield and he talked the assailant into giving up without TOS getting hit and the entire theater attacked and killed bbsam.

I'm sorry, I agree with the CCW guys here and bbsam you can come up with every improbable scenario that you can. What if...?