Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Tampa Bay Online)   Remember the guy who shot another man in a Florida movie theater for texting during the previews? New records show the shooter was texting, too   (tbo.com) divider line 129
    More: Followup, lone survivor, mandatory minimums, Chad Oulson, Matthew Myers  
•       •       •

5101 clicks; posted to Main » on 13 Mar 2014 at 5:25 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



129 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2014-03-13 03:52:03 PM  
He also shot someone over a texting dispute!
 
2014-03-13 03:53:22 PM  
Ya, movee iz cool bro and my grrl iz hot dawg but OW JST BN SHOT call ambulance kthxbye
 
2014-03-13 05:12:19 PM  
Oh good grief.
 
2014-03-13 05:12:50 PM  
Listen I am tired of seeing the story of this in the news. The popcorn throwing was the escalator of this and for the reason of this listen you just do not know where the chaos might obtain as this could have left to someone doing the shooting. He was lucky to not have been shot and was probably the person who was thankful for having the gun of he to protect the self of him from the possible aggression by the other person who might also be the person with the gun but happened to not be this person. You see when you must do the ground standing then what is the thing that happens is you must always make the assumption of you that the person who is not you but is the other person might have the armament and then react according to this and I believe that is what was done in the case of this and the right person did the right thing and the wrong person did the wrong thing and unfortunately of this the result was the death of one of these persons but not of the other and we will never know if the right person would have done the different thing if not the wrong person but instead the right person. For this reason we should not apply the Court of Farker Opinion on this case until we wish for seeing this from both sides of the wrong one and the right one.

I do wish for the opinion of you on this because I am thinking it is quite the thing that we can come to the solution of together and perhaps do the writing of the amicus brief for the party who is the right person. I will do the writing of this if you do the signing for me.

Let us do this!
 
2014-03-13 05:21:33 PM  

meow said the dog: Listen I am tired of seeing the story of this in the news. The popcorn throwing was the escalator of this and for the reason of this listen you just do not know where the chaos might obtain as this could have left to someone doing the shooting. He was lucky to not have been shot and was probably the person who was thankful for having the gun of he to protect the self of him from the possible aggression by the other person who might also be the person with the gun but happened to not be this person. You see when you must do the ground standing then what is the thing that happens is you must always make the assumption of you that the person who is not you but is the other person might have the armament and then react according to this and I believe that is what was done in the case of this and the right person did the right thing and the wrong person did the wrong thing and unfortunately of this the result was the death of one of these persons but not of the other and we will never know if the right person would have done the different thing if not the wrong person but instead the right person. For this reason we should not apply the Court of Farker Opinion on this case until we wish for seeing this from both sides of the wrong one and the right one.

I do wish for the opinion of you on this because I am thinking it is quite the thing that we can come to the solution of together and perhaps do the writing of the amicus brief for the party who is the right person. I will do the writing of this if you do the signing for me.

Let us do this!


0-media-cdn.foolz.us
 
2014-03-13 05:29:43 PM  
Maybe he saw that the other guy just got the same sext from a teenage girl as him and he flew into a jealous rage.
 
2014-03-13 05:30:10 PM  
"WTF Y IS THIS GUY IN FRONT OF ME TXTING?"

"BRB GOTTA SHOOT THIS FARKER"
 
2014-03-13 05:31:13 PM  

factoryconnection: He also shot someone over a texting dispute!


This.

Does calling him a hypocrite really matter at this point?  He killed someone.
 
2014-03-13 05:32:07 PM  
So a (retired)cop shot someone for breaking a rule that he believes himself to be exempt from?

Sounds about right.
 
2014-03-13 05:32:44 PM  
People on that page are actually suggesting that a gun is an appropriate response to a cell phone (or popcorn) being thrown at you. That's incredible, though not entirely surprising.
 
2014-03-13 05:34:57 PM  
The only thing that can stop a bad guy with a phone is a good guy with a phone.  ...and a gun. A gun definitely helps too.
 
2014-03-13 05:35:02 PM  
Sure, but if the dead guy is black then everything's okay right?
 
2014-03-13 05:35:28 PM  

scottydoesntknow: meow said the dog: Listen I am tired of seeing the story of this in the news. The popcorn throwing was the escalator of this and for the reason of this listen you just do not know where the chaos might obtain as this could have left to someone doing the shooting. He was lucky to not have been shot and was probably the person who was thankful for having the gun of he to protect the self of him from the possible aggression by the other person who might also be the person with the gun but happened to not be this person. You see when you must do the ground standing then what is the thing that happens is you must always make the assumption of you that the person who is not you but is the other person might have the armament and then react according to this and I believe that is what was done in the case of this and the right person did the right thing and the wrong person did the wrong thing and unfortunately of this the result was the death of one of these persons but not of the other and we will never know if the right person would have done the different thing if not the wrong person but instead the right person. For this reason we should not apply the Court of Farker Opinion on this case until we wish for seeing this from both sides of the wrong one and the right one.

I do wish for the opinion of you on this because I am thinking it is quite the thing that we can come to the solution of together and perhaps do the writing of the amicus brief for the party who is the right person. I will do the writing of this if you do the signing for me.

Let us do this!

[0-media-cdn.foolz.us image 526x300]


Damn, I was hoping he'd left.
 
2014-03-13 05:35:36 PM  
If someone says touch me again and I'll kill you, it may be a good idea to not touch them. Not that them killing  you is justified. IT did come with a warning too.

/too bad he didn't have a .25 would have gotten stopped by the wife's finger.
 
2014-03-13 05:35:46 PM  
So you're saying the shooter's a dick.
 
2014-03-13 05:37:06 PM  

Callous: So a (retired)cop shot someone for breaking a rule that he believes himself to be exempt from?

Sounds about right.


Yep.

I am just waiting for the other cops to show up at his trial with a "HERO" sign.
 
2014-03-13 05:37:12 PM  
A civilian who feels the "need" to carry a gun around suburban America is too deluded and paranoid to be trusted with a gun.
 
2014-03-13 05:37:34 PM  

FnkyTwn: Sure, but if the dead guy is black then everything's okay right?


Unless the guy who got shot was black.  Then OUTRAGE and we tweet the shooter's parents address with vague references to retribution.
 
2014-03-13 05:38:21 PM  
Is this a Zimmerman thread?
 
2014-03-13 05:38:35 PM  
IDK, my BFF Zimmerman?
 
2014-03-13 05:39:23 PM  

jaytkay: A civilian who feels the "need" to carry a gun around suburban America is too deluded and paranoid to be trusted with a gun.


Good thing this guy was a cop then.
 
2014-03-13 05:39:42 PM  

Kit Fister: Damn, I was hoping he'd left.


No I have the belief he is still in prison which is what the story of this is about have you not done the reading or perhaps the first language of you is not the English.
 
2014-03-13 05:39:51 PM  

justanotherfarkinfarker: If someone says touch me again and I'll kill you, it may be a good idea to not touch them. Not that them killing  you is justified. IT did come with a warning too.

/too bad he didn't have a .25 would have gotten stopped by the wife's finger.


The warning makes it premeditation.
 
2014-03-13 05:39:59 PM  

scottydoesntknow: meow said the dog: Listen I am tired of seeing the story of this in the news. The popcorn throwing was the escalator of this and for the reason of this listen you just do not know where the chaos might obtain as this could have left to someone doing the shooting. He was lucky to not have been shot and was probably the person who was thankful for having the gun of he to protect the self of him from the possible aggression by the other person who might also be the person with the gun but happened to not be this person. You see when you must do the ground standing then what is the thing that happens is you must always make the assumption of you that the person who is not you but is the other person might have the armament and then react according to this and I believe that is what was done in the case of this and the right person did the right thing and the wrong person did the wrong thing and unfortunately of this the result was the death of one of these persons but not of the other and we will never know if the right person would have done the different thing if not the wrong person but instead the right person. For this reason we should not apply the Court of Farker Opinion on this case until we wish for seeing this from both sides of the wrong one and the right one.

I do wish for the opinion of you on this because I am thinking it is quite the thing that we can come to the solution of together and perhaps do the writing of the amicus brief for the party who is the right person. I will do the writing of this if you do the signing for me.

Let us do this!

[0-media-cdn.foolz.us image 526x300]


someone who is trying way to hard to be pocket ninja, I noticed it in another thread earlier this week.
 
2014-03-13 05:40:55 PM  
Come on, admins, green this but not the story of the Houston dad who shot and killed a teen at 2AM this morning after catching him in his daughter's bedroom?

I mean, if we're going to have a gun flame-war, lets get some new material.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/03/13/houston-dad-fatally-shoots-teen -i nside-daughters-room-report-says/
 
2014-03-13 05:41:10 PM  
I swear I typed that second "o" in too.
 
2014-03-13 05:41:23 PM  

scottydoesntknow: meow said the dog: Listen I am tired of seeing the story of this in the news. The popcorn throwing was the escalator of this and for the reason of this listen you just do not know where the chaos might obtain as this could have left to someone doing the shooting. He was lucky to not have been shot and was probably the person who was thankful for having the gun of he to protect the self of him from the possible aggression by the other person who might also be the person with the gun but happened to not be this person. You see when you must do the ground standing then what is the thing that happens is you must always make the assumption of you that the person who is not you but is the other person might have the armament and then react according to this and I believe that is what was done in the case of this and the right person did the right thing and the wrong person did the wrong thing and unfortunately of this the result was the death of one of these persons but not of the other and we will never know if the right person would have done the different thing if not the wrong person but instead the right person. For this reason we should not apply the Court of Farker Opinion on this case until we wish for seeing this from both sides of the wrong one and the right one.

I do wish for the opinion of you on this because I am thinking it is quite the thing that we can come to the solution of together and perhaps do the writing of the amicus brief for the party who is the right person. I will do the writing of this if you do the signing for me.

Let us do this!

[0-media-cdn.foolz.us image 526x300]


Google Translate is apparently ridiculously drunk right now.
 
2014-03-13 05:41:47 PM  
Reactions that are equal, or nearly equal to that of having a cell phone thrown at you:

Throwing a cell phone back
Throwing popcorn
Throwing a shoe
Yelling at them and threatening to call the police

Reactions that are not anywhere near equal to that of having a cell phone thrown at you:

Shooting the person
Stabbing the person
Tazing the person
Macing the person
Doing anything lethal to the person
Force them to watch Pootie Tang
 
2014-03-13 05:42:19 PM  
Sooo... how long is a "moment"? How many "moments" between text/bang?

I'll reserve further outrage until we know the answer to this. Until then, I will automatically assume this is journalistic pearl-clutching.

EDIT: Found another source... 15 minutes worth of "moments", however many that is...
 
2014-03-13 05:42:24 PM  

Vexed Thespian: someone who is trying way to hard to be pocket ninja, I noticed it in another thread earlier this week.


LAUGHTER OL I have the hope that you are doing the kidding and are not this much of the stupid thing. Now who do you feel is the right person and the wrong person in the shooting of this?
 
2014-03-13 05:42:35 PM  
Was the victim wearing a hoodie?  Could he be considered a "thug"?  If not, then Imma guess OId Man Reeves is going to prison instead of signing autographs for standing his ground against The Other.  Because Florida.
 
2014-03-13 05:43:45 PM  
I know it's been answered, and I'm probably too lazy to look it up, or perhaps my google-fu is weak at the moment, but was it legal for the shooter to carry his firearm into the theatre? Does being a retired cop make a difference on that matter?

In the scheme of him making a text, doesn't this sort of confirm he is not of a 'sound' state of mind? If he can't recognize his exact actions are the same as someone elses actions whom he is angry at, that's a bit of a pscyhological disconnect, isn't it?

He's still guilty as all, but seems like this doesn't change as much on the surface. Perhaps maybe legal strategy for the defense.
 
2014-03-13 05:44:06 PM  

Callous: jaytkay: A civilian who feels the "need" to carry a gun around suburban America is too deluded and paranoid to be trusted with a gun.

Good thing this guy was a cop then.


I thought he was a retired cop...which now makes him a civilian.
 
2014-03-13 05:45:28 PM  

jaytkay: A civilian who feels the "need" to carry a gun around suburban America is too deluded and paranoid to be trusted with a gun.


Police officers are civilians as are retired police officers.
 
2014-03-13 05:46:47 PM  

redmid17: jaytkay: A civilian who feels the "need" to carry a gun around suburban America is too deluded and paranoid to be trusted with a gun.

Police officers are civilians as are retired police officers.


What about Old People?  Should they be allowed?  Because they are pretty batty and quick to anger.
 
2014-03-13 05:47:17 PM  

buttcat: Callous: jaytkay: A civilian who feels the "need" to carry a gun around suburban America is too deluded and paranoid to be trusted with a gun.

Good thing this guy was a cop then.

I thought he was a retired cop...which now makes him a civilian.


Actually cops are civilians, retired or not.  I guess you believe we should disarm the police.
 
2014-03-13 05:48:24 PM  

Callous: buttcat: Callous: jaytkay: A civilian who feels the "need" to carry a gun around suburban America is too deluded and paranoid to be trusted with a gun.

Good thing this guy was a cop then.

I thought he was a retired cop...which now makes him a civilian.

Actually cops are civilians, retired or not.  I guess you believe we should disarm the police.


Sorry, I guess jaykay believes we should disarm the police.
 
2014-03-13 05:49:47 PM  

Callous: Callous: buttcat: Callous: jaytkay: A civilian who feels the "need" to carry a gun around suburban America is too deluded and paranoid to be trusted with a gun.

Good thing this guy was a cop then.

I thought he was a retired cop...which now makes him a civilian.

Actually cops are civilians, retired or not.  I guess you believe we should disarm the police.

Sorry, I guess jaykay believes we should disarm the police.


To be fair, there are plenty of them who have no business being armed (much less being given positions of authority)
 
2014-03-13 05:50:19 PM  

factoryconnection: He also shot someone over a texting dispute!


This

Callous: So a (retired)cop shot someone for breaking a rule that he believes himself to be exempt from?

Sounds about right.


This

Vexed Thespian: I swear I typed that second "o" in too.

And this, too - for the heckuvit.

 
2014-03-13 05:51:04 PM  

The Googles Do Nothing: redmid17: jaytkay: A civilian who feels the "need" to carry a gun around suburban America is too deluded and paranoid to be trusted with a gun.

Police officers are civilians as are retired police officers.

What about Old People?  Should they be allowed?  Because they are pretty batty and quick to anger.


Old people are civilians too. I don't think the AARP would allow legislation which prevented old people.
 
2014-03-13 05:53:35 PM  

Serious Black: I do wish for the opinion of you on this because I am thinking it is quite the thing that we can come to the solution of together and perhaps do the writing of the amicus brief for the party who is the right person. I will do the writing of this if you do the signing for me.


Je ne veux pour l'opinion de vous sur ce point car je pense qu'il est tout à fait la chose que nous pouvons arriver à la solution de ensemble et peut-être faire de l'écriture de la mémoire d'amicus curiae pour la partie qui est la bonne personne. Je vais faire de l'écriture de cette si vous faites la signature pour moi.
 
2014-03-13 05:55:37 PM  

drew46n2: Come on, admins, green this but not the story of the Houston dad who shot and killed a teen at 2AM this morning after catching him in his daughter's bedroom?

I mean, if we're going to have a gun flame-war, lets get some new material.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/03/13/houston-dad-fatally-shoots-teen -i nside-daughters-room-report-says/


That headline is better without the last word.
 
2014-03-13 05:57:56 PM  

meow said the dog: Vexed Thespian: someone who is trying way to hard to be pocket ninja, I noticed it in another thread earlier this week.

LAUGHTER OL I have the hope that you are doing the kidding and are not this much of the stupid thing. Now who do you feel is the right person and the wrong person in the shooting of this?


how hard do you have to work at having grammar that poor?
do you crank out a paragraph or sentence - then proof it for making TOO much sense or not sounding autistic enough?
 
2014-03-13 05:58:01 PM  

drew46n2: Come on, admins, green this but not the story of the Houston dad who shot and killed a teen at 2AM this morning after catching him in his daughter's bedroom?

I mean, if we're going to have a gun flame-war, lets get some new material.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/03/13/houston-dad-fatally-shoots-teen -i nside-daughters-room-report-says/


I saw that. Really sad story. It seems that another kid in the house told the father somebody was in the daughter's room, the father grabbed his gun and went to her room catching the boy in it, ask the boy to identify himself and when he did that the daughter dried rape, then the boy suddenly went for something, probably his pants, with that and the daughter crying rape the father fired.
 
2014-03-13 05:58:18 PM  

meow said the dog: Listen I am tired of seeing the story of this in the news. The popcorn throwing was the escalator of this and for the reason of this listen you just do not know where the chaos might obtain as this could have left to someone doing the shooting. He was lucky to not have been shot and was probably the person who was thankful for having the gun of he to protect the self of him from the possible aggression by the other person who might also be the person with the gun but happened to not be this person. You see when you must do the ground standing then what is the thing that happens is you must always make the assumption of you that the person who is not you but is the other person might have the armament and then react according to this and I believe that is what was done in the case of this and the right person did the right thing and the wrong person did the wrong thing and unfortunately of this the result was the death of one of these persons but not of the other and we will never know if the right person would have done the different thing if not the wrong person but instead the right person. For this reason we should not apply the Court of Farker Opinion on this case until we wish for seeing this from both sides of the wrong one and the right one.

I do wish for the opinion of you on this because I am thinking it is quite the thing that we can come to the solution of together and perhaps do the writing of the amicus brief for the party who is the right person. I will do the writing of this if you do the signing for me.

Let us do this!


Heya Meow! Howzit going? Good to see you again! We are counting on your cogent and reasoned discourse on this matter, as we always do.

/laughter OL
 
2014-03-13 05:59:01 PM  

scottydoesntknow: meow said the dog: Listen I am tired of seeing the story of this in the news. The popcorn throwing was the escalator of this and for the reason of this listen you just do not know where the chaos might obtain as this could have left to someone doing the shooting. He was lucky to not have been shot and was probably the person who was thankful for having the gun of he to protect the self of him from the possible aggression by the other person who might also be the person with the gun but happened to not be this person. You see when you must do the ground standing then what is the thing that happens is you must always make the assumption of you that the person who is not you but is the other person might have the armament and then react according to this and I believe that is what was done in the case of this and the right person did the right thing and the wrong person did the wrong thing and unfortunately of this the result was the death of one of these persons but not of the other and we will never know if the right person would have done the different thing if not the wrong person but instead the right person. For this reason we should not apply the Court of Farker Opinion on this case until we wish for seeing this from both sides of the wrong one and the right one.

I do wish for the opinion of you on this because I am thinking it is quite the thing that we can come to the solution of together and perhaps do the writing of the amicus brief for the party who is the right person. I will do the writing of this if you do the signing for me.

Let us do this!

[0-media-cdn.foolz.us image 526x300]


It's not so much "word salad" as "word mixed greens."
 
2014-03-13 06:01:59 PM  
FTFA: "Reeves remains in the Land O' Lakes jail with no bond."

The creamiest, most delicious jail ever.
 
2014-03-13 06:02:28 PM  

meow said the dog: Listen I am tired of seeing the story of this in the news. The popcorn throwing was the escalator of this and for the reason of this listen you just do not know where the chaos might obtain as this could have left to someone doing the shooting. He was lucky to not have been shot and was probably the person who was thankful for having the gun of he to protect the self of him from the possible aggression by the other person who might also be the person with the gun but happened to not be this person. You see when you must do the ground standing then what is the thing that happens is you must always make the assumption of you that the person who is not you but is the other person might have the armament and then react according to this and I believe that is what was done in the case of this and the right person did the right thing and the wrong person did the wrong thing and unfortunately of this the result was the death of one of these persons but not of the other and we will never know if the right person would have done the different thing if not the wrong person but instead the right person. For this reason we should not apply the Court of Farker Opinion on this case until we wish for seeing this from both sides of the wrong one and the right one.

I do wish for the opinion of you on this because I am thinking it is quite the thing that we can come to the solution of together and perhaps do the writing of the amicus brief for the party who is the right person. I will do the writing of this if you do the signing for me.

Let us do this!


s9.postimg.org
 
2014-03-13 06:02:34 PM  

FFS

 
2014-03-13 06:03:00 PM  
Florida's legal murder law rearing it's ugly head again?

static.fjcdn.com
 
2014-03-13 06:03:24 PM  

meow said the dog: Listen I am tired of seeing the story of this in the news. The popcorn throwing was the escalator of this and for the reason of this listen you just do not know where the chaos might obtain as this could have left to someone doing the shooting. He was lucky to not have been shot and was probably the person who was thankful for having the gun of he to protect the self of him from the possible aggression by the other person who might also be the person with the gun but happened to not be this person. You see when you must do the ground standing then what is the thing that happens is you must always make the assumption of you that the person who is not you but is the other person might have the armament and then react according to this and I believe that is what was done in the case of this and the right person did the right thing and the wrong person did the wrong thing and unfortunately of this the result was the death of one of these persons but not of the other and we will never know if the right person would have done the different thing if not the wrong person but instead the right person. For this reason we should not apply the Court of Farker Opinion on this case until we wish for seeing this from both sides of the wrong one and the right one.

I do wish for the opinion of you on this because I am thinking it is quite the thing that we can come to the solution of together and perhaps do the writing of the amicus brief for the party who is the right person. I will do the writing of this if you do the signing for me.

Let us do this!


I might as well quote you too.
Maybe Drew will see your popularity and hire you for Fark TV.
 
2014-03-13 06:03:49 PM  

JohnAnnArbor: It's not so much "word salad" as "word mixed greens."


Haven't you got bored of it yet? I mean if you catch meow on TFD it becomes oddly normal.
 
2014-03-13 06:06:07 PM  
strife:

[s9.postimg.org image 300x377]

Oh hello to you also! I am wishing for seeing the international perspective on this crime matter although I will say to you that we cannot have to you the addition of the amicus brief because you do not have the standing in the United States of these Americas.
 
2014-03-13 06:06:53 PM  
Typical gun owner.
 
2014-03-13 06:08:22 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: Typical gun owner.


Nah typical gun owners don't get reciprocity on their CCWs.
 
2014-03-13 06:08:56 PM  
I initially felt that movie texters get what they deserve, I suppose for the sake of consistency, we should just shoot this guy too.
 
2014-03-13 06:09:15 PM  

plcow: factoryconnection: He also shot someone over a texting dispute!

This.

Does calling him a hypocrite really matter at this point?  He killed someone.


Doesn't matter. He was a Fark hero when it happened and he will continue to be a Fark hero.  The appropriate penalty for being mildly annoying for a minute or two is death apparently.
 
2014-03-13 06:10:39 PM  

Callous: Sounds about right.


Ex-cops are allowed to throw cellphones at the elderly in Florida?

FTA, "Reeves' attorneys claim that was the glow from a cellphone Oulson threw at Reeves before the shot was fired.  "
 
2014-03-13 06:12:37 PM  

Vexed Thespian: scottydoesntknow: meow said the dog: Listen I am tired of seeing the story of this in the news. The popcorn throwing was the escalator of this and for the reason of this listen you just do not know where the chaos might obtain as this could have left to someone doing the shooting. He was lucky to not have been shot and was probably the person who was thankful for having the gun of he to protect the self of him from the possible aggression by the other person who might also be the person with the gun but happened to not be this person. You see when you must do the ground standing then what is the thing that happens is you must always make the assumption of you that the person who is not you but is the other person might have the armament and then react according to this and I believe that is what was done in the case of this and the right person did the right thing and the wrong person did the wrong thing and unfortunately of this the result was the death of one of these persons but not of the other and we will never know if the right person would have done the different thing if not the wrong person but instead the right person. For this reason we should not apply the Court of Farker Opinion on this case until we wish for seeing this from both sides of the wrong one and the right one.

I do wish for the opinion of you on this because I am thinking it is quite the thing that we can come to the solution of together and perhaps do the writing of the amicus brief for the party who is the right person. I will do the writing of this if you do the signing for me.

Let us do this!

[0-media-cdn.foolz.us image 526x300]

someone who is trying way to hard to be pocket ninja, I noticed it in another thread earlier this week.


meow has been here for years.
 
2014-03-13 06:12:58 PM  
The problem I have with this is that old dude started the incident and then said he felt threatened. Don't start sh*t if you are afraid of the consequences. And really, how much of a disturbance can a person texting make? Yeah the light from the phone is bright but not enough to cause you to be unable to see the movie. texting is mostly silent if the ringer is turned down or off.

This guy has a "get off my lawn" mentality and thinks his retired cop badge gets him out of things. I don't care he's old, send him to jail for the rest of his life
 
2014-03-13 06:13:04 PM  

StoPPeRmobile: Callous: Sounds about right.

Ex-cops are allowed to throw cellphones at the elderly in Florida?

FTA, "Reeves' attorneys claim that was the glow from a cellphone Oulson threw at Reeves before the shot was fired.  "


This is something for the retards in this thread, yes you are retards.
Having popcorn thrown at you does not justify shooting somebody.
Having a cellphone thrown at you does not justify shooting somebody.
Having somebody snatch popcorn out of your hand does not justify shooting somebody.
Having somebody disrespect you does not justify shooting somebody.
If you even try to argue any of that you are a retard plane and simple, and none of your opinions are valid.
 
2014-03-13 06:13:08 PM  

Osomatic: The only thing that can stop a bad guy with a phone is a good guy with a phone.  ...and a gun. A gun definitely helps too.


Can I throw a cellphone at your head at close range when you are elderly?

Someone should make a law, oh wait...

784.08Assault or battery on persons 65 years of age or older; reclassification of offenses; minimum sentence.-
(1)A person who is convicted of an aggravated assault or aggravated battery upon a person 65 years of age or older shall be sentenced to a minimum term of imprisonment of 3 years and fined not more than $10,000 and shall also be ordered by the sentencing judge to make restitution to the victim of such offense and to perform up to 500 hours of community service work. Restitution and community service work shall be in addition to any fine or sentence which may be imposed and shall not be in lieu thereof.
(2)Whenever a person is charged with committing an assault or aggravated assault or a battery or aggravated battery upon a person 65 years of age or older, regardless of whether he or she knows or has reason to know the age of the victim, the offense for which the person is charged shall be reclassified as follows:
(a)In the case of aggravated battery, from a felony of the second degree to a felony of the first degree.
(b)In the case of aggravated assault, from a felony of the third degree to a felony of the second degree.
(c)In the case of battery, from a misdemeanor of the first degree to a felony of the third degree.
(d)In the case of assault, from a misdemeanor of the second degree to a misdemeanor of the first degree.
(3)Notwithstanding the provisions of s. http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute &Search_String=&URL=0900-0999/0948/Sections/0948.01.html">948.01, adjudication of guilt or imposition of sentence shall not be suspended, deferred, or withheld.
 
2014-03-13 06:13:30 PM  
 How 'bout a new fark game.  Call it "what the hell did Meow say"   I'll go first.


Listen I am tired of seeing the story of this in the news.

Meow is tired of seeing this type of story in the news.

The popcorn throwing was the escalator of this and for the reason of this.
Meow says Throwing popcorn escalated this event  and  was also the reason?

Listen, you just do not know where the chaos might obtain as this could have left(lead) to someone doing the shooting.

No idea here.

He was lucky to not have been shot
Meow says the shooter was lucky not to have been shot,  because...

 and was probably the person who was thankful for having the gun of he to protect the self of him from the possible aggression by the other person who might also be the person with the gun but happened to not be this person.
The victim might have also had a gun.  The victim did not have a gun.  But, if the victim had a gun the shooter would need his gun to protect himself.

Any one else wanna play?
 
2014-03-13 06:14:13 PM  
What a surprise, an asshole who thought that a valid response to tossed popcorn was instant execution is also an entitled hypocrite. I'm shocked.
 
2014-03-13 06:15:46 PM  

elguerodiablo: Vexed Thespian: scottydoesntknow: meow said the dog: Listen I am tired of seeing the story of this in the news. The popcorn throwing was the escalator of this and for the reason of this listen you just do not know where the chaos might obtain as this could have left to someone doing the shooting. He was lucky to not have been shot and was probably the person who was thankful for having the gun of he to protect the self of him from the possible aggression by the other person who might also be the person with the gun but happened to not be this person. You see when you must do the ground standing then what is the thing that happens is you must always make the assumption of you that the person who is not you but is the other person might have the armament and then react according to this and I believe that is what was done in the case of this and the right person did the right thing and the wrong person did the wrong thing and unfortunately of this the result was the death of one of these persons but not of the other and we will never know if the right person would have done the different thing if not the wrong person but instead the right person. For this reason we should not apply the Court of Farker Opinion on this case until we wish for seeing this from both sides of the wrong one and the right one.

I do wish for the opinion of you on this because I am thinking it is quite the thing that we can come to the solution of together and perhaps do the writing of the amicus brief for the party who is the right person. I will do the writing of this if you do the signing for me.

Let us do this!

[0-media-cdn.foolz.us image 526x300]

someone who is trying way to hard to be pocket ninja, I noticed it in another thread earlier this week.

meow has been here for years.


And definitely has a different schtick than PN.
 
2014-03-13 06:15:50 PM  

StoPPeRmobile: Callous: Sounds about right.

Ex-cops are allowed to throw cellphones at the elderly in Florida?

FTA, "Reeves' attorneys claim that was the glow from a cellphone Oulson threw at Reeves before the shot was fired.  "


No, a tossed cell phone is not a reason to shoot someone. What kind of pussy would even consider such a response?
 
2014-03-13 06:16:57 PM  

brainiac-dumdum: StoPPeRmobile: Callous: Sounds about right.

Ex-cops are allowed to throw cellphones at the elderly in Florida?

FTA, "Reeves' attorneys claim that was the glow from a cellphone Oulson threw at Reeves before the shot was fired.  "

No, a tossed cell phone is not a reason to shoot someone. What kind of pussy would even consider such a response?


Down there you're allowed to murder people as long as you say you were scared.
 
2014-03-13 06:19:23 PM  

brainiac-dumdum: StoPPeRmobile: Callous: Sounds about right.

Ex-cops are allowed to throw cellphones at the elderly in Florida?

FTA, "Reeves' attorneys claim that was the glow from a cellphone Oulson threw at Reeves before the shot was fired.  "

No, a tossed cell phone is not a reason to shoot someone. What kind of pussy would even consider such a response?


The whole cellphone toss excuse is BS. The guy didn't throw a cellphone. If you watch the video he snatched the guy's popcorn and tossed it in his face, then the guy shot him immediately after.
 
2014-03-13 06:21:05 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: brainiac-dumdum: StoPPeRmobile: Callous: Sounds about right.

Ex-cops are allowed to throw cellphones at the elderly in Florida?

FTA, "Reeves' attorneys claim that was the glow from a cellphone Oulson threw at Reeves before the shot was fired.  "

No, a tossed cell phone is not a reason to shoot someone. What kind of pussy would even consider such a response?

Down there you're allowed to murder people as long as you say you were scared.


You are as long as you don't read the law and expect to be arrested by the police.
 
2014-03-13 06:22:02 PM  

jaytkay: A civilian who feels the "need" to carry a gun around suburban America is too deluded and paranoid to be trusted with a gun.


Bill Hicks had a good way of determining who should have a gun: "Do you want to own a gun, yes or no? If you said yes, you don't deserve to own a gun."
 
2014-03-13 06:24:18 PM  
They say Reeves acted in self-defense.

After being viciously attacked by a cell-phone and a life-threatening piece of popcorn, a like response in understandable. Retired Chief Curtis Reeves Jr. is a  i.imgur.com  who risks his life every day protecting citizens against similar violence. He was only defending the public and himself. He is a i.imgur.com . Chad Oulson was a wanton, hard-core criminal threatening the safety of every person in that theater and inviting terrorism and the collapse of Democracy as well as the rape of every child present. Having criminal charges against  i.imgur.com  Retired Chief Curtis Reeves Jr. is a slap in the face of the Constitution and every brave man and woman that wears a law enforcement uniform.  i.imgur.com  Retired Chief Curtis Reeves Jr should be getting a medal instead of being treated in such a shameless and humiliating manner. Please think of  i.imgur.comRetired Chief Curtis Reeves Jr.'s family and their terrible ordeal   . . .

 . . . or so says his defense attorney.
 
2014-03-13 06:25:00 PM  

ongbok: brainiac-dumdum: StoPPeRmobile: Callous: Sounds about right.

Ex-cops are allowed to throw cellphones at the elderly in Florida?

FTA, "Reeves' attorneys claim that was the glow from a cellphone Oulson threw at Reeves before the shot was fired.  "

No, a tossed cell phone is not a reason to shoot someone. What kind of pussy would even consider such a response?

The whole cellphone toss excuse is BS. The guy didn't throw a cellphone. If you watch the video he snatched the guy's popcorn and tossed it in his face, then the guy shot him immediately after.


Hey now, the old man's cornea could have been scratched by those sharp popcorn husks. Have you ever scratched your cornea? You have to put ointment in your eye! OINTMENT! It's uncomfortable and totally worth killing over.
 
2014-03-13 06:25:37 PM  

elguerodiablo: meow has been here for years.


ah, maybe i have just gotten sober enough recently to notice?

it surprises me though, i got the impression that he was just doing the obnoxious thing to show how shockingly bad at grammar he was, i also figure that sort of thing would get tired after a month or so.  you say he's been here for years, has this always been his shtick?
 
2014-03-13 06:28:29 PM  
2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2014-03-13 06:30:59 PM  

Wadded Beef: So you're saying the shooter's a dick.


Angry Middle Age White Guy Syndrome.
 
2014-03-13 06:32:35 PM  

meow said the dog: Listen I am tired of seeing the story of this in the news.


yet here you are
 
2014-03-13 06:32:44 PM  
All I know is that the Facebook-powered comments at TFA are hilarious, what with the right-wing hooker-prostitute defending the shooter and all.
 
2014-03-13 06:33:08 PM  

Vexed Thespian: scottydoesntknow: meow said the dog: Listen I am tired of seeing the story of this in the news. The popcorn throwing was the escalator of this and for the reason of this listen you just do not know where the chaos might obtain as this could have left to someone doing the shooting. He was lucky to not have been shot and was probably the person who was thankful for having the gun of he to protect the self of him from the possible aggression by the other person who might also be the person with the gun but happened to not be this person. You see when you must do the ground standing then what is the thing that happens is you must always make the assumption of you that the person who is not you but is the other person might have the armament and then react according to this and I believe that is what was done in the case of this and the right person did the right thing and the wrong person did the wrong thing and unfortunately of this the result was the death of one of these persons but not of the other and we will never know if the right person would have done the different thing if not the wrong person but instead the right person. For this reason we should not apply the Court of Farker Opinion on this case until we wish for seeing this from both sides of the wrong one and the right one.

I do wish for the opinion of you on this because I am thinking it is quite the thing that we can come to the solution of together and perhaps do the writing of the amicus brief for the party who is the right person. I will do the writing of this if you do the signing for me.

Let us do this!

[0-media-cdn.foolz.us image 526x300]

someone who is trying way to hard to be pocket ninja, I noticed it in another thread earlier this week.


Meow has been around a while.

Not necessarily my cup of tea, but I appreciate the effort and he has the occasional LOL moment.
 
2014-03-13 06:33:51 PM  
Reeves' attorneys claim that was the glow from a cellphone Oulson threw at Reeves before the shot was fired. They say Reeves acted in self-defense.

They pull a phone, you pull a gun.  That's the Wesley Chapel way.
 
2014-03-13 06:36:41 PM  
jaytkay: A civilian who feels the "need" to carry a gun around suburban America is too deluded and paranoid to be trusted with a gun.

www.clevescene.com www.clevescene.com www.clevescene.com www.clevescene.com www.clevescene.com

That should be the question that determines whether someone gets a handgun permit not.
 
2014-03-13 06:47:32 PM  

cretinbob: jaytkay: A civilian who feels the "need" to carry a gun around suburban America is too deluded and paranoid to be trusted with a gun.

[www.clevescene.com image 340x480] [www.clevescene.com image 340x480] [www.clevescene.com image 340x480] [www.clevescene.com image 340x480] [www.clevescene.com image 340x480]

That should be the question that determines whether someone gets a handgun permit not.


Why is that limited to civilians? Shouldn't that say "A person..." ?
 
2014-03-13 06:51:06 PM  

ongbok: StoPPeRmobile: Callous: Sounds about right.

Ex-cops are allowed to throw cellphones at the elderly in Florida?

FTA, "Reeves' attorneys claim that was the glow from a cellphone Oulson threw at Reeves before the shot was fired.  "

This is something for the retards in this thread, yes you are retards.
Having popcorn thrown at you does not justify shooting somebody.
Having a cellphone thrown at you does not justify shooting somebody.
Having somebody snatch popcorn out of your hand does not justify shooting somebody.
Having somebody disrespect you does not justify shooting somebody.
If you even try to argue any of that you are a retard plane and simple, and none of your opinions are valid.


Look at my original post.  I never said the shooting was justified.  I was responding to the title of the farking thread that the (retired)cop shot a guy over a dispute about texting in a theater, and it turns out he himself was texting in that very same theater.

I don't give a shiat that something was thrown at him prior to the shooting unless that object could be thrown repeatedly and was a threat of death or serious bodily harm.  And clearly popcorn and a cell phone(unless it's Zack Morris' cell phone) don't qualify.
 
2014-03-13 06:52:02 PM  

MFAWG: Vexed Thespian: scottydoesntknow: meow said the dog: Listen I am tired of seeing the story of this in the news. The popcorn throwing was the escalator of this and for the reason of this listen you just do not know where the chaos might obtain as this could have left to someone doing the shooting. He was lucky to not have been shot and was probably the person who was thankful for having the gun of he to protect the self of him from the possible aggression by the other person who might also be the person with the gun but happened to not be this person. You see when you must do the ground standing then what is the thing that happens is you must always make the assumption of you that the person who is not you but is the other person might have the armament and then react according to this and I believe that is what was done in the case of this and the right person did the right thing and the wrong person did the wrong thing and unfortunately of this the result was the death of one of these persons but not of the other and we will never know if the right person would have done the different thing if not the wrong person but instead the right person. For this reason we should not apply the Court of Farker Opinion on this case until we wish for seeing this from both sides of the wrong one and the right one.

I do wish for the opinion of you on this because I am thinking it is quite the thing that we can come to the solution of together and perhaps do the writing of the amicus brief for the party who is the right person. I will do the writing of this if you do the signing for me.

Let us do this!

[0-media-cdn.foolz.us image 526x300]

someone who is trying way to hard to be pocket ninja, I noticed it in another thread earlier this week.

Meow has been around a while.

Not necessarily my cup of tea, but I appreciate the effort and he has the occasional LOL moment.


I always thought MSTD was a she.
 
2014-03-13 06:55:37 PM  

cretinbob: jaytkay: A civilian who feels the "need" to carry a gun around suburban America is too deluded and paranoid to be trusted with a gun.

[www.clevescene.com image 340x480] [www.clevescene.com image 340x480] [www.clevescene.com image 340x480] [www.clevescene.com image 340x480] [www.clevescene.com image 340x480]

That should be the question that determines whether someone gets a handgun permit not.


You are trying awfully hard to live up to that handle aren't you?

2/10 - way over did it with the copy pasta
 
2014-03-13 06:57:49 PM  

The Southern Dandy: Why is that limited to civilians? Shouldn't that say "A person..." ?


Because LEO need their weapons
 
2014-03-13 07:00:45 PM  

Callous: Callous: buttcat: Callous: jaytkay: A civilian who feels the "need" to carry a gun around suburban America is too deluded and paranoid to be trusted with a gun.

Good thing this guy was a cop then.

I thought he was a retired cop...which now makes him a civilian.

Actually cops are civilians, retired or not.  I guess you believe we should disarm the police.

Sorry, I guess jaykay believes we should disarm the police.


he believes that all firearms owners are domestic terrorists.
 
2014-03-13 07:10:17 PM  

cretinbob: The Southern Dandy: Why is that limited to civilians? Shouldn't that say "A person..." ?

Because LEO need their weapons


LEOs are civilians.
 
2014-03-13 07:11:10 PM  

Vexed Thespian: you say he's been here for years, has this always been his shtick?


yep, unfortunately not enough of us have him (her i think) on ignore. she thinks it's cute. it's not.
 
2014-03-13 07:15:47 PM  
"Listen, you just do not know where the chaos might obtain as this could have left(lead) to someone doing the shooting.

No idea here. "

It means turn the other cheek.
 
2014-03-13 07:17:33 PM  

meow said the dog: Listen I am tired of seeing the story of this in the news. The popcorn throwing was the escalator of this and for the reason of this listen you just do not know where the chaos might obtain as this could have left to someone doing the shooting. He was lucky to not have been shot and was probably the person who was thankful for having the gun of he to protect the self of him from the possible aggression by the other person who might also be the person with the gun but happened to not be this person. You see when you must do the ground standing then what is the thing that happens is you must always make the assumption of you that the person who is not you but is the other person might have the armament and then react according to this and I believe that is what was done in the case of this and the right person did the right thing and the wrong person did the wrong thing and unfortunately of this the result was the death of one of these persons but not of the other and we will never know if the right person would have done the different thing if not the wrong person but instead the right person. For this reason we should not apply the Court of Farker Opinion on this case until we wish for seeing this from both sides of the wrong one and the right one.

I do wish for the opinion of you on this because I am thinking it is quite the thing that we can come to the solution of together and perhaps do the writing of the amicus brief for the party who is the right person. I will do the writing of this if you do the signing for me.

Let us do this!


I've missed you, meow. You go away for so long, I think you've died. and then you return, like an exploding star, never missing a beat. Why do you leave so often, for so long?
 
2014-03-13 07:20:19 PM  

JustHereForThePics: Sooo... how long is a "moment"? How many "moments" between text/bang?

I'll reserve further outrage until we know the answer to this. Until then, I will automatically assume this is journalistic pearl-clutching.

EDIT: Found another source... 15 minutes worth of "moments", however many that is...


15 minutes between the shooter's text and the confrontation? Wow... Even if it was 2 minutes, the "hypocrite" angle doesn't work without more info. Watch out though, nobody likes actual facts here, you'll be shot down as a White Knighter for this guy before you know what's happening.
 
2014-03-13 07:28:21 PM  

scottydoesntknow: meow said the dog: Listen I am tired of seeing the story of this in the news. The popcorn throwing was the escalator of this and for the reason of this listen you just do not know where the chaos might obtain as this could have left to someone doing the shooting. He was lucky to not have been shot and was probably the person who was thankful for having the gun of he to protect the self of him from the possible aggression by the other person who might also be the person with the gun but happened to not be this person. You see when you must do the ground standing then what is the thing that happens is you must always make the assumption of you that the person who is not you but is the other person might have the armament and then react according to this and I believe that is what was done in the case of this and the right person did the right thing and the wrong person did the wrong thing and unfortunately of this the result was the death of one of these persons but not of the other and we will never know if the right person would have done the different thing if not the wrong person but instead the right person. For this reason we should not apply the Court of Farker Opinion on this case until we wish for seeing this from both sides of the wrong one and the right one.

I do wish for the opinion of you on this because I am thinking it is quite the thing that we can come to the solution of together and perhaps do the writing of the amicus brief for the party who is the right person. I will do the writing of this if you do the signing for me.

Let us do this!


He might be making some good points, but I'll never know. I can't or won't read that gibberish.
 
2014-03-13 07:33:09 PM  

Callous: jaytkay: A civilian who feels the "need" to carry a gun around suburban America is too deluded and paranoid to be trusted with a gun.

Good thing this guy was a cop then.


With "was" being the operative word here. This crazy dude hasn't been a cop in a lot of years.
And by all accounts he was a dick then, too.
 
2014-03-13 07:37:56 PM  

dstrick44: Callous: jaytkay: A civilian who feels the "need" to carry a gun around suburban America is too deluded and paranoid to be trusted with a gun.

Good thing this guy was a cop then.

With "was" being the operative word here. This crazy dude hasn't been a cop in a lot of years.
And by all accounts he was a dick then, too.


Clearly people like him should have a monopoly on power and the rest of us should be disarmed.
 
2014-03-13 07:38:47 PM  

Callous: Callous: buttcat: Callous: jaytkay: A civilian who feels the "need" to carry a gun around suburban America is too deluded and paranoid to be trusted with a gun.

Good thing this guy was a cop then.

I thought he was a retired cop...which now makes him a civilian.

Actually cops are civilians, retired or not.  I guess you believe we should disarm the police.

Sorry, I guess jaykay believes we should disarm the police.


Cops are always on duty. Till they retire, then they're always off duty.
That's why it's cool when a cop shoots someone in a road rage incident after closing the bars.
 
2014-03-13 07:48:54 PM  

proteus_b: Vexed Thespian: you say he's been here for years, has this always been his shtick?

yep, unfortunately not enough of us have him (her i think) on ignore. she thinks it's cute. it's not.


favorited in bright red as "bjork"... also, having seen meow's posts for years, my brain now actually processes them as naturally as anything the filterpwning spits out... :)
 
2014-03-13 07:51:08 PM  

Mikey1969: JustHereForThePics: Sooo... how long is a "moment"? How many "moments" between text/bang?

I'll reserve further outrage until we know the answer to this. Until then, I will automatically assume this is journalistic pearl-clutching.

EDIT: Found another source... 15 minutes worth of "moments", however many that is...

15 minutes between the shooter's text and the confrontation? Wow... Even if it was 2 minutes, the "hypocrite" angle doesn't work without more info. Watch out though, nobody likes actual facts here, you'll be shot down as a White Knighter for this guy before you know what's happening.


Yep.

Source was Christian Science Monitor. Would link to it but hard to do on mobile. And before you ask, no I am not driving.

You and I are the only ones talking about it in this thread, tho...
 
2014-03-13 07:53:42 PM  

ongbok: StoPPeRmobile: Callous: Sounds about right.

Ex-cops are allowed to throw cellphones at the elderly in Florida?

FTA, "Reeves' attorneys claim that was the glow from a cellphone Oulson threw at Reeves before the shot was fired.  "

This is something for the retards in this thread, yes you are retards.
Having popcorn thrown at you does not justify shooting somebody.
Having a cellphone thrown at you does not justify shooting somebody.
Having somebody snatch popcorn out of your hand does not justify shooting somebody.
Having somebody disrespect you does not justify shooting somebody.
If you even try to argue any of that you are a retard plane and simple, and none of your opinions are valid.


Then get the law changed unless you are too retarded. Clearly it should be easy to get the elderly to give up the ability  to prevent a felonious act.

Once again, can I throw a cell phone at you at close range. I promise I will not aim for your eyes. You don't need them anyway, right. Can I throw one at your grandparents while in a rage?
 
2014-03-13 07:57:17 PM  

StoPPeRmobile: ongbok: StoPPeRmobile: Callous: Sounds about right.

Ex-cops are allowed to throw cellphones at the elderly in Florida?

FTA, "Reeves' attorneys claim that was the glow from a cellphone Oulson threw at Reeves before the shot was fired.  "

This is something for the retards in this thread, yes you are retards.
Having popcorn thrown at you does not justify shooting somebody.
Having a cellphone thrown at you does not justify shooting somebody.
Having somebody snatch popcorn out of your hand does not justify shooting somebody.
Having somebody disrespect you does not justify shooting somebody.
If you even try to argue any of that you are a retard plane and simple, and none of your opinions are valid.

Then get the law changed unless you are too retarded. Clearly it should be easy to get the elderly to give up the ability  to prevent a felonious act.

Once again, can I throw a cell phone at you at close range. I promise I will not aim for your eyes. You don't need them anyway, right. Can I throw one at your grandparents while in a rage?


The guy didn't throw a cell phone at anyone. He threw the guy's popcorn in his face. Watch the surveillance film, he snatched the guy's popcorn and threw it in his face.
 
2014-03-13 07:59:57 PM  

ongbok: StoPPeRmobile: ongbok: StoPPeRmobile: Callous: Sounds about right.

Ex-cops are allowed to throw cellphones at the elderly in Florida?

FTA, "Reeves' attorneys claim that was the glow from a cellphone Oulson threw at Reeves before the shot was fired.  "

This is something for the retards in this thread, yes you are retards.
Having popcorn thrown at you does not justify shooting somebody.
Having a cellphone thrown at you does not justify shooting somebody.
Having somebody snatch popcorn out of your hand does not justify shooting somebody.
Having somebody disrespect you does not justify shooting somebody.
If you even try to argue any of that you are a retard plane and simple, and none of your opinions are valid.

Then get the law changed unless you are too retarded. Clearly it should be easy to get the elderly to give up the ability  to prevent a felonious act.

Once again, can I throw a cell phone at you at close range. I promise I will not aim for your eyes. You don't need them anyway, right. Can I throw one at your grandparents while in a rage?

The guy didn't throw a cell phone at anyone. He threw the guy's popcorn in his face. Watch the surveillance film, he snatched the guy's popcorn and threw it in his face.


And even if he did throw a cellphone, shooting somebody in response isn't a proper response, unless you are a retarded coward.
 
2014-03-13 08:09:58 PM  

factoryconnection: He also shot someone over a texting dispute!


Actually, he shot someone who threw something at him I a dark theater. It's weird how people keep forgetting that detail.
 
2014-03-13 08:13:28 PM  

Mikey1969: factoryconnection: He also shot someone over a texting dispute!

Actually, he shot someone who threw something at him I a dark theater. It's weird how people keep forgetting that detail.


Yeah, popcorn. Popcorn dude. It's funny how some people keep trying to forget that detail and act like he was throwing knives and ninja stars at him.
 
2014-03-13 08:27:29 PM  

Mikey1969: factoryconnection: He also shot someone over a texting dispute!

Actually, he shot someone who threw something at him I a dark theater. It's weird how people keep forgetting that detail.


Yes, if you focus solely on the details and forget everything else that would be good.
 
2014-03-13 08:28:58 PM  

elguerodiablo: Vexed Thespian: scottydoesntknow: meow said the dog: Listen I am tired of seeing the story of this in the news. The popcorn throwing was the escalator of this and for the reason of this listen you just do not know where the chaos might obtain as this could have left to someone doing the shooting. He was lucky to not have been shot and was probably the person who was thankful for having the gun of he to protect the self of him from the possible aggression by the other person who might also be the person with the gun but happened to not be this person. You see when you must do the ground standing then what is the thing that happens is you must always make the assumption of you that the person who is not you but is the other person might have the armament and then react according to this and I believe that is what was done in the case of this and the right person did the right thing and the wrong person did the wrong thing and unfortunately of this the result was the death of one of these persons but not of the other and we will never know if the right person would have done the different thing if not the wrong person but instead the right person. For this reason we should not apply the Court of Farker Opinion on this case until we wish for seeing this from both sides of the wrong one and the right one.

I do wish for the opinion of you on this because I am thinking it is quite the thing that we can come to the solution of together and perhaps do the writing of the amicus brief for the party who is the right person. I will do the writing of this if you do the signing for me.

Let us do this!

[0-media-cdn.foolz.us image 526x300]

someone who is trying way to hard to be pocket ninja, I noticed it in another thread earlier this week.

meow has been here for years.



He's been annoying for just as long.
 
2014-03-13 08:57:07 PM  

ongbok: ongbok: StoPPeRmobile: ongbok: StoPPeRmobile: Callous: Sounds about right.

Ex-cops are allowed to throw cellphones at the elderly in Florida?

FTA, "Reeves' attorneys claim that was the glow from a cellphone Oulson threw at Reeves before the shot was fired.  "

This is something for the retards in this thread, yes you are retards.
Having popcorn thrown at you does not justify shooting somebody.
Having a cellphone thrown at you does not justify shooting somebody.
Having somebody snatch popcorn out of your hand does not justify shooting somebody.
Having somebody disrespect you does not justify shooting somebody.
If you even try to argue any of that you are a retard plane and simple, and none of your opinions are valid.

Then get the law changed unless you are too retarded. Clearly it should be easy to get the elderly to give up the ability  to prevent a felonious act.

Once again, can I throw a cell phone at you at close range. I promise I will not aim for your eyes. You don't need them anyway, right. Can I throw one at your grandparents while in a rage?

The guy didn't throw a cell phone at anyone. He threw the guy's popcorn in his face. Watch the surveillance film, he snatched the guy's popcorn and threw it in his face.

And even if he did throw a cellphone, shooting somebody in response isn't a proper response, unless you are a retarded coward.


Says the non-elderly person. Ever wonder why it's law in Florida not to assault or commit battery on the elderly in Florida. Don't do it. It's pretty easy. I posted the law upthread in case you can't find it, Mr. Manley-stud Man.
 
2014-03-13 09:00:04 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: brainiac-dumdum: StoPPeRmobile: Callous: Sounds about right.

Ex-cops are allowed to throw cellphones at the elderly in Florida?

FTA, "Reeves' attorneys claim that was the glow from a cellphone Oulson threw at Reeves before the shot was fired.  "

No, a tossed cell phone is not a reason to shoot someone. What kind of pussy would even consider such a response?

Down there you're allowed to murder people as long as you say you were scared.


Works for cops all over the nations. Why not for the elderly. They paid their dues. Don't fark with them. The law protects them. Just like women, gheys, and children. Get it through your heads.

Stay out of Florida!
 
2014-03-13 09:02:36 PM  

ongbok: StoPPeRmobile: ongbok: StoPPeRmobile: Callous: Sounds about right.

Ex-cops are allowed to throw cellphones at the elderly in Florida?

FTA, "Reeves' attorneys claim that was the glow from a cellphone Oulson threw at Reeves before the shot was fired.  "

This is something for the retards in this thread, yes you are retards.
Having popcorn thrown at you does not justify shooting somebody.
Having a cellphone thrown at you does not justify shooting somebody.
Having somebody snatch popcorn out of your hand does not justify shooting somebody.
Having somebody disrespect you does not justify shooting somebody.
If you even try to argue any of that you are a retard plane and simple, and none of your opinions are valid.

Then get the law changed unless you are too retarded. Clearly it should be easy to get the elderly to give up the ability  to prevent a felonious act.

Once again, can I throw a cell phone at you at close range. I promise I will not aim for your eyes. You don't need them anyway, right. Can I throw one at your grandparents while in a rage?

The guy didn't throw a cell phone at anyone. He threw the guy's popcorn in his face. Watch the surveillance film, he snatched the guy's popcorn and threw it in his face.


I'll wait for the trial to find out about the glowing popcorn.


FTA, again,"A surveillance video played during Reeves' second bond hearing in February shows the small flash of an object going toward Reeves.

Reeves' attorneys claim that was the glow from a cellphone Oulson threw at Reeves before the shot was fired. They say Reeves acted in self-defense."

 
2014-03-13 09:07:13 PM  
This guy will be a Fark hero before too long.

Awesome.
 
2014-03-13 09:18:08 PM  

StoPPeRmobile: ongbok: StoPPeRmobile: ongbok: StoPPeRmobile: Callous: Sounds about right.

Ex-cops are allowed to throw cellphones at the elderly in Florida?

FTA, "Reeves' attorneys claim that was the glow from a cellphone Oulson threw at Reeves before the shot was fired.  "

This is something for the retards in this thread, yes you are retards.
Having popcorn thrown at you does not justify shooting somebody.
Having a cellphone thrown at you does not justify shooting somebody.
Having somebody snatch popcorn out of your hand does not justify shooting somebody.
Having somebody disrespect you does not justify shooting somebody.
If you even try to argue any of that you are a retard plane and simple, and none of your opinions are valid.

Then get the law changed unless you are too retarded. Clearly it should be easy to get the elderly to give up the ability  to prevent a felonious act.

Once again, can I throw a cell phone at you at close range. I promise I will not aim for your eyes. You don't need them anyway, right. Can I throw one at your grandparents while in a rage?

The guy didn't throw a cell phone at anyone. He threw the guy's popcorn in his face. Watch the surveillance film, he snatched the guy's popcorn and threw it in his face.

I'll wait for the trial to find out about the glowing popcorn.
FTA, again,"A surveillance video played during Reeves' second bond hearing in February shows the small flash of an object going toward Reeves.

Reeves' attorneys claim that was the glow from a cellphone Oulson threw at Reeves before the shot was fired. They say Reeves acted in self-defense."


Funny how Mr. Reeves never said anything about the guy throwing a cellphone at him in his initial statement. That would have been the first thing I claimed was thrown at me and not popcorn.

And if you watched the video you can clearly see his hand snatch his popcorn away from him and then him throwing it at him. The only flash on the tape that could be seen was clearly the guy's hand, and if you ever saw video taken in the dark you would know things glow like that because light is reflecting off of them.
 
2014-03-13 09:56:03 PM  

ongbok: StoPPeRmobile: ongbok: StoPPeRmobile: ongbok: StoPPeRmobile: Callous: Sounds about right.

Ex-cops are allowed to throw cellphones at the elderly in Florida?

FTA, "Reeves' attorneys claim that was the glow from a cellphone Oulson threw at Reeves before the shot was fired.  "

This is something for the retards in this thread, yes you are retards.
Having popcorn thrown at you does not justify shooting somebody.
Having a cellphone thrown at you does not justify shooting somebody.
Having somebody snatch popcorn out of your hand does not justify shooting somebody.
Having somebody disrespect you does not justify shooting somebody.
If you even try to argue any of that you are a retard plane and simple, and none of your opinions are valid.

Then get the law changed unless you are too retarded. Clearly it should be easy to get the elderly to give up the ability  to prevent a felonious act.

Once again, can I throw a cell phone at you at close range. I promise I will not aim for your eyes. You don't need them anyway, right. Can I throw one at your grandparents while in a rage?

The guy didn't throw a cell phone at anyone. He threw the guy's popcorn in his face. Watch the surveillance film, he snatched the guy's popcorn and threw it in his face.

I'll wait for the trial to find out about the glowing popcorn.
FTA, again,"A surveillance video played during Reeves' second bond hearing in February shows the small flash of an object going toward Reeves.

Reeves' attorneys claim that was the glow from a cellphone Oulson threw at Reeves before the shot was fired. They say Reeves acted in self-defense."

Funny how Mr. Reeves never said anything about the guy throwing a cellphone at him in his initial statement. That would have been the first thing I claimed was thrown at me and not popcorn.

And if you watched the video you can clearly see his hand snatch his popcorn away from him and then him throwing it at him. The only flash on the tape that could be seen was clearly the guy's han ...


That's the reason for the trial. Plus the guy is in jail so he doesn't off himself. All the speculation seems nuts to me.

But the fact stands that assault or battery on the elderly, in Florida, can be a felony. Your allowed to stop a felony committed upon you in Florida it appears.

Come on down and change the law. Just don't cry about the heat in June. Doesn't get hot here until the middle of August.
 
2014-03-13 10:01:29 PM  

redmid17: cretinbob: The Southern Dandy: Why is that limited to civilians? Shouldn't that say "A person..." ?

Because LEO need their weapons

LEOs are civilians.


no
 
2014-03-13 10:15:13 PM  

StoPPeRmobile: That's the reason for the trial. Plus the guy is in jail so he doesn't off himself. All the speculation seems nuts to me.

But the fact stands that assault or battery on the elderly, in Florida, can be a felony. Your allowed to stop a felony committed upon you in Florida it appears.

Come on down and change the law. Just don't cry about the heat in June. Doesn't get hot here until the middle of August.


Lets play it your way. He threw the popcorn on him, ok felony. That was one action and it had stopped. He wasn't continuing, so there wasn't any felony for the guy to stop from being committed on him. What he did was avenge a felony, or what ever, that was committed against him.
 
2014-03-13 10:24:10 PM  
Anyone who brings a gun into a movie theater is a coward and a danger to society.

What the hell is wrong with gun nuts? Biggest pussies on the planet.
 
2014-03-13 10:36:41 PM  

cretinbob: redmid17: cretinbob: The Southern Dandy: Why is that limited to civilians? Shouldn't that say "A person..." ?

Because LEO need their weapons

LEOs are civilians.

no


Yes
 
2014-03-13 10:53:51 PM  

ongbok: StoPPeRmobile: That's the reason for the trial. Plus the guy is in jail so he doesn't off himself. All the speculation seems nuts to me.

But the fact stands that assault or battery on the elderly, in Florida, can be a felony. Your allowed to stop a felony committed upon you in Florida it appears.

Come on down and change the law. Just don't cry about the heat in June. Doesn't get hot here until the middle of August.

Lets play it your way. He threw the popcorn on him, ok felony. That was one action and it had stopped. He wasn't continuing, so there wasn't any felony for the guy to stop from being committed on him. What he did was avenge a felony, or what ever, that was committed against him.


It appears that the defense's argument will be that the guy posed a threat again while throwing and raging at an elderly person. To be honest it seems like the guy talked more than he needed to and that might hang him. If he just said he was in fear for his life he would walk, in Florida.

Florida seems to be taking a stand on bullying our elders. I don't have a problem with that.
 
2014-03-13 11:05:51 PM  

StoPPeRmobile: ongbok: StoPPeRmobile: Callous: Sounds about right.

Ex-cops are allowed to throw cellphones at the elderly in Florida?

FTA, "Reeves' attorneys claim that was the glow from a cellphone Oulson threw at Reeves before the shot was fired.  "

This is something for the retards in this thread, yes you are retards.
Having popcorn thrown at you does not justify shooting somebody.
Having a cellphone thrown at you does not justify shooting somebody.
Having somebody snatch popcorn out of your hand does not justify shooting somebody.
Having somebody disrespect you does not justify shooting somebody.
If you even try to argue any of that you are a retard plane and simple, and none of your opinions are valid.

Then get the law changed unless you are too retarded. Clearly it should be easy to get the elderly to give up the ability  to prevent a felonious act.

Once again, can I throw a cell phone at you at close range. I promise I will not aim for your eyes. You don't need them anyway, right. Can I throw one at your grandparents while in a rage?


the old man was pointing a gun at the guy.
 
2014-03-13 11:08:22 PM  

Mikey1969: factoryconnection: He also shot someone over a texting dispute!

Actually, he shot someone who threw something at him I a dark theater. It's weird how people keep forgetting that detail.


He was threatening a man with a gun, and then murdered the poor schlep when a cell phone was thrown at him.
 
2014-03-13 11:09:50 PM  

ongbok: StoPPeRmobile: That's the reason for the trial. Plus the guy is in jail so he doesn't off himself. All the speculation seems nuts to me.

But the fact stands that assault or battery on the elderly, in Florida, can be a felony. Your allowed to stop a felony committed upon you in Florida it appears.

Come on down and change the law. Just don't cry about the heat in June. Doesn't get hot here until the middle of August.

Lets play it your way. He threw the popcorn on him, ok felony. That was one action and it had stopped. He wasn't continuing, so there wasn't any felony for the guy to stop from being committed on him. What he did was avenge a felony, or what ever, that was committed against him.


Throwing popcorn is not assault or battery. It just isn't there has never been a case of assault with popcorn. It just wouldn't happen.
 
2014-03-13 11:11:21 PM  

StoPPeRmobile: ongbok: StoPPeRmobile: ongbok: StoPPeRmobile: ongbok: StoPPeRmobile: Callous: Sounds about right.

Ex-cops are allowed to throw cellphones at the elderly in Florida?

FTA, "Reeves' attorneys claim that was the glow from a cellphone Oulson threw at Reeves before the shot was fired.  "

This is something for the retards in this thread, yes you are retards.
Having popcorn thrown at you does not justify shooting somebody.
Having a cellphone thrown at you does not justify shooting somebody.
Having somebody snatch popcorn out of your hand does not justify shooting somebody.
Having somebody disrespect you does not justify shooting somebody.
If you even try to argue any of that you are a retard plane and simple, and none of your opinions are valid.

Then get the law changed unless you are too retarded. Clearly it should be easy to get the elderly to give up the ability  to prevent a felonious act.

Once again, can I throw a cell phone at you at close range. I promise I will not aim for your eyes. You don't need them anyway, right. Can I throw one at your grandparents while in a rage?

The guy didn't throw a cell phone at anyone. He threw the guy's popcorn in his face. Watch the surveillance film, he snatched the guy's popcorn and threw it in his face.

I'll wait for the trial to find out about the glowing popcorn.
FTA, again,"A surveillance video played during Reeves' second bond hearing in February shows the small flash of an object going toward Reeves.

Reeves' attorneys claim that was the glow from a cellphone Oulson threw at Reeves before the shot was fired. They say Reeves acted in self-defense."

Funny how Mr. Reeves never said anything about the guy throwing a cellphone at him in his initial statement. That would have been the first thing I claimed was thrown at me and not popcorn.

And if you watched the video you can clearly see his hand snatch his popcorn away from him and then him throwing it at him. The only flash on the tape that could be seen was clearly the g ...


^

farking Drama Queen.
 
2014-03-13 11:55:30 PM  

StoPPeRmobile: ongbok: ongbok: StoPPeRmobile: ongbok: StoPPeRmobile: Callous: Sounds about right.

Ex-cops are allowed to throw cellphones at the elderly in Florida?

FTA, "Reeves' attorneys claim that was the glow from a cellphone Oulson threw at Reeves before the shot was fired.  "

This is something for the retards in this thread, yes you are retards.
Having popcorn thrown at you does not justify shooting somebody.
Having a cellphone thrown at you does not justify shooting somebody.
Having somebody snatch popcorn out of your hand does not justify shooting somebody.
Having somebody disrespect you does not justify shooting somebody.
If you even try to argue any of that you are a retard plane and simple, and none of your opinions are valid.

Then get the law changed unless you are too retarded. Clearly it should be easy to get the elderly to give up the ability  to prevent a felonious act.

Once again, can I throw a cell phone at you at close range. I promise I will not aim for your eyes. You don't need them anyway, right. Can I throw one at your grandparents while in a rage?

The guy didn't throw a cell phone at anyone. He threw the guy's popcorn in his face. Watch the surveillance film, he snatched the guy's popcorn and threw it in his face.

And even if he did throw a cellphone, shooting somebody in response isn't a proper response, unless you are a retarded coward.

Says the non-elderly person. Ever wonder why it's law in Florida not to assault or commit battery on the elderly in Florida. Don't do it. It's pretty easy. I posted the law upthread in case you can't find it, Mr. Manley-stud Man.


I'm pretty sure it's illegal to commit assault and battery on anyone, not just the elderly.  Also it's not legal to shoot someone doe assault and battery unless you have reason the believe that battery could result in death or serious bodily harm.  Thrown popcorn and cell phones have never killed anyone.
 
2014-03-14 01:28:20 AM  
How come everyone that wants to defend the ex-cop and harp on the popcorn being thrown forgets that the ex-cop escalated the issue by verbally confronting the other person, violating the law by bringing a weapon into a building with a large and clear sign stating  NO WEAPONS, and  KICKING the seat the other person was in.


Remember private locations can restrict gun usage on their property.


If you want to apply stand your ground then apply it to the initial victim, the person that ended up being killed by the aggressor.  It clearly was stated in the police report Reeves kicked Oulson's chair, demanded the phone be put away, was informed that the text was in regard to a preschooler, left in a huft to get a manager, failed at convincing anyone that this was a serious crime, came back alone as clearly texting during a preview is not the same offense as texting during the movie.

Just be glad that Reeve's gun was jammed as who knows how many more shots would of been used to defend his life against popcorn.
 
2014-03-14 01:34:01 AM  
FloriDUH
 
2014-03-14 02:06:53 AM  
Wasn't William Petit's entire family murdered in the suburbs?


Ask William Petit if he thinks people should be armed in the 'burbs.
 
2014-03-14 07:28:10 AM  

Dutch Pilsner: elguerodiablo: Vexed Thespian: scottydoesntknow: meow said the dog: Listen I am tired of seeing the story of this in the news. The popcorn throwing was the escalator of this and for the reason of this listen you just do not know where the chaos might obtain as this could have left to someone doing the shooting. He was lucky to not have been shot and was probably the person who was thankful for having the gun of he to protect the self of him from the possible aggression by the other person who might also be the person with the gun but happened to not be this person. You see when you must do the ground standing then what is the thing that happens is you must always make the assumption of you that the person who is not you but is the other person might have the armament and then react according to this and I believe that is what was done in the case of this and the right person did the right thing and the wrong person did the wrong thing and unfortunately of this the result was the death of one of these persons but not of the other and we will never know if the right person would have done the different thing if not the wrong person but instead the right person. For this reason we should not apply the Court of Farker Opinion on this case until we wish for seeing this from both sides of the wrong one and the right one.

I do wish for the opinion of you on this because I am thinking it is quite the thing that we can come to the solution of together and perhaps do the writing of the amicus brief for the party who is the right person. I will do the writing of this if you do the signing for me.

Let us do this!

[0-media-cdn.foolz.us image 526x300]

someone who is trying way to hard to be pocket ninja, I noticed it in another thread earlier this week.

meow has been here for years.

And definitely has a different schtick than PN.



Yes. PN makes really good funny trolls. You know it's a troll, but it's a damn funny one. Meow is a functional lunatic. I can't remember, but I think taking a paragraph and running it through every language google translate will do before turning it back into English is fairly new. I seem to recall much earlier posts being in correct English structure, but being no less hard to read due to sheer lunacy.

It was like reading from the Book of Eternal Madness, where every page would drag you further into insanity.
i1134.photobucket.com
Like characters 4 and 5 found out...
 
2014-03-14 10:50:41 AM  

meow said the dog: Listen I am tired of seeing the story of this in the news. The popcorn throwing was the escalator of this and for the reason of this listen you just do not know where the chaos might obtain as this could have left to someone doing the shooting. He was lucky to not have been shot and was probably the person who was thankful for having the gun of he to protect the self of him from the possible aggression by the other person who might also be the person with the gun but happened to not be this person. You see when you must do the ground standing then what is the thing that happens is you must always make the assumption of you that the person who is not you but is the other person might have the armament and then react according to this and I believe that is what was done in the case of this and the right person did the right thing and the wrong person did the wrong thing and unfortunately of this the result was the death of one of these persons but not of the other and we will never know if the right person would have done the different thing if not the wrong person but instead the right person. For this reason we should not apply the Court of Farker Opinion on this case until we wish for seeing this from both sides of the wrong one and the right one.

I do wish for the opinion of you on this because I am thinking it is quite the thing that we can come to the solution of together and perhaps do the writing of the amicus brief for the party who is the right person. I will do the writing of this if you do the signing for me.

Let us do this!


ESL or LSD?
 
2014-03-14 02:12:19 PM  

ongbok: Mikey1969: factoryconnection: He also shot someone over a texting dispute!

Actually, he shot someone who threw something at him I a dark theater. It's weird how people keep forgetting that detail.

Yeah, popcorn. Popcorn dude. It's funny how some people keep trying to forget that detail and act like he was throwing knives and ninja stars at him.


Missed the whole "dark" part of my statement, I see.
 
2014-03-14 04:43:20 PM  
Initially, my outrage was due to the fact that this asshole got upset due to texting during the farking previews.  No one likes sitting through those anyways....they're previews FFS!!!!  But now, to hear that he shot that poor man for doing the same exact thing he himself was doing.....send him to Utah and let him face the firing squads.  (And actually, from what I heard on the local news, the guy who got shot was texting with his babysitter and the shooter was simply texting his son who was also attending the movie with him.  IMO, texting your babysitter takes a higher rank than telling your son that you are already in the theatre and are seated.)

IMO, we have a retired cop who is power hungry and thinks he is the law.  My parents live in Pasco County, not terribly far from this movie theatre.  They are senior citizens (who isn't here in Floriduh?).  I worry constantly.

/not a fan of hypocrites
//WTF is going on with Meow Said the Dog--brain damage or language barrier?
 
2014-03-15 12:36:57 AM  
This guy knew his son was on the way and his son is a freaking cop. Why not wait for his son?

He was known by the theater for complaining about texting. Showing his motive and that he was already aggressive about the behavior.

The guy got shot for being a dick. If being a dick was a death sentence fark and most of the world would cease to exist.

I am not excusing the guy being a dick, but seriously as an ex-cop that lead SWAT you would think the guy would have known not to shoot in a theater.

I work with the elderly all day on their computers, I know how quickly some can swing from happy to bitterly angry over something very trivial. I am not saying that is what went down, I am just saying I saw a 70 year old man snap a $1700 dollar laptop over the corner of our counter simply because his email would not send and receive.

So the idea that some old ex-cop felt cuckolded in a theater and decided to finally "do something about it" is not that far fetched.
 
2014-03-15 03:24:20 AM  

thiefofdreams: This guy knew his son was on the way and his son is a freaking cop. Why not wait for his son?

He was known by the theater for complaining about texting. Showing his motive and that he was already aggressive about the behavior.

The guy got shot for being a dick. If being a dick was a death sentence fark and most of the world would cease to exist.

I am not excusing the guy being a dick, but seriously as an ex-cop that lead SWAT you would think the guy would have known not to shoot in a theater.

I work with the elderly all day on their computers, I know how quickly some can swing from happy to bitterly angry over something very trivial. I am not saying that is what went down, I am just saying I saw a 70 year old man snap a $1700 dollar laptop over the corner of our counter simply because his email would not send and receive.

So the idea that some old ex-cop felt cuckolded in a theater and decided to finally "do something about it" is not that far fetched.



media.tumblr.com
 
Displayed 129 of 129 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report