Dispute over Reserved Seats Leads to Shooting at NM Cinema

[Darin Steffl]

You may be happy with retreating; I'm a firm advocate of stand your ground laws, but I also abide by the laws of my locality.

Thankfully, I don't live in Minnesota.

You have your views, I have mine, but to question others' mental stability because they don't agree with you is patently ridiculous.

I question someone's mental stability when they think the 2nd amendment is more important than human life. There is something wrong with people with this view and the majority of America agrees with me and 90% of people in the rest of the world. We can greatly restrict gun ownership and help to protect human life while keeping the 2nd amendment intact. Basically, keep the crazies from having guns and then selling them on the black market to criminals. Remember that every gun used by a criminal was sold legally to someone at some point. It was then either sold privately because no background checks are required, or it was "stolen". Having universal background checks and gun storage laws would greatly reduce the supply of guns on the black market.

There is no legal requirement for someone to retreat if facing a physical threat. Granted, anyone should use common sense and not place themselves in a dangerous situation in the first place. But some confrontations can happen right out of the blue. The laws may differ a bit state by state. Here in Oklahoma you can respond to any physical threat with lethal force if you are in legit fear for your life. If someone kicks in the front door of my house wanting to beat the living hell out of me, I don't have to run out my back door and I don't have to fight the guy either. Legally I can blast him, even if the intruder is armed with no more than his fists. People can and do get beaten to death with fists, kicks, etc.

Let me rephrase my thoughts on this one. When I took my two "permit to carry" classes, they talked about defending myself or others in the terms of offense vs defense. In Minnesota, the expectation is that you're legally able to defend your life or other's if there's a threat. This means retreat or shelter in place if possible and only use deadly force if your life is in imminent danger. So someone breaks into my house and I tell them "leave now or I'll shoot". If they leave, I can't chase after them and shoot them in the back or it's likely I'll be charged with murder. If they continue towards me and I fear for my life, I can use force until the threat is over. So if they're injured on my floor and no longer dangerous to me, I can't keep shooting until they're dead or it's murder. I would call 911 and let the police and EMS come. If they die as a result of the force used to stop the threat, that would likely be self defense and I'd be fine. Executing them if they're injured and no longer a threat would put me in prison, as it should.

It really isn't much different than Police in regards where they escalate to deadly force only when necessary and then immediately de-escalate as the threat to them decreases like if a suspect has been shot and is laying on the ground and isn't using a weapon any longer. I volunteered with our sheriff's department and we had use of force training like when to use OC spray, taser, firearms, etc. If someone is just yelling at you and doesn't present a deadly threat, you can't just shoot them. You start with verbal commands first and if they escalate, we can escalate to spray or taser for example. And only if we fear for our life can we use a firearm or other deadly force.

So basically, you can defend human life but not property. And any view of going on the offensive and chasing a threat to use deadly force would likely be considered murder. This seems fair to me and every state should have the same. Stand your ground laws give gun nuts the excuse to blast anyone for any reason. Even teens doing dumb, harmless pranks could end up dead for no reason other than the homeowner is a gun nut protecting their property with stand your ground protections. Look at the 3-4 incidents of young people ending up in the wrong driveway or ringing the doorbell at a wrong home getting shot and injured or killed. There was a few cases like 2 months ago. The people doing the shooting were gun nuts who have been brainwashed by news into being scared of everything. It's very sad to see happen. I can't imagine a world where I would shoot someone for pulling into my driveway or ringing my doorbell at night.

[Bobby Henderson]

I think we're basically in agreement on this.

Oklahoma's stand your ground and castle doctrine laws were written about as broad as possible to legally protect home owners (and vehicle owners) in life threatening altercations where they were forced to defend themselves. But those laws do not give a "good person" a green light to shoot anyone simply because they're a "bad person." The "good person" still must be in imminent danger due to that "bad person" for lethal force to be justified.

Lots of fools in my state (and I do mean "fools") believe the stand your ground laws give them authority to shoot anyone they catch trespassing thru their front or back yard. Those fools also believe they should be able to shoot simply because they're pissed off that some thief is trying to steal their shit.

I have a really big problem with the open carry laws. Cops open carry when they're in uniform and they go through a lot of training to be proficient in the use of their firearms. Any idiot in this state can strap a hand-cannon to his hip, even if he has never fired a gun in his life. It's stupid. If some violent situation goes down the wannabe "cowboy" with little training and range practice may get his weapon taken and then be killed with it. And then that criminal can use the wannabe cowboy's weapon on other people.

I have no problem with carrying a gun, but I will only conceal carry. I don't want anyone knowing I'm armed. I'm not going to tip my hand to any potential bad guys.

[Darin Steffl]

I agree with everything you replied with Bobby. I don't carry often but when I do, it's always concealed. I never want anyone to know I'm carrying or I feel like I'm a target. I also don't want to scare people around me because it's intimidating to see a citizen open carrying. Cops are fine because I always assume they're trained better than the average citizen who carries.

Kids are taught that guns are dangerous and they think of all these shootings in public and school so why would anyone want to expose kids to open carry firearms in public? Kids have gone through enough trauma with shooter drills and wondering if they'll be killed when they go to school or the mall.

We should feel safe in America and I can say I don't feel that way, even when I carry. There's too many guns in our country and not enough control/regulation.

[Leo Enticknap]

IMHO, it's completely reasonable to require anyone who wishes to own a firearm for the only legitimate purpose I can think of for someone to want one (to defend themselves against what could reasonably be perceived to be the imminent threat of homicide or assault causing injury) to have to undergo training to mitigate the risks that this ownership carries. Surely that is what the "well regulated" in 2A refers to?

In California, individual counties and sheriffs have a significant degree of autonomy over the circumstances in which they will and won't issue concealed carry permits, and the training and licensing requirements for keeping firearms in the home. In LA County, they basically won't allow any private citizens to concealed carry (I once heard it claimed on a talk radio show that only six currently valid permits are in use in the entire county, excluding open carry permits for professional private security personnel on duty, who are required to undergo extensive training, certification, and background checks), but San Bernardino and Riverside counties will under some circumstances. As long as this autonomy isn't abused for political reasons, I think it's a sensible approach, because it enables law enforcement agencies to calibrate the nature and extent of private firearm ownership to their own ability to police violent crime according to local circumstances. If you live in Death Valley Junction, where a 911 call would likely take at least an hour to respond to, the case for arming yourself is a lot stronger than if you live in downtown Redlands, where the cops could get to any address within 2-3 minutes.

Bringing this back to the topic, I don't see any way that movie theaters can prevent this sort of thing from happening. OK, you can stick up signs in the entrance stating that no firearms are allowed on the property, but it's not feasible to have an 18-year old making the minimum wage frisking a bunch of Elmer Fudd types as they enter the theater. We just have to cross our fingers and hope such an incident only happens once every few years, combined with encouraging the use of criminal records checks and other due diligence aimed at minimizing the number of people who are inclined to misuse firearms in this way from getting hold of them in the first place,

[Darin Steffl]

Leo, I'm hoping someday there's an affordable walk through machine that can instantly identify weapons and outside food/bev by simply walking through it. This would be run by AI and be super accurate. It could be standalone so it would deter people from coming in with weapons or outside concessions.

I think something like the security scanners at TSA that you walk into and hold your hands. It does a full body scan. If they can have something like that but doesn't require you to stand still, basically just walk through it like a metal detector.

That is wishful thinking. The easier thing to do is control weapons then people. And this is from an average gun owner who wants way more control. The gun nuts who care about a gun more than human life can shut up preferably. Polling in the US shows the majority of us want more gun control, not less.

[Bobby Henderson]

Yes, most Americans want reasonable regulations on guns. Unfortunately our news media is only interested in pointing their cameras at the loudest mouthed assholes in our society, letting them dictate policy. That's why we have our lunacy gun legislation in Oklahoma.

It would be nice if there were affordable, accurate, easy to operate weapon detectors to install in public places. Even if such a thing was practical any business would have to devote employee manpower to run those devices (and confiscate any "contraband"). It certainly wouldn't be realistic to install metal detectors in movie theaters.

I think one obvious solution (I mentioned this before) is changing our nation's culture. Yeah, easier said than done. Aside from our collective anger management issues our society desperately needs to re-think how it regards firearms. American culture has always glorified gun use. It's a cornerstone of our entertainment industry. A part of "toxic masculinity" revolves around gun fetishization. Lots of people show off how "tough" they are by posing with their weapons and posting the photos on social media. I'm sure some of this is inspired by countless numbers of movie posters featuring a "hero" posing with a gun in his hand.

In our culture we don't see enough of the permanent consequences that come from gun use. Everyone knows that people get killed by guns daily. But a body that's buried in a cemetery is out of sight, out of mind for most of us. We move on. We don't get daily reminders, like if a friend or family member was wounded by gunfire and now has to live with permanent after effects of it.

My Uncle Joe was shot in the leg by his son in a hunting accident. He had to undergo numerous operations over about a 2 year period to "repair" his leg. Still, he was stuck walking with a cane for the rest of his life. Every time I'd see him walking with that cane it would be a reminder of what happened. My Uncle was an Army veteran who did a couple tours in Vietnam, managed not to get wounded there, but ended up getting shot by my cousin in an accident. Movies and TV shows will show people get "winged" in the leg, shoulder or arm like it's no big deal. It does not work like that in real life. Here in my town we have a lot of Wounded Warrior veterans who are living with varying degrees of disability due to wounds suffered while deployed. Bullets do a lot of damage that ends up permanent.

[Leo Enticknap]

And another one...

Video: Elderly US Man Beaten Up After Chaotic Fight Over Seat In Movie Theatre

The elderly man said he politely asked the duo if they can move from the seats, after which they became hostile.

Edited by Amit Chaturvedi Updated: July 21, 2023 1:15 pm IST

A 63-year-old man was brutally attacked after a fight over a seat in a Florida theatre, according to a report in Fox News. The incident took place on July 10, which the Broward Sheriff's Office called a man's "worst performance at the movies" in a press release. The department released a video of the fight on Thursday, which shows the man - who visited the theatre with his wife - throwing numerous punches at the elderly theatregoer who stumbled to the ground.

The 63-year-old told the police that he and his wife purchased VIP tickets for the movie, which included advance seating. But when the couple arrived, they saw two people sitting in the seat, according to Fox News report.

The elderly man said he politely asked the duo if they can move from the seats, after which they became hostile and stood up, getting in their faces.

Due to the sudden movement, the elderly man was forced to take a step back, which landed on the theatre's stairs. He lost his balance and fell down and the attacker then started punching him. Witnesses in the theatre rushed to the man's aid and pulled the suspect off him, said the outlet.

A video of the incident has been gaining traction on social media.

The elderly man suffered injuries to his head and face, said police.

The attacker, meanwhile, fled from the theatre with the unidentified woman, New York Post quoted them officials as saying.

In a bid to find the suspect, the sheriff's office released images of the pair as they exit the theatre.

Video here (this site won't let me embed it).

I truly hope they catch this individual and throw the book at him, because if movie theaters establish a reputation as being the sort of place where criminals can do this sort of thing and get away with it, that will clear them out of law-abiding customers more quickly than covid ever did.

[Martin McCaffery]

1) Cops doing "Worst Performance" jokes in a public release about a violent attack is, at best, questionable.
2) Being 65 myself, I don't think 63 is considered elderly, especially in Florida.
3) From a different report "The movie the victim purchased tickets for was not identified."

[Leo Enticknap]

The reason I quoted an Indian news source for this story is that two more local ones I found noted, and in one case even emphasized, the race of the perpetrator and the victim, without any evidence that there was any racial motivation involved in the attack. The Indian report was the only one I could find that didn't go there. I'm not interested in turning this into anything political, only expressing concern that if violent assaults on movie theater customers becomes a regular thing, it'll be yet another blow for our industry after covid, a year of crappy movies, the possibility of a recession, the strikes, etc. etc.

[Bobby Henderson]

Yeah, having watched the video, I can't help but wonder just how stupid and impulsive the attacker must be. I really hope the police catch this jerk and the courts make an example of him. It looks like felony assault and battery to my not-legal-expert eyes. And the theater needs to do whatever it can to aid the investigation (turning over any videos, asking members of the public to do the same) for its own sake. Nothing will shut off customer traffic to a specific theater location faster than violence of this sort. If the theater is known for being a hang out spot for hoodlums regular people will stay away out of sake for their own safety.

Surveillance cameras are everywhere. When the hell are the various morons in our society not going to realize this? The linked video shows two camera angles of the attacker (one camera view in the auditorium and another over an interior hallway). His likeness was probably captured on at least a dozen more cameras during and after the incident.

It's also likely the more criminally-inclined members of our society know cameras are everywhere. The problem is these people are just too stupid, too impulsive, too quick to anger and too full of their own egos to listen that region in the left side of the brain whispering, "we'll get caught if we do this." So they act on their anger regardless of the consequences.

[Mike Blakesley]

Being 65 myself, I don't think 63 is considered elderly, especially in Florida.

Story was probably written by a 28 year old "kid."

It reminds me of a small episode when I was about 27 or 28. One of our teenage concession girls (about 17) was complaining about not having a boyfriend because "all the nice guys are taken." And I said, jokingly, "Hey, I'm available." She said "Yeah, but you're OLD."

[Marcel Birgelen]

Story was probably written by a 28 year old "kid."

It reminds me of a small episode when I was about 27 or 28. One of our teenage concession girls (about 17) was complaining about not having a boyfriend because "all the nice guys are taken." And I said, jokingly, "Hey, I'm available." She said "Yeah, but you're OLD."

You should've replied: Yeah, but I'm RICH baby! Apparently and as far as stereotypes go, that cancels out most age gaps pretty well.

[Lyle Romer]

I think we're basically in agreement on this.

Oklahoma's stand your ground and castle doctrine laws were written about as broad as possible to legally protect home owners (and vehicle owners) in life threatening altercations where they were forced to defend themselves. But those laws do not give a "good person" a green light to shoot anyone simply because they're a "bad person." The "good person" still must be in imminent danger due to that "bad person" for lethal force to be justified.

Lots of fools in my state (and I do mean "fools") believe the stand your ground laws give them authority to shoot anyone they catch trespassing thru their front or back yard. Those fools also believe they should be able to shoot simply because they're pissed off that some thief is trying to steal their shit.

I have a really big problem with the open carry laws. Cops open carry when they're in uniform and they go through a lot of training to be proficient in the use of their firearms. Any idiot in this state can strap a hand-cannon to his hip, even if he has never fired a gun in his life. It's stupid. If some violent situation goes down the wannabe "cowboy" with little training and range practice may get his weapon taken and then be killed with it. And then that criminal can use the wannabe cowboy's weapon on other people.

I have no problem with carrying a gun, but I will only conceal carry. I don't want anyone knowing I'm armed. I'm not going to tip my hand to any potential bad guys.

Do people in OK actually open carry in large numbers? I've spent a decent amount of time in states that have open carry and the only person I've ever seen "open carry" was in Glacier National Park when somebody had a rifle on a hiking trail where bear sightings are frequent. It appeared that the purpose was for protection in a potential bear encounter and not somebody trying to flaunt their right to carry.

With respect to the "stand your ground" laws, they are intended to protect people who are legitimately defending themselves against being charged with murder. They absolutely do not mean (even though the media likes to present it this way) that you can use "stand your ground" as a justification to shoot somebody who is not threatening your life. Obviously there are idiots who do think that's what it means. While people with a modicum of intelligence, like you or I, understand this, it would be reasonable to require people to watch a 10-15 minute video explaining justifiable use of deadly force based on the laws of their state prior to purchasing a firearm.

People need to know that you can't carry into a bar, get in a bar fight and shoot the person you are fighting with and expect to not be charged with either attempted murder or murder, depending on the outcome for the victim. "Self defense" or "stand your ground" does not mean you can use a firearm to settle a beef with somebody.

[Bobby Henderson]

Do people in OK actually open carry in large numbers? I've spent a decent amount of time in states that have open carry and the only person I've ever seen "open carry" was in Glacier National Park when somebody had a rifle on a hiking trail where bear sightings are frequent.

Despite the changes in Oklahoma's gun laws I rarely see any civilians in my part of the state open-carrying a pistol out in public. The people I do see open-carrying almost always live up to a certain visual stereotype of who you might expect to see walking around with a gun on display: -some overweight, older white guy.

The real test of how well this open carry law would work (or horribly NOT work) would be if a black guy was open carrying a pistol in public. It wouldn't matter if the guy had a spotless record or was even a military veteran. If he walked into a store with a pistol in a holster other people in the store would very likely lose their shit and call 911. The only time I see a black guy open carrying is if he is a cop in uniform or he is at a gun range.

With respect to the "stand your ground" laws, they are intended to protect people who are legitimately defending themselves against being charged with murder.

So many people have misconceptions of what stand your ground legally allows. It is just flat out stupidly foolish for anyone to carry a gun on his body or in his vehicle without knowing the law. At least take the damned $50 safety course, bare minimum. It's even better to take additional training classes on things like stress-fire situations. I know some guys who've gone as far as getting CLEET-certified. That shouldn't be necessary, but at least some class time should. But I guess we can't have the big bad government getting in the way of someone's 2nd Amendment free-dumbs. Some of the folks who think class time is for wusses are going to fuck around and find out the hard way.

I understand the fear and anger people feel about crime. I got held up at gunpoint and robbed in NYC -back when the city was much more dangerous than it is now. My house was burglarized 13 years ago. Both experiences were emotional torture. The anger I felt was like acid burning in my veins and time was the only thing that eventually relieved it. Despite just how blindly pissed off someone can be in a bad situation the "stand your ground" law does not give anyone a license to kill.

[Mike Blakesley]

Do people in OK actually open carry in large numbers?

I don't know about OK, but I live in Montana which more than likely has a heavier gun concentration than OK does. I've been on my county fair board for the past 15 years. Our fair draws about 12,000 people every year and I see most of them, because I'm always taking tickets at the grandstand or wandering around the carnival/exhibits area. In all that time I've seen exactly one guy carrying a gun, and it was this past Saturday night at our concert. He had a pistol in a holster. He did not fit Bobby's stereotype (he was a 30-ish guy who was not overweight, although he WAS white, as are about 97% of the people here).

The notion about a black guy carrying a gun and causing a panic is an interesting one. People always claim "racism" if they hear about a white person being "uneasy" around a black person. I've always thought the phenomenon was much simpler. It's all about looks and expectations. Black is a scary color. Almost all horror movies have posters that are dark-colored. Even in old westerns where the entire cast was white, the bad guy always wore a black hat. Or had a name like "Black Bart." Or bad things always happen "in the dark." A pirate flag is always black. There was even an insect killer brand, "Black Flag." Beyond that, people judge people by the way they dress and act. If I'm on an elevator and a black guy gets on looking like a thug, I might feel uneasy. I might also feel uneasy if a white guy dressed like that got on. Whereas if a black guy wearing an ordinary set of clothes and looking non-threatening got on, I wouldn't give it a second thought. If a bunch of teenagers got on the elevator, my reaction would be based 100% on their demeanor, how they were dressed and how they acted and looked toward me -- not on their skin color.