Shooting reported at Tennessee movie theater; suspect dead

Apparent video from the shooting,



* Man encounters a couple who ripped him off a shopping/cinema complex.

* Unarmed man turns bag around backwards to wear it on his front, so that he can hold his hand inside the bag and give the appearance of having a weapon.

* Man starts screaming at couple and the young kid with them about how they are enjoying life, while he is having a hard time (because of what they did to him).

* Patrons leave the cinema freaked out.

* Couple and kid try to leave the cinema also but get told to sit down or he'll "Cut their f#$king heads off", a group fleeing overhears this.

* Police turn up very quickly. Get told that the man had his hand inside a backpack on their chest. One group agrees with the Police suggestion (whilst they are trying to work out what is going on) that it could have some type of bomb.

* Police now think it is either a gun or a bomb inside his bag.

* Other group tells police they overheard the man saying he would cut their heads off. They agree to police suggesting that it may be a small axe concealed in the bag, not a bomb or a gun.

* Police now believe they are either dealing with a gun, a bomb, or small axe or similar cutting device that fits within a backpack.

* Police throw two gas grenades into the cinema isles from the top entrance. *Can be heard as the first two muffled (inside) bangs at the start of this video, where the man filming says "Shots!"

* Not wanting to exit the cinema the way the gas grenades were thrown in, the man leaves out the emergency exit where police are also waiting.

* Police shoot the unarmed man 18 times!!!! (From my count of the shots)

* The couple and young kid that had also been in the cinema emerge immediately after the man is gunned down and are told to "GET OUT OF THE WAY". To get them away from any possible explosion.

* Even though they weren't concerned enough about the possibility of explosives in the bag, to shoot it (and the man) full of holes. They still somehow see the bag as posing a threat of exploding.

* Initial inspection of the bag being removed from suspect shows that inside there was no bomb, no gun, and no hatchet. Though there was a surgical mask, as the man was recently sick.

* Police realise that they went Rambo, and shot an unarmed man a ridiculous amount of times. And made no real effort to substantiate a weapon before they did so.

* Bomb disposal is then called in to detonate the bullet-hole ridden bag. Which never contained any explosives, or weapons.

* Bag is detonated and disposed of. Maybe the non-existent 'pellet gun' could have been inside and conveniently destroyed? But then, how would they know he had one? Conundrum for police.

* Media had heard reports from same witnesses on the scene that the man had his hand inside a backpack. That he may have had a bomb, and may have had a machete.

* Story is sensationalised. The media (as they do) make up fake characters who conveniently "Don't want to be identified". Meaning they have free license to lie about the events without being brought into question. And if they are, they can claim they are 'protecting their sources'. Or simply write a corrected version of their lies. Fairfax and News Corps 'modus operandi' for all news. Nearly half of the medias 'eye-witnesses' are faked people 'who want to remain anonymous' used to sensationalise the story and make money.

* The fake pellet gun was written up as - *Removed from scene*.

* Police then launch character assassination campaign against the man, whilst having ABSOLUTELY NO VERIFIABLE PROOF HE WAS EVER ARMED. Luckily, they don't think anyone will hold them accountable or make them prove it. PHEW!!! Lucky for them!!!

* Police hope that character assassination will cover up over-zealous, scared, trigger happy law enforcement killing someone they didn't need to.

RIDICULOUS LIES ARE EASY. THE TRUTH, IS A FAR HARDER CONCEPT TO GRASP.

THOSE WHO PEDDLE LIES, ARE EASILY ENSNARED WITHIN THEIR OWN TRAP.

originally posted by: mysticrecluse
My question is: I wonder if this kind of thing is just going to become more and more common as time goes on?

I think it's going to continue primarily because America doesn't seem to be learning anything from these individuals. You would think that once you know people are safe from further harm the second priority should not be to shoot the perpetrator dead instantly, it should be to take them alive and then hold them accountable for what they've done, while bringing in professionals to unravel that mind and find out what caused them to act in such a way.

Even with those you have captured after doing things like this nothing seems to be being done to understand what motivates them. We're all told they're just crazy, but that's such a general term is makes us all think they're not actually learning anything from these people.

They need to be caught alive, face a jury, locked up, and then studied.

If you don't know what's causing people to behave like this, there is no way to prevent it from continuing.

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: Shamrock6
For anybody interested in the actual event:

Subject is 29, not 51 as previously released.

Police are not confirming he actually fired at police as "an officer had reported." No gun has been found so far.

They are pretty certain he acted alone.

Yes apparently no gun just a hatchet. Guess that's why the cop killed him so quickly he couldn't fire back.

Not so much. Police say they found an air soft gun. Not really their fault he brought a BB gun to a big boy fight.

Dude had been committed multiple times for mental health. His mother reported him missing several days ago. Guy had some serious issues.

a reply to: LunaticPandora

I have to add to the pool of statistics how many people from all the millions in the US that are on the 2.4 billion prescribed drugs and from those 118 million of them are antidepressants, the thing is that this statistics were from 2005, just to think that good nature human beings are been treated with mind altering medications with the potential to have dangerous side effects is mind blowing, don't you agree?

www.cnn.com...:HEALTH

Occurs I am not going to speculate that this the problems with the random shooters or that the latest theater incident was the result of, I will make clear of that

But is interesting to know how bad antidepressants are been prescribed in the US, sometimes for good reasons, some others for just the heck of it.

The report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Health Statistics found that 11 percent of Americans over the age of 12 takes an antidepressant, with about 14 percent taking the medication for more than 10 years.

psychcentral.com...

I realize I am like a broken record, but... Once again you have a situation where if insane asylums were still open and operating this would not have happened. This man had been committed 4 times and released. Sometimes mentally ill people need to be locked up for their own safety and that of the community. These days there is nowhere to do this. This is going to keep happening unless long term secure mental health services are made available again.

a reply to: Momof7

I remember when asylums were legal operating facilities, they used to look like jails, many instances the people were admitted for good reasons, but many times abuses were also reported and one of the reasons they where closed and that is more available treatment for those that are in need of treatment.

Sadly most people with real mental problems are not following on their treatments and no way of been monitored when they are among the regular population.

Repeat offenders of violent behavior are allowed to roam freely until that behavior turns into a criminal act, as usual at the expenses of innocent people around, this tells you how low our own government regards the safety of the general population vs those that have mental chronic issues.

a reply to: marg6043

Repeat offenders of violent behavior are allowed to roam freely until that behavior turns into a criminal act, as usual at the expenses of innocent people around, this tells you how low our own government regards the safety of the general population vs those that have mental chronic issues.

Yes. It's easier and quicker to buy a gun in the U.S. than it is to obtain treatment for mental illness.

a reply to: marg6043

I have to add to the pool of statistics how many people from all the millions in the US that are on the 2.4 billion prescribed drugs and from those 118 million of them are antidepressants, the thing is that this statistics were from 2005, just to think that good nature human beings are been treated with mind altering medications with the potential to have dangerous side effects is mind blowing, don't you agree?

Marg, for the life of me I don't understand why you have such a strong aversion to modern psychoactive medications. In the early years those drugs were CRAP. All they did was make someone so sleepy and tired, they were incapable of acting out. The old drugs, I don't want to list any of them here, cause sometimes they are still prescribed, and I don't want to offend anyone.

But today's medications are actually onto something! There are drugs that can actually control thought-disorders, delusions, command hallucinations, depression and anxiety, and other symptoms that can render a person dysfunctional.

Yes, there are side-effects, and some people have them, not all. MOST DON"T.

a reply to: ladyinwaiting

I don't have aversion to treatment for real and diagnosed mental disorders, actually people with mental disorders that stay of medications do very well controlling their illnesses.

But when we have an industry that will prescribe the medications like one size fit all, we get to see the side effects of them mostly in a bad way.

Having concern and having aversion are two different things, my doctor had tried for years to have me on some kind of anti depressant since I turned 50, even when I don't have any mental problems but because I complain one time that I felt like a runaway train, mostly due to going into menopause, actually all the symptoms disappeared on their own within a few years, meditation, watching my diet and taking natural remedies was enough, but I could not understand why she wanted me on no only one medication but she tried to give three of them, one of them known to cause permanent involuntary facial movements.

I never had problems in my life with depression as I always been a happy easy going person.

that tells you how doctors has been abusing medications that can be very dangerous when prescribed to the wrong person.

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
So you think random moviegoers should start shooting in a dark & crowded theater? That only increases the possibility of innocent bystanders getting injured or killed.

Did I say anything remotely close to that? (pssst, the answer is "no")

I'm not a random moviegoer--I was in the military as well as have a decent-enough amount of training and skills to make my carrying of a firearm both an effective means of self defense and a safe means of self defense. Random moviegoers who have no training should not touch a firearm.

Why not have the simple solution of security & metal detectors at every entrance? Then everyone who makes it inside knows they're safe & can focus on the movie?

That's up to the movie theaters, but I'm sure they realize that a shooter hell-bent on killing numerous people could do enough damage shooting up the lobby as they could shooting up a theater room. Generally speaking, security measures like what you just mentioned do very little to ensure the safety of anyone, even if they do serve to ease the minds of some people. I can only assume that it's a results-on-investment thing, as I'm sure many theaters have probably looked into the idea.

At the theater I frequent, they have a city officer patrolling the lobby on Fridays and Saturdays, but I've walked right past him more than once with a gun on my hip and he didn't even notice (or feel a need to stop me if he did). Of course, if I were trying to do anyone harm, he'd be the first one shot so that I didn't have to worry about him doing anything, so there's that point as well.

But to reiterate, no, I don't think that just anyone and everyone should be armed in the general public--carrying a deadly weapon is a responsibility, and one that people responsible enough to carry and who want to take on that burden of possibly having to take a human life to not take lightly. Most people are not skilled enough or mature enough for such a responsibility.

originally posted by: introvert
Even if one of the movie-goers were armed, they may not have been justified in using a firearm. Depending on the laws of the state, you have to be in a situation where your life is in imminent danger. If he had only wielded the hatchet and had not produced the firearm, the case could be made that there was no reason to use a firearm in self defense.

We will have to wait for the facts to come out, but we have to be very careful and follow the laws perfectly when it comes to firearms and self defense.

I used to live in Tennessee and researched the firearm laws quite extensively (but it's been 4 years, so they may have changed)...but the scenario that occurred in the theater would easily have warranted use of a firearm. You can use deadly force to protect yourself and someone else whose life you perceive to be in mortal danger. Remember, the point is that you had reason to believe that their life was in mortal danger.

That said, a well trained carrier would use verbal commands and try to detain the individual before just pulling out their weapon and shooting, if the scenario allowed.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: introvert
Even if one of the movie-goers were armed, they may not have been justified in using a firearm. Depending on the laws of the state, you have to be in a situation where your life is in imminent danger. If he had only wielded the hatchet and had not produced the firearm, the case could be made that there was no reason to use a firearm in self defense.

We will have to wait for the facts to come out, but we have to be very careful and follow the laws perfectly when it comes to firearms and self defense.

I used to live in Tennessee and researched the firearm laws quite extensively (but it's been 4 years, so they may have changed)...but the scenario that occurred in the theater would easily have warranted use of a firearm. You can use deadly force to protect yourself and someone else whose life you perceive to be in mortal danger. Remember, the point is that you had reason to believe that their life was in mortal danger.

That said, a well trained carrier would use verbal commands and try to detain the individual before just pulling out their weapon and shooting, if the scenario allowed.

Your right someone with concealed carry would have been able to shoot him since ha attacked another. However the theater he was In having been there band firearms. So there would be a legal problem there.

I heard the report of 'Another movie theater shooting' on news radio.
They didn't mention that the only shooting was by the police.

So...
How many dead?.............. Zero.
How many injured? .......... One person suffered a superficial cut on the arm.
How many firearms did the lunatic have?..........Zero.

The guy had been committed 4 times. He had mental problems.

Yet, we have headlines and announcements of another movie theater shooting. Just a bit over the top crap from the media.

This story shouldn't have legs outside of local news.

a reply to: marg6043

I'm not going to say they are not overly prescribed, particularly the class known as SSRI's. But you know you can't judge a group of medications based on what happened to you. It's too small a sample.

And you create quite a vicious circle in your thinking as well. You want people to be treated for mental illnesses, yet you mostly oppose the use of psychoactive medications. "Talk" and "Cognitive" therapies work well in some cases, but not well at all in the more severe syndromes, such as schizophrenia.

What should we do then? Go back to lobotomies? Electroshock therapies? Lock them away? (I don't mean that in a smarty pants way, just want you to think about it). Medications are sometimes the only thing we have to effectively treat these kinds of disorders, and if you oppose them, then what do we do?

Should we stop research even though we have absolute proof that chemicals can be effective in controlling psychoses (thought disorders) and mood disorders?

I could post story after story in which people received a medication that didn't work. But typically it's found out quickly and discontinued or replaced. It sometimes is a hit or miss endeavor.

Anyway, I suppose I am going off topic with this. Just my little 'two' for what it's worth. : )

a reply to: dragonridr

Sure, but that's nothing that compares to a murder charge, and I assumed that's what we're talking about. And honestly, it'd be up to the theater to press charges, and if it potentially saved innocent lives, I would be hard-pressed to think the theater would do that...but I've seen worse things happen.

originally posted by: LeatherNLace
a reply to: LunaticPandora
Me? I would feel safer knowing that there may be a bad guy with a gun in the theater as opposed to knowing that there are 100+ John Wayne wannabes with itchy, paranoid trigger fingers.

The last time you went to the movies, you could have been sitting near me. I never go anywhere unarmed. Unless something happened, you would never know that I was armed. One thing about always carrying a weapon, you get used to it. You don't have to constantly adjust how it sits, you don't move awkwardly because of it. As a result nobody knows that you have it, except you.

a reply to: ladyinwaiting

I see, I gave you a personal understanding, you forgot the statistics I also posted, that is ok, I understand, remember I am not you enemy, sadly ladyinwaiting, this will make me avoid having a intelligent and productive discussion on the issue with you.

Still I can only deduce by your posting that you are very upset.

No to worry I am not insulted at all.

You know life is too short to be wasted in petty arguments.

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: theantediluvian

I am going on my conspiracy side now on this latest theater shooting incidents, but I wonder if this is triggered by some kind of subliminal commands and is not just random but very well orchestrated.

I warn, this only base on my conspirators mind

Flashback: The 'Signal Slasher'

Back on 1-24-09, one Steven Walter Robinson Jr., 24, was watching a movie at a theater in Fullerton, CA. when he suddenly stood up and slashed two movie goers with a knife. The movie playing at the time--''The Signal''--is about people who go on homicidal rampages when a radio wave signal is surreptitiously broadcast.

I wonder if that was a beta test for whats happening now--whack attackers who are set off when some audio or electronic signal in the movie soundtrack is broadcast that they have been mind-controlled to react to.

a reply to: starviego

That is creepy, any other incidents like that in the past of a few decades? it could be an eye opener to see if this happened more than once. I am on the believe that the powers than be will have not problem using people like lab rats and casualties of experimentation is of no concern.

Yes, I believe that is evil in this world and is us humans.

a reply to: ladyinwaiting

Yup.

It's way easier to blame a drug than a complex mental health system, or something systemic within the fabric of society itself.

It's like blaming guns for gun violence. It's an easy target.

Blaming SSRI's for mass shootings is a simple way to make ourselves feel better by thinking we've "solved" the problem. We can pat ourselves on the back and all nod our heads in agreement. We solved that one! That's all taken care of!

It isn't that easy. While SSRI's may constitute a small part of the problem, the issue is much, MUCH more complex. We don't like that ugly fact though. We want something simple! We want a single answer to why this is happening!