It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Many police shootings involve self-defense against violent criminals or help protect people against dangerous culprits in the act of wreaking havoc. However, police killings are not a negligible proportion of the nation’s firearms death toll. Shootings by police accounted for almost 10 percent of the homicides in Los Angeles County in 2010, according to the Los Angeles Times.
Jim Fisher, a former FBI agent and criminal law professor, compiled a database of police shootings and estimated that police in the United States in 2011 shot more than 1,100 people, killing 607. Mr. Fisher relied on the Internet to track the casualties, and the actual toll may be significantly higher. (Many police departments are very secretive about their shootings and succeed in withholding either numbers or key details from the public.) Mr. Fisher’s numbers do not include cases of off-duty police who shot acquaintances, such as the recent case of the veteran, married D.C. policeman convicted of murdering his girlfriend and leaving their 11-month-old baby to die in an overheated SUV to avoid paying child support.
Must we pretend that the guy was shot BECAUSE he was texting? Its not like the shooter crept up behind and executed him. He was asked to put the phone away because it disturbs moviegoers. He chose instead to get into a physical conflict with an (armed) old man and got himself shot. I'm guessing the excop was carrying legally and waited until he was physically attacked to exercise his right to defend himself. Sad about the daughter, but her dad screwed up.
I'm not sure you can post a sign and legally ban guns where a conceiled carry permit would ordinarily allow them.
reply to post by buster2010
I'm not sure you can post a sign and legally ban guns where a conceiled carry permit would ordinarily allow them. You may well have a point there. And I agree the old coot's reaction was extreme, but it may well have been within his rights. If he was being physically assaulted at the time the state will have a much tougher case ahead.
He wasn't being assaulted unless you consider being assaulted by popcorn to be a reason for killing a man.
A few weeks before a texting dispute turned deadly at a Florida theater, the suspect had a run-in with another moviegoer, prosecutors say.
Woman: He glared at me for texting
Authorities said a preliminary investigation determined that there was no physical contact during the incident. It was popcorn, thrown by Oulson, that struck Reeves.
reply to post by ispyed
Surely that is just common sense?
Guns do not belong in those places! Why would you need a gun if you're going to watch a film?
Oh yeah, in case you get popcorn thrown at you so you can respond in a totally over the top fashion - silly me...
And for any Yank eager to dive in at a Brit over guns, I'm not against them at all, but like everything there is a time and a place.