Theatre Shooting

[Sheriff]

imported post

deepdiver wrote:

There are many IFs in that scenario......

There's going to be many IFs in any shoot/don't shoot scenario you come up against.

deepdiver wrote:

....unless it happens rather close to you in the first place...

This scenario would indeed be IF it took place close to the second shooter. That's a given. You can't be expected to know what's going on, and you won't know what's going on30 rows above you and 150 feet to the left.

 

[Doug Huffman]

imported post

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D95EKH7O0&show_article=1&catnum=1

PHILADELPHIA (AP) - An Iraq veteran charged in a Christmas night shooting over noisy moviegoers fired in self-defense, his lawyer said.

James Joseph Cialella, 29, of Philadelphia, is charged with firing a shot that broke the arm of Woffard Lomax Jr. inside a movie theater during a screening of the film "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button."

A judge on Wednesday ordered Cialella held for trial on aggravated assault, reckless endangerment and related charges. The judge tossed out an attempted murder charge over a prosecutor's objections.

Lomax, 31, told the judge he was at the movie with his girlfriend and her three teenagers, enjoying the film and laughing, when a man in front of him—not Cialella—told him to quiet down.

"We can't laugh?" Lomax recalled asking.

A second man threw popcorn at the family, and a brawl ensued. Lomax said he was fighting with the first man when the second man pulled out a gun and fired, striking him in the left arm.

A defense lawyer argued that Cialella was being choked and punched as he tried to break up the fight and fired in self-defense.

"He's a marksman," lawyer Greg Pagano said. "If he wanted to shoot to kill, he would have."

Cialella spent five months in Iraq with the Army before being honorably discharged in September, Pagano said.

Municipal Court Judge Craig M. Washington lowered Cialella's bond from $350,000 to $50,000, but ordered him to remain under house arrest if he is released.

It was not immediately clear Thursday whether he had posted bail.

Lomax did not elaborate on his testimony after the hearing.

Police have said Cialella brought a .38-caliber handgun in his waistband to the South Philadelphia megaplex.

 

[Task Force 16]

imported post

With more info, I'm still a bit confused here. If Lomax was fighting with Man #1, who was choking Cialello (Man #2). It seems that there are still some details being left out.

And if Cialello (man #2) threw the popcorn, he was wrong in excelating the situation. With what we have now, it doesn't look good for the Mil Vet. He's lucky the Judge threw out the attempted murder charge.

 

[diesel556]

imported post

deepdiver wrote:

My guess is that for 95% of us on this forum that the reality is by the time we figure out what has happened, who it has happened to and how to protect ourselves and our companions that it is all over, unless it happens rather close to you in the first place, happens to the front of you or starts loud enough to have already drawn your attention.

Is it over if 2 minutes later when you realize what is going on the police still haven't arrived, and the attacker is still in posession of his weapon, and you are still in the theater (for the reasons you stated above)?

What do you do in such a situation? Hide on the floor until the police arrive (access to the exit is blocked as you are sitting at the far rear of the theater), and hope he doesn't find you?

 

[deepdiver]

imported post

Sheriff wrote:

deepdiver wrote:

There are many IFs in that scenario......

There's going to be many IFs in any shoot/don't shoot scenario you come up against.

deepdiver wrote:

....unless it happens rather close to you in the first place...

This scenario would indeed be IF it took place close to the second shooter. That's a given. You can't be expected to know what's going on, and you won't know what's going on30 rows above you and 150 feet to the left.

Well, theaters around here aren't all that large. My comments as to proximity were with something in mind more along the lines of something happening 3-4 rows behind you, maybe only 10-12 feet that, given your concentrating on the movie, you would not notice until it suddenly erupted into something loud and violent. To not notice something even fairly close behind you in a dark theater, given the very loud volumes they use now with surround sound systems when your attentions are otherwise focused I don't think would be unlikely or unrealistic.

diesel556 wrote:

deepdiver wrote:

My guess is that for 95% of us on this forum that the reality is by the time we figure out what has happened, who it has happened to and how to protect ourselves and our companions that it is all over, unless it happens rather close to you in the first place, happens to the front of you or starts loud enough to have already drawn your attention.

Is it over if 2 minutes later when you realize what is going on the police still haven't arrived, and the attacker is still in posession of his weapon, and you are still in the theater (for the reasons you stated above)?

What do you do in such a situation? Hide on the floor until the police arrive (access to the exit is blocked as you are sitting at the far rear of the theater), and hope he doesn't find you?

Good questions. I think the hardest part is going to be determining who the attacker/instigator really is or who the bad guy really is 2 minutes later. The guy still standing with the gun may or may not be the BG. And if there are other people in the theater, if there are shots, they may very well be streaming out the exits. Short of a BG standing there waving his gun and making it clear that this is now a hostage situation, making a firm determination may be quite difficult.

How many other people are in the theater and where they are in relationship to your path to the exit is another huge factor as is who you are with. My actions sitting with 3 buddies all carrying may be very different than my actions if I were sitting there with my wife and child, and obviously a child's age may very well effect the next reaction. I think that in general, just like many of us may prefer to sit with our backs to a wall at a restaurant, that perhaps it is preferable to sit somewhat near and exit at a movie theater.

The more we discuss this, the more likely I am to continue my disdain and dislike of paying over inflated prices at movie theaters and continue to watch at home.

 

[Doug Huffman]

imported post

deepdiver wrote:

The more we discuss this, the more likely I am to continue my disdain and dislike of paying over inflated prices at movie theaters and continue to watch at home.

The best seat in the house and the most secure, safest and cheapest. My pistol is right here on the desk beside me. Remember KAWAANZAA and Ron Karenga

Prepare to be assimilated by the BOG. Resistance to Obamination is futile. BOG Brother is watching - OBEY!

 

[Thundar]

imported post

Sheriff wrote:

I'm sure most people have heard about the very recent theatre shooting. Man got disturbed at family talking in theatre. It was interfering with his viewing pleasure. He gets up and shoots the father of the family. Shooter obviously arrested, the injured father in hospital.

So, let's take it one step further. And it's something EVERYBODY should think about before the fact. After the armed assailant had shot the father, an open carry or concealed carry person stands up and shoots the original shooter dead.

What do you think theoutcome would now be in your state for this open carry or concealed carry party?

I'll go first. In my state, Virginia, I suspect the commonwealth would claim the event was basically over and should have ended with the father being shot. They would probably claim the second shooting was 2nd degree murder at least. The open carry or concealed carry party would be arrested and charged. $75,000 to $100,000 dollars in defense fees later,only God knows how a jury would rule. Hopefully a jury would exonerate the second shooter because nobody knew if the original shooter would have turned the gun on the other family members or not.

But, there is no rhyme or reason to the what a jury does in my locality. None whatsoever. I have seen them give rapists 40 years to life, while letting a suspect who stabbeda volunteer fireman to death off with 3 years to serve. I have seen them award $5,000 in civil cases when the plaintiff should have received $1,000,000. And I have seen them award $8,000,000 in civil trials when the plaintiff might have deserved $100,000 at most. A jury is a very strange beast. You never know which way the wind is blowing with them.

It would also depend on whether the protector was an off duty LEO.

 

[Sheriff]

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

You carry a firearm to defend your own life and the lives of your loved ones, not to play officer or pop off shots when you aren't even directly threatened. A good rule of thumb is that if the situation requires this much advanced thinking, your shots are mostly likely not justified.

The disturbing variable in the actual theatre shooting was the children. Active shooter still standing with a loaded weapon. Do you sit by and let him turn the gun on the wife and children next? Or does everybody sit by and wait for the cops to get there, their response time and "staging delay" being anywhere from 5 minutes to15 minutes at best? In most critical incidents involving ashooter, people simply can't rely on cops to arrive quickly and save the day. For various reasons, and sadly enough, Virginia Tech was proof of this.

The Open Carry forums have 14,371 members as of this morning. Sooner or later, somewhere in this great nation, I suspect at least one of these members stand a good chance of being right in the middle of a critical shooting incident as it is taking place. So no harm is done by thinking about or dicsussing it beforehand.

 

[Sheriff]

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

IF he turns the gun on you or your wife or your children, you can react accordingly.

If a shooter turns a gun on anybody's wife or children, I will act accordingly. I hope to never be put in the situation, but this is why I am thinking out loud right now. Won't have time to stand there and think about it if it ever does happen.

 

[FightingGlock19]

imported post

In Kentucky you can use deadly force to protect a 3rd party, if the facts are as they actually are. That differs from the use of deadly force to protect one's self in that the facts have to be as they are believed to be.

I'll let the weekend lawyers nit pick that apart, if they want to :?