TexasCHLforum.com

Remember it was the theater employee or manager who threw out the thugs because they wouldn't shut up.

Cobra Medic wrote:Remember it was the theater employee or manager who threw out the thugs because they wouldn't shut up.

Bless the manager's heart for the effort, the thugs just weren't thrown far enough.

Did the manager follow-up to see if the thugs really went away? Did the manager allow the thugs to grow in number and loiter about the property without calling the law, etc., etc. Who hired this manager? Does the manager know any of these thugs? Have there been other incidents of this sort at this theatre or others owned by the chain? What security measures does the theatre chain employ? Etc., etc., etc.

Y'all see where this is going?

Your choice of Meredith Hunter in support of your argument is a particularly curious one. Rather than selecting an instance of a law abiding citizen attempting to defend themselves against attack, you selected a man who chose to draw a weapon in the midst of a crowd, directly below the stage, and announce that he was going to kill Mick Jagger. While the biker's response was excessive, what did you expect them to do? Let him shoot Jagger? And how in the name of all that is holy does that possibly support the position that it's better to avoid being confronted by a mob than to try to stop one by drawing your weapon?

I chose an incident where someone in an "amped" crowd drew a gun quite likely believing that the crowd around him would cower, scream, and run. A belief that some on this thread seem to echo. The guilt of this individual is irrelevant. What he did and what happened to him is.

See this video for what happened to Meredith Hunter. link to video.....

Appreciate the link but I actually own a copy of "Gimmie Shelter" which chornicled the infamous Altamont Free Concert which was marred by violence. I chose that example since I was familiar with the story.

....if you watch the video, there was no mob, there was no violence, there was no threat. Hunter pulled a firearm, ostensibly for the purpose of shooting Jagger, and the biker (who was hired to provide security for the concert) stabbed him.

The violent behavior of the bikers up to and during the stabbing is well documented in the video. After he draws the gun he is instantly attacked and is mobbed by too many bikers/people to even count.

Whether it was justifiable homicide or not would be for a jury to decide, but the testimony of witnesses on scene at the time makes it clear, along with the video, that Hunter was not in any danger when he pulled his weapon.
EDIT: According to Wikipedia, a jury acquitted the biker.

Again, irrelevant. What is relevant is that the crowd didn't scatter like sheep and run away in the presence of a gun. They killed him.

But if it is important to you to have a more similar analogy then let me relate second hand experience. In 1978 my best friend witnessed what was likely the first sparks of the Moody Park riot. My friend Ruben worked at the Poor Lenoards snow cone booth directly across from the park and witnessed an angry mob of people attacking several armed police officers. This mob didn't care that they were police (in fact that is why they were attacking them) and they didn't care that the police had guns. Luckily the police retreated with their lives intact except for a few bruises and busted out windshields. So this would be an example you should be able to relate to: Police officers upholding the law up against an angry mob breaking the law. The mob didn't cower, scream and run away just because the police had their guns drawn. According to Ruben the cops were quite lucky to dodge several deadly blows from bricks and bottles flung directly at their heads.

The bottom line is that history indicates that a handgun in the hands of one defender may or may not deploy successfully as a deterrent to a mob of determined attackers. If you feel that the "guilt" of the party in question plays some relevancy to the outcome of the situation then we can just remain in disagreement over that point.

1. Nobody has suggested anyone is going to run or cower at the mere sight of a gun; that isn't how it works.

Well a few here on this the thread actually have. We can review those if you like.

2. People know that they can safely hurl bricks at the police 99% of the time without getting shot - they trust a civilian less in that regard.

Yea but the incident I brought up occurred in the heart of Houston in 1978. Throwing a brick at a Houston Police Officer in 1978 would most likely get you killed or severely beaten. There were no arrests after car chases when I was a kid - only funerals. Look into the origins of the incident I brought up to get an idea of who the toughest crew was in Houston in the 70's. I would agree that this subject could support a thread of it's own.

If your points are to indicate that a firearm isn't an actual guarantee of survival when facing a single thug or an entire pack, well shucks - we already knew that so tell us something new

Well that's a bit crass Andy considering my points are presented to support an answer to the question posed in the original post of this thread:

This is one reason I carry. To protect my family. However, I wonder what would happen with that many thugs. You draw your weapon to get them to back off but there are so many do y'all think that they would disperse or try to pounce on you?

I'm not sure why you would take a sarcastic stab at me for simply addressing the question posed in the original post.

Oldgringo wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:I know it sounds cold, but you only have to shoot one to get the others to back off. The couple in question reported that they were actually struck several times by several punks while trying to evade the situation, in which they were surrounded by as many as 100 of them. In my book, that is reason enough to draw the weapon, and reason enough to shoot it if drawing it doesn't stop the physical attacks.

Your partner should be calling 911 while you shoot the apparent leader and a couple more of 'em. The cowardly pack will likely scatter after they see that you mean business and you can di di out of there. As Tam said above; thinking time is over, it's SHOWTIME!

After the smoke clears, file large lawsuits against the theatre, the manager and anyone else who might be even partly responsible for allowing this to happen and/or continue. Why the lawsuits? Because that's what lawyers are for.

Y'all can debate the "what-ifs" until the cows come home. ITMT, I've seen no response that causes me to second guess my initial thoughts on addressing the situation. (I really, really hope that my NetFlix subscription keeps me from having to face such an encounter.)

SmoothFox wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:
Y'all can debate the "what-ifs" until the cows come home. ITMT, I've seen no response that causes me to second guess my initial thoughts on addressing the situation. (I really, really hope that my NetFlix subscription keeps me from having to face such an encounter.)

Going to the movie theater and your netflix subscription are irrelevant. The whole problem stems from the husband correcting the teenagers. If he would have quietly got up and reported the trouble makers none of this would have happened. All he did was draw attention to himself.

{SIGH}

Oldgringo wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:I know it sounds cold, but you only have to shoot one to get the others to back off. The couple in question reported that they were actually struck several times by several punks while trying to evade the situation, in which they were surrounded by as many as 100 of them. In my book, that is reason enough to draw the weapon, and reason enough to shoot it if drawing it doesn't stop the physical attacks.

Your partner should be calling 911 while you shoot the apparent leader and a couple more of 'em. The cowardly pack will likely scatter after they see that you mean business and you can di di out of there. As Tam said above; thinking time is over, it's SHOWTIME!

After the smoke clears, file large lawsuits against the theatre, the manager and anyone else who might be even partly responsible for allowing this to happen and/or continue. Why the lawsuits? Because that's what lawyers are for.

Y'all can debate the "what-ifs" until the cows come home. ITMT, I've seen no response that causes me to second guess my initial thoughts on addressing the situation. (I really, really hope that my NetFlix subscription keeps me from having to face such an encounter.)

I also watch most movies at home. There are few productions these days that are so fantastic I just have to see them before they come out on DVD.

When my wife and I do want to see a first run flick, we go to a theater in a very quiet neighborhood that doesn't have a significant thug population within miles, even when it's not the closest and most convenient. We also go during the daytime whenever that works for us. This strategy saves lots of headaches and lets us enjoy the entertainment we pay for.

I can't see the need to call 911 or even the mgr for the initial *polite* request for a little quiet, unless there was already a racial undercurrent going on. But one of the links said the marine said, "Have some respect and be quiet." That is unnecessarily confrontational, imho, especially depending on tone of voice and body language. It's not terrible, and not that he failed there, but a simple, "Hey, could y'all please take it down a notch or two please?" with a smile has a better percentage chance, IMHO. Next I would call the mgr. (Or first if there was already any type of racial or other tension before the first interaction.)

I understand what y'all are saying, but giving up the movie theaters to the thugs doesn't sit well with me. Maybe it's our various levels of risk acceptance. (I do roadrace motorcycles, so...) But I'd try to address it in as polite and easy-going manner as possible. If that didn't go well, and if the others were asked to leave, I think I'd make sure some police were there before I left the building, if not call them when the others were asked to leave. (Who's to say the mob wouldn't storm back into the theater and come drag you out of your seat?)

As to firing into that large of an unruly crowd/mob, I think it's kind of lose-lose at that point. If you don't fire, you're likely to get kicked to death. If you do fire, you're likely to get shot to death. I guess there's some moral victory in taking a few with you, but that's not the kind of victory I'm looking for. Sure there's some chance that they'll scatter, but I doubt it when there are 100+ thugs there. (And Excalibur backs that up and he knows some stuff, so there's my trump.) Have to somehow avoid getting to that point, for example by calling in the police when they get escorted out and ask them to watch you to your car.

p.s. I haven't gone to a movie theater in about 10 years, but that's due to my cheapness and low interest in seeing new movies, so just a theoretical position here.

Oldgringo wrote:

SmoothFox wrote:Going to the movie theater and your netflix subscription are irrelevant. The whole problem stems from the husband correcting the teenagers. If he would have quietly got up and reported the trouble makers none of this would have happened. All he did was draw attention to himself.

{SIGH}

What? Do you never leave your house? Or is your f2f personality opposite your online personality?

duckhead wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:

SmoothFox wrote:Going to the movie theater and your netflix subscription are irrelevant. The whole problem stems from the husband correcting the teenagers. If he would have quietly got up and reported the trouble makers none of this would have happened. All he did was draw attention to himself.

{SIGH}

What? Do you never leave your house? Or is your f2f personality opposite your online personality?

I think what Oldgringo is sighing about is the tendency in this thread to blame the victim. He should have been more polite. He shouldn't have confronted them at all. He shouldn't gone to the theater in the first place. He should have called the police. Etc., etc., etc., etc.

baldeagle wrote:

duckhead wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:

SmoothFox wrote:Going to the movie theater and your netflix subscription are irrelevant. The whole problem stems from the husband correcting the teenagers. If he would have quietly got up and reported the trouble makers none of this would have happened. All he did was draw attention to himself.

{SIGH}

What? Do you never leave your house? Or is your f2f personality opposite your online personality?

I think what Oldgringo is sighing about is the tendency in this thread to blame the victim. He should have been more polite. He shouldn't have confronted them at all. He shouldn't gone to the theater in the first place. He should have called the police. Etc., etc., etc., etc.

I agree with both you and Old Gringo.

duckhead wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:

SmoothFox wrote:Going to the movie theater and your netflix subscription are irrelevant. The whole problem stems from the husband correcting the teenagers. If he would have quietly got up and reported the trouble makers none of this would have happened. All he did was draw attention to himself.

{SIGH}

What? Do you never leave your house? Or is your f2f personality opposite your online personality?

Comments such as yours, among other things, from anonymous onlookers are cause for me to {SIGH} and .
For instance, what does f2f mean; do they not teach English grammar in schools anymore?

None of us were there; ergo, none of us, including me, know what we would have done. All of us, after the fact and with clean and dry britches, have the luxury of safely play acting in this real life drama.

How do you like my personality now?

You guys can debate the issues and this thread will go on. Or, you can continue the personal attacks and the thread will be locked.

Your choice.

Crossfire wrote:You guys can debate the issues and this thread will go on. Or, you can continue the personal attacks and the thread will be locked.

Your choice.

and , we're with this thread.