TexasCHLforum.com

VMI77 wrote: More broadly we have to eject liberals from power wherever possible, get control of our schools back and reverse the collectivist liberal indoctrination, make people accountable for their behavior at all levels of society, be they children, politicians, bankers, TSA bureaucrats, or school principals (focusing on making the leadership accountable, not the rank and file), and expose and educate as many people as possible to the concepts of individual responsibility for self-defense to reverse the current collectivist orientation. Given the fact that the bankers and politicians conspired to loot the country in the biggest theft and fraud in the history of the world and got away with it Scot free, I'm not optimistic about any political solutions. That pretty much leaves grassroots style education and outreach as our only options.

We are in violent agreement. While it isn't perfect, the Tea Party seems to offer a way to advance many of the ideas that you have outlined. I also think that we, as individuals, can do a lot within our communities. The old idea of never discussing religion and politics has never been honored on the Liberal side. I routinely trot out my pet ideas on several of the topics you listed whenever the social situation provides me an opportunity. I've found more and more people willing to listen, especially if I just ask questions and point them to sources of information. Perhaps that is as close to the grassroots education process as I can do.

Back closer to the topic, I'd still like to hear more ideas about what to do if faced with a similar situation. I like the idea of having the theater's phone number on my cell phone speed dial and think that my stepping out into the hallway to use it would preserve my anonymity while not allowing a teen gang of thugs to ruin my movie experience or opportunity. I suspect that it isn't economically feasible for the theater management to have a member of their staff in every showing in every theater but if the did some "behavior" profiling and put someone in where there were large groups of teens to proactively preempt disruptions, that might help the situation. I do recognize that management actions like that could be viewed in a negative light from several angles. Clearly, there is no easy way for the theater to address the ills of society either.

baldeagle wrote:

chasfm11 wrote:I'm open to suggestions. What course of action do you recommend?

The culture has to change. Nothing else will fix the problem. For far too long some of those who know what's right have ceded the playing field to the Marxists who want to change the country. (Certainly not the Charles Cotton's of our country, but far too many.) They have heard and read and discussed things but merely shook their heads in disgust and went about living their lives. If we want to save this country, we can no longer do that. We must all push for change and not back down. Otherwise we are doomed.

We are in agreement. But that isn't the question that I asked. My position is that

a. Going to a theater that is 30.06 posted does not further the cause as you laid it out
b. getting into a confrontation in a theater with teens does nothing to help bring about the cultural change. As an ex school teacher, I firmly believe that you don't fix these kinds of problems when the kids are teenagers. You either have to address them earlier or hope that the kids pick up some sense after they pass 21.

I'm a Tea Party activist and have shown up for protests recently. I just fired off letters to my Senators this evening. I routinely write to my Congressman. I'm on several e-mail circulation groups and daily pass information about important matters to my contacts.

None of that, however, is going to do anything directly about the subject in this thread. I'm still open to suggestions about that. I carry at the theater. I will do what I need to do to defend myself and my family. I'm not, however, going to the theater to try to change society. I think it is the wrong venue for that.

VMI77 wrote: Based on other comments you've made in other threads I think you realize that this is exactly the kind of society the liberal anti-self-defense crowd is trying to cultivate. If this happened in one of our People's Republic states like Kalifornia or New Jersey, and the people attacked defended themselves, even if the truth saw the light of day, they'd be excoriated as thugs and the thugs would be lamented as victims. It might not happen that way here but the number of people who would automatically empathize with these young thugs is mind bogglingly large and growing. This attitude is no accident: it's the inevitable outcome of over three decades of liberal indoctrination in the schools and in the media, and short of a complete societal meltdown, won't be easily reversed --just look at the UK.

You are right and I agree with you. The Liberal society is trying to cultivate this kind of a situation. Now comes the question: what to do about it. I see confrontation with a group of teens as a no win situation. To me, it is no different than me trying to take on 5 well trained attackers all armed with combat level rifles with my handgun. I'm not going to win. The best that I can hope for is not to lose too badly (by taking at least a couple of them with me.)

I'll crusade with the best of them but I want a better chance of producing a good result than this situation appears to offer. Faced with an unavoidable situation like the marine was, I'll do what I have to do. What I've been trying to point out that the situation is, in part, avoidable. If I don't put myself and my wife in a situation where the conflict is likely, I'm not going to have to deal with it. My going to jail because I shot a teen in a mob does not, in my opinion, keep the trend from turning our country into an extension of Kalifornia.

I'm open to suggestions. What course of action do you recommend?

My intent isn't to beat a dead horse but to go back to my point about the soldier's conduct almost being irrelevant.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/destruc ... ukee-mall/

Unruly teens seem to need much of a reason to act. According to the second video clip and an interview with one of the members of the mob they were "just trying to have fun." I appears that the original catalyst was an alleged shoplifting incident.

Purplehood wrote: And forgive me if I am reading your post incorrectly, but it seems to me that your take on the situation would require a certain degree of prescience that I lack.

I can understand why you would say that but that is not the perspective from which I was writing the post. A part of of my job is risk management. Over the years, I've determined what "high risk" actions are for me. Others might not share them. For example, if I'm running errands around town and have a choice of stops which avoids left hand turns across traffic, I take that route. Why? Well, it isn't because I cannot turn the steering wheel to the left but because making the left turn leaves out in the center for a much longer time where I'm vulnerable to some idiot who is trying to drive and text ploughing into me from the rear, even if I'm in a designated turn lane.

I consider addressing any group in public with anything but a positive message to be high risk. I do not know the outcome as your use of the word prescience suggests but I do know that I'm more likely to be presented with a conflict situation than I might have been if I had said the same thing to an individual. To me, it is the same reason that, if there is any way to avoid it, I'm not on the road at 2am. It is simply me trying to avoid perceived high risk situations. I've observed too many times where someone in a group being addressed, perhaps not even the person to whom the remarks are made, takes umbrage and suddenly the situation turned ugly. When I managed groups and wanted to take some disciplinary action (even if it was going to be directed at multiple members of the group), I did it individually. People will say things in front an audience, particularly one of their peers, that they would never say to someone alone.

Purplehood wrote:The reason for carrying is never knowing how/when or why you are going to end up in a life-threatening situation despite your misguided attempts at living a decent law-abiding life.
Telling a kid to "shush" shouldn't end up like this. Are you advocating that when we encounter kids like this in the theater we simply go ask for a refund and leave, thereby condoing the behavior?

I don't think that contacting management and asking for a refund is condoning the behavior. I do think that our society has decided that just about any other course of action is going to go against us, no matter how noble the intention and manner of delivery.

When teens get together as a group, the results can be unpredictable. Addressing a group of teens in any fashion is almost always seen by them as confrontational no matter how you do it. Add radical differences between the requester and the teens (and there are several combinations to choose from) and you are almost guaranteed a confrontation.

We've had two threads in the last couple of weeks where well intentioned folks attempted to address aberrant public behavior in a group and both situations escalated. Keeping in mind that my first goal is to protect myself and my family, I'll take these situations as a sign that my attempt to address similar public behavior in the future is likely to result in a similar escalation. In addition, I'm very concerned that if a violent confrontation occurred, the truth about what happened would never see the light of day since it would be many to one (or two) telling the story. The thread where the guy was attacked by two unarmed women and a boyfriend confirms that, too.

We have a choice of movie houses in our area. AMC, which is 30.06 posted and Tinseltown, which is not. I'd never think about going to the movie unarmed so AMC is not an option for me. That said, I don't go to the movies to attempt to cure the ills of society. If I'm going to be faced with an unruly mob (and that is the best description that I can come up with, based on my reading of the story), I'm going to hand the
situation over to others. I wouldn't hesitate to get theater management and/or LEOs involved but I'm not going to attempt it myself. If nothing else underscores the gravity of the potential situation, the fact that the teens in the article were willing to take on uniformed, armed LEOs should. Wasn't there a wise saying about the best way to win a gun fight was not to be there when it happened? If I'm forced into, that is one thing. If I have the option not to be there, I'm going to take it.

According to a police report, three others -- 16-year-old Ishmael Dunbar, 17-year-old Reginald Gardner and 20-year-old Destiny McNeil -- were arrested and charged with felony battery on a law enforcement officer and trespassing.

This was the part of the article that caught my eye. Obviously the fracas wasn't over just the couple. When the police arrived, it must have escalated even more. If I were a betting man, I'd bet that all three felony battery charges are dropped or reduced, proving to the three BGs that it is OK to beat up on ordinary citizens AND LEOs.

It isn't just a lack of respect at work here - it is a total disregard for the rule of law. That is until someone trumps the teen lawlessness with a firearm and then the families will expect the legal system to work on behalf of their belligerent kids. It just amazes me how the there isn't a reasonable way out of a situation like this for the law abiding citizen. If you try to step in personally, you put yourself at risk. If you escalate to management, that doesn't necessary remove that risk, even for the LEOs.

If the behavior was bad enough to the request to be quiet, I agree that it was bad enough to request a refund. I'm sorry for the soldier who had to endure this situation but his best course of action may have been to withdraw. Who would have expected to face a situation where he would need combat pay at his local movie theater?

Edit: two typos