Man Shot To Death For Texting During Movie 1431
An anonymous reader writes "The New York Times reports that an argument over texting ended in a cellphone user's death when a retired police officer in the audience shot him in a theater near Tampa, Florida on Monday. The report notes that 'cinema executives acknowledged during a trade conference last year that they debated whether to accommodate younger viewers by allowing text messages during some movies.'"
Another reason I don't go to the movies anymore (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Another reason I don't go to the movies anymore (Score:5, Funny)
Double bind (Score:5, Funny)
Texter gets what he deserves vs. more cop brutality. My brain can't handle it.
Re:Double bind (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not hard: shooting people in theaters because you are mentally disturbed makes you a horrible monster. Shooting people in theaters for doing something that annoys you makes you a hero.
I wish I could say that this was 100% sarcasm.
Re:Double bind (Score:5, Interesting)
The local reports state that the movie hadn't even started yet when this happened.
Re: (Score:3)
"Oh my GOD, how inconsiderate! I can't see the damn advertisement over your conversation with your loved ones."
It does make the shooter seem more terrible, with that bit of context.
Re:Double bind (Score:5, Insightful)
They were previews - which means the theater was darkened (except for the blinding light from the cell phone) and the trailers which are mini-movies in themselves - were being played. The guy was just being rude.
So what level of rudeness deserves the death penalty?
Re:Double bind (Score:5, Informative)
Shooting for legs and arms and shoulders and whatnot is much easier on TV than IRL, and is NOT something that 99.9% of LEO, military, etc. are trained for.
Re: (Score:3)
It was a retired cop.
And I do wonder why people would carry a gun when going to the movies.
Re:Double bind (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Double bind (Score:5, Insightful)
If your argument against personal freedoms boils down to "bad people will misuse those freedoms", then we might as well get rid of the entire bill of rights (except perhaps the third, 9th, and tenth amendments). All of those protections "help" bad people to some degree, so we should just abolish them.
Re:Double bind (Score:4, Insightful)
Because freedom!
The NSA is a good indication that guns do not provide any guarantee of freedom or liberty.
Re:Double bind (Score:5, Insightful)
It was a retired cop.
And I do wonder why people would carry a gun when going to the movies.
Aurora, Colorado. If there had been one armed ex cop in the theater, probably less than 12 people would have died.
Re:Double bind (Score:5, Funny)
Because only six people were texting that day?
Re:Double bind (Score:5, Insightful)
In this case, had there been one less armed ex cop in the theater, there would be one less dead person.
Re:Double bind (Score:5, Insightful)
Except that study after study shows that in places where there are more concealed carry permits are places where there are fewer murders (as well as just less violent crime in general, especially in public settings). In broad terms, retired cops carrying in public is a net benefit. Regardless of how this particular altercation turned out.
Citation needed. I feel like this statement requires more than just the phrase "study after study".
From Wikipedia
Martin Killias, in a 1993 study covering 21 countries, found that there were significant correlations between gun ownership and gun-related suicide and homicide rates.
Here is the link to the study, if you would like to question its methodology. http://www.unicri.eu/documentation_centre/publications/series/understanding/19_GUN_OWNERSHIP.pdf [unicri.eu]
I saw a pamphlet once that asserted that first world countries with tough gun laws had just as much violent crimes as the US does, but what they forgot to mention was that much less of the violence was committed with a gun and there was less gun-related murder. There are also statistical regressions that show that murders per capita drop when guns are tightly controlled.
These countries also score as highly as the US on the Index of Economic Freedom [heritage.org] and higher on other freedom indices [freetheworld.com] like personal freedom. So, do countries really need to be afraid of their citizens' guns? Guns do not seem to be a keystone to a modern free democracy.
You can find countries that score low on all indices and yet have really strong gun laws, but my point is that guns do not seem to be necessary for scaring the government. I doubt very much that guns scare our government all that much. I think Aaron Swartz scared the hell out of our government with a laptop computer. Maybe we should have a laptop amendment.
Gun laws and the discussions of them require more nuance and appreciation of methodology than we are generally capable of in day to day discourse, because there is emotional investment and, consequently, bias, even in academic circles in the US.
Re:Double bind (Score:4, Informative)
To be fair, NYC cops are probably the worst in the nation, if not the entire world, for shooting accuracy. The reason for this is that they have specially-made guns from Glock, which have been modified to have 12-pound trigger pulls to match the revolvers they used to carry many years ago. This of course hugely affects shooting accuracy under duress, leading to suspects not being shot, and bystanders catching the bullets instead. The NYPD refuses to change this policy even after it's come to light after the incidents you cited.
Re:Double bind (Score:4, Insightful)
Theaters don't bother actually confronting unruly patrons any more; they consider it too much of a liability I suppose. Instead, you just have to leave the theater if someone is disturbing you, and go ask for a refund. Theaters will generally happily and quickly give you a full refund if you have a complaint like that, and leave in the middle of the show.
Of course, since there's so many annoying people in theaters, and they won't do anything to deter or remove those people, then it becomes pointless, in my mind, to bother going to a theater, since chances are high I'll just have to leave partway through. I'd rather just wait for it to come out on Netflix.
Re:Double bind (Score:4, Insightful)
Texter gets what he deserves vs. more cop brutality. My brain can't handle it.
Really? He deserves to be shot to death for texting his 3-year old during the previews? The PREVIEWS! His child has no father now because the stupid old man couldn't let it go. I've watched the previews before while someone ahead of me is texting - you look UP to see the movie, DOWN to see the phone in the row ahead of you. I can't believe how many posts are applauding this - a man is dead.
Re:Double bind (Score:5, Insightful)
Texter gets what he deserves vs. more cop brutality. My brain can't handle it.
Really? He deserves to be shot to death for texting his 3-year old during the previews? The PREVIEWS! His child has no father now because the stupid old man couldn't let it go. I've watched the previews before while someone ahead of me is texting - you look UP to see the movie, DOWN to see the phone in the row ahead of you. I can't believe how many posts are applauding this - a man is dead.
You got a +5 insightful for your concern as have a few others. You're horrified that someone can make fun of something like this. Unfortunately, no one has responded to your concern and rebutted with a legitimate response. I will.
GP never condoned what happened. He was spot on with a good joke. Actually, GP was sheer genius because he did more than crack a joke in 14 words. He made several comments about our society if you look deeper: people being rude to one another (in this case, texting at the movies), a person mentally unable to have a gun has a gun, an ex-cop who can't handle a gun properly, police brutality in today's society, and maybe the inability of people (in this case the cop) who need mental help that aren't getting the help they need because of health care issues or societal stigmas. I applaud GP.
There's a time and place for dark-humor jokes. Slashdot is an ok spot as it is unlikely that the victims of this atrocity will come to the comments section of this particular article... even if they read Slashdot. Our unwritten Slashdot rules are concerning dark humor is jokes don't make them too gruesome. I like to crack jokes about people who really died and I laugh at them. It's the only way I can make it through life without going crazy... and I mean literally crazy. Do you know who the worst offenders are about dark humor? Police officers. Firemen. Paramedics. Military. The people who see the most gruesome that life has to offer. I picked up my sense of humor from my father who saw lots of dead bodies in his profession. They aren't the only ones who laugh at stuff like this, though. Lots of people love to laugh at those who are honored with the Darwin Awards. How many people on Slashdot crack jokes about stupid users in tech support? It's the same thing. We have to. It's the only way most of us can survive the perpetual onslaught that life gives us.
Is it morally wrong to make fun of this kind of situation? No, generally it is not. Did something horrible happen? Absolutely. Should the guy have been shot? Absolutely not. Not even if he were texting during the movie. There are some situations where it is morally wrong to crack dark-humor jokes. True story example: Motorcycle accident occurred at high rate of speed, guy flipped over and became road pizza. (He died.) One cop cracks a joke about what happened in front of the family because he didn't know said family member was standing next to him. Was the cop wrong for making jokes in front of the family? Absolutely. Should the cop be disciplined? Absolutely. Was the cop wrong for making a joke about the situation? No. He should be allowed to make jokes even about awful real-life situations. He just needs to be absolutely sure of his surroundings.
Most of my family and friends were affected by Katrina. Why shouldn't I and they be able to make light of what happened there? Why shouldn't the rest of the country?
Dude was checking in on his kid at home one last t (Score:3, Insightful)
Parents on a night out to relax together, notably not bringing their children to the theater with them (would that also have drawn this bastards ire?) sent one last text to their child at home before the PREVIEWS ended and the movie began. Lets drop the *golf clap* and other snide remarks praising a murderer that destroyed a family.
I take this one pretty personally for multiple reasons: My wife and I love to go see a movie to relax and unwind while the kids stay home with a baby sitter, and only 2 years a
Re:Double bind (Score:4, Interesting)
Really? Deserved to be shot? Wtf?
Yeah, no shit. This is monstrous and so far beyond the pale. I'd say that we should be tazing texters, physically beating serial talkers, and reserving the instant death penalty for people who answer their cell phones.
Re: (Score:3)
Only in America (Score:5, Insightful)
If a fight broke out in a british cinema, there'd be a punch-up, the police would be called and someone would be spending the night in the cells. In America you get shot. Thank fuck i'm british.
By a cop...let's not forget that fact (Score:3, Interesting)
This was a retired cop. Police in America are privileged to wield guns whereever and whenever basically. And truth be told, law officers have a far poorer record than concealed carry permit holders.
Re:By a cop...let's not forget that fact (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:By a cop...let's not forget that fact (Score:5, Insightful)
This was the poster child "good guy with a gun".
I respectfully disagree. Retired police officers do not undergo background checks nor are they required to submit evidence of training or qualification before getting 50 state concealed carry for life. To the best of my knowledge, no police officer undergoes any kind of background check or psychological screening when they retire. My point being that where I live, a typical citizen undergoes an evaluation every 5 years whether they can qualify to concealed carry. Moreover, there's a 20-point list of stipulations that would immediately disqualify them. At the same time, active duty or retired police are given concealed carry without any review whatsoever. Meanwhile, stories abound of one-off incidents of individuals who probably should not have qualified to be police officers in the first place abusing the authority given them. This is one of them.
Re:Only in America (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Only in America (Score:4, Insightful)
The countries ahead of us: Honduras, El Salvador, Jamaica, Swaziland, Guatemala, Colombia, Brazil, South Africa , Panama, Mexico, Paraguay, Nicaragua, Costa Rica
The US has 6 gun homicides per 100k people, the closest country we'd consider "safe" and "developed: is Luxembourg with 0.6. You'll also notice that a lot of countries on the list ahead of us are countries where we're funding and arming both sides of a drug war.
There's a lot of likely contributors to that number. Full blown cancer isn't caused by one mutation, the economic collapse wasn't caused by one thing... relatively high gun violence in the US isn't caused by one thing like gun culture or wealth inequality either.
Re:Only in America (Score:4, Insightful)
That was my thought. He couldn't have just beaten the guy up?
Re:Only in America (Score:5, Insightful)
If a fight broke out in a british cinema, there'd be a punch-up, the police would be called and someone would be spending the night in the cells.
As an American (and as a Texan who knows several people with concealed carry permits, including retired and former police officers), I can honestly say that until today, I'd have thought the same would be true in America. With the people I know who carry, I never suspected any of them were carrying until I happened to walk into an in-progress conversation about what types of holsters they used, and realized that they were all using them right then. And that's how it tends to work: there are people carrying all around, I guess, but you'd never know it 99.9% of the time (if you're a layperson who wasn't trained to recognize someone carrying), since those people understand what's at stake, take their responsibility seriously, and know that there are laws barring them from even hinting to someone else that they are carrying.
In America you get shot.
This whole story is just weird, but it's not at all indicative of a typical occurrence. There's a reason something like this is newsworthy: it's incredibly bizarre and abhorrent (well, that, and the original article's reporting was also rather abhorrent, since it tried to twist an insane gun tragedy into a cell phone etiquette debate with this line which they later removed, "The killing underscored the increased debate about when to use smartphones in public").
I'm not trying to suggest that America is a perfect place, free of gun violence. Let's be clear: it's not. But your sort of generalization isn't helpful either, since it overexaggerates an outlier, rather than recognizing that America's gun violence problem has seen a massive decline over the past two decades [pewsocialtrends.org], one which, ironically, has largely gone unnoticed (in fact, according to that report, the vast majority of Americans believe that the problem has gotten worse or stayed the same, despite the fact that the violence has been halved since 1993).
Re: (Score:3)
The Constitution says there must be due process.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Only in America (Score:4, Insightful)
The dead guys daughter would probably disagree with you if she could understand what just happened. In 20 years time she just might come hunt you down for your callousness.
Just to clarify, you mean "come hunt you down" in order to upbraid him, castigate him, possibly remonstrate with him about his boorish sentiments, expressed 20 years ago.
You didn't mean she might come to kill him, for being a dick in an online forum, right? Because that would be like shooting someone in a movie theater for texting during the previews.
Not "during movie" (Score:5, Informative)
He was texting during the previews, which, unless things have gotten even worse, do not constitute "the movie". Get your headlines right.
Re: (Score:3)
You mean before the 3D cartoon advising to turn off cell phones? Then he was not given adequate warning.
Texting during the *previews* (Score:5, Informative)
Note that the title is wrong -- he was shot for texting during the previews, not during the movie itself.
Re:Texting during the *previews* (Score:5, Funny)
Had it been during the movie, he would have been waterboarded as well.
The man was not shot for texting (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know if the shooter ever felt that his life was in danger or not but that will likely be his defense. In any case this is another instance where a simple argument turns into a murder because somebody was carrying a gun and either panicked or allowed their anger to get the better of them.
His defense will fail... (Score:4, Insightful)
He went out to his car and retrieved his firearm. The question will be asked, if you were concerned for your safety....why did you return to the theater?
Re:His defense will fail... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:The man was not shot for texting (Score:4, Funny)
the primary targets of violet crime
"Hello sir, we'd like you to have this flower on behalf of the Church of Religious consciousness, would you care to make a donation?"
Re: (Score:3)
CNN says the old guy had the gun on him (Score:5, Informative)
You're missing the part where the "threatened" 71 year old left the theater, went to his car, retrieved the gun and then came back and shot the 43 year old. At what point was a beatdown by the 43 year old going on there?
Maybe you are not from the U.S., and you believe "left the theater" means "left the building" rather than "left the room in which the movie was being projected to talk to the management in the massive lobby". In the U.S., a movie complex is a huge thing, and "theater" describes the room with the screen in it, not the building containing the room with the screen in it. He didn't leave the building to get his gun, he had a concealed carry permit, and the gun was on him the entire time.
You really need to read more than one biases source for the story:
http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/national/curtis-reeves-set-to-make-first-court-appearance-after-florida-theater-shooting [abc15.com]
"As a male moviegoer texted, the man seated behind him objected, and asked the texter to put his phone away. ...
They argued several times, according to police and witnesses, and the man who was texting watched as the other man walked out of the theater. Curtis Reeves, a retired police officer, apparently went seeking a theater employee to complain about the texting, police said."
The man who had been texting, Chad Oulson, got up and turned to Reeves to ask him if he had gone to tell on him for his texting. Oulson reportedly said, in effect: I was just sending a message to my young daughter.
Voices were raised. Popcorn was thrown."
Assault, with implied threat of battery.
"And then came something unimaginable -- except maybe in a movie. A gunshot.
Not that unimaginable. This is just sensationalist editorializing on the part of ABC.
The shot went through the wife's hand, which is how she sustained her injury. That places her hand on Oulson's chest, which is typical if one is restraining someone, and atypical behavior for the wife, unless Oulson had exhibited similar behavior in the past.
If Reeves were a crazed nut job, he would have not sat and removed his hands from the weapon and waited for the police.
Re:The man was not shot for texting (Score:5, Insightful)
So it would have been ok if he had stabbed the guy or snapped his neck or slammed his face into the floor and stomped him?
Those are all much harder, not to mention messier, things to do. They don't happen as quite much because it's harder work to kill someone like that. People are lazy, even at killing each other in a mad rage. Make it a big physical exertion and that's enough to deter a lot of people a lot of the time. But pulling a trigger is easy.
But because he used a gun, guns are evil?
Not evil. Just easy. Point and shoot.
People get shot and live. People also get punched in the face and die.
Are you suggesting the face-punch fatality rate is on par with the firearms fatality rate? And that the two should be considered equivalent for all purposes?
I mean, if there were no guns, people could still rob 7-11 with the threat of a good lethal face-punching right? "Give me all the money in the register, and nobody gets face-punched!"
The underlying problem is a trivial argument escalating to violence due to the inability of an individual to control their temper.
No argument there. Not sure that suggests a solution though.
Dead (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Dead (Score:5, Informative)
Congratulations! You win the award for most incorrect obnoxious pedantry of the day. "Shot to death" is a perfectly acceptable phrasing.
Re:Dead (Score:5, Funny)
Congratulations! You win the award for most incorrect obnoxious pedantry of the day.
I won't enter the debate, but I must say that I find it extremely distressing to see how lightly you treat the topic.
There are people who spend long hours and enormous efforts to achieve that award. I demand a fair and accountable judging panel to take the decision in such matters.
Article with pictures of the people involved: (Score:5, Informative)
This way you can decide guilt and innocence based solely on physical appearance like Reddit does.
The US is clearly very screwed up (Score:4, Insightful)
I know its only one example, but it supports my personal theory that US cops are programmed by their job to think that you can fix every problem with a gun, and that they are arrogant enough to think that shooting people is always OK if you are (or maybe ever were) a cop.
The texter was very much in the wrong too though. Every movie I've ever been to includes at least one info-trailer to let people know that phoning and texting are not OK in the theater. For all you saying it was 'only' during the previews, the trailer never says anything about "only during the main movie". And what about people who enjoy watching the previews?
>> "The man using the phone explained to the irritated man that he was simply texting his 3-year-old daughter"
This made me laugh as it so represents the apparent socialised blame culture in the US...like somehow the age/gender/personal relationship of the recipient is somehow now a justifiable reason for why everyone should put up with his selfishness. ..and what kind of parent gives their 3 year old kid a cellphone anyway?
Cops cant be trusted. (Score:5, Insightful)
They are no different than Street gang thugs. Even retired they believe they are above the law.
Comments from the cheap seats (Score:5, Informative)
Let's have some facts:
There is a very recent article [tbo.com] about Reeve's appearance in court and what
Boggle: how did he think that would HELP? (Score:4, Informative)
I just don't understand how the shooter thought that discharging a firearm inside a crowded movie theater was in any way going to aid in his effort to quietly watch the previews and later feature presentation.
In what possible way was shooting another patron NOT going to stop the projection, evacuate the theater and end up with the shooter at least detained if not arrested and in jail for the next few hours?
Did he really think: "Well, if I just shoot this one guy then we can get on with the rest of the film?
There must be some mental instability lurking in there somewhere: anger/rage issues, delusions, drug use, etc.
Re: (Score:3)
Guns don't cause shitstorms...
Re:Is it bad that I instantly assumed it's in the (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Is it bad that I instantly assumed it's in the (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Is it bad that I instantly assumed it's in the (Score:5, Informative)
Regulation probably would not have helped. The shooter is a retired cop. Almost every jurisdiction with gun restrictions makes exceptions for active duty and retired cops.
Re:The guy was a retired cop (Score:5, Informative)
The Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (LEOSA) is a United States federal law, enacted in 2004, that allows two classes of persons—the "qualified law enforcement officer" and the "qualified retired law enforcement officer"—to carry a concealed firearm in any jurisdiction in the United States, regardless of state or local laws, with certain exceptions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_Enforcement_Officers_Safety_Act [wikipedia.org]
They are the American Nobility...
Re:A Message (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
So says the guy that doesn't even have enough balls to post anonymously on an internet site.
-anonymous
Re: (Score:3)
Re:A Message (Score:4, Informative)
Someone seems to have forgotten.
Re:It's about time! (Score:5, Insightful)
When I hear news like these I always wonder what type of idiot thinks that shooting the texter solves anything?
Thank you for providing an answer.
p.s. The shooter will spend the rest of his life in jail, how's that preferable to someone annoyingly texting in a movie?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It's about time! (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll tell you what. I'll buy you a ticket to fly down and explain to the fatherless 3 year old how this is a win for moviegoers. Do report back on how that goes.
Re:It's about time! (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It's about time! (Score:5, Insightful)
Clearly you don't understand the argument then. Anyone who does something wrong with their gun is, by definition, no longer one of the good guys.
Aside: I learned this a long time ago about police cars and fire trucks. They can only proceed through intersections with lights and sirens if it's clear to do so. If they hit something, it obviously wasn't clear to do so. The other guy may have some liability, but that won't necessarily excuse the fire truck driver.
How do you figure out who a good guy is? (Score:4, Interesting)
Clearly you don't understand the argument then. Anyone who does something wrong with their gun is, by definition, no longer one of the good guys.
The problem is finding out that they aren't a good guy too late. This guy was a retired cop. He should have been one of the people who could be trusted with a firearm in public, but he wasn't. That calls into question whether or not anyone can really be trusted with firearms in public, as a matter of public policy.
What should the law be when it's impossible or impractical to determine whether or not someone will lash out this way? Were there warning signs about him? Should people with ill tempers be allowed to own firearms, and if not, how do you identify them reasonably? A man is dead, and a three-year old is without a father because we choose that it was more important for the shooter to be allowed to have a gun than for him not to be allowed to have one.
The gun rights groups answer to gun violence is almost always to suggest more guns. All that could have done here with short tempers and close range is make more dead people and grieving families.
Re:How do you figure out who a good guy is? (Score:5, Insightful)
The law should be that it is illegal to commit crimes with guns. Perpetrators should then be prosecuted for committing crimes. The idea that we must curtail freedom until all possible risk is removed from the world is one we need to abandon.
A man is dead. Yes. That sucks. Life can suck. We should create a society of people who can handle responsibility and understand there are consequences to their actions. In a land of free people you will end up with murder, and theft, and a bunch of other bad stuff because that is part of human nature. In land of people who are not free, or freedoms are being curtailed, you will still have those things. You will also then have problems which stem from the government (modern day USA, Britain, cold-war Russia, etc.). The only thing you gain is the illusion that by making a bunch of stuff illegal you have somehow made the world safer.
Re:It's about time! (Score:5, Informative)
The cops, (again only the ones I've seen) have a habit of driving as fast as possible and don't like using their sirens, even when blowing through an intersection. This is based on my experiences driving fire trucks and ambulances.
Re:It's about time! (Score:4, Funny)
On the plus side, I guess if you had to be involved in a collision with another vehicle, an ambulance is probably the best choice - no need to call an ambulance.
Although, I suppose there's substantial danger of being hit by the fifteen lawyer's cars chasing the ambulance :S
Re: (Score:3)
The police are "good guys"?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It just makes you an asshole with a gun.
Re:It's about time! (Score:5, Informative)
I read that he left the theater to report the guy who was texting, not necessarily to get his gun.
Re:It's about time! (Score:5, Insightful)
Regardless of whether or not he retrieved his gun or had it on his person, any self-defense argument is moot because he was able to safely remove himself from the situation first. This is cold-blooded, premeditated murder. There is absolutely no excuse for this. There is no evidence that the texter posed an immediate, lethal threat (with a deadly weapon) to the murderer. There is, however, ample evidence that the texter did NOT pose a threat, because of the demonstrated aformentioned ability of the murderer to remove himself from the situation first.
From IBT [ibtimes.co.uk]:
Curtis Reeves has now been charged with second-degree murder
Re:It's about time! (Score:5, Insightful)
If you would have taken the time to actually read the news you would have known that the shooter had to leave the theater to retrieve his gun from the car.
The article says nothing about him going to the car for anything, it says he went to find a manager. Managers don't typically hang out in my car, so I doubt this guy would think to go look for one there.
And "self defense" is what happens in the moment. Nowhere does it say he came back into the theater brandishing a weapon, just as nowhere does it say he had to deliberately go find one.
The fact is, there was an argument and it got physical. We'll have to wait for FACTS before we can judge the events, instead of making them up to justify our point of view.
Re: (Score:3)
the shooter had to leave the theater to retrieve his gun from the car
I don't see that in the article. He went to complain to the theater manager. When he returned the victim started the argument up again and it escalated from there. Both guys sound like assholes.
Re:It's about time! (Score:5, Insightful)
welcome to the 21st century: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
My local theatres displays the "please turn off your phones" banner *after* the previews and before the main feature just to reinforce this point.
Re: (Score:3)
I was in a theater the other day and someone was doing that. They were directly in my line of view but it was during the previews. I thought about saying something but also felt it could lead to a confrontation. They put it away as soon as the lights dimmed and never took it back out.
Oh, and it was a huge phablet. Maybe I should have said something. :)
Re:It's about time! (Score:4, Informative)
Re:It's about time! (Score:5, Insightful)
First I'm an NRA member myself. Second I didn't read the article, but by the summary this was in no way a self defense shooting and the perp should rot in jail. I am one that believes that self defense is a right granted by God the same way that freedom of speech and freedom of expression is granted. Wasting a life because somebody got pissed is not a good excuse. Now when it comes to movies personally I only go to the drive-in or watch Blu-Ray anymore and I even turn off my phone at the drive in as I don't want the distraction. The last time I was in a regular theater was 2007 when I watched The Simpsons Movie.
Re:It's about time! (Score:5, Informative)
2 things - 1) It was reported that the texting itself occured during the preview trailers, not the movie itself. I've often done that myself, check e-mail and and such during previews, share the information, coordinate schedule with other people who may be attending the movie with us as well. I do agree that once the movie starts, then the phone needs to be put away and put on silent.
2) Other outlets are now reporting that the argument was escalated by the shooting victim, with him yelling at the shooter for 'telling on him', then escalated it further into the physical realm. I suppose at that point I can see how the older man (71) was feeling physically threatened by the younger (43) and felt he had to take immediate action to protect himself.
I'm not saying that's exactly what happened here. I am pointing out that information is still being developed and details are still coming out. It's forlorn hope I admit, but I'd like to think that we could all dial down the outrage until all the facts are learned, then castigate the guilty party(ies) and not just vent uncontrollably based on our own immediate perceptions.
Re:It's about time! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's about time! (Score:4, Insightful)
Was shooting definitely warranted? Idk, probably not but I'll let the courts decide. A premeditated murder? Seems unlikely.
If you can safely walk away from a confrontation (and/or you and whomever you're with; ex. if with a child/wife/etc), then it was not warranted nor justified.
IMO, that's the best rule of guidance to go by for any (potentially) physical confrontation.
In this case, he (shooter) is a row behind this guy. He already walked away just fine once. The situation escalates. He could leave; he could stop provoking the situation; etc. I am not implying that the texter was in the right in every way, but he did have less of an opportunity and reason for walking away.
It's a really sad case. Shooter is 71; was a cop; probably saw a lot of messed up stuff; probably has a lot of friends that have and are passing away at that age; and now what? Prison for the rest of his life? That's a shitty way to go. Not as bad as getting knocked off in your prime during an escalated incident stemming from texting during some previews, but it's hard to find anything positive in this story.
Re:It's about time! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: It's about time! (Score:5, Insightful)
So now a 3 year old girl is going to grow up without her daddy, and you think this is a good thing? Did the thought cross your mind that maybe, just possibly, annoyance is not a good enough reason to deprive this little girl of her daddy?
I'm not saying he was a good man or that he didn't make a dumb mistake. But your cheering is disturbing.
Sincerely hope you don't have a Coexist bumper sticker on your car, because you could sure take the advice of one.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:It's about time! (Score:5, Insightful)
As a former gun owner and supporter of gun rights, I hope the retired officer gets the death penalty for this. Yes, things can set people off, but it's the responsibility of anyone with the ability to kill someone to control that. If you can't do that, you should not develop the ability to kill, whether through physical training such as martial arts or through items like knives or guns.
The penalty needs to correspond to the responsibility that the individual accepted. As a gun owner, his responsibility to keep his cool should be higher, even more so as a retired cop.
Re:Sounds like a case of senile agitation (Score:5, Funny)
Well, I mean, if he shot him in the leg or something, he'd just be screaming through the whole movie.
Re:Finally some good news for a change. (Score:4, Insightful)
I mean, since he was retired, the shooter would've paid around $10 for the privilege of being in that cinema. So he's entitled to shoot anyone who slightly annoys him during that time. Especially considering it was a Mark Wahlberg movie.
That was sarcasm. But this isn't: You are an idiot.
Re: (Score:3)
Is there any greater display of courtesy and respect for someone than not shooting them dead?
Re:Cellphones during the movie was debated.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Cellphones during the movie was debated, but WEAPONS not?
IF he was carrying legally, of course not. We dont debate the merits of cars when a drunk driver kills a family by doing stupid things with a car.
bad people do bad things with inanimate objects. Talk about the REAL problem, (idiots) not the object.
Re:Cellphones during the movie was debated.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Cellphones during the movie was debated.... (Score:5, Informative)
He clearly was not carrying legally.... The movie theater has a no weapons permitted policy.
Close but no cigar...
In Florida, "no weapons" signs do not carry the weight of law. While he may have broken private property RULES he did not violate LAW.
Now if he was found ahead of time with a gun by staff and asked to leave (the most they can do) THEN he would be guilty of criminal trespass.
Re:The summary is wrong. (Score:4, Informative)
The shooter got his feelings hurt and walked out of the theater, got his gun ...
The NYT articles says nothing like that. He left to find a manager but returned without one. It says nothing about him walking out to get his gun. It is most likely that he had it with him the whole time since he would have had to leave the theater to go to his car and pay to get back in again.
Re:The summary is wrong. (Score:5, Insightful)
There's something HORRIBLY wrong with you. Throwing popcorn is NOT assault, and certainly doesn't warrant deadly force. If the young guy was trying to assault the old man, a hand on his chest wouldn't have done the slightest thing. Even the local police officers tacitly acknowledged their ex-chief was way the hell out of line, and weren't trying to justify it in the slightest, but were instead playing up what a pointless tragedy it was.
Are you dumb or are you trying to justify murder? (Score:4, Informative)