Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
Crime Movies United States News

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.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Man Shot To Death For Texting During Movie

Comments Filter:
  • Re:Double bind (Score:5, Interesting)

    by DodgeRules ( 854165 ) on Tuesday January 14, 2014 @12:24PM (#45951893)

    The local reports state that the movie hadn't even started yet when this happened.

  • Re:Double bind (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Wuhao ( 471511 ) on Tuesday January 14, 2014 @12:28PM (#45951961)

    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.

  • by PortHaven ( 242123 ) on Tuesday January 14, 2014 @12:30PM (#45952007) Homepage

    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:Only in America (Score:2, Interesting)

    by evilviper ( 135110 ) on Tuesday January 14, 2014 @02:30PM (#45954201) Journal

    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.

    No, in the UK he'd just have been stabbed to death instead.

  • by Valdrax ( 32670 ) on Tuesday January 14, 2014 @04:24PM (#45956327)

    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.

1 1 was a race-horse, 2 2 was 1 2. When 1 1 1 1 race, 2 2 1 1 2.