Man Shot To Death For Texting During Movie

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.'"

Comments

Is it bad that I instantly assumed it's in the US?

[Anonymous Coward]

Gun regulation argument shitstorm in 3-2-1...

Another reason I don't go to the movies anymore

[korbulon]

Cell phones or guns: take your pick.

Re:Another reason I don't go to the movies anymore

[Cito]

Would have made more sense if it were either a Madea a movie or Adam Sandler movie

Re:Another reason I don't go to the movies anymore

[daremonai]

Guns at least don't stick you with a 2-year contract.

Re:Another reason I don't go to the movies anymore

[interkin3tic]

That sounds like two reasons. And why are they mutually exclusive?

Re:Another reason I don't go to the movies anymore

[bkcallahan]

Cell phones. The guns don't bother me.

Double bind

[Concerned Onlooker]

Texter gets what he deserves vs. more cop brutality. My brain can't handle it.

Re:Double bind

[i kan reed]

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

[DodgeRules]

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

Re:Double bind

[wvmarle]

It was a retired cop.

And I do wonder why people would carry a gun when going to the movies.

Re:Double bind

[Wuhao]

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:Double bind

[i kan reed]

"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

[ThatsDrDangerToYou]

Because freedom!

Re:Double bind

[tlambert]

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

[Terwin]

It would be more about the to and from the theater than at the theater most times, I would think.
(ask Batman's parents about that)

Of course they may occasionally be a need for a gun while in the theater as well...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow_theater_hostage_crisis

Re:Double bind

[Anne_Nonymous]

Because only six people were texting that day?

Re:Double bind

[egcagrac0]

In this case, had there been one less armed ex cop in the theater, there would be one less dead person.

Re:Double bind

[lexlthr]

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

[alanshot]

It was a retired cop.

And I do wonder why people would carry a gun when going to the movies.

Duh! Because nobody has ever walked into a theater and shot the place up? (ok, not that it is expected to happen again, but still. Proof it can happen)

Do you only buy life insurance when you travel? Only get car insurance for when you want to drive fast or during the winter when its more likely cars will slide into one another?

If you choose to carry, you carry most places. Doesnt matter if its at the theater, the store, the park, etc. Bad people willing to do bad things are everywhere you are. It isnt like a life jacket or bear spray that you can leave at home when you arent boating or hiking in the wilderness.

Guy was still a dick. Everyone knows texters only deserve a pistol whipping. LOL

I say they need to make the back 3 rows texting friendly. Anyone caught texting outside of those rows are fair game for immediate ejection with no refund. Maybe even banned from the property. If you cant be without texts/calls for 2 hours, you shouldnt be at the movies. First responder or someone who MUST be able to get texts? Sit your as on an end so you can easily excuse yourself if you get a text.

Re:Double bind

[DocSavage64109]

Hmm. I guess you're right. Tazing the offenders would be suitably gratifying without the loss of life.

Re:Double bind

[Borg453b]

Hitler and similar autocrats are only a real threat in the movies..

.. so I guess that's where you need your "constitutional freedom measure" - or something :D

Also: Distant future autocrats (overlords) or cyber-redcoats will employ drones. Guess US citizens will have to upgrade to rpgs and stinger missiles ;)

On a more serious note: Perhaps your L-curve economy and NSA is indicative that whoever is in power need no army to sway the populous.
Also - dont bother - I'll do it for you: "Anti-gun?.. and did he say L-curve economy? I guess he must be a nannystate-Commie."

Re:Double bind

[zerobeat]

Completely unproven. It could have been an even bigger bloodbath.

Re:Double bind

[egcagrac0]

I say they need to make the back 3 rows texting friendly. Anyone caught texting outside of those rows are fair game for immediate ejection with no refund.

This is a brilliant idea.

Re:Double bind

[LordLimecat]

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

[Rob Riggs]

Because freedom!

The NSA is a good indication that guns do not provide any guarantee of freedom or liberty.

Re:Double bind

[LordLimecat]

If we didnt have the 4th amendment, Im sure there are a lot of acquitted-on-a-technicality criminals who wouldnt have escaped justice.

Re:Double bind

[Em Adespoton]

If I were an ex-cop who had weapons training, and had a gun ready at close range, and was trying to avoid an assault, I'd do what *I hope* my training taught me to -- take the attacker down by aiming at a shoulder or leg. Someone with an injured leg isn't going to do very much attacking.

However, in this case the assault appeared to involve "someone" throwing popcorn, after which the texter's wife appears to have tried to restrain him.

There are so many things wrong with this scene that it has moved into the realms of the totally bizarre. For instance: where was the usher during all of this?

Re:Double bind

[nitehawk214]

It would be more about the to and from the theater than at the theater most times, I would think.
(ask Batman's parents about that)

Of course they may occasionally be a need for a gun while in the theater as well...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow_theater_hostage_crisis

You referenced Batman and you don't know why people would want to take a gun to a theater?

Re:Double bind

[Anonymous Coward]

If you were a trained former officer, you'd also know that the murderer improperly escalated the situation by responding with deadly force to a non-deadly battery (not assault). Assault can't be claimed because the murderer was clearly not in fear of his life, for he removed himself from the situation safely and then returned. If you punch a cop, they can't just shoot you. If a cop yells freeze, and you run, they can't shoot you (unless you already used deadly force). The rules get a bit fuzzy from there: the shod foot (boots, etc) and teeth are considered deadly weapons. But a fist is generally taken to be simple battery. Popcorn would qualify as a weapon, (see the chicken nugget fight for reference), but not a deadly one.

Re:Double bind

[Howitzer86]

Yeah, the article states that as well.

I bet he was going to shoot someone that day. The one shot was just unlucky enough to be the first to piss off the shooter. Someone else would have crossed him eventually, and for sure he'd blow them away too.

Re:Double bind

[i kan reed]

"More terrible" implies terrible in the first place, right? That was an intended point. Did it not make it?

Re:Double bind

[nedlohs]

You answered your own question.

His career choice makes it pretty likely he enjoys being a jack booted thug. That he managed to escalate a disagreement over texting during the previews (advertisements for other movies) into a shooting confirms it.

Re:Double bind

[DexterIsADog]

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.

Oh, that would have been sweet. Let's posit *3* armed ex cops in the theater, ranging from 55 to 72 years old.

The slaughter from mistaken identity of the shooter and the crossfire would have been IMMENSE. Probably many more people dead.

If you think cops are good shots, you're not paying attention. Here, read about these sharpshooters: http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/09/robert-farago/new-york-city-cops-shoot-innocent-bystanders/

And if you go there, don't miss this link in the story to another incident: "9 out of 16 Rounds Fired by New York City Cops May Have Hit Civilians".

Re:Double bind

[PortHaven]

Maybe cause well....you're in a closed room....(see Aurora)

Re:Double bind

[Em Adespoton]

If you were a trained former officer, you'd also know that the murderer improperly escalated the situation by responding with deadly force to a non-deadly battery (not assault). Assault can't be claimed because the murderer was clearly not in fear of his life, for he removed himself from the situation safely and then returned. If you punch a cop, they can't just shoot you. If a cop yells freeze, and you run, they can't shoot you (unless you already used deadly force). The rules get a bit fuzzy from there: the shod foot (boots, etc) and teeth are considered deadly weapons. But a fist is generally taken to be simple battery. Popcorn would qualify as a weapon, (see the chicken nugget fight for reference), but not a deadly one.

You are completely correct. It seems to me that there's a LOT to this story that we're not hearing with the single report. Either that, or policing standards in Tampa are so poor that you'd be best served never to go anywhere near there. It's possible the shooter will be declared temporarily insane.

Re:Double bind

[Anonymous Coward]

In this case, had there been one less armed ex cop in the theater, there would be one less dead person.

Had there been one less belligerent asshole assaulting a 71 year old man for telling on him for violating the theaters rules to theater management, there would also be one less dead person.

Had the wife not had to restrain her husband on a previous occasion, it's unlikely that her hand would have been on his chest, and she would have not had it in the way of the bullet that hit her husband, so he's at least partially at fault for her injuries as well.

Re:Double bind

[Faluzeer]

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

They also say that it was in the middle of the previews, and that the shooter was a 71 year old man who was physically assaulted by the texter after the 71 year old had reported the texter to the theater management. If something were escalating to a physical altercation with someone 30 years younger than you, and you were a little old guy with a gun, would you take the beating, or would you shoot?

http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/14/justice/florida-movie-theater-shooting/

Interesting, that does not tally with the following, which I presume is from the same witness : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yLeDpfQDVI

In that he states he did not see who through the popcorn.

Re:Double bind

[Wookact]

And your just being childish defending the murderer.

Re:Double bind

[S.O.B.]

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

[Grishnakh]

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

[Grishnakh]

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

[Giblet535]

Immolation? Our local theater does not explicitly forbid the use of incendiary weaponry. Lighten up, Francis. This isn't emo town's goth district.

Re:Double bind

[Copid]

Clearly, the real problem here is that the guy who was texting wasn't also carrying a gun to defend himself.

Re:Double bind

[DexterIsADog]

Hey, that's really interesting, thanks. Here's a post about that practice. It does seem stupid. I haven't done much shooting, but I can imagine if the Glock I fired had a heavy pull for every shot it would affect my accuracy.

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/08/foghorn/nypds-choice-of-firearm-may-have-contributed-to-the-terrible-shooting/

Re:Double bind

[AK Marc]

Guns are deadly force. You don't pull the trigger unless you intend to kill the other person (disable is the official term, but a dead person is disabled). You are never taught to aim for anything other than central body mass.

Ushers are not security. The usher should have been running from the confrontation, to notify the manager and police, not stepping in and getting shot like the victim's wife.

Man with gun goes to theater. Man with gun is assaulted (with popcorn). Man with gun defends himself.

Isn't this the gun-nut's dream? Everyone armed? So an annoying guy texting ends in a homicide? Where's the problem again?

Re:Double bind

[Newander]

That's not how it works.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QjZY3WiO9s

Re:Double bind

[akahige]

Are you implying that the shooter in this case wasn't mentally disturbed?

Re:Double bind

[aaronb1138]

I had the same internal conflict until I saw Tampa, FL. Nuke it from space, it's the only way to be sure.

Re:Double bind

[Citizen of Earth]

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.

How can I vote for you?

Re:Double bind

[mcgrew]

So it's OK to shoot someone for being rude?? Dude, see a shrink, you're out of your tiny little mind.

Re:Double bind

[ThatsDrDangerToYou]

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.

I have not argued "against personal freedoms" at all. My cynicism is directed at those who oppose logical and reasonable restrictions on guns (universal registration and background checks for starters). I am not going to propose more specific restrictions, but obviously things have gone badly off the rails in the US. Some major changes are called for, based on the current state of gun violence. However, our lords of the gun industry will have hear of such things.

Re:Double bind

[ScentCone]

In this case, had there been one less armed ex cop in the theater, there would be one less dead person.

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.

Re:Double bind

[msobkow]

Unless you are being threatened with rape or death yourself, murder is never justified.

But what else do you expect from a gun-toting cop, retired or otherwise? They've always thought they're above the law.

"I am the law."
-- Judge Dredd

Re:Double bind

[ThatsDrDangerToYou]

On a more serious note: Perhaps your L-curve economy and NSA is indicative that whoever is in power need no army to sway the populous. Also - dont bother - I'll do it for you: "Anti-gun?.. and did he say L-curve economy? I guess he must be a nannystate-Commie."

Why use an army when a talk show will sway them? People have gone fucking insane here. I have no idea....

Re:Double bind

[DocSavage64109]

Where did I say it's ok? He really just deserved to be thrown out, or tazed at most.

Re:Double bind

[quenda]

So what level of rudeness deserves the death penalty?

Not sure, but answering the phone during the movie would definitely be over that line.

Re:Double bind

[Concerned Onlooker]

"Really? Deserved to be shot? Wtf?"

No, of course not. It was a joke about hating the actions of both parties. Obviously no one deserves to be shot for texting. They should be publicly hung.

Re:Double bind

[Common Joe]

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?

Re:Double bind

[operagost]

Why not?

Why would you use encryption on your personal emails?

Why would you expect privacy as you're traveling to work, to the store, or some other mundane activity?

Re:Double bind

[i kan reed]

Not in the same way or degree, at least.

Re:Double bind

[operagost]

Ad hominems and straw men still aren't part of a valid argument-- no matter how intelligent you think you are.

Re:Double bind

[operagost]

My cynicism is directed at those who oppose logical and reasonable restrictions on guns (universal registration and background checks for starters)

The problem is that progressives like you want "logical and reasonable restrictions" for "starters". The ultimate goal is full prohibition.

Re:Double bind

[operagost]

Nothing GUARANTEES liberty, of course.

Re:Double bind

[Rob Riggs]

I don't see anyone executing NSA officials, so I don't see how a gun would provide any guarantees about freedom or liberty, with respect to the NSA.

The "with respect to the NSA" can be left off and you've made my precise point. There is no discernible correlation between gun ownership and liberty.

Re:Double bind

[egcagrac0]

In broad terms, retired cops carrying in public is a net benefit.

In general, I'll agree. I don't believe the retired cops should be held to a lesser standard than other concealed carry permit holders, however - others have pointed out periodic review of concealed-carry permits, which many retired officers are apparently exempt from.

Re:Double bind

[K. S. Kyosuke]

I wish I could say that this was 100% sarcasm.

Careful, what you just said annoyed me!

Re:Double bind

[Rockoon]

So what level of rudeness deserves the death penalty?

Its undefined. Thats the beauty of it.

An armed society is a polite society.

Re:Double bind

[ThatsDrDangerToYou]

My cynicism is directed at those who oppose logical and reasonable restrictions on guns (universal registration and background checks for starters)

The problem is that progressives like you want "logical and reasonable restrictions" for "starters". The ultimate goal is full prohibition.

How do you know that? The problem is that "conservatives like you" think they know what "progressives like me" really think. I read about a guy in Chicago who was banned from owning a gun legally (city law? I don't recall..) and his story sounds perfectly reasonable. He needs a gun for his protection. Fine. I have no problem with that. He went to court and won actually. And in this story, sadly, no law would have prevented this meathead ex-cop from owning a gun. I have no solution. But one thing I know for certain: the current NRA position, where no regulation is a good regulation, is insane.

Re:Double bind

[carbonUnit42]

But the popcorn was buttered. Surely that counts as being a salted.

Re:Double bind

[rhazz]

I say take it to the farthest level. Let's say he was smoking and taking a phone call during the climax of the movie. Is it justified now? Still no, of course.

And I call bullshit on the shooter feeling physically threatened, which was reported in one article. A popped bag of microwave popcorn weighs about 65 grams, the potential for actual harm is laughable (unless you consider trans-fats). Even if he didn't know what hit him, I bet it sure as hell didn't hurt him. No - the only thing threatened was the shooter's ego. After being hit with the popcorn he became enraged and shot the guy. We'll see what comes to light.

Re:Double bind

[interkin3tic]

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,

All those statements in 14 words and yet he said nothing of any value on any of them...

I agree that it was funny, but "Texter gets what he deserves" is just a stupid statement no matter how you feel about people being rude. The movie hadn't started. And police brutality wasn't an issue: the guy was retired. He was not acting as a cop.

Re:Double bind

[shentino]

Retired from a job where he got a government paycheck for saving people.

Re:Double bind

[Chickenlips]

The shooter in Aurora was wearing ballistic body armor. I don't think a retired peace officer with a handgun was going to end that massacre. Not that I don't wish it were so.

Re:Double bind

[M1FCJ]

Leave alone the blinding light coming back from the screen... Those new iPhones are so bright, you can use to project a movie. Right? Right?

Fuck, not right. Damn, I thought I was onto something.

Re:Double bind

[Twinbee]

Words mean things. If you were being sarcastic, you might want to work very heavily on that.

Re:Double bind

[Common Joe]

All those statements in 14 words and yet he said nothing of any value on any of them...

Maybe I did read too much into it. Maybe I didn't. I find very short quips can often make more of a point than longer postings. When I make short quips, I find that most of the time the secondary layer of information goes right over other people's heads. I'll give you half a point.

I agree that it was funny, but "Texter gets what he deserves" is just a stupid statement no matter how you feel about people being rude.

"Stupid, but funny." Ok... I guess this belongs with the first paragraph instead of your second? I don't really agree that it's a "stupid" statement. Perhaps funny? Perhaps outrageously cruel and heartless? I think there are other words on either spectrum that could be used.

The movie hadn't started.

Yes, I know. The title of the summary is wrong and the guy responded to that. Does that change anything? Not really.

And police brutality wasn't an issue: the guy was retired. He was not acting as a cop.

If you retire as a cop, you've been working as a cop a long time. That means you'll always "be" a cop and supposedly keep that mentality. I know a number of cops -- both currently on the force and retired -- and they will always be cops. I know military people after their military career -- and they will always have a strong streak of soldier in them.

You're quibbling over details and technicalities that don't really matter and with maybe the exception of your first sentence, have nothing to do with anything else I wrote. It sounds like you've had a long day. Take a deep breath, then go out for a pint.

Re:Double bind

[wonkey_monkey]

In that he states he did not see who through the popcorn.

That's a lotta popcorn.

Re:Double bind

[LifesABeach]

another way to look at it is an Adam Henry is shot while texting by another Adam Henry. Question, "who won?"

What's even more complex is that the Adam Henry with a gun was a "peace officer."

Re:Double bind

[wonkey_monkey]

Aurora, Colorado. If there had been one armed ex cop in the theater, probably less than 12 people would have died.

There'd probably be exactly 12 less dead people if there'd been one less crazy person with a legally acquired collection of assault weapons.

And if everyone entering the US was subjected to a mandatory mind probe 9/11 wouldn't have happened.

And...

Re:Double bind

[wonkey_monkey]

As a great police chief once said, "I'd rather let ten guilty men go free than... chase after them."

-Clancy Wiggum.

Re:Double bind

[Belial6]

Same with the 5th.

Re:Double bind

[Belial6]

That is not a bad idea. Sometimes the solution is to find a way that everyone can have what they want. I would go one step further, and in newly constructed theaters, I would do what many large churches do. Put a baby room in the back. Don't call it that of course, but many churches will have seats in a room in the back with glass to insulate the sound. It is there so that people with babies who will cry don't have to miss out on the show. Do this in theaters. Put in a wall with glass in the back of the theater, and have people who want a less quite experience sit in a spot where they can text or talk about (or to) the movie without disturbing others. Everyone gets what they want.

I quit going to theaters because they were already pushing the price/value tipping point, but after paying for a movie and having to deal with really loud people and laser pointers, it just wasn't worth it anymore.

Re:Double bind

[egcagrac0]

So, there should be more guns there. They should hand them out at the door. I bet the theatre would be REAL quiet

I hypothesize that the theater would be silent, due to the vast number of potential patrons electing to not place themselves in a room full of guns, lest a relatively minor misunderstanding with some airborne popcorn lead to their death.

Re:Double bind

[ahabswhale]

It was during the previews, which some people (apparently) take very seriously.

Re:Double bind

[ahabswhale]

IIRC, that guy was wearing full body armor. You'd have a dead "one armed ex cop". Not sure why he only has on arm though.

Re:Double bind

[BasilBrush]

It's perfectly possible, and indeed reasonable, to find both men at fault. The texter shouldn't have been texting, and the shooter shouldn't have shot him.

That doesn't mean both offences are equal, nor that the murderer is being defended.

Re:Double bind

[BasilBrush]

None. But that doesn't take away from the fact that the texter was being excessively rude.

Re:Double bind

[BasilBrush]

So it's OK to shoot someone for being rude?? Dude, see a shrink, you're out of your tiny little mind.

I think you're more in need of a some time speaking to someone rational.

Re:Double bind

[gatfirls]

Texting on your phone in a darkened theater and refusing to stop after being asked to several times and then throwing a fit when someone goes to complain about you.

Seriously though. The lesson to be learned here is that there are better reasons to be courteous than just because it makes for a better society: There are lunatics out there one straw away.

Re:Double bind

[BasilBrush]

Theaters don't bother actually confronting unruly patrons any more;

They will if they see people with popcorn or drinks that weren't purchased in the cinema! I've seen it.

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.

Choose your cinema, and choose the time of the showing. Some houses are terrible for bad behaviour, some are fine.

Re:Double bind

[Darinbob]

Ya, basically the shooting wasn't about the texting, it was about an argument that ensued because of the texting. The shooter most likely just let his rage take over. The "texting" bit is just a nice thing to put in the headlines. It could have been a similar result of someone had caused a minor fender bender with the shooter which started an argument.

Re:Double bind

[Darinbob]

Welcome to humanity. The innate good nature of mankind is a myth. People are vicious cruel bastards deep down who need to maintain constant vigiliance to rise above their baser state.

Re:Double bind

[Wookact]

If you read the comment I was replying to he spoke about the texter being rude and in previous comments he has implied that the texter deserved it. It sounds like a defense to me.

Re:Double bind

[ChipMonk]

An armed society is a polite society. When you know someone is probably able to kill you (justified or not), you tend to be much more polite to them. Take away people's ability to restrain rude fucks, and the rude fucks run riot through the life you're trying to live.

Re:Double bind

[Grishnakh]

They will if they see people with popcorn or drinks that weren't purchased in the cinema! I've seen it.

Maybe at some places. Most places I've been, they don't have any employees inside the theater at all after the lights go down, so they're not going to know there's a problem (or someone with smuggled-in food) unless someone comes out and tells them about it.

Choose your cinema, and choose the time of the showing. Some houses are terrible for bad behaviour, some are fine.

So I need to spend a bunch of time trying out different places to find one that's decent? No thanks, I'll just stay at home and get a DVD (or Blu-Ray even) from Netflix. With Blu-Rays and today's giant LCD screens and home theater setups, why bother with $10+/ticket (plus much more for concessions) for a regular theater where you have a good chance of having a crappy experience? For two people, you're easily looking at $40-50 for a movie, and lots more if you have kids. (If you say "you don't need to buy concessions" here, in my home theater, I can bring in whatever food I want for next to nothing, so you have to add that in for a fair comparison. Moreover, at home I can, again, bring in ANY food I want, not just whatever shit they serve at the theater, so if I want a bison burger or gluten-free pasta, I can have it at home as long as I don't mind cooking it myself; this isn't available in any theater anywhere.)

Face it, theaters are obsolete, and have blown their chance at sticking around for a while.

Re:Double bind

[sjames]

The retired cop clearly overreacted. The appropriate response would be to shoot the phone several times.

Re:Double bind

[BasilBrush]

Home cinema systems are nice. But they aren't a night out - less important now you're a family man than when you were dating. And they don't have the sense of scale of a real cinema. And they don't have the positive side of the group feeling of seeing a film in public. Comedies for example will always be funnier when seen in the company of a few hundred others than when seen with a family member or two.

Home Cinema has certainly cut cinema attendances. But they certainly haven't made cinemas obsolete.

Re:Double bind

[Grishnakh]

But they aren't a night out

So what? A night out with a bunch of badly-behaved people texting and talking isn't a great way to spend a date. Surely your date would rather stay at home with your home theater.

And they don't have the sense of scale of a real cinema.

Yes, actually, they do. You can get 60-80 inch screens now for not that much money. At the distance you'd sit from them, they take up as much of your view as a movie screen in most of the seats of the theater. And, you get to sit wherever you want, instead of having to sit on the side somewhere because it was too crowded, or worse, having to sit too close.

And they don't have the positive side of the group feeling of seeing a film in public.

Who the fuck cares about that? Sure, if you were sitting in the company of civilized people, that'd be a nice little bonus, but if you're stuck with a bunch of noisy teenagers and assholes who text or talk during the movie, or noisy crying little children who their idiot parents brought to a violent movie suited for adults, not being in public is definitely preferable.

Yes, theaters might still have some charm, in a nice European country where people are still civilized and behave well in public, but here in America it's like visiting the trailer park. Why bother?

Re:Double bind

[LordLimecat]

Perhaps I misread your post, but you appeared to be mocking people who defend gun rights on the ground of personal freedoms. Were you being sincere?

but obviously things have gone badly off the rails in the US

I dont think thats the case at all, at least not regarding gun deaths. Gun deaths are not terribly high in the scheme of things, and they actually tend to be worse in the places with the tightest gun laws (or vice versa; the point remains).

In a free society, one of the risks that you have is that you will be killed in the streets. Reducing the chance that that will happen invariably means cutting down on personal freedoms. Im certainly not going to stand behind any attempt to circumvent the constitution to satisfy some reckless fear that youll be one of the fraction of a percent who get killed in gang violence; I fear government overreach and the descent into authoritarianism far more than I fear gun violence. Look historically at which has been a greater threat, and perhaps youd agree with me.

Re:Double bind

[LordLimecat]

Look at which has historically been more of a threat: Fellow citizens shooting you dead, or invasions and governments going authoritarian.

The only way I would be willing to even entertain the question of

Re:Double bind

[LordLimecat]

Ooops.

The only way I would be willing to even entertain the question of

killing gun rights would be if the other party were concerned enough to advocate an amendment. Gun control I would be willing to discuss if it were extremely limited in scope, and I view it as terribly dangerous in either case due to the precedent for ignoring the bill of rights it would enforce.

Re:Double bind

[SolitaryMan]

This whole incident aside, I don't see how is that rude. The ads and previews and all that shit is not what I came to see. Especially, when the show that was supposed to start at 9 starts at 9:20.

Seriously, who gives a fuck about trailers?

Re:Double bind

[SolitaryMan]

Any link to such a study handy?

Re:Double bind

[znanue]

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

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 and higher on other freedom indices 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

[AK Marc]

Murderer? The shooter was assaulted with popcorn, so defended himself with a popcorn-sized piece of lead. Isn't it justifieable to defend yourself when assaulted?

Re:Double bind

[AK Marc]

He was texting his employee after the lights were turned down. He was asked to stop, and he reacted violently. When you assault someone, what should you expect to have happen? Rule #1, don't bring popcorn to a gunfight.

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.

You should see a doctor about your advanced tunnel vision. I can see about 210 degrees front FOV, and certainly more than enough to be focused on the UP screen and still see the DOWN cell phone.

I can't believe how many posts are applauding this - a man is dead.

What do I care? Some person who was unknown to me died. That happens hundreds of times a day. If I cried for every dead person I'd never heard of, I'd die, then who would cry for me? Instead, it's a teaching moment. Be polite, you never know who's armed. Hopefully some good will come out of this. The texters and other rude people will be slightly more nice, in case the person they are pissing off shoots them.

Really, the best outcome is if the theater is sued by someone for billions. The official policy is that phones aren't allowed. But, by ignoring their own policy (the indications are now that he complained and was told that they don't enforce their policy), the theater killed a man. Had they enforced their written policy, no death would have occurred. If they are held responsible, then the theaters will revise their policies, and enforce them. That would be nice. I've been annoyed more than once by people violating the written rules, and the theater, in all cases, refused to enforce their written policies. If you aren't going to enforce them, don't make them policy, make them "etiquette" or something.

Re:Double bind

[gmhowell]

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:Double bind

[gmhowell]

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.

Given the restrictions on free speech in 'enlightened' countries, I have no doubt those who would deny the second amendment would also deny us our first amendment.

Re:Double bind

[fredprado]

On the contrary. The NSA is just one of many motives that make guns necessary.

Re:Double bind

[fredprado]

Sure, that is why it would be much better just to fire all cops and let people fend for themselves, right?

Your line of reasoning is so absurd that makes me want to puke.

Re:Double bind

[something_wicked_thi]

Let's assume what you say is true for the moment (even though by all reports it's not). Are you seriously trying to claim that in a theater full of people, a 71 year old man being beaten by a 40 year old man had no recourse but to shoot him?

This is the problem with gun culture in the US. As soon as you introduce a gun into a situation, people start dying when, in saner countries, things would have ended much more calmly.

Re:Double bind

[AK Marc]

The man was being held back by his wife, and was assaulting the shooter at the time. In a heated situation, it's not unreasonable to believe that the shooter feared the assault in progress would progress to the next level, after which, he might not be able to defend himself, as he was an old man facing a younger ex-military man who had demonstrated violent tendencies.

Re:Double bind

[DexterIsADog]

You're apparently not equipped to understand my point, but that's fine. I don't look down on the mentally handicapped.

I hope you have someone to hold your hair back while you puke.

Re:Double bind

[Newander]

Its primary purpose is to inform the citizen of their intended place in the scheme of checks and balances. The right to keep and bear arms is primarily meant as a counterweight to the ability of the government to use arms on the citizen, in instances where the other existing checks and balances have failed. It is both a deterrent to government corruption and a last resort for a population which finds themselves oppressed.

This is simply not true. If we look at either of the two texts of the second amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

As passed by congress

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

As ratified by the states

and take into account the role that militias played at that point in history. We can see that the primary focus of the second amendment is for the government to be able to quickly raise an army to defend against external aggression. The obsession with the possibility that we'll need to rise up against the government in a violent coup is a relatively new invention likely originating in southern angst over the failed revolution.

Re:Double bind

[ThatsDrDangerToYou]

Perhaps I misread your post, but you appeared to be mocking people who defend gun rights on the ground of personal freedoms. Were you being sincere?

but obviously things have gone badly off the rails in the US

I dont think thats the case at all, at least not regarding gun deaths.

Actually, YES, I was indeed mocking the ridiculous defenders of the 2nd Amendment. Much mocking has been earned! I live in NC, where the infinitely wise state govt. has decided it's a good thing to allow more guns on campuses, along with a host of other batshit crazy laws. But I digress. My chances of effectively defending myself with a firearm are pretty slim. I was once held up at gunpoint as a teen, and if I had attempted to pull a gun out of my holster/pants/whatever, I would have been killed. The "what if" scenarios are pretty farfetched. The chances of my killing myself or someone else, either carelessly or in an episode of mental illness (see also: yesterday's cinema murder of a patron texting during film previews) are far greater.

So yes, I too fear government overreach, but not enough to actually own a firearm. Do you think the "militia" has the power to take on the police and military? Ha.

Anyway, fear up..

Re:Double bind

[fredprado]

And I hope that despite your absurd beliefs, you have an armed cop nearby when you need one.

Re:Double bind

[Reziac]

How many gun deaths per year worldwide, exclusive of war zones? Since the world claims America has more gun violence, I'll arbitrarily say ours is 2/5ths of the total, so let's pull a number out of our ass and say it's around 100,000 annually worldwide. So in 100 years, you get about the same number of deaths that the average totalitarian regime manages in 10 years or less.

Re:Double bind

[AK Marc]

It's not about me. I never once said I'm annoyed by texters. You are reading way too much into what I say. Try responding to what I write, not what you think I was thinking when I wrote it. You aren't smart enough to figure that out.

Re:Double bind

[justme8800]

Take away people's ability to restrain rude fucks, and the rude fucks run riot through the life you're trying to live.

Mmm. I suppose that explains Japan? The US seems to be one of the rudest countries on the planet, as well as being one of the most armed.

I think the worry is that the "rude fucks" are the ones who will tend to arm themselves...

Re:Double bind

[Vrtigo1]

In this case, had there been one less armed ex cop in the theater, there would be one less dead person.

In theory. You're assuming the shooter was the only one present.

Re:Double bind

[LordLimecat]

Handguns in the US, about 8000 / year. Pol Pot, ~3,000,000-- and he was one of the gentler ones. So that'd be about 400 years.

Re:Double bind

[LordLimecat]

Tell that to the people of Cambodia, the USSR, China, Spain, Vietnam, and North Korea. Oh, and those in western europe (Poland and France in particular). Im sure theyd totally agree with you.

Re:Double bind

[DexterIsADog]

Holy cow, are you stupid. I wasn't saying we don't need cops. You entirely missed the point about armed ex-cops in a movie theater.

But what I posted about NY cops is true. Bystanders get shot by cops. Often.

Guess truth doesn't matter to you.

Re:Double bind

[LordLimecat]

The "What If" scenarios arent so that you specifically in a specific mugging can pull out a particular gun and shoot someone; theyre so that your would-be mugger has to think carefully if he wants to try mugging a citizen. If the populace is disarmed, its not a problem. If a quarter of the population is carrying a concealed weapon, hes probably going to think twice.

But thats not even remotely the most important part, in my eyes (and I'd hazard, the eyes of the folks who drafted it). The idea that I as a person can defend myself and my house is a pretty fundamental thing; it was famously enshrined as the castle doctrine, and its somewhat meaningless if youre not permitted the means to defend yourself and your house with lethal force. Theres also the whole idea that we as citizens should not be wholly reliant on "the government" to defend our land from invaders; this gets made light of, but guerrilla forces have historically been notoriously effective against invading armies.

Do you think the "militia" has the power to take on the police and military?

I dunno, ask the vietnamese how their attempts went vs the most powerful military in the world.

Re:Double bind

[fredprado]

Sure you are. If you say that cops are a risk to people because they can`t shoot straight or decide whom should be their target you are certainly implying that we are better off without them.

Obviously you are wrong in your assumption, statistically bystanders get shot very rarely by cops. Your chances of dying by car accident, heart attack, cancer, self poisoning, from a fall, drown in a pool, and basically any non exotic cause of death are orders of magnitude higher than those of being hit by a cop firing in the wrong target.

And most importantly your chances of being saved by a cop are orders of magnitude higher than your chances of being killed by one, unless you are a criminal.

Re:Double bind

[Reziac]

I was trying to be conservative, but ... looks like I erred by an order of magnitude or two. Yep, guns are safer than batshit-crazy dictators.

Fact is we could probably have recreational gun battles in the streets and still never catch up.

Re:Double bind

[DexterIsADog]

I'm not interested in the bullshit you're so hot about, which was not the point of my post.

Go peddle that nonsense somewhere else. I'll even give you the last (stupid) word.

Re:Double bind

[rhalstead]

1: Having a cell phone turned on in the theater? 2: Having the phone turned on? 3: Answerinc calls? 4: Making calls? 5: Talking on the phone? 6: Taking a phone into the theater? 7: And of course, Texting in there? Here I formatted this and / dot will throw it all away. OTOH: I find noisy gunfire a bit anoying as well! And another OTOH Someone (another patron) who carries might put a quick and permanent stop to the noise!.

Re:Double bind

[fredprado]

You seem to be interested enough to answer multiple times, but I understand your lack of will to keep discussing about the subject considering your ability to counter my arguments ended a long time ago.

Re:Double bind

[Stolpskott]

An armed society is a polite society. When you know someone is probably able to kill you (justified or not), you tend to be much more polite to them. Take away people's ability to restrain rude fucks, and the rude fucks run riot through the life you're trying to live.

An armed society (with concealed carry) is a society in which the individuals fear other individuals because they might be carrying a gun. "This person might be carrying a gun so they can kill me, so I need to fear them."
Fear leads to one of two impulses - fight or flight. Flight, and the guy runs out of the theater. Fight, and the guy pulls his own gun because he feels threatened, and you have another Trayvon Martin incident, but with a few more witnesses and the possibility of a stray shot wounding or killing innocent bystanders.

Politeness comes from mutual respect, not from fear. Respect has nothing to do with guns, but with tolerance and empathy. Both needed to show a bit more tolerance and empathy for the wishes of the other, but neither did so one is now dead and the other will almost certainly spend the rest of their life in prison at the taxpayer's expense. Doesn't exactly sound like a win-win for the "Right to bear arms" lobby.

Re:Double bind

[Stuarticus]

I think the very incident we are discussing disproves your hypothesis.

Re:Double bind

[shentino]

My point is that being a hero is what he's paid for, ergo him being a hero doesn't give him a free ticket to kill an asshole, because he's already being compensated for his heroism.

Re:Double bind

[AK Marc]

So, what? Riots are more fun if everyone is armed? It's unacceptable to point out that gun fights are more deadly than fist fights (in general, I know piles of people come up with extraordinary exceptions all the time).

Re:Double bind

[AK Marc]

There is no report that he got anything from his car. He went to find an employee, then returned quietly to his seat, where he was assaulted and defended himself.

Re:Double bind

[AK Marc]

The Old West proves you wrong.

Re:Double bind

[BasilBrush]

Clearly you're more happy with your large screen TV than with the cinema experience. And there's plenty of people like you. But your opinion isn't everybody's. Many people still like to go to the cinema, for the reasons I've described amongst others. And that's why cinemas are not obsolete.

Re:Double bind

[Grishnakh]

Not yet, but the attendance numbers don't look good, so obviously there's lots of people like me, and a theater business would not be something wise to invest in. Its days may well be numbered. Perhaps theater companies should try to do a better job attracting customers to counteract this trend, but as poorly managed as corporations are these days, I wouldn't expect very many theaters to do anything meaningful on this front. So what we'll have is a very few small theater companies like Alamo Drafthouse catering to people sick of the regular theaters, but the industry as a whole dying out. Eventually even the ADs will go out of business because a few art theaters aren't enough to keep the industry going; maybe they'll resort to only showing art films instead of blockbusters.

Re:Double bind

[BasilBrush]

Attendance has dropped a bit over the last decade, but not by much.

http://thenextweb.com/media/2013/09/20/the-future-of-cinemas/#!sznZx

Certainly the loss is trivial compared to the losses from Cinemas heyday, and the subsequent recovery as the multiscreen came along.

http://www.significancemagazine.org/SpringboardWebApp/userfiles/sig/image/AbdelUpload/cineb.JPG

Re:Double bind

[AC5398]

You've got one jerk, oblivious to the danger he's in as he texts on his cellphone, versus another jerk who in a dementia-filled rage thinks he entitled to shoot someone.

The ex-cop stalked another texting patron a week earlier; he's a menace to society and needs to be locked up permanently.

But this is also another case of someone being oblivious to all else around them as their focus is solely on their mini-computer. You don't throw a bag of popcorn at someone or ask them if they told management on them if the other person is in a rage. Neither gentlemen did anything to de-escalate the situation.

Thank God there was another cop in the theatre to stop anyone else from getting shot.

Re:Double bind

[computererds]

I know I am going to say something un-cited right after you asked that guy to name sources, but I don't have them. If I did, I would be citing myself in an unfinished study.


The real reason the US has such a larger percentage of people violently using firearms is economic disparity. Other nations with similar firearm laws, but have a more equitable society, do not have these same problems. Other nations that have (had in this case) similar firearm rights but also had economic disparity, had issues as well. Any of those examples have had those rights curtailed.

Now this part is purely speculation. You say firearms are not a keystone of a modern free democracy (and I do agree with you,) I would imagine that after a financial collapse that firearms would regain some of their necessity. Regardless of my prior statement, and as you allude to in your post, and as it has been since the beginning of time, freedom of information will still be much more important than an access to weapons for any democracy.

Re:Double bind

[Maxo-Texas]

They do have a deep background of being polite or being killed or compelled to commit suicide for hundreds of years. Much deeper than the U.S.

Those polite elements are degrading over time now that that potential has been removed.

Re:Double bind

[znanue]

Ahh, I like so much that you qualified your views as speculation. But, that said, your speculations are interesting to me. I find myself agreeing that it is highly plausible that economic disparity , more specifically a very low "real wage" for many people seeking employment, absolutely are factors in overall gun violence, as well as cultural oppression, etc.

Re:Double bind

[znanue]

Hmm, so you're saying that if we're going to have legal handguns, then we should let retired cops have concealed handguns because given the first variable, total safety for everyone else improves? Even if that is so, the problem is that he didn't cite a study and used the phrase "study after study" in a polemic issue with highly charged emotions. For that, he was up moderated. To my lights, this degrades the quality of the discussion on Slashdot, and I wanted to point that out.

Re:Double bind

[WolfWithoutAClause]

No, in practice armed people don't actually have to be polite to unarmed people at all; because armed people don't have to worry about being shot by them. I mean, they may be, but they don't have to be.

So far from taking away the ability to be rude fucks; it's arming the rude fucks, they will tend to want to be armed more than polite people; they're the ones that are more likely to need a gun, because they're the ones that tend to kick up problems.

Re:Double bind

[captainlavender]

At the same time, can't you apply that argument in the other direction? "If your only reason for not giving people nuclear weapons is that some bad apples will misuse them, that's no argument at all!" Right? So obviously there's a line somewhere in the middle where you give people every freedom except for the ones that cause a whole lot of people to harm each other. I mean, government IS supposed to keep people from harming each other. Kind of its raison d'etre.

Re:Double bind

[metlin]

Through fear, not genuine goodwill.

It's like someone who is good because they are constantly afraid of being sent to hell over someone who is good because they're genuinely a good person, and need no "incentive".

In each case, take away the fear and you revert back to barbarism. I'd rather have a society that is internalized with politeness and good values, not one where people constantly live in fear.

Re:Double bind

[CrimsonAvenger]

Might want to read the Militia Act sometime. It might surprise you to find out that YOU are a member of the militia. As am I. And most likely every other American citizen on /.

Only in America

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Only in America

[blue trane]

The Constitution says there must be due process.

Re:Only in America

[zerobeat]

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.

Re:Only in America

[zerobeat]

You know I have to disagree with the "Score:0, Flamebait" on this post. It points out a very relevant point. In poor, third world countries with corrupt policing you see this sort of thing.... and the USA. But not else where. Why is life so cheap in the US? This isn't in Mendellin, Colombia or Waziristan. But I guess for some people it is.

Re:Only in America

[smchris]

That was my thought. He couldn't have just beaten the guy up?

Re:Only in America

[DexterIsADog]

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.

Re:Only in America

[gnasher719]

New data out from the UK, where guns are banned, shows gun crime has soared by 35 percent.

You mean from free shootings in a decade to four?

Re:Only in America

[evilviper]

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.

Re:Only in America

[Nephandus]

Knives... They're big in Britain now. Doubt that'll get through the propaganda that's replaced you excuse for a mind though.

Re:Only in America

[Kjella]

Come on, this guy isn't exactly average in the US either. An equally extreme situation here in Europe would probably involve a guy pulling a knife and stabbing the other to death. Knives vs guns don't matter much if you're the first victim and in close proximity, but it's much harder to get accidentally stabbed than shot and it's much harder to run from a bullet than a knife. In fact you have to far more aggressively assault someone than just shooting them from a distance, which might not stop your crazy ex but the average burglar would rather flee. They live to steal another day, I live to get better security and hopefully the police will catch him, beats a coin flip for who shoots first. But if someone goes mental on you, a knife is just as deadly.

Re:Only in America

[operagost]

Well, they're working on banning pointy kitchen knives! Give them time!

Re:Only in America

[Ginger Unicorn]

The vast majority of Cops in the UK aren't allowed to carry guns either. Absolutely none of them are after they retire.

Re:Only in America

[Anubis IV]

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, 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:Only in America

[interkin3tic]

Indeed. Look at the rate of gun homicides per capita. The US is 13th on that list (when you sort by decreasing homicides).

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

[DarthVain]

In Canada, he would have said sorry, put his phone away, and everyone would go for poutine afterwards.

Re:Only in America

[M1FCJ]

Unlikely, even so-called knife crime craze is extremely rare. It doesn't stop Daily Scaremail claiming the opposite, of course but when was the last time they told the actual truth? Their original owner, Rothermere, used to go wet talking about Nazis.

Re:Only in America

[argee]

In 1776 a bunch of armed Americans kicked the British out. We love our guns. I am armed.
Haven't killed anyone YET.

Re:Only in America

[fahrbot-bot]

That was my thought. He couldn't have just beaten the guy up?

The retired police officer with the gun is 71, the guy with the cell phone was 43.

Re:Only in America

[jtnix]

It's the media war-machine pop-culture. As noted by at least of TFA commenters, just look at the content of the movie they were going to see.

We got war on the news almost every day, war on the latest music videos, non-stop war 'documentary' reality channels. The networks are saturated with increasingly gory crime dramas. Oh and don't forget the awesome war / gore games for the latest gaming consoles. Call of Duty 4 and Left For Dead, baby! Come to the USA and get your violence, blood and guts!

More than a culture of fear, the USA is a culture of war. Tupac said it, and paid for it with his life.

Re:Only in America

[craigtollting]

Whoever marked you as Informative is a tool, because they believed your BS. You're regurgitating an article from 2003 (fucking 2003!!!) in which the Home Office "stressed that new procedures had skewed the figures" and "With new recording procedures taken into account the actual overall rise was just 2 per cent"

So thanks, troll, and thank you very much, mod who marked it "interesting", as you're the one who just swallowed these lies fully, without any shred of critical thinking whatsoever. Takes 2 seconds to Google where he came up with that tosh. Christ.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1418339/Gun-crime-soars-by-35pc.html

Re:Only in America

[BasilBrush]

Far from "new data", that's a Daily Mail article from 12 years ago.

Here's a chart of UK gun deaths. Despite a blip in 2002 (where the article comes from ) there is no sign of an ongoing rise in gun crime. Nor much of a sign of a fall either.

http://therightscoop.com/more-statistics-that-prove-gun-homicides-havent-gone-down-in-britain/

Re:Only in America

[BasilBrush]

It's a lot harder to kill with a knife than a gun.
Psychologically - because murder becomes harder the closer you are physically to the victim.
And practically - because more people recover from stabbings than gun shot wounds.

Re:Only in America

[myth24601]

America's gun violence problem has seen a massive decline over the past two decades, 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).

Also, this has happened during a time when the ability of private citizens to carry concealed weapons in public has been vastly expanded in almost every state.

Re:Only in America

[Nephandus]

Bullshit. You're already attacking. Just aim for the neck. You'll hit at least 1 artery, aside from an damage to the throat.

Re:Only in America

[BasilBrush]

Same day as the Sandy Hook shootings, a Chinese man went on a rampage with a knife, stabbing 20 people. Zero fatalities.

Sandy Hook had 28 fatalities.

The bullshit smell is coming from you.

Re:Only in America

[rhalstead]

In Britain, you get stabbed, or hacked to death while people stand around and watch as in the soldier who was hacked up while a crowd stood around watching and then talked with the perpetrators afterwords. We have had a drastic decrease in all types of violent crime since the 1950's. "according to official FBI and U.S. Department of Justice reports, the rates of violent crime in the U.S. are now at their lowest level in 40 years? " and "violent crime rates of 2010 were 1/3 the rates of 1994"! That's just in 16 years and with high jobless rates and an economy in the tank. That and it's been shown (as others have posted) that crime has gone down where more people are licensed to carry. Also in the same period where violent crime has been reduced, the number of firearms has tripled or quadrupled to somewhere around 200 to 300 million privately owned firearms here in the states. The media jumps on nut cases like this, but ignore the cases where a private citizen prevented a crime, or a crime was prevented when the intended victim was save just by having a firearm with out firing a shot. The number saved is many times the number killed, but those stories are not considered news worthy and are contrary to the message the media wishes to convey.

Re:Only in America

[Nephandus]

Of course, because your shit don't stink. Go back on your meds...

Re:Only in America

[rich_hudds]

Can only get latest figures for both countries from 2008, USA has 5 times the UK population:

UK fatal stabbings 270
UK fatal shootings 53


USA fatal stabbings 1,897
USA fatal shootings 9,484


Seems like the UK stabbing rate is quite a bit lower than the USA even though we are really frustrated by not being able to shoot one another.

Re:Only in America

[SomeoneFromBelgium]

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.

[..]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 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, one which, ironically, has largely gone unnoticed

Well the decline seems to be less spectacular lately (link) and is also a global trend aparently. Still compared to the UK (to which the GP was refering) it is still more than 10 times higher!
(link)
Maybe not such a strange remark, since both countries are at the oposite side of curve.

Re:Only in America

[Anubis IV]

Very true. As I said, I'm not trying to paint America as a perfect place, and the trend has indeed been flattening out in recent years, as you said. Nonetheless, the point I was making is that cases such as this one are outliers, rather than the norm, even in a place such as America, and that looking at the facts, rather than relying on exaggerated stereotypes, is in everyone's best interests.

Cellphones during the movie was debated....

[aissixtir]

Cellphones during the movie was debated, but WEAPONS not?

Re:Cellphones during the movie was debated....

[alanshot]

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....

[Ksevio]

I'd say someone getting murdered would ruin my movie going experience more than someone texting.

Re:Cellphones during the movie was debated....

[citylivin]

Well its america, and even worse, florida. The courts already said you can kill whomever you want, you just have to say "he's coming right for us".

If I was in america, and everyone around me was armed and with the above mentality, YOUR GOD DAMN RIGHT I WOULD BE ARMED!

If everyone around you is a violent psychopath (this did occur in america), I would want to be protected personally.

Re:Cellphones during the movie was debated....

[nitehawk214]

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.

You are allowed to carry a cellphone into a theater, just like a legally registered weapon.

You are not allowed to use either of them except in an emergency.

Re:Cellphones during the movie was debated....

[im_thatoneguy]

Bad people do bad things with inanimate objects. Talk about the REAL problem, (idiots) not the object.

Except that more than twice every day a car grants me a huge benefit, greatly improving my quality of life. If cars served no purpose except for drunk idiots to run people over I would happily advance a ban on their sale. Bad people do bad things, but bad people do far worse things when they are heavily armed. This wouldn't have made the news if some dumb ass ex-cop punched a guy in the movie theater for texting. In fact he would probably get many congratulations. The availability and glorification though of said inanimate object escalated this situation from a bad person doing a bad thing, to loss of human life.

You're substantially more likely to die if you carry a firearm than those who don't carry, so don't give me that bullshit of self defense either. The outcome of widely available firearms is more innocent people dying.

Re:Cellphones during the movie was debated....

[JustNiz]

Wait, you're NOT american and you don't know the difference between YOUR and YOU'RE? wow.

Re:Cellphones during the movie was debated....

[Howitzer86]

My fear is that you'll have to assume that about everyone someday. Just like you would in some war-torn country in Africa.

The mentality would serve as serious justification for an omnipresent security state. Perhaps the future is to treat the country like one big mad house and lead regimented, surveilled, lives. Maybe anything short of that would spell our collective doom.

Re:Cellphones during the movie was debated....

[Wookact]

You are trying to equate the two, but you fail to point out that the cell phone only annoys, while the gun wielding idiot kills.

Re:Cellphones during the movie was debated....

[Capt James McCarthy]

Well its america, and even worse, florida. The courts already said you can kill whomever you want, you just have to say "he's coming right for us".

If I was in america, and everyone around me was armed and with the above mentality, YOUR GOD DAMN RIGHT I WOULD BE ARMED!

If everyone around you is a violent psychopath (this did occur in america), I would want to be protected personally.

Don't believe the hype of the media. These random actions may appear frequent, but are just sensationalized to bring the world into every living room in America thinking that everyone is out to get them. Then the powers to be can more easily control/tax/litigate the populace.

Re:Cellphones during the movie was debated....

[alanshot]

The outcome of widely available firearms is more innocent people dying.

reminds me of a post I made elsewhere about making guns illegal would make us safer:

I’ll start by asking a simple question. If you could push a button to save a loved one’s life if it meant 1,382 anonymous strangers had to sacrifice theirs in exchange, would you push it? While this is a bit of a long read, I think its worth it to stick around until the end...

Given all the “for the children” rhetoric about saving lives through more gun control legislation, I think it’s time to play a game; A numbers game. For fun, we’ll even use the numbers that those against guns claim is more realistic than what the pro-gun crowd tends to use.
According to a VERY liberal anti-gun publication, during the time period 2007-2011 there were “only” 338,700 uses of guns for self-defense.
Let’s break this down using the anti-gunner’s own stats and best case scenarios:

Over a 5 year period, that’s 67,740 times per year that a gun is used for self-defense. Not insignificant at all.

Now let’s assume that 90% of the time , the perp is only going to use his weapon for intimidation, and has no intention of killing you if you comply. Now we are down to “only” 6,774 shootings/stabbings/beatings per year, also assuming we are ALL good sheeple and comply with the thug’s demands with zero resistance.

Using the accepted conservative estimate of 22% mortality rate for shootings/stabbings, we are now talking “ONLY” 1,490 dead bodies per year.

So lets look at that “If we could only save one child, [gun bans] would be worth it!” quote now that we have some VERY conservative numbers that anti gunners can agree with. Even lumping in the adults, in the period of 1 year after Sandy Hook (but not including) there were 23 mass shootings (4 or more killed in a single incident, regardless of location) resulting in 108 casualties.

***
Assuming that we were able to stop each and every one of those mass shootings with gun control laws, THERE WOULD STILL BE 1,382 DEAD BODIES REGARDLESS OF THE “COMMON SENSE GUN BAN”. I would call this cutting off your nose to spite your face, etc.
***

But wont banning guns get rid of them all? Well, if you are willing to commit a crime with a gun, do you care about obtaining or possessing it legally? No. The only people impacted by restrictive gun laws are the “good guys”. Just ask the felons behind bars. They freely admit they (and their ilk still on the street) don’t care what the law says. They will obtain a gun in any way possible, and carry it regardless of whether its legal or not. They just don’t care as the law “doesn’t apply to them”.

So think about that next time somebody says “think of the children” or “if it could save only one life”. Statically speaking that “one life” saved equals over a thousand lost; not exactly a good trade in my book.
--------
Edit to add:

I did a bit more math to correct a failed assumption. Assuming a gun ban is put into place and ALL legal guns are turned in leaving only illegally obtained weapons in play (30% of those used in crime are illegally obtained), You still have almost 500 dead bodies for every person you save with the ban!

Even playing devil's advocate and poking holes in my own calculations I still cannot get to an acceptable level of savings. What they are proposing is like investing money in a stock that you know will have a 500% LOSS. (and possibly more) If you know it doesnt work, why do it?

Re:Cellphones during the movie was debated....

[alanshot]

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:Cellphones during the movie was debated....

[jfbilodeau]

Cars serve a purpose beyond killing. What purpose do guns serve outside of killing?

Re:Cellphones during the movie was debated....

[HiThere]

That's true, but you know that wasn't what he was saying.

Re:Cellphones during the movie was debated....

[hondo77]

We dont debate the merits of cars when a drunk driver kills a family by doing stupid things with a car.

No but we heavily regulate the cars and who can drive them.

Re:Cellphones during the movie was debated....

[mdwstmusik]

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.

Right, guns don't kill people, people kill people...faster, more efficiently, and in greater numbers USING guns.

Re:Cellphones during the movie was debated....

[alanshot]

preventing someone else from killing you?

Bleach, in large amounts, will kill you if ingested undilluted. Bleach, in minute amounts will kill things in water that would otherwise kill you.

Should we outlaw bleach too? It kills.

Re:Cellphones during the movie was debated....

[Uberbah]

Yep. Just like *knives*. I've never seen them in public, and you *certainly* can't just go to the local WalMart, Target, or grocery store and buy one off the shelf without submitting to an extensive background check.

That absurd knife comparison died a painful death when some crazy guy in China stabbed 20 odd people the same day as Sandy Hook, but none of them died.

Re:Cellphones during the movie was debated....

[BasilBrush]

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.

That's because the purpose of a car is to transport people. Killing people is an unwanted side effect and cars have been increasingly engineered to minimise that.

Concealed carry hand guns however have the single purpose of killing people.

That's the reason why in these situations we discuss getting rid of the guns, but not the cars.

Talk about the REAL problem, (idiots) not the object.

Problems are multiple, not just singular. And it's just as ignorant of you to dismiss the gun's part in a shooting as it is for the NRA, who's argument you are parroting.

Re:Cellphones during the movie was debated....

[BasilBrush]

Bleach, in large amounts, will kill you if ingested undilluted. Bleach, in minute amounts will kill things in water that would otherwise kill you.
Should we outlaw bleach too?

No. For the same reason no one is calling for car bans. You don't seem to appreciate the difference between things that have the occasional side effect of killing people, and things who's entire purpose is to kill people.

Re:Cellphones during the movie was debated....

[weilawei]

I'm asking this in all seriousness (no sarcasm intended): what about a sign asking all weapon holders to leave the premises? Are you guilty of criminal trespass ala EULA?

Re:Cellphones during the movie was debated....

[weilawei]

You'd be surprised how much damage a drunk guy on a bike crashing into something could do to a pedestrian, another cyclist, an animal, a car, etc.. Speaking as a former competitive cyclist here. Crashed into lots of stuff.

Re:Cellphones during the movie was debated....

[SolitaryMan]

No texting during movie is also not a law.

Re:Cellphones during the movie was debated....

[alanshot]

IANAL But at least in Indiana, no. simply breaking a rule like that is not grounds for immediate arrest. They may call the cops on you to have THEM tell you to leave, but the cops will absolutely NOT arrest you on the spot just for breaking a private rule. They will approach you, and during the interaction tell you that you are no longer welcome and if you dont leave immediately are subject to arrest.

I think if the owner REALLY pushes they can file a no trespass order on the spot, but that only prevents you from EVER coming back. Only if you refuse to leave or come back can you be subject to arrest.

In some states like Ohio, its codified in law that if the sign says no, you are subject to arrest. Indiana and Florida are not like that.

Good question though!

Re:Cellphones during the movie was debated....

[alanshot]

Oh, to clarify, in Ohio it must be a specific, official govt provided sign (with the actual law number), posted in a specific place (at a certain height next to EVERY entrance, etc) for it to be in force. It cant be just some stenciled letters or a "no weapons" sign you bought at an office supply store.

The same for Alabama as I recall.

Re:Cellphones during the movie was debated....

[wvmarle]

The proper question to debate is: why is it even legal to carry guns in a movie theatre? This regardless of being allowed to keep a weapon at home, or even to walk around with it on public streets.

Movie theatres tend to be private businesses. So they don't even need a law to prohibit people bringing guns on their premises, they can just put a sign at the door. No guns. It'd make me feel a lot safer going to such a theatre, than to one where the audience may join the characters on screen in a shoot-out.

Re:Cellphones during the movie was debated....

[alanshot]

Unfortunately, no law has ever stopped a crime. EVER. Laws are there to punish you after the fact, not prevent the crime.

I assume you drive. Its against the law to drive above the posted speed limit, but odds are you still do to some extent. We all do.

Schools are already gun free zones so guns are not allowed by force of law. We have a law yet there have been HOW many school shootings? Oh, yeah. Lots. One yesterday even.

You cannot, with a straight face, tell me that you think that making theaters also a gun free zone will actually prevent gun violence inside of a theater. It wont. And we already have laws on the books like assault with a deadly weapon, murder, etc to punish those that commit violent crimes with guns. So you are saying they are going to carry a gun into this GFZ ignoring asault and murder laws, but one more law that says "you cant carry it here" is going to make them say "Oooh. wait. this here sign says I cant come in with a gun. I have to turn around and go home."?

Sorry, but we already have enough laws. One more isnt going to help.

Re:Cellphones during the movie was debated....

[rhalstead]

Ever see someone die accidentally or on purpose? Some one you knew? It's an experience you'll never forget! It's an experience that will likely change your life and the way you respond to death the rest of your life. I watched an airplane crash and I was so close, I had to turn away and kneel because of the heat and I knew the guy who was in the center of that fireball. Yes, it changed me, but there was a short term response and a quite different long term response. At first, I thought I'd never want to go to another air show, but that only lasted for a day and now I'm back at it. OTOH, I view the aerobatics differently. Not with fear, but with a knowledge of what can happen. This was an accident, but a person's responses are similar to murder, including sense of loss and anger. The same thing happens to some people like was mentioned earlier. Police, first responders, Doctors, nurses, and soldiers. You develop a bit of dark humor, particularly if you want to keep your sanity. This is foreign to the average person and particularly those brought up under and in the Protective, Progressive culture in today's over protective, PC schools. Much of our survival and ability to deal with adversity comes from experiences in early life. When kids are protected from speech they might find offensive, or information on different religions, they are not prepared for real life experiences and failures. Nor are they prepared to handle/suppress their own, natural violent feelings toward actions and words that offend them. This in itself often leads to violent actions. It sounds counter intuitive, but over protection and preventing children from ideas and speech which differs from their beliefs can lead to violent behavior later in life. Look at the kid who is pleading that his parents never taught him right from wrong, yet his statements show he's learned to play the system and escape manslaughter from killing 4 people while DUI. I think they call it afluenza. See: thisisham.com/smh-rich-teen-kills-four-people-while-drunk-driving-and-receives-no-prision-time/ I have this up on a different computer so I hope I typed it correctly. If not just do a search on the topic. Those who commit these horrific crimes and the terrific media attention encourages others to seek the same kind of attention. Where the woman shot the guy planning on another attention grabbing headline put a chilling effect on those thinking along those lines. It's a crime that the media give these events, little or no attention. It seems to me like they want more horrific disasters, rather than fixing the society that rewards the Psychos with attention grabbing headlines and days, or weeks worth of publicity. Yes the story should make headlines without the perps name ever being mentioned and then the story dropped. Unfortunately the public eats these stories up and wants every detail no mater how small. Again, they are creating an atmosphere favorable to encouraging more of the same. So the readers and viewers are also guilty of encouraging some nut job to repeat the crime.

Re:Cellphones during the movie was debated....

[rhalstead]

"No Guns" areas are more prone to crime than those that allow guns. The only areas where I'd not carry, or avoid, are those such as lrgal buildings,(court house, police stationd,) or bars. Those are defined by law. Each state, or town is different so caveat emptor. I'd avoid the anti gun policies of some chains as well, but there I do not use their services either. OTOH I don't purchase Sony since the Root Kit fiasco, but thats for a different reason. I'm probably remember how Sony screwed computer user, destroyed operating systems, and only had to replace the CDs.

Re:Cellphones during the movie was debated....

[rich_hudds]

A car has a useful purpose. A handgun is designed to kill people.

Re:Cellphones during the movie was debated....

[computererds]

No mod points--so I'll just tell you, I *loved* that post.

Re:Cellphones during the movie was debated....

[computererds]

As we are currently creating that omnipresent surveillance state, that post was much more profound than I imagine you intended.

Re:Cellphones during the movie was debated....

[JustNiz]

Thank you :*)

Not "during movie"

[Anonymous Coward]

He was texting during the previews, which, unless things have gotten even worse, do not constitute "the movie". Get your headlines right.

Re:Not "during movie"

[Mr. Spock]

Good point. "The movie" represents a short period of time where you might not be able to text, which is not a real hardship.

Not allowing texting during the previews would be cruel. That can be HOURS.

Re:Not "during movie"

[michaelmalak]

He was texting during the previews

You mean before the 3D cartoon advising to turn off cell phones? Then he was not given adequate warning.

Re:Not "during movie"

[phantomfive]

I know people who like watching previews more than the actual movie, FWIW

Re:Not "during movie"

[Wookact]

youtube.com FWIW

Re:Not "during movie"

[phantomfive]

That's asinine; you can watch movies on your computer too, but there's a reason people go to the theater, it's to watch those things in the theater. If they wanted to watch them on youtube, they would have watched them at home.

Re:Not "during movie"

[AK Marc]

"After the lights went down" is "during the movie" to most. Next, you'll argue that opening credits aren't the movie, or closing credits. Or times when there is no action or dialogue.

Re:Is it bad that I instantly assumed it's in the

[jobsagoodun]

Guns don't cause shitstorms...

Re:Is it bad that I instantly assumed it's in the

[Anonymous Coward]

No regulation needed. Just arm all cinema-goers.

Texting during the *previews*

[Freedom Bug]

Note that the title is wrong -- he was shot for texting during the previews, not during the movie itself.

Re:Texting during the *previews*

[satuon]

Had it been during the movie, he would have been waterboarded as well.

Re:Texting during the *previews*

[Threni]

What's the difference? And what's the problem with texting, anyway? Assuming that the phone doesn't beep/click with every key press, or when replies turn up. Is it just the screen lighting up? Do people get shot to death for eating popcorn/snacks noisily too?

Re:Texting during the *previews*

[Rhacman]

The backlit screen in the darkened theatre is tremendously obnoxious (at least to me) by itself. That said, they could easily have resolved the situation like adults.

A: Sir, could you please turn off your cell-phone.
B: Uh, it's just the previews, relax.
A: I know, but I find the light irritating.
B: Fine.
-or-
B: I'm texting my kid, just give me a sec.
At which point A drops the matter and calmly summons a theatre employee if it continues into the feature.

Heck, even behaving like obstinate hormone-fueled adolescents and beating the crap out of each other would be better than what actually transpired.

Re:Texting during the *previews*

[BasilBrush]

At which point A drops the matter and calmly summons a theatre employee if it continues into the feature.

It had already proceeded beyond this point. The shooter had already been out to summon the manager - apparently to no effect.

Re:Is it bad that I instantly assumed it's in the

[Irate Engineer]

People cause shitstorms.

The man was not shot for texting

[unimacs]

He was shot as result of an altercation that started over his use of a cellphone.

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.

Re:The man was not shot for texting

[mjr167]

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? But because he used a gun, guns are evil?

People get shot and live. People also get punched in the face and die. The underlying problem is a trivial argument escalating to violence due to the inability of an individual to control their temper.

The shooter left the room (supposedly to get a manager) and then came back and shot another man when he couldn't find a manager. WTF? Why can't we just leave other people alone?

Re:The man was not shot for texting

[Anonymous Coward]

The shooter was over 70 and a retired police captain. I seriously doubt he panicked. I also seriously doubt this was his first time responding with too much violence. It is just the first time he got caught doing it.

Re:The man was not shot for texting

[dkleinsc]

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:The man was not shot for texting

[FilmedInNoir]

> People who think concealed carry should be gotten rid of just makes them targets for violent crime.
So people go around shooting people that support gun control? Ohhhhh America! HA HA HA HA *shakes head*

Re:The man was not shot for texting

[unimacs]

Was there even a physical fight? All I've heard is that words were exchanged and popcorn was thrown. The thing is that there are lots of possible outcomes here that don't involve anybody getting killed or even beaten up. But now we have a dead man, a widow, at least one kid without a father, and an ex policeman facing the rest of his life in jail.

Re:The man was not shot for texting

[vux984]

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.

Re:The man was not shot for texting

[nitehawk214]

Exactly, this is premeditation. That is what makes this murder and not manslaughter.

Re:The man was not shot for texting

[Frosty Piss]

All I've heard is that words were exchanged and popcorn was thrown.

Someone could have lost an eye, fella...

Re:The man was not shot for texting

[FilmedInNoir]

There used to be tons of stories of elderly men being beaten to death in Florida all the time, usually for the cash in their wallets. Doesn't happen anymore when they started shooting back.

Not sure why you hate elderly people so much. Maybe you are one of the people who likes to beat them to death for a couple of dollars.

http://www.city-data.com/crime/crime-Orlando-Florida.html .... I think the law(s) you are talking about are Castle Doctrine (signed into law 2005).
And what you've said is completely wrong of course since the number of murders and robberies went up with Castle Doctrine.
My guess is you're either a gun seller or you're a lunatic that is planning a school shooting.
Now... Describe in single words only the good things that come into your mind about... your mother.

Re:The man was not shot for texting

[nedlohs]

And you have a reference for that right?

Or did you just make shit up?

Re:The man was not shot for texting

[gnasher719]

I don't see how the alternative - a 43 year old guy beating down a 71 year old man - would be better or less life threatening than the shot that was fired.

There is no indication whatsoever that the 43 year old was hitting or beating the older man, or was threatening to hit or beat him. They were in different rows of the theatre, which makes hitting someone a bit harder, and either there were plenty of people around who could have intervened if there was a fist fight, or the killer should have found a place away from the victim.

So yes, I can very much see how the alternative - probably nothing happening - would have been a lot better.

Re:The man was not shot for texting

[Bill_the_Engineer]

"The two men began to argue and Reeves walked out of the theater. Police said Reeves was going to complain to a theater employee, according to the police report. When Reeves returned, witnesses and authorities said that Oulson asked him if he had gone to tell on him for texting. Oulson reportedly said, in effect: I was just sending a message to my young daughter. Charles Cumming and his adult son were two seats away. Cummings said that when Reeves returned to the theater, he didn't return with a manager. "He came back very irritated," Cummings recalled. Voices were raised. Oulson threw a bag of popcorn at Reeves, according to a police report, and then the former Tampa Police Department officer took out a .380 semi-automatic handgun and shot Oulson."

-- CNN

The shooter was able to leave, come back, engage in another argument, and shot a man for throwing popcorn.

Re:The man was not shot for texting

[LF11]

When did you develop such an anti-gun position?

Re:The man was not shot for texting

[unimacs]

If you're being attacked which is far more likely to be lethal? Fist, knife, or gun?

Personally I'd much rather face or try to escape from somebody punching me or attacking me with a knife than a gun.

Lots of fights and arguments start over trivial stuff. People needlessly get hurt and when there's a gun involved it's often more than just hurt.

If you can guarantee that someone carrying a gun is always going to act responsibly then these things wouldn't happen. But that's the problem. If people always acted responsibly no one would feel the need to carry a gun in the first place. The fact is that the best people can do horrible things and/or make extremely bad decisions under the right (or wrong) combination of circumstances.

Re:The man was not shot for texting

[AthanasiusKircher]

"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?"

Better call Hugh Jackman, or Hugh Grant, or maybe even Hugh Hefner when those pesky religious guys with the flowers come around.

After all, only Hugh can prevent florist friars.

Re:The man was not shot for texting

[GameboyRMH]

If I have to choose between getting into a brawl with an old man and being shot by him, well let me roll up my sleeves...

Re:The man was not shot for texting

[nedlohs]

Because it's impossible that he only thought his life was endangered after he returned and the other guy started yelling and throwing stuff at him? He was supposed to use a crystal ball to see into the future I suppose?

And of course your original wording of "had to leave" has a larger implication that I'm sure you'll ignore

Re:The man was not shot for texting

[Uberbah]

1) Don't text in the mother f'in theater.

Even during the motherfucking previews? I'm as ready as the next guy to dump a jerks cell phone into their soda during the movie, but during the ads who cares?

Re:The man was not shot for texting

[weilawei]

Wow, that was bad. In a good way. But truly awful.

Re:The man was not shot for texting

[mjr167]

If I'm being attacked which am I more likely to be able to defend myself with? Fist, knife, or gun?

You make the assumption that it is possible to proclaim "Guns are now illegal! Thou Shalt Not Own Guns!" and then everyone would hand them over and stop making them. We have empirical evidence that declaring something illegal does not magically make the item disappear. Look at drugs, alcohol, prostitution, exotic pets.

Life is not guaranteed. You cannot guarantee that when you walk out your door a texting/drunk teen isn't going to run you over. We cannot guarantee that a gang of bikers won't run you off the road, pull you out of your car, and then beat you. And we cannot guarantee that the ex-cop sitting behind you in the movie theater isn't going to snap and shoot you. You cannot regulate your way into safety. If you really want to start talking about lowering the body count, lets start with banning cars. Cars kill more people than guns (in the U.S.). Otherwise lets talk about punitive measures and why this guy snapped. Why did he think that violence was the right choice? This is not a simple problem with a simple answer. Life is complicated and will always be complicated.

Re:The man was not shot for texting

[unimacs]

"If I'm being attacked which am I more likely to be able to defend myself with? Fist, knife, or gun?"

My point was that the use of some weapons is more likely to result in a death than the use of others, - and apparently you agree.

As to your question, a gun is not the best weapon in all circumstances and there are plenty of situations where the use of one is simply not justified. Though I have to admit they appear to be quite effective in fending off popcorn attacks.

I'm not proposing that we make ALL guns illegal, but they should be much more regulated than they are and if you think about it, there are plenty of examples of regulations that do in fact make society safer. If you can't see that, then there is no point in discussing this.

And since you're asking, I believe the over dependence on the automobile for transportation in this country has a lot of downsides including the number of people that die while using one. However, I don't think the fact that a large number of people die from automobile accidents means that we should stop trying to reduce the number of gun related deaths any more than I think we should stop trying to eradicate polio.

Re:The man was not shot for texting

[unimacs]

Oh and I should mention there is a point you make with which I agree. A gun is only an instrument and we shouldn't assume that simply banning them will eliminate all kinds of problems. WTF makes a kid walk into a school or theater and kill a bunch of other kids and some adults along with them? Yes, guns were used and if the perpetrator didn't have easy access to them, maybe it wouldn't have happened.

However, that fact that a kid even wants to do it is the bigger problem. It's clearly a mental health issue but I think there is something in our culture that is a contributing factor.

Re:The man was not shot for texting

[Greyfox]

That's how the stand your ground law works. You start some shit with a dude, goad him to throw a punch, then you can legally murder him in cold blood. My money would be on the jury acquitting. In states that have it, you can hunt people for sport as long as you stick to this simple formula. Enjoy.

Re:The man was not shot for texting

[gatfirls]

The "shooter" did exactly what a person should. Asked the guy to put it away (repeatedly) and then went to get an employee, when he came back the texter escalated the situation and it is completely unclear at this point what happened next; "someone" threw popcorn and that's the last detail we have aside from the wives hands being in the path of the bullet which could indicate she was trying to restrain the texter. We have no indication if there was/wasn't a physical assault involved.

Re:The man was not shot for texting

[tlambert]

I don't see how the alternative - a 43 year old guy beating down a 71 year old man - would be better or less life threatening than the shot that was fired.

There is no indication whatsoever that the 43 year old was hitting or beating the older man, or was threatening to hit or beat him. They were in different rows of the theatre, which makes hitting someone a bit harder, and either there were plenty of people around who could have intervened if there was a fist fight, or the killer should have found a place away from the victim.

They were in adjacent rows, with the retired officer seated behind the person in question. I've seen enough fights in theaters that it's obvious to me that a seat-back isn't an impediment to giving someone a beat-down.

While it's not conclusive, the fact that the shot went through the wives hand and into the texters chest indicates her hand was on his chest, which as other posters here have noted (why are there so many damn ACs in this topic?) is highly suggestive of an attempt on her part to restrain her husband from getting involved in a physical altercation. If this was the intent of the hand being in the way of the bullet, then it's indicative that the husband has been involved in altercations where his wife was present in the past.

Bottom line is that we don't know, but that circumstantial evidence argues strongly for at least two instances of assault, and one instance of battery using a non-lethal weapon (the popcorn) against the ex-cop by the texter, prior to the gun coming into play.

On the other side of things, the currently contemplated charge of second degree murder against the ex-cop indicates that the weapon was brandished prior to its use; ye this also argues that the shooting occurred following additional escalation after the weapon was brandished.

I expect we will find out during or after the trial, depending on how public the proceedings end up being.

Re:The man was not shot for texting

[chuckugly]

Are you suggesting the face-punch fatality rate is on par with the firearms fatality rate?

Well more people are murdered with clubs than "assault weapons" every year, if that helps.

Re:The man was not shot for texting

[AK Marc]

So you want to train everyone to do what violent pricks tell them to do? The shooter went to the manager to report an incident and ask for help dealing with it. The manager refused to enforce written theater policy. I hope the theater is sued for billions. When the shooter returned to his seat to watch the movie, the texter attacked him with projectiles. The shooter returned the favor. The texter started the fight. The texter was the one that caused the scene. And you want to reward them for violently breaching the theater rules by having everyone in the theater apologize to him for asking him to be polite?

WTF, can't the texters learn some politeness and personal responsibility?

Re:The man was not shot for texting

[AK Marc]

The "physical fight" was the wife assaulting the texter to restrain him as he indicated a willingness to fight. The wife was shot in the hand, holding him back. That indicates that the texter died trying to assault someone else, who, being an old man, may have been legitimately in fear of his life. At least more than Zimmerman was. And Zimmerman argued (And won) that following someone you believe to be dangerous is OK, and in no way changes the right to respond to a threat with deadly force.

Re:The man was not shot for texting

[AK Marc]

There is no indication whatsoever that the 43 year old was hitting or beating the older man, or was threatening to hit or beat him.

The wife of the texter was shot through the hand. She was holding her husband back, indicating that he was trying to physically engage the shooter, othewise, why bother to hold him back?

Re:The man was not shot for texting

[AK Marc]

The shooter left the argument, returned after the arguement ended, and the texter started a new argument about whether the shooter tattled on him. The texter assaulted the shooter, and was being held back by his wife, or he'd have (presumably) assaulted the shooter further. The shooter, in fear of a (possibly lethal) assault, defended himself.

Had the theater manager returned with the shooter, this wouldn't have happened. I hope the theater is sued for billions.

Re:The man was not shot for texting

[gmhowell]

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? But because he used a gun, guns are evil?

Well, a lot of people argued that it was ok for Trayvon Martin to beat the shit out of George Zimmerman for a perceived homosexual advance, but were against the latter shooting the former in defense.

Re:The man was not shot for texting

[wvmarle]

Don't forget a cinema hall worth of possibly traumatised, or at least psychologically hurt, people. Witnessing an acted out fire fight on a movie screen is quite different than witnessing someone being shot dead next to you, and knowing that this bullet could have taken a slightly different trajectory and go through your own head instead.

Re:The man was not shot for texting

[mjr167]

Unfortunately, it is often hard to know that someone is going to start shooting random people before they do it. We have laws that say that criminals can't buy guns. People involved in domestic disputes can't have guns. Mentally ill people can't have guns.

In this instance everyone who knows the shooter is apparently surprised he would do something like this.

Part of the cultural problem is that we treat other people like crap. We do not respect strangers and are instead afraid of them. We believe that we are entitled to whatever experience we paid for and if you have the bad manners to disrupt it in any way then we can be belligerent and hostile and possibly shoot you. Everything is zero-tolerance and all the rules are absolutes.

I was at the aquarium the other day and it was insanely crowded. There were adults standing right in front of the exhibits taking photo after photo after photo and often videos with their cell phones while a crowd of small children clamored behind them trying to get close enough to see. It was so bad you had to wait 5 to 10 minutes at a lot of the exhibits. The polite thing to do would have been to take a picture or two (not 20) and move along so the kids who were too short to see from anywhere except right up front could get a turn. But we do not think of others. We only think of ourselves.

Re:The man was not shot for texting

[Reziac]

I seem to recall the assault weapons murder rate is exactly zero... what's the murder-by-blunt-instrument rate, do you know offhand?

Re:The man was not shot for texting

[cavebison]

The underlying problem is a trivial argument escalating to violence due to the inability of an individual to control their temper.

Bullshit. If someone didn't get murdered, then you can say "the underlying problem is escalation to violence".

The underlying problem here is that it was *easy to kill someone out of anger*.

People get angry all the time. Fights happen all the time. The problem is it's too easy to completely end someone's life by getting mad.

Re:The man was not shot for texting

[Reziac]

But the numbers you link to don't really show that. What they do show is a slight spike over the next year or so, followed by a considerable drop across all types of crime.

Re:The man was not shot for texting

[vux984]

Well more people are murdered with clubs than "assault weapons" every year, if that helps.

Not really. "clubs" is even more poorly defined than "assault weapons". If your head gets crushed by an APC UPS is that counted as a murder by 'club'?

Re:The man was not shot for texting

[tangle001]

Lately observing in the news evidence that a subset of us are watching and waiting for the day when they think they have excuse to shoot/kill someone grievously, it's apparent it's for a for a life-long want. And a subset of that subset chooses victims they think society disapproves of as a method of concealing their true motive. Suggest we discourage this type of thinking.

Re:The man was not shot for texting

[mjr167]

When I get angry at someone, I don't go and burn their house down or pull a gun on them or run them over with my car or even punch them in the face. What's wrong with you that you are afraid you might? What's wrong with you that you consider expressing your anger violently ok? Every second people get pissed off for one reason or another. The vast majority of people do not resort to violence. If you not resort to violence over stupid bullshit, then you don't have to worry about 'accidentally' murdering someone in the heat of the moment.

Re:The man was not shot for texting

[chuckugly]

Not really. The FBI does lump hammers and clubs together but I don't see that as an issue, they also lump assault weapons in with all long guns.

Re:The man was not shot for texting

[vux984]

The FBI does lump hammers and clubs together but I don't see that as an issue

Is that all they lump in? I know what a hammer is, but I'm still not clear on the boundary for "club". Police batons I suppose are modern day club weapons but what else is being counted?

Presumably baseball bats, cricket bats, croquet mallets, and golf clubs, are all clubs. But what about shovels? pipes? wrenches? Trophies?

What about bricks? or rocks? Vases? Beer steins? Bottles? Marble rolling pins? What if someone brains you with a heavy metal desk stapler?

Even "assault weapons" as poorly defined as it is is still somewhat limited at least to something recognizable as firearms / weapons. A ban on "clubs" is what exactly? A ban on on all "blunt heavy things"?

Re:The man was not shot for texting

[chuckugly]

Assault weapon is always a semi-automatic rifle, at least, and all rifles are lumped together as they are not a popular murder implement as a class. Clubs are under "Blunt objects (Hammers, Clubs, etc.)" and account for more than rifles .... here .... http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8

Re:The man was not shot for texting

[vux984]

So then, yeah, if you get brained with a stapler, that's probably going in as a "blunt object"; since the class of murder weapons "clubs" and "hammers" fall into is actually "blunt objects".

Re:The man was not shot for texting

[chuckugly]

We clearly need stricter stapler control legislation then.

Dead

[Hypotensive]

In English: shot dead. "Shot to death" implies a long and lingering shooting, with many small bullets that cause you to gradually lose your grasp on life.

Re:Dead

[GungaDan]

Congratulations! You win the award for most incorrect obnoxious pedantry of the day. "Shot to death" is a perfectly acceptable phrasing.

Re:Dead

[Anonymous Coward]

"Shot to death" is another (technically incorrect) way of saying "Shot until death" which suggests multiple shots were made until the person died. As a result it strongly implies intent to kill.

The OP might be a obnoxious pedant but they're certainly not incorrect.

Re:Dead

[Jamu]

The phrase is simply used to make the story more exciting. Same with "stabbed to death".

Re:Dead

[Thanshin]

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.

Re:Dead

[Maritz]

And yet you don't see "stabbed dead". Shame; something ought to be done about that.

Re:Dead

[hondo77]

No. "Shot to death" lets you know that the victim was not just "shot". Got it?

He stood his ground

[swm]

Or maybe they both stood their ground.
Or something.

And this is what we want, right?
Half the country in the morgue, and the other half in prison, because, because...stand your ground!
Or something...

Re:He stood his ground

[sycodon]

Your agenda is showing...

Re:He stood his ground

[LordLimecat]

Stand your ground has only been an issue in the media. It has not been an important factor in any recent case as far as the law was concerned. Im pretty sure stand your ground has also not resulted in anyone going to prison.

Dont let that stop your irrelevant rant though.

Re:He stood his ground

[Maritz]

It will be interesting to see how the shooter gets off with it though - I see mention in the article of popcorn being 'thrown' - I expect this could be twisted to the ex-cop "defending" himself. I mean there could've been anything in that popcorn, right?

Re:He stood his ground

[rhazz]

I don't think it is actual application of the law that is the perceived issue. The fact that it exists and is widely known (though maybe not by its technical definitions) could conceivably lead people to use lethal force in a situation that they otherwise would not have, thinking that the Stand Your Ground law somehow applies and allows for the action. But, I am not an American nor do I know much about the law beyond what is in the media.

Re:He stood his ground

[TangoMargarine]

So we're not allowed to have agendas now?

Re:A Message

[an00bis]

So says the guy that doesn't even have enough balls to post under his username on an internet site.

Re:A Message

[stealth_finger]

What, that if we do something you don't like you'll shoot us? Well, what ever you do, don't feed the pigeons.

The summary is wrong.

[Bill_the_Engineer]

Of course the summary is wrong and the trolls are already celebrating the shooter.

1) The texter was not young.

2) The movie had not started. It was during the previews.

3) If you read the actual news story you'd learn that the texter was not sending a text at the time of the shooting. In fact the texter told the shooter that he was texting his daughter to check on her before the movie started. The shooter got his feelings hurt and walked out of the theater, got his gun and returned to murder the man and injure his wife who was standing next to him.

Re:The summary is wrong.

[Anonymous Coward]

And the shooter was a former Police CAPTAIN, someone with a great deal of authority over other Officers when he was still working. There's clearly something deeply wrong with police culture.

Re:The summary is wrong.

[tlambert]

3) If you read the actual news story you'd learn that the texter was not sending a text at the time of the shooting. In fact the texter told the shooter that he was texting his daughter to check on her before the movie started. The shooter got his feelings hurt and walked out of the theater, got his gun and returned to murder the man and injure his wife who was standing next to him.

According to CNN, the 71 year old had the gun in his possession the whole time, had left to tell the theater management, the guy got pissed off for having been told on, the pissed off guy got physical with the 71 year old man by assaulting him by throwing popcorn, and was being physically restrained by his wife's hand on his chest when the 71 year old shot him (through the wife's hand; there was only a single shot).

If you are 71 years old under the threat of physical violence from a 43 year old, it's reasonable to fear for your life.

Re:The summary is wrong.

[Anonymous Coward]

Being "assaulted" with popcorn is not cause for homicide.

Re:The summary is wrong.

[Obfuscant]

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.

[Anonymous Coward]

Throwing popcorn is battery with a weapon (not a deadly one). Assault is placing one in fear of one's life. So, he may very well have committed A&B. Even police procedure doesn't allow for escalation to deadly force without the suspect escalating to that level first. It is not reasonable to believe that he feared for his life, because he was able to safely remove himself from the situation first. At worst, the texter committed battery with a (non-deadly) weapon. The murderer responded by committing assault and battery with a deadly weapon on both the texter and his wife.

Re:The summary is wrong.

[Threni]

Fear for his life? Why, was he worried that the argument he'd just constructed out of nothing might potentially escalate into something he couldn't handle without murdering someone?

Re:The summary is wrong.

[evilviper]

the pissed off guy got physical with the 71 year old man by assaulting him by throwing popcorn, and was being physically restrained by his wife's hand on his chest when the 71 year old shot him (through the wife's hand; there was only a single shot).

If you are 71 years old under the threat of physical violence from a 43 year old, it's reasonable to fear for your life.

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.

Re:The summary is wrong.

[FuzzNugget]

assaulting him by throwing popcorn

Oh god, my sides.

Seriously, anyone who responds to "having popcorn thrown at them" by discharging a firearm at the "thrower" is a violent psychopath.

Re:The summary is wrong.

[Libertarian001]

He may have had his gun on him the entire time, but the notion that he would have had to pay again to get back in is idiotic. Have you not ever been to a theater? There's a mechanism in place, evidence, if you will, that proves that a legal transaction took place. See, you give them money, and they give you a receipt. Theater receipts are really cool because they even tell you which which movie, which screen, and which time you've paid for.

Re:The summary is wrong.

[hondo77]

Actually, throwing the popcorn was assault and probably battery (IANAL but was a juror in an assault and battery trial). Obviously, it should not have resulted in deadly force being used in response.

Re:The summary is wrong.

[Obfuscant]

Have you not ever been to a theater?

Yes, I've been to a theater. I go in, they RIP the ticket (old style) or scan it to record the fact I've already come in. In either case, the ticket has been used. Does the theater you go to let people in who have just the stub left, or a ticket that has been scanned already? Wow. One ticket could get a dozen people into the theater. Just keep passing it back out to let the next person come in.

At sporting events the ticket stub doesn't get me back in, it takes a stamp on the way out.

In any case, this changes nothing about the events. He didn't go out to his car to get his gun, he went to find a manager.

Re:The summary is wrong.

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it is not. 'Stand your ground' doesn't change the thresholds for when defensive deadly force is allowed. It simply means that you are not required to attempt to *flee* before resorting to defensive deadly force.

Read the laws. Know the laws.

Re:The summary is wrong.

[gnasher719]

Actually, throwing the popcorn was assault and probably battery

100 percent proof that Americans are the biggest wimps in the universe.

Re:The summary is wrong.

[ScentCone]

I said that a career cop is familiar with what a getting-violent person looks like. If you're not allowed to defend yourself until someone thirty years younger than you has already put a beating on you, then it's possible you won't live through the occasion. I didn't say the shooting was justified, because I wasn't there to gauge whether or not the younger guy's body language, voice, actions, and everything else might have added up to the old man fearing for his safety. But the younger guy's wife obviously felt the need to stop her husband from what he was doing. That's all we know, because that's what people there said they saw, and her hand was out to restrain him.

Who said you can shoot someone because you're mad at them? Are you allowed to beat someone because you're mad at them? No? Then are you allowed to stop someone from beating you if they appear about to beat you because they're mad at you? No? So, what, you just have to take it if someone wants to beat you? I don't know what the old man perceived, but self defense doesn't only apply when you're in the middle of actually receiving a beating, it also applies if you think you're about to receive one. No, someone doesn't have to actually land a punch in your face before you can defend yourself. Because sometimes one punch - especially from an angry 40-something into the face of a 70-something - can be lethal. So until witnesses can characterize what they thought the younger guy was about to do, and why his wife was trying to restrain him, it's conjecture. But so is you saying that the old man shot the guy because he was mad at him.

Re:The summary is wrong.

[dcollins]

"Throwing popcorn is NOT assault"

Morally no. But legally yes: in fact, assault is just any reasonable threat. People have been charged with assault for throwing french fries ("hot and oily", sounds like popcorn) on someone.

http://www.wisegeek.org/what-are-the-differences-between-assault-and-battery.htm
http://global.christianpost.com/news/james-hackett-fries-arrest-faces-assault-for-throwing-food-at-stepdaughter-77333/

Re:The summary is wrong.

[Belial6]

Shooting the guy over thrown popcorn doesn't warrant deadly force, but the popcorn throwing most certainly was assault.

Re:The summary is wrong.

[Uberbah]

He already went to try to get help from the theater management, and got none.

And went back to the same seat after making scene over texting during not the movie, but the previews before the movie. So it looks like you're just supporting the guy with the gun, BullshitCone.

Re:The summary is wrong.

[Darinbob]

Another article says the shooter felt something hit him on the face, though it's not stated what that was. I suspect the texter threw the phone at him or slapped him. Not deserving of getting shot though, that's still beyond the pale. The shooter was also 6 foot 1 and 270 lbs, so not a frail old man being bullied either.

Re:The summary is wrong.

[shentino]

Indeed, at worst it was a salt and buttery.

Re:The summary is wrong.

[tlambert]

That doesn't excuse shooting someone *before* they commit a crime.

Technically, the texter was guilty of assault the moment he wound up to throw the popcorn, and, according to the letter of Florida law, guilty of third degree felony battery when the popcorn hit the ex-cop. This is punishable by up to five years in the state prison system.

They have to actually *do* something violent. Throwing popcorn doesn't qualify under any criteria unless you're a complete psycopath.

It qualifies under Florida law; in most other states, it would be considered a misdemeanor, punishable by up to 1 year in a county jail, unless it was a second offense, at which point it would be a third or second degree felony, depending on whether there was intent to do bodily harm. I'm assuming third degree, non-aggravated battery in my previous statement that the intent was not to blind or otherwise permanently injure the ex-cop, and that the popcorn was just being thrown out of spite because the guy was being a petulant asshole about having been reported to theater management.

Re:The summary is wrong.

[tlambert]

No, it was neither. Depending on the state, it MIGHT be battery, but it would not be assault.

Battery is an unlawful use of force or violence on a person. Some states define force as any kind of touching that is unwanted, so you might be on the hook there, but only if he actually got hit by the popcorn and doesn't live in a state where "force" actually means something. Assault is attempting to cause harm or intentionally creating the fear of harm. Throwing popcorn is a pretty surefire sign that someone is NOT trying to cause you physical harm.

It's harassment, but it's not assault, and it's probably not battery.

Misdemeanor battery in Florida: Florida Statute 784.03
Third degree felony battery in Florida: Florida Statute 784.041

If there was a prior threat, implied or perceived, but no intent to cause physical harm in the popcorn throwing itself, it's up to 5 years in a state penitentiary. Otherwise, it's up to 1 year in the county jail.

Don't throw things at people in Florida.

Re:The summary is wrong.

[MrKaos]

Throwing popcorn is NOT assault,

Well it actually is.

and certainly doesn't warrant deadly force.

Only if the popcorn was thrown with such force that it cause mortal injury could it be considered deadly, lethal, popcorn. But it was probably thrown to say "hey, your being a dick, here is a ridiculously harmless act of assault".

It would seem that America is a place where dicks can shoot you with bullets.

Re:The summary is wrong.

[breeze95]

the pissed off guy got physical with the 71 year old man by assaulting him by throwing popcorn, and was being physically restrained by his wife's hand on his chest when the 71 year old shot him (through the wife's hand; there was only a single shot).

If you are 71 years old under the threat of physical violence from a 43 year old, it's reasonable to fear for your life.

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.

That is not true. Throwing popcorn is assault, and it can be the beginning of more aggressive behavior. Maybe the victim's body language, after he threw the popcorn, suggested that he was about to escalate the altercation into full blown violence. In that case, the shooter fear for his safety is warranted. None of us know for sure. We will have to wait on the trial for all the facts to come out. It's sad for someone to lose their life like this. I think they were both hot heads especially the victim.

Re:The summary is wrong.

[AK Marc]

Throwing popcorn is NOT assault,

Striking someone with something is assault, even if the item is feathers or popcorn.

Re:The summary is wrong.

[AK Marc]

If there is physical contact, it is NOT assault.

If there is physical contact, it is NOT assault? Then what is assault?

Re:The summary is wrong.

[AK Marc]

It is assault (for throwing it) and battery (for hitting him). It is assault. That it is also battery doesn't cancel the assault. Your legal definition is using an exclusivity that the law doesn't actually use. All battery is assault. There is no "move on" to battery, but "also includes" battery.

Re:The summary is wrong.

[shutdown -p now]

He is an ex-cop, not a fortune teller or a mind reader. "My years of experience led me to believe that this guy could become dangerously violent shortly" is not a justifiable cause for using lethal force.

Re:The summary is wrong.

[ScentCone]

"My years of experience led me to believe that this guy could become dangerously violent shortly" is not a justifiable cause for using lethal force.

I doubt you'll find anyone disagreeing with that. The question is whether someone is perceived as being in the moment in the process of becoming violent. It's the difference between fearing for your safety and perceiving a threat that such a condition might shortly exist. You'd probably know when you're dealing with someone who looks like he's boiling over and could become violent. And you'd probably also know, just watching someone's face, when the boiling over has occurred, and he's about to lunge or swing at you. It's possible that when a guy's wife reaches out to block her husband's movement (as happened in this case) the older guy's ongoing calculus about feeling threatened changed. Who knows. It's going to be all about witness testimony as to whether his fears could have been real. Sounds like two people who could have been a lot less dickish and less inclined to ramp things up, that's for sure.

Re:The summary is wrong.

[ScentCone]

So it looks like you're just supporting the guy with the gun

No, I'm questioning what "in a movie theater" has to do with anything. Either he was fearing for his safety or he wasn't. The location really doesn't have anything to do with it. Whether he completely misjudged the other guy's actions or not has nothing to do with the venue.

Re:The summary is wrong.

[ScentCone]

No, that's fact.

It's a fact that he shot the guy because he was mad at him? How do you know this fact?

speculating that it may have been self-defense is just outright fantasy

No, speculating that he decided to shoot the guy because he was mad at him is outright fantasy. But the fact that he was a well respected career cop means that he spent decades evaluating other people's body language and actions. Whether or not he mis-judged in this case, you pretending that the only thought process going on was "I'm mad at him about texting, so I think I'll shoot him" is pure fantasy on your part. You can't have it both ways.

Re:The summary is wrong.

[ScentCone]

So every act of self defense involves the defending person being mad at the person that's attacking them? That's your best means by which to describe it?

Being mad at someone for doing something, and then defending yourself from a different act by that person are two different things. Your strange need to conflate them suggests some seriously childish thinking, and pretends that the other party has no role in what plays out during a violent conflict. You don't know what the younger guy did (other than that his wife thought it important to try to stop him), so instead you're fabricating.

Re:The summary is wrong.

[AK Marc]

Battery may include the elements of assault, but if you are convicted of battery, you cannot be convicted of assault on the same actions.

Perhaps it's pedants like you, but the charge is often "assault and battery" so you move from assault to assault with battery.

How can you batter someone without assaulting them?

Re:The summary is wrong.

[AK Marc]

Texas Penal code. Sec. 22.01. ASSAULT. (a) A person commits an offense if the person:[...] (3) intentionally or knowingly causes physical contact with another when the person knows or should reasonably believe that the other will regard the contact as offensive or provocative.

Actual law proves you wrong. Argue all you want. Hitting someone is assault, at least in Texas, where I grew up and read the law daily for years. Feel free to quote a law, but your (wrong) opinion cited as fact is worthless.

Re:The summary is wrong.

[ScentCone]

No, it does not. However, this shooting was the result of a heated argument

No, it happened in the course of a heated argument, and from what's been reported, as the younger guy ratcheted things up as his own wife went to hold him back. Those are things we know. You seem to have special inside knowledge allowing you to come to conclusions that nobody else has said. Were you there?

This is not a presumption of innocence situation--it is undisputed that he shot this man and it resulted in his death.

You should use the preview feature as it's intended, so that you can actually read the things you write before you submit.

We always presume innocence (despite your obvious preference for trial by Reddit, or whatever), and all sorts of people employ force in a conflict, as self defense, and are subsequently found to be entirely innocent. That you see self defense and innocence to be mutually exclusive is truly strange. I hope you never get called to jury duty, and especially hope that if you have to physically defend yourself from someone violent that you don't feel you then have to kill yourself for having been guilty by default.

AFTER THE GUN WAS DRAWN

Ah, so you WERE there! So you know that she wasn't trying to stop her husband's next action, seeing as she did that it would be a very bad idea to further escalate the argument with an assault on the old guy. Glad you have that all figured out, what with the wealth of secret details you have, freeing you from that pesky presumption of innocence thing.

Definitely find a way out of jury duty, please.

Re:It's about time!

[Alomex]

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: It's about time!

[Anonymous Coward]

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:A Message

[fisted]

So says the guy that doesn't even have enough balls to post anonymously on an internet site.

  -anonymous

By a cop...let's not forget that fact

[PortHaven]

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

[bugs2squash]

This was the poster child "good guy with a gun". Clearly we need to get more guns into the hands of bad guys to prevent these senseless tragedies.

Re:By a cop...let's not forget that fact

[Anonymous Coward]

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:By a cop...let's not forget that fact

[Em Adespoton]

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.

To be fair, background checks aren't run against active or retired officers because they've already had a more extensive background check and active monitoring for a sizeable portion of their life. They have also supposedly had far superior training in how to use a firearm as well as training in how to handle stressful situations.

But the fact that they're exempt from evaluation boggles the mind... retired officers are more likely than the average person to suffer from PTSD and various other stress-related issues that may not show up for years after they've left active duty.

Re:By a cop...let's not forget that fact

[PortHaven]

Actually Concealed Carry Holders have a way better record than law enforcement officers. Far less likely to commit crimes btw.

Re:By a cop...let's not forget that fact

[Anonymous Coward]

My father is almost 80 and retired special agent for a Federal law enforcement organization. He still carries a gun most places along with his federal ID / badge stamped ‘retired’ across the front. It is a complete 'get out of jail free' card. Spending your life in law enforcement absolutely changes the way you view the world - as well as tending to make you an 'alpha type'. That never diminishes, even after decades of retirement. (Federal mandated retirement was 55 when he was there). Because of his alpha personality and tendencies to watch people and their behavior, sometimes he gets bothered by regular local cops. It has always amazed me how they immediately back off and virtually worship him, or rather the Fed status. His badge/ID , even though retired, is a globally accepted ‘permit to carry’. He does not need to get local / State weapons permits. He was a marine and carried a top secret clearance. Guns are just part of his life, like computers are to mine (as a techie) that’s the best way I can describe it.

Re:By a cop...let's not forget that fact

[Windwraith]

Oh, please. Everybody knows that all the good officers die on duty a few days before retirement.
Only bad and/or corrupt cops outlive those fatal few days, and shape the system accordingly.

Re:By a cop...let's not forget that fact

[HiThere]

I think what you're missing is that destruction is a lot easier than creation. So the damage that one armed corrupt cop can do will not be undone by the work of a hundred honest cops.

Unfortunately, the culture of the police is such that the "honest" cops defend the corrupt ones. Which, effectively, means that there are no honest cops. (There are a few exceptions, but remarkably few. If a police department is to be cleansed of malefactors, the action must almost always come from outside.)

Re:By a cop...let's not forget that fact

[MacAndrew]

I don't think "good guy with a gun" was ever really defined, and regardless the NRA has opposed virtually any kind of restriction on gun sales—like the gun show loophole—so it is quite hard to believe they consider the good guy part any of their business or the government. Maybe they mean good guy as determined after the fact of the shooting, which it is true would be 100% accurate and 100% useless in making anyone safer. No, "good guy" is just more cynical crap from one of America's richest lobby groups.

Re:By a cop...let's not forget that fact

[nwaack]

I don't respectfully disagree...I wholeheartedly disagree and think you are a moron. The very fact that this guy felt that it was okay to shoot someone adds him to the long list of mentally unstable d-bags that shoot up schools, movie theaters and naval yards, regardless of if it was legal for him to have the gun there or not. A "good guy with a gun" wouldn't even entertain the thought of shooting someone else for such a reason.

Re:By a cop...let's not forget that fact

[AK Marc]

When you remove "beating their wives" from the list, are cops still more likely to commit crimes?

Re:By a cop...let's not forget that fact

[myth24601]

Not sure what the record of retired cops vs. CCW holders is but one thing to say in defense of the regular cops is that they are much more likely to be put into potentially violent situations while the CCW holders are probably just doing their daily thing and mostly avoiding confrontations.

That said, there is a problem with Police abusing their authority which is why we need to start making every COP wear cameras that record their whole shift every day.

Re:By a cop...let's not forget that fact

[myth24601]

This is a good point. The ex-COP was 71 which means he retired years ago. One story I read said he retired 20 years ago which makes sense, many departments let police retire at 30 years or less so him retiring in his early 50s is no surprise if he started when he was in his early 20s.

So it has been 20 years since he was required to have any kind of evaluation that a typical citizen goes through with a CCW renewal.

Re:By a cop...let's not forget that fact

[computererds]

And not just firearm related crimes. Civilian CPL holders are less likely to commit crimes in general according to the data I have been so far able to collect. (Crimes that could get jail time, not crimes that get fines.)

Re:Sounds like a case of senile agitation

[Wuhao]

Well, I mean, if he shot him in the leg or something, he'd just be screaming through the whole movie.

Re:Remember

[PortHaven]

And this was flagged down...why?

The guy was a retired cop

[daninaustin]

Even in NYC, retired cops can get a license to carry.

Re:The guy was a retired cop

[PortHaven]

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

They are the American Nobility...

Re:The guy was a retired cop

[Amtrak]

Even better even in Chicago, the last hold out on a Handgun ban in the US which was overturned in 2010 by the Supreme Court, retired cops can get a license to carry.

Re:The guy was a retired cop

[MrKaos]

They are the American Nobility...

And the protector of our RIGHT to dark movie theaters!!!

His defense will fail...

[PortHaven]

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...

[DaveV1.0]

Living in the area and having been to that particular theater and having watched this unfold locally, I would like you to provide a link to a reputable news source that states that. Every news source I have seen states Reeves either left the theater to talk to a manager or simply left the theater and came back a short time later. And, in all cases, Oulson confronts Reeves about Reeves possibly reporting him to the management.

Re:His defense will fail...

[Andrewkov]

Because he had already invested $48 in his ticket and popcorn?

Re:His defense will fail...

[msauve]

You're making things up. No where was it claimed that "he went out to his car and retrieved his firearm."

Re:His defense will fail...

[SydShamino]

"...but, but, that was like two minutes earlier. Way back then, the shooter felt safe enough to return to the area. Only later did the situation change and he became suitably concerned for his own safety to open fire."

This happened in Florida, and my quote above is pretty much the defense that got George Zimmerman off the hook for murder in Florida. As far as I can tell, in Florida, you can instigate all the way up to the second when the other person fights back, then you can shoot them and be legally justified in doing so.

I'm surprised that we haven't started seeing duels in the street down there. After all, whichever person lives can claim that the other guy was gonna shoot him, and so he had to shoot first. The fact they both pre-arranged to stand there 10 paces apart is in the past and irrelevant.

---

This post is dripping with sarcasm and sadness.

Re:His defense will fail...

[PortHaven]

My understanding is that if there is a long term plot, they will charge murder 1. However, if the action was in a heated moment. They usually pursue Murder 2 charges. Which I think is appropriate. The originating situation was NOT pre-meditated. But the retrieval of firearm, does point to an anticipation of using deadly force....

Re:His defense will fail...

[mapsjanhere]

There will be no charges filed. The shooter is a retired local police captain, no DA will risk his reelection by losing the endorsement of the local police union.

Re:His defense will fail...

[fahrbot-bot]

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?

According to TFA, he left to get a manager, but returned w/o one.

Re:His defense will fail...

[ethanms]

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?

This isn't insightful, it's conjecture.

We don't know that he left the theater to retrieve his firearm, he may have had the firearm on him the whole time and had gone to get the manager... I find it far more likely that he was already carrying his concealed firearm vs. that he was leaving it in a vehicle and went to get it. The whole point of carrying concealed is to defend yourself, the firearm does you no good out in your car and it only becomes a liability if your car is stolen or broken into...

We also don't know that he felt threatened before he left, or when he returned.

From the story so far it doesn't sound like he walked back in and simply shot the younger guy, it sounds like he came back in, sat down, an argument or fight started, and THEN he shot the guy. If the guy was concerned for his life/safety it will be what happened after he returned that caused the concern.

Surveillance footage and testimony from witnesses will start to put this together. We'll know where the older guy went when he left the theater, and we'll start to get a better idea of what happened after he returned and potentially some insight into what could possibly have escalated this from an argument over texting to a fatal shooting.

Re:His defense will fail...

[AK Marc]

The report I read he didn't retreive a firearm, but instead asked the management to enforce their written theater policy. They refused, and someone died. I hope the theater is sued for billions.

Re:His defense will fail...

[gmhowell]

Because he had already invested $48 in his ticket and popcorn?

Cheap. Must be the senior citizens' discount.

Re:His defense will fail...

[gmhowell]

You're making things up. No where was it claimed that "he went out to his car and retrieved his firearm."

Wouldn't be the first time. Look at the number of truthy 'facts' surrounding the Aurora and Sandy Hook shootings and the Martin-Zimmerman incident for earlier instances.

Re:His defense will fail...

[wvmarle]

Isn't that called "stand your ground" nowadays?

Re:His defense will fail...

[shutdown -p now]

By "confronted", do you mean throwing popcorn at him?

Re:His defense will fail...

[DaveV1.0]

I mean, as the stories are saying here, that Oulson started yelling at Reeves once Reeves came back, demanding to know if Reeves had reported Oulson to the theater management, and that Oulson threw "an object" at Reeves which reports indicates was a bag of popcorn.

You seem to think Oulson was throwing individual pieces of popcorn at Reeves. That is not the case. Oulson was standing, facing Reeves and away from the screen, yelling and threw a bag of popcorn. Oulson's wife was injured because she had her hand on Oulson's chest attempting to pull him away from Reeves.

Just so you know, under the law here throwing a bag of popcorn at someone is considered assault. Hitting someone with a bag of popcorn is considered battery.

Re:His defense will fail...

[shutdown -p now]

You seem to think Oulson was throwing individual pieces of popcorn at Reeves. That is not the case. Oulson was standing, facing Reeves and away from the screen, yelling and threw a bag of popcorn.

Oh, that's so totally different! A bag of popcorn is such a dangerous thing!

Oulson's wife was injured because she had her hand on Oulson's chest attempting to pull him away from Reeves.

Pulling him away, or pulling him to sit down? I find the latter much more likely.

Look, I carry a concealed handgun myself. This story so far has all the hallmarks of a gun owner being a complete, utter and total moron and asshole. There are no excuses here. You use lethal force in self-defense when there is an imminent threat of death or bodily harm. Getting hit by a bag of popcorn is not "bodily harm". Furthermore, even if it was, the fact that he shot a guy in a crowded theater, and in fact hit his wife in the process, is a fuck-up in and of itself.

If the law is written in the manner that will, indeed, let him off the hook (which I very much doubt, but then again that is Florida...), then the law is idiotic and should be changed.

Re:His defense will fail...

[DaveV1.0]

I am providing facts, not excuses. You seem to need a course in reading comprehension.

Re:About time!

[oodaloop]

How many other annoying habits deserve the death penalty, and how many do you exhibit?

Re:Finally some good news for a change.

[niftydude]

Yes, because shooting a 43 year old man and his wife is totally an appropriate response if one of them sends texts during a movie.

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.

Insane Baby Boomers and Their Guns

[Phoenix666]

Retired cop means age > 65 means Baby Boomer. How refreshing it would be if insane Boomers with guns would direct their ire at people who really deserve it, like Wall Street bankers and their pals in the 1%. Then they could at least perform a public service in their dotage, rather than just being dicks to the rest of us in the 99%.

Re:It's about time!

[Jamu]

Well he's not texting anymore. And the guy with the gun isn't shooting people anymore. I think this is a win for movie-go'ers.

Re:Holy tone-deaf

[shortscruffydave]

“We encourage our patrons to remember that they are sharing a common wish to be entertained and to treat their fellow moviegoers with courtesy and respect.”

Is there any greater display of courtesy and respect for someone than not shooting them dead?

Re:It's about time!

[Bill_the_Engineer]

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. It is no where in the realm of being self defense.

Re:Oh? Tell that to the Star Wars Episode 1 previe

[Antipater]

Many people bought a ticket for whatever movie just to see the preview.

That was 1998. Movie trailers are all on Youtube now.

Re:A Message

[egcagrac0]

More importantly, I hope this sends a message to people carrying firearms - don't escalate to lethal force over minor annoyances.

Re:It's about time!

[Anonymous Coward]

Hahahahaha NRA shill spotted already.

"Who knows what happened" and then proceeding to paint the victim in the worst possible manner, despite witness testimony of the transpired events.

Re:It's about time!

[Anonymous Coward]

At least it shows how full of crap the NRA's argument is, that guns are safe as long as they're in the hands of well-trained "good guys".

Re:It's about time!

[clarkkent09]

I read that he left the theater to report the guy who was texting, not necessarily to get his gun.

Re:Finally some good news for a change.

[paiute]

Yes, because shooting a 43 year old man and his wife is totally an appropriate response if one of them sends texts during a movie.

Apparently it was before the movie even. That old cop really wanted to be able to concentrate on the ads.

Re:3 year olds can't even read.

[Anonymous Coward]

I was 3 when I learned to read.

Besides, I'm sure mom/babysitter was there holding the phone, telling the girl, "look, daddy says good night."

Re:It's about time!

[Anonymous Coward]

This officer has earned himself a seat at the right hand of God; the free exercise of Second Amendment rights is one of the Christliest pursuits that any sovereign citizen can aspire to. He will be viciously attacked for this by the extreme/ultimate left, but the fact remains that he is (and always will be) a defender of our Constitutional and Scriptural rights.

Re:Finally some good news for a change.

[gl4ss]

more like a case of old crazy guy still clinging to bringing his gun everywhere - for you know "protection" (dick enhancer, so he would have the balls to argue with some random dude at the movies during the fucking advertisements - for texting).

now if someone had shot him for bringing the gun up...

Re:was the movie Beyond this Horizon?

[c0lo]

Shouldn't have shot the guy, of course, but have to say when I see the bright glow of cell phones during a movie I wonder why I'm in the theater rather than watching in the comfort of my own home...

Worrisome... you start showing signs of rationality. You are to stop immediately, with people like you the entire movie industry may collapse.

(grin)

Article with pictures of the people involved:

[FilmedInNoir]

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/ex-police-officer-curtis-reeves-shoots-dead-chad-oulson-texting-cinema-1432197
This way you can decide guilt and innocence based solely on physical appearance like Reddit does.

Re:Article with pictures of the people involved:

[Raenex]

This way you can decide guilt and innocence based solely on physical appearance like Reddit does.

OK, I'll play along. The victim looks like a New Jersey shore-type douchebag, the kind of guy who would be a dick and texting during a movie and being aggressive when asked by somebody else to stop. (Yes, it was a preview, but you really should stop distracting shit by then.)

The shooter looks like a retired detective who's seen a lot, but doesn't look like the crazy-mad, quick to anger type. Therefore he must be innocent!

All right, all kidding aside, if the basic facts of this case are correct, the guy is guilty of murder and deserves to go to jail. Case closed.

Re:It's about time!

[Anonymous Coward]

both of them actually.

Throwing popcorn very well could be considered assault depending on the circumstances. in this case i think it qualifies.

not saying that justifies shooting him though.

Re: It's about time!

[jellomizer]

Yes, because the quality of the person is based on their manners at the movies.

After RTFA there seems to be some confusion about the theater actually allowing texting.

Still You don't shoot a person, you go the the manager and ask them to be removed. Or better yet, as Texting in the movie really isn't that distracting, ignore it, and try in enjoy yourself.

Re:It's about time!

[DocSavage64109]

My thoughts as well. I hope this gets major publicity and people start to think a little bit about not bothering others around them. Not to condone what the officer did, but sometimes things just set people off.

Yowza

[Bob The Cowboy]

A 'more polite society' indeed.

Re:Yowza

[GameboyRMH]

See also: Nastiest parts of Kingstown, Jamaica; Somalia outside the government-controlled zone; Afghanistan.

Re:Yowza

[GameboyRMH]

s/Kingstown/Kingston/g

Re:It's about time!

[oodaloop]

Just curious, are there other annoying habits you think deserve the death penalty?

Re:It's about time!

[mythosaz]

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.

Re:It's about time!

[ShanghaiBill]

He was texting during the previews, not the movie itself. When I go to the theater, plenty of people use their cellphones during the trailer previews. I assume they are just checking their messages one last time before silencing the phone. I have never seen anyone complain about that. Shooting someone for texting during the movie is fine with me, but shooting them for texting during the trailer previews is unjustified.

Dude was checking in on his kid at home one last t

[Anonymous Coward]

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 ago we lived in Wesley Chapel and that was our movie theater. It's a suburban neighborhood with good families and lots of kids go see movies there, though I'm sure from some of the comments here that teenagers who rarely exercise good judgement should be fair game for psychotic always-armed "I can shoot who I want because I'm a cop" murderers. I wish we could bring back the Roman execution styles and throw this son of a whore from a high cliff.

On the petty and barely relevant question of texting during a movie, I would never take my phone out of my pocket during the movie, and always take the previews as my cue to put it away in the first place, but wouldn't expect trouble if I used the previews to send one last text to my kids. That really doesn't seem like it's taking your life in your hands, but these days it's hard to tell.

Re:Is it bad that I instantly assumed it's in the

[schwit1]

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:It's about time!

[Anonymous Coward]

The better deal, Einstein, would have been to not shoot the texter.

Re:It's about time!

[Joce640k]

The police are "good guys"?

Re:It's about time!

[DocSavage64109]

Who knows if it will solve anything, but nothing would have changed without the shooting.

The US is clearly very screwed up

[JustNiz]

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?

Re:The US is clearly very screwed up

[Anonymous Coward]

Texting during a movie is a very minor wrong, not at all a very much, texting during the previews is even less of a wrong.

But I think he might have been texting about his 3-year old daughter, which is more like checking up on her, which is reasonable enough.

Much better than bringing the child to a movie.

The annoyed guy could have just asked the theater staff to solve the problem, he could have asked for a refund, or some gift tickets for putting up with the annoyance.

Instead he picked a solution that negatively impacted everybody. For life.

Almost any other option he could have picked would have worked better.

Re:The US is clearly very screwed up

[OneAhead]

If he actually needs to check his daughter is OK then he's a bad parent for leaving her in a situation where she might not be, and he should at least go outside to text, if not go home to care for her properly.

I can't wait for you to become a parent. Not holding my breath, though, as you'll first need to get out of you mom's basement and find a girl who puts up with your intolerance. :-P

Re:The US is clearly very screwed up

[JustNiz]

I've already been married, am a parent and own 3 houses. You were saying?....

Re:The US is clearly very screwed up

[omnichad]

Agree - I enjoy the trailers. And I went to one movie where there were kids in the next row using snapchat...with camera flash during the previews. And it was before a special that was only showing for a couple nights. I didn't say a word only because I couldn't do it without being too much of a jerk.

Re:The US is clearly very screwed up

[CrashNBrn]

Genius!

Re:The US is clearly very screwed up

[Zomalaja]

So, was there a specific announcement in the trailers similar to "Please do not shoot anyone" ?

Re:The US is clearly very screwed up

[kumanopuusan]

I managed it, so it's possible for anyone.

Re:The US is clearly very screwed up

[Uncle Mark (AUS)]

. ..and what kind of parent gives their 3 year old kid a cellphone anyway?

This alone makes me feel less empathy towards the guy.

Re:The US is clearly very screwed up

[OneAhead]

So you never had the urge to talk to or check on your kids, even though you rationally knew they were perfectly safe? And you're calling the other guy a bad parent? Innteresting...

Re:The US is clearly very screwed up

[OneAhead]

Apparently so.

(Even if I get banned from /., that pun was worth it.)

Re:The US is clearly very screwed up

[JustNiz]

>> Me, I see texting to check on your children as far more reasonable than to talk with your friends, and as disturbances go, it's a good enough reason for me. Same with a heart doctor I know. Doesn't turn his phone off. He takes emergency calls.

If you choose to go to a movie even though your personal situation is so fragile there would be serious issues if you turn your damn phone off for 90 minutes thats a good indicator you shouldn't be going to the movie in the first place.
If you do anyway, then at least have the manners to temporarily step outside to text or whatever rather than force your needs on others. Nobody else should have to be inconvenienced by somones incessant need to text, tweet and update their facebook status 24/7, which is what its actually mostly about these days, especially with teens.
Even if your doctor friend might be on emergency call during a movie I bet he would step outside to take/continue a call rather than talk in the auditorium.
You already said you feel trailers are not so important so you wouldn't miss anything by stepping out temporarily anyway.

Re:The US is clearly very screwed up

[wvmarle]

"The man using the phone explained to the irritated man that he was simply texting his 3-year-old daughter" (...) ..and what kind of parent gives their 3 year old kid a cellphone anyway?

I assume here that he was texting the babysitter.

Even if the 3yo had her own phone, she wouldn't be able to read the message, and at that age is not likely to be left home alone.

Re:It's about time!

[Bill_the_Engineer]

You have a warped sense of entitlement. Shooting someone for texting is never justified.

Re:It's about time!

[Borg453b]

+1 for spotting him :)

Re:huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

A product of government schools.

Re:A Message

[leonardluen]

i am pretty sure it was well known before this that shooting someone typically gets you in trouble

Re:Finally some good news for a change.

[DocSavage64109]

The report I saw said previews -- which are liked by many.

On a daily basis

[jmd]

I find more reasons to just up and leave the USA. This culture totally sucks.

Re:On a daily basis

[AK Marc]

I did 5 years ago. Worked out great for me.

Re:Oh? Tell that to the Star Wars Episode 1 previe

[tlambert]

Many people bought a ticket for whatever movie just to see the preview.

I do think killing is a bit excessive but do your texting outside.

If it's the previews, they've already shown the cell phone commercials to tell you to put the thing away or go outside. This doesn't justify the shooting, but probably a 43 year old assaulting a 71 year old because he's pissed off that the management was informed of his violation of theater policy could be; someone a few years over half my age would probably be able to kick my ass, and the wife was injured through her hand by the shot as she had her hand on the husbands chest attempting to restrain him, so it's likely that he's done this sort of flying off the handle before.

And I am fairly certain we will hear over the coming days the couple involved was being obnoxious in other ways as well.

I doubt that, though we may hear more about the husbands temper as third parties come forward with more information. Right now, the media is selling it as a victim story, which doesn't quite jibe with the idea that he was supposedly texting his 3 year old daughter (one has to wonder what kind of cell phone contract discount one can get for being 3 years old).

Cops cant be trusted.

[Lumpy]

They are no different than Street gang thugs. Even retired they believe they are above the law.

One moment please

[roc97007]

  Before the usual suspects all start yelling at each other about texting in theaters, I'd like to point out that according to several accounts, the movie had not yet started.

Re:One moment please

[JustNiz]

So what? many people (including me) like watching the upcoming movie trailers too.

Re:One moment please

[roc97007]

And that's a life or death matter to you?

Re:One moment please

[roc97007]

Or an unarmed man being confronted by an armed former LEO?

Re:A Message

[egcagrac0]

Someone seems to have forgotten.

Re:It's about time!

[Joce640k]

Which is an actual crime here?

The real "crime" is sitting in a movie and *needing* to text your three year old daughter.

Re:It's about time!

[demonlapin]

NRA? It's not the NRA who says that police should be allowed to carry guns but ordinary citizens shouldn't.

Re:Previews DO NOT JUSTIFY HOMICIDE

[Lumpy]

Just put the old fart in the general prison population with announcing to all inmates that this is a COP.

The problem will solve it's self within 7 days.

Umm, I think illegal's changed

[holophrastic]

So it's illegal to bring a camera into a movie theatre, but not a gun? Interesting. And when did it become *illegal* to text or answer the phone during a movie? Last I checked, it never was.

Re:Umm, I think illegal's changed

[JustNiz]

>> when did it become *illegal* to text or answer the phone during a movie? Last I checked, it never was.

Yeah its crazy that some asshats need it to become an actual law before they will be considerate to others.

Re:Umm, I think illegal's changed

[holophrastic]

Believe me when I say that you don't want laws to cover being considerate. You're in a public place. You'll be able to see public people doing public things. That includes crying babies in restaurants, coughing, sneezing, and breathing of all sorts. You'll survive. And you can always throw popcorn at anyone who bothers you for any reason you like.

Re:Umm, I think illegal's changed

[JustNiz]

I agree. I wasn't advocating such a law, just observing that its a sad reflection on US society that apparently the only way some people will act considerately is because of a law.

Re:Umm, I think illegal's changed

[holophrastic]

Oh, agreed. But that's what happens when you push decades of education onto children. Force them to sit in a desk in a classroom for the first 25 years of life, and it's no big surprise that they become rule-based participants.

Re:Umm, I think illegal's changed

[JustNiz]

I put it down to a society with fucked up values, such as encouraging/rewarding people for being selfish, and limiting parents ability to discipline their own kids.

Re:Umm, I think illegal's changed

[gnasher719]

I put it down to a society with fucked up values, such as encouraging/rewarding people for being selfish, and limiting parents ability to discipline their own kids.

Well, that cop was born in the 1940's, and I think back then parents did discipline their kids. Didn't help.

Re:Umm, I think illegal's changed

[JustNiz]

I was talking about the texter being selfish and undisciplined not the cop. If the news article is actually telling it staight the cop has far more serious mental issues than that.

Re:It's about time!

[Anonymous Coward]

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:

Curtis Reeves has now been charged with second-degree murder

Story is unclear - e.g. 1 gun or two?

[Fencepost]

I've seen at least one report that indicated that the person shot got up, threw popcorn at the shooter, then pulled a gun himself at which time he was shot.

Until there's more details out there, to my viewpoint in the upper Midwest this is more a "Jerry Springer Show" scenario going too far and less a "killed him for texting" situation.

Re:Story is unclear - e.g. 1 gun or two?

[DodgeRules]

I have seen enough of the local reports to know this is not the case. And interview with one witness says as soon as the man was shot, he gurgled up blood and fell backward into the witness, so I suspect that witness was close enough to see what happened. And if you were holding popcorn and get shot, see what happens to the popcorn. I'm sure he wanted to place it down nicely but he never got the chance.

Re:Story is unclear - e.g. 1 gun or two?

[weilawei]

Citation needed. That would be a dramatic departure from every other report linked to so far. It would, in fact, make the shooting justified, where it currently appears to be completely unjustified.

Re:Story is unclear - e.g. 1 gun or two?

[Fencepost]

You're quite correct, I missed a "who" in the (original) opening of this article: http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/movie-theater-witnesses-no-punches-only-popcorn-thrown-before-shooting/2160911

I also saw it quoted elsewhere originally, so I didn't see the headline at the top.

Re:Story is unclear - e.g. 1 gun or two?

[gatfirls]

Yea, every single story I have read has a magic void between "someone throwing popcorn" and "shots fired". Some of the stories basically frame it as the guy texting and the ex-cop executes him.

Re:It's about time!

[jrmcferren]

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!

[Anonymous Coward]

It just makes you an asshole with a gun.

Re:It's about time!

[CTU]

Sorry, but he don't count as a good guy, he got demoted to pig...or bad cop...well bad former cop, but same diff

Re:About time!

[rts008]

1.) quite a few, IMO
2.) none...I make it a habit to live by the 'Golden Rule', and it seems to have worked quite nicely over the long run.

Yes, I am arrogant, and have a large ego. But in the (paraphrased) words of Kid Rock: "They say I'm bragging, but I say: What?
It ain't bragging motherfucker, if you can back it up!"

Re:Finally some good news for a change.

[Big Hairy Ian]

The report I saw said previews -- which are liked by many.

So that gave him probable cause???

Re:It's about time!

[Calibax]

You do know that this occurred BEFORE the movie started? The guy who was shot dead (whom you call a jerk) was not texting during the movie, but during the opening adverts. You know who the real jerk in this story is?

The man who shot him had to go to his car to retrieve his gun. This was an intentional and premeditated act of violence that deserves severe punishment.

Now a child will grow up without his father. A wife will have to bring up the child without her husband's help. All because some jerk didn't like the adverts being interrupted.

Re:It's about time!

[MikeBabcock]

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:Finally some good news for a change.

[Joce640k]

Right...because a three year old will totally understand why the texting suddenly stops when the movie begins. Not.

Re:It's about time!

[Anonymous Coward]

That only applies in civilized countries like Sweden where speeding rescue personal are liable if they are the reason for the accident. Even if they are allowed to speed, and should get preferential treatment, they are still not allowed to cause accidents.

ho boy

[ruir]

If it were here with Brazilian people routinely having lengthy conversations with a very loud voice in the middle of the movies, I guess the guy would bring a bazooka, hire a bomb man, or Steven Seagal...

Re:ho boy

[serviscope_minor]

Why would they want an overweight hamster to scowl at the person having the conversation? What would that achieve?

Re:It's about time!

[khr]

The shooter will spend the rest of his life in jail

Where on movie night it'll be unlikely any other inmates will have cell phones they can use to text and disturb him.

Re:It's about time!

[AJH16]

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.

In Florida

[kjshark]

We (think we) know how to stand our fucking ground.

Re: It's about time!

[Java Pimp]

Because throwing popcorn is obviously an offense deserving of death.

Holy fuck there are a lot of heartless people on here today...

Re:Previews DO NOT JUSTIFY HOMICIDE

[Anonymous Coward]

no where did it say he went to his car. it implies he left to find a manager. he very well could have been carrying the gun before.

A witness told local television stations that the offended man stormed out to get a manager, but returned without one....

“Three seconds, four seconds later, the argument starts again,”...

that doesn't sound like he was gone long enough to go out to his car.

Re:It's about time!

[Macgruder]

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!

[clarkkent09]

The real jerk is someone who jumps to conclusions without having any clue as to what actually happened. Based on the same article, here is a reasonable alternative story:

The guy is repeatedly asked to turn off his cellphone and he refuses. The old guy leaves the theater to report him, but he either can't find a manager (I know in my local theater good luck finding an employee during a movie), or they refuse to do anything about it. He comes back and the texting guy turns (as reported) and accuses the old man of trying to get him ejected from the theater. We don't know exactly the way he put it but I can imagine. He gets up and turns around. Since they are one row apart, that';s probably less than a yard from the old guys face, and then he throws popcorn in his face. From the pictures, this guy seems pretty tall and strong and it's not unreasonable that one punch from him could kill a 71 year old.

Was shooting definitely warranted? Idk, probably not but I'll let the courts decide. A premeditated murder? Seems unlikely.

Re:It's about time!

[Obfuscant]

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:It's about time!

[beltsbear]

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. :)

maybe not the right way

[SuperDre]

But the message is clear.. We HATE people texting/using mobile phones during movies.. If you want to use your device, just do not go to the movies.. It's so distracting if someone pulls out their phone and turns it on, it lights up the whole place... Reading the original article, it was during the previews/ads, well then I don't really mind, but mostly I see people during the movie itself, and that just got to stop... Is it so hard to just leave the freaking device off for 2-3 hours... People are just too freaking addicted to their cellphones.. I'm all for a complete signal blackout when the movie starts. And any chain considering allowing texting/use of cellphones during movies is one I'll just skip..

Re:maybe not the right way

[Ixtl]

Texting during movies IS annoying, but shooting people during movies is much more so. I mean, just discharging a firearm is likely to be much louder than even the most annoying ringtone.

Re:maybe not the right way

[weilawei]

And I think Bennett Haselton is one of the most obnoxious human beings alive for submitting blog entries to the front page and using /. as his personal soapbox without doing it the right way (use your journal, link to it. story does not belong in summay.) But, despite the immense annoyance and mental pain this causes me (hyperbole...), it wouldn't justify shooting him, not even if he threw popcorn at me.

Re:It's about time!

[lbmouse]

"Now I'm not saying he should have killed her... but I understand." ~ Chris Rock

Re:It's about time!

[sunderland56]

When I hear news like these I always wonder what type of idiot thinks that shooting the texter solves anything?

Well, for the next month or so, I bet there won't be much text messaging happening in that movie theatre. So it did solve something, if only temporarily.

Re:It's about time!

[SpankiMonki]

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.

Where are you getting this information? The linked NYT article says nothing about the shooter leaving to retrieve his gun.

Re:It's about time!

[DocSavage64109]

You are correct. As suggested by another poster, he should merely have been tazed.

Re: It's about time!

[MikeBabcock]

That's almost never true.

Re: It's about time!

[Java Pimp]

I think I'd be ok w/ Nachos and even the soda. Now if someone hits me in the face with a cold chili dog all bets are off.

Re:It's about time!

[Kilo Kilo]

It applies in the U.S. as well. It might vary from state to state, but many laws say that the emergency vehicle must come to a complete stop if they do not have the right of way. A lot of FD's (that I've seen) have started training their drivers to be very cautious and drive slower, since there's a tanker rollover accident every other week now. Also, the newest fire trucks have their speeds governed based on their weight.

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:About time!

[oodaloop]

Well, I think being arrogant is worthy of the death penalty, and who's to say your opinion is any more valuable than mine? Or are you so self absorbed, you think yours is the only opinion worth considering?

Reminds me of why some cinemas BAN cell phones...

[X!0mbarg]

There was a theatre in Texas that bans the use of cell phones during the show completely. Even goes so far as to eject without refund and offending patrons. They made a wonderful ad from a caller who left a message complaining after she was ejected for using her cell phone "as a flashlight' since it was so dark". The simple fact that she was terribly drunk made it so hilarious.

See references:
http://www.theguardian.com/film/2011/jun/07/cinema-filmgoer-thrown-out-texting-alamo/
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/risky-business/movie-theater-kicks-customer-texting-195400/

In this age of decreasing levels of common decency, and manners in public places, (theaters being nearly the antithesis of private) people still feel they have a false sense of entitlement to do rude things without consequences.

Not play down that someone DIED here, but that level of offense is going to get more common as the texters drain what enjoyment might be left in going for a Big Screen Experience.

I still remember when they first banned cigarettes in theaters, and how terribly offended people were on both sides of the ban.

Maybe, I'm just getting Old and Cranky... Good thing I'm Canadian, and guns are nowhere near as available to us up here.

Re:Is it bad that I instantly assumed it's in the

[gander666]

I was wondering if it was in my state (Arizona) or Florida. Sadly, yes, it is that predictable

Shot?

[serviscope_minor]

This is appaling. A true gentleman would use a sword to as not to disturb other patrons with the loud report of the gunshot.

Re:Shot?

[SomeoneFromBelgium]

Aparently the texter pressed the "execute" button (it was dark after all...)

Re:It's about time!

[DocSavage64109]

People who play their obnoxiously loud car stereos at all hours of the night.

Re:It's about time!

[Obfuscant]

It's hardly self defense when you go out to your car to get a gun and come back.

This meme seems to be growing. You say "went to car to get gun", NYT says "went to get manager". Citation required.

Re:It's about time!

[DexterIsADog]

You need to keep a sense of proportional response.

Shooting someone to death during the movie is justified. However, during the previews, it is reasonable to just wing him.

Florida law

[cellocgw]

Apparently there's not only a "stand your ground" law but also a "Sit Your Ground" law in effect here.

Plus I heard someone threw popcorn at someone else, and if I recall my Monty Python training correctly, first you eat the popcorn,thus disarming him, then you shoot him.

Re:Previews DO NOT JUSTIFY HOMICIDE

[Lumpy]

When it comes to cops? yes. as that is the only thing they understand.

A *retired* police officer?

[Bazman]

In every movie I've seen police officers always get killed two days before retirement.

Re:A *retired* police officer?

[Maritz]

Noooo...! It was the last day of his retirement..!

Your post is wrong.

[DaveV1.0]

Your post is wrong. Reeves, the shooter, left the theater to talk to a manager, not to get his gun.

Re:Your post is wrong.

[Bill_the_Engineer]

This morning the police are saying this:

uthorities say 71-year-old Curtis Reeves wanted Chad Oulson, 43, to stop texting in the theater. When the texting continued, authorities say he went outside, returned and shot at him. Oulson died at the hospital. His wife was also injured but her wounds were not life-threatening.

--AL

Re:Your post is wrong.

[DaveV1.0]

Oooh a blog post, so very reliable. Why don't we try a real news source:

Reeves left the theater to complain to staff, and when he returned, Oulson asked whether Reeves had reported him to management, the sheriff’s office said. The two began to argue and that’s when Oulson threw a bag of popcorn at Reeves, an arrest report said.

I will trust the local news sources over a blog post for a site in the next state over, which happens to be over 300 miles away.

Re:Your post is wrong.

[Bill_the_Engineer]

AL.com is the website for the newspaper conglomerate operating in Alabama. If you went to the website you would have known that.

Re:It's about time!

[tomhath]

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:time for a little internet justice

[egcagrac0]

NYPA

welcome to the 21st century:

[Thud457]

mildly inconvenience me and I WILL KILL YOU!

Re:welcome to the 21st century:

[UnknownSoldier]

Well it works for the government ... so where else are people going to get a pseudo-role model from ... media ?

Re:It's about time!

[DexterIsADog]

The *absolute* best outcome would be if a stray bullet had hit a fucking Anonymous Coward in the theater, and he bled out. Slowly.

Re: It's about time!

[tomhath]

True that shooting is uncalled for. On the other had, the victim was obviously a bully who didn't care if people around him were annoyed by his behavior. Texting a 3 year old? Really?

Re:A Message

[Mishotaki]

So says the guy who thinks he's anonymous on an internet site.

Re:What is wrong with you people???

[DocSavage64109]

Yes, I look forward to a society where everyone can bother everyone around them with absolutely no repercussions. Yay freedom!

Analysis event log 29882

[DaWhilly]

Sol System/Planet Designate 11340 (Local Name: Earth) Political/Religious sector: United States of America Attn: Regional incident review director, Xenobiology sector 998 Event Status Report Incident 998754 - 2014-01-13 Theater shooting, Local Sector Name: Tampa Florida Discharge of firearm in close quarters/enclosed space. Victims identified. Outcome analysis: Direct impact: 1 male, deceased. 1 female, injured 1 male, detained 1 misc number of subjects within range of event Local Sector has laws which allow the use of firearms without concern for outcome (Locally called "Stand your ground"). Evidence of use can be seen via report 99827. Ancillary impacts: Prior evidence suggests long term impacts to immediate family of both victim and attacker can result in propagation of undesired outcomes. Basic human therapy will be performed but ruled minimally effective. We can also assume, based on prior events, the event will be utilized by the two main controlling religious parties in the sector to reinforce their control. As always, actions by the two groups will ensure continued such events to allow for propagation of converts based on ideology. Recommended actions: Continue observations. If we do not see a decrease in the number of such events, begin extraction of observers and retask to Planet Designate 112333. Categorization of Planet from Mostly Harmless to "Avoid" also recommended.

Re:It's about time!

[Thud457]

Just curious, are there other annoying habits you think deserve the death penalty?

Shooting people is a pretty nasty habit.

Re: It's about time!

[DexterIsADog]

He didn't shoot him for texting, he shot him after he turned out to be a complete asshole over it and started throwing popcorn.

An armed society is a polite society. Sometimes an example has to be made.

The article doesn't say the victim threw anything, so kudos on reading comprehension.

Also, how THE FUCK can you reference Heinlein's "polite society" quote in this case? The shooter carried a gun, probably looking for a confrontation, got into one, and decided to kill an unarmed man.

If you think that's "polite", then I guess I won't expect you to hold the door for me.

Re:It's about time!

[oodaloop]

How is getting the manager any different as far as self defense is concerned? If he was in fear for his life, he shouldn't have come back after leaving.

Re:It's about time!

[PortHaven]

Like if the popcorn had lots of butter and 'salt?

Re:It's about time!

[JWSmythe]

The shooter is 71 years old. "The rest of his life" isn't really a long time. 1 year in jail could be a life sentence. That is assuming he lives long enough to go through a trial.

I'm close to where the shooting was, so it's plastered all over the news here.

No matter how I look at it, I can't make an excuse for the shooter to have been justified. He had every opportunity to do something else. Move seats. Get a manager to resolve it. Say "fuck it", leave, get a refund and go home. Just accept the fact that there are others in the theater, and one is bound to annoy you in some way.

Re:It's about time!

[PortHaven]

Really, I'm impressed that his 3 year old daughter can read text messages!

Re:huh?

[SleazyRidr]

Yes you missed something.

wtf do "young people" have to do with this?

[Punto]

Victim was in his 40s, shooter was in his 70s. Why are we talking about "young people" again? I supposed videogames are next?

Re:wtf do "young people" have to do with this?

[GameboyRMH]

40 is young to be dead.

Re:Oh? Tell that to the Star Wars Episode 1 previe

[Em Adespoton]

Nobody's pointed out yet that he was *texting* his *3 year old*. Most three year olds don't know anything about the written word -- some of the brighter ones may recognize a few letters. Was he sending her Emoji? Or, as more likely, was he actually texting a message to the baby sitter to tell to his 3 year old? If so, wouldn't it make more sense to explain that he had to text his sitter?

Comments from the cheap seats

[DaveV1.0]

I live in the area and have been watching this unfold in the local news. I am amazed at the comments coming from users who are apparently basing their comments on this one report and their preconceived assumptions.

Let's have some facts:

• The shooter, Reeves, is 71. The victim, Oulson, was 43. Oulson's wife is 33.
• Reeves left the theater for a short time. There are no reports locally that he went to retrieve his gun. There are reports that he went to get a manager.
• Once Reeves returned, he was confronted by Oulson as to whether Reeves reported Oulson to the manager. It was at this time that a physical altercation ensued and Oulson was shot.
• All reports I have seen say a bag of popcorn was thrown. Some reports seem to indicate that Oulson threw the bag of popcorn at Reeves.
• Reeves shot once, hitting Oulson in the chest. Oulson's wife was shot in the hand because her hand was between the gun and Ouslon's chest.

There is a very recent article about Reeve's appearance in court and what

Re:Comments from the cheap seats

[tlambert]

Whether he left for a gun or a manager is irrelevant. If he had been afraid for his life in either circumstances, he would not have gone back in to further the dispute.

You need to read the article DaveV1.0 linked; it clearly states that the physical altercation, and therefore the fear, happened after Reeves returned to the theater, and was confronted by Oulson over Oulson's violation of theater rules having been reported to theater management.

Re:Comments from the cheap seats

[roc97007]

On the other hand, bail was denied for Reeves, a former cop and the father of a current cop, so a judge somewhere thought there might be something to the allegation of 2nd degree murder.

You may be right...

[PortHaven]

Perhaps this was the 71 year old shooter's way of getting room, board, 3 square meals a day, healthcare and cable TV. All of which he was unable to afford on his meager retirement benefits. ;-)

Florida Man Arrested for DUI in Jail Parking Lot

[Thud457]

Florida Man, defender of the weak & downtrodden!

Re:Canadian Cineplex has cellphone games before mo

[egcagrac0]

Canada also has gun laws unlike the U.S.

The U.S. has gun laws, too.

They're just order allow,deny instead of order deny,allow.

Re:It's about time!

[Hatta]

When I hear news like these I always wonder what type of idiot thinks that shooting the texter solves anything

A retired cop. That's the kind of idiot who thinks shooting solves things.

Re:It's about time!

[cayenne8]

Shooting some for anything is never justified

You break into my house and/or threaten my family/myself with a weapon, I am highly justified in emptying a magazine or two into your sorry ass.

This looks like a job for...

[Minwee]

Florida Man!

He's a pretty busy guy. Let's see some other ways he has been answering the FloridaManSignal...

- Florida Man Shoplifts Condoms, Massage Oil, Energy Drinks, Flashlight; Passed-Out Girl Found in Car.
- Lack of Food and Utensils Results in Florida Man Opening Fire at Baptism Party.
- Florida Man Kills Friend During Argument Over How to Correctly Cut Barbecue.
- Florida Man Shoots Three Roommates in Attempt to Get Best Bed.

It's pretty much business as usual for the state that brought us "Cops".

Re:It's about time!

[bradvoy]

Shooting some for anything is never justified

Wrong. If someone is posing a clear and present danger to me or my family, and if the setting is such that shooting him doesn't pose a danger to others in the vicinity, then shooting him would absolutely be justified.

Obviously that wasn't the case in this incident.

And if the dead guy had been wearing a hoodie...

[tekrat]

.... been black and carrying a dangerous pack of skittles, the shooter would get off with no jail time. This is Florida after all. One guy is dead, another in jail. That's two less Floridians.

Re:Old news

[nedlohs]

Amazing something that happened less than 24 hours ago could have been on CNN for a couple of days already.

One of thoe false flags designed so the government can steal all our guns, right?

Re:Is it bad that I instantly assumed it's in the

[PortHaven]

His point is that LEOs and retired LEOs are EXEMPT from pretty much ALL of the restrictions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_Enforcement_Officers_Safety_Act

Re:It's about time!

[DaveV1.0]

The shooter is 71 years old. The shooter may die before he goes to trial, let alone go to prison.

Re: It's about time!

[cayenne8]

No one deserves to die for being an asshole.

In the old days, this was known as natural selection.

:)

Re:It's about time!

[zugmeister]

At least it shows how full of crap the NRA's argument is, that guns are safe as long as they're in the hands of well-trained "good guys".

As for well trained? Probably.
"good guys"? You DID notice the part about him being an ex-cop, right?

Re:It's about time!

[DaveV1.0]

If you would have taken the time to read the news, you would have known that he left the theater to talk to the manager and never went to his car .

Re:It's about time!

[noh8rz10]

Welcome to Florida. Concealed carry, Stand Your Ground. Even in a movie theater over a cell phone / popcorn dispute.

Re:It's about time!

[SydShamino]

You mean like, if you're in fear for your life, don't chase the kid through the neighborhood? It appears that, in Florida, you can instigate up to the second you fear for your life, then you are justified in shooting.

Re:It's about time!

[easyTree]

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:It's about time!

[easyTree]

*Lawyers' cars

Re:It's about time!

[Assmasher]

You know that movies aren't real, right? You seem to take them waaaaaay too seriously. I might just shove that phone up YOUR ass if you I catch you using it at the ballet...

Mostly irrelevant arguments

[Dega704]

This of course is turning into debates about texting and gun control, but in the end it's just a story about a loony old man who had a SEVERE overreaction to someone being an inconsiderate jerk. He will probably regret it for what remains of his life unless he has gone completely off his rocker; in which case the main debate will once again be about how to keep guns out of the hands of such people. Everyone needs to stop raving about the gun apocalypse and how America is going to hell in a handbasket. Overall gun homicides are down by half since the early 90s. Don't get me wrong; events like this are still tragic and we need to try to prevent them, but we need to stay rational and remember that knee-jerk reactions to tragedies are what gave us the Patriot Act and an out-of-control NSA. Of course this is still a politically charged topic and I will likely get flamed, so......... flame on I guess.

Re:Is it bad that I instantly assumed it's in the

[ImprovOmega]

Cheap Mexican food causes shitstorms.

Re:It's about time!

[unrtst]

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!

[OneAhead]

He has been charged with second-degree murder; if law enforcement believed he left to get his gun, the prosecutor would likely go for first degree (though we may never know). So GP indeed may be jumping to conclusions on that account. As for the rest of your argumentation, yes, one punch from a strong guy could kill a 71-year-old (and yes, it has happened more than once) but the chance of it happening is very small compared to the chance of 1 bullet of killing a young father. So that's disproportionate force. In my home country, disproportionate force automatically rules out self-defense, though things may be different in Florida. Either way, willfully shooting an unarmed man in this kind of setting will always be murder to me. And in my book, murdering someone makes one a bigger jerk than jumping to conclusions on an Internet message board. Your moral values are very alien to me.

Re:It's about time!

[Wookact]

From what I have read, three or four accounts now, the only thing that may have physically happened is someone threw popcorn at the arguing idiots. Being hit with popcorn is not a valid defense for shooting someone. In fact unless the person has a weapon or is currently physically beating you I don't believe there is any excuse for shooting someone in a theater.

Re:What is wrong with you people???

[DaveV1.0]

I fear for the future because so many think being an asshole is public is right and no one should be allowed to confront the assholes in question.

This whole thing would never have happened if people were respectful of each other and the general public.

MPAA policy

[edibobb]

The MPAA applauded the action, and announced that, in order to curb piracy, anybody at a movie with a powered-on cell phone will henceforth be summarily shot and killed.

just a reminder

[slashmydots]

Prior to around 2-3 years ago in Wisconsin, the only people that could carry concealed guns were retired police officers. Thankfully now just about anyone can have one so they can defend the public against retired police officers.

Re:just a reminder

[DocSavage64109]

Actually, there isn't much defense against someone drawing and shooting you as you're already dead. That's why the star wars remake with Han Solo shooting second is so often ridiculed.

Re:Previews DO NOT JUSTIFY HOMICIDE

[nedlohs]

There's no mention of how long he was gone for in your snippets, so that's a very strange conclusion to reach.

Re:It's about time!

[asmkm22]

Exactly

Re: It's about time!

[Applekid]

In this escalation of weaponry, I need to make some kind of reinforced tube where I can propel Milk Duds at 1300 feet per second from some small controlled explosion.

Re: It's about time!

[gnasher719]

Did you read the article?
This father feels the need to text her in movie theaters. Where other adults have paid money to be able to sit and watch something.
He didn't shoot him for texting, he shot him after he turned out to be a complete asshole over it and started throwing popcorn.
An armed society is a polite society. Sometimes an example has to be made. I thank the shooter for what he did, giving up his personal liberty so that we can all enjoy movies in peace.

Here's how I read it: During the preview, where nobody is watching, this father texted his three year old daughter. An ex-cop with a gun and an exaggerated sense of entitlement told him to stop. The father didn't see any reason to do so - he was texting, not talking, and nobody else complained. Ex-cop with a gun tries to find a manager, and either didn't find one or was told that they don't care about texting during the preview. Ex-cop goes back and starts a confrontation, knowing that he has a loaded gun in his pocket. There's a bit of an argument, the father's popcorn goes flying, probably by the ex-cop with a gun hitting it, and since hitting the guys popcorn isn't enough, the ex-cop shoots him.

Re:It's about time!

[Wookact]

Yes, texting during a movie is not a capital offense. It fact it is not against the law. It makes them a a-hole, but not a criminal. No justification for the shooting, fry the shooter.

Re:It's about time!

[calzones]

It's not that it's justified, it's that there are only two realistic options. Kill or be killed. Either is unjustified. But you get a legal pass because it's better for you to prevail than him.

However, if you had the power and means to restrain the attacker without causing harm and delivering him to authorities for arrest, then THAT would be the correct option, not shooting him.

Many times...

[PortHaven]

YES

But not situations in which your life and well being are not threatened.

Re:Previews DO NOT JUSTIFY HOMICIDE

[PortHaven]

There was some earlier article wording that suggested he left the theater and had gone to his vehicle. I believe it has been updated. (I wager, it was hypothesized when they thought it was a CCW carrier, but then when it turned out to be a cop. That perspective and attempt to taint the story was removed.)

Re: It's about time!

[no_go]

An armed society is a FEARFULL society. FTFY

If you have to be "polite" because you fear someone shoots you because you may sound "disrespectfull/unfriendly/annoying" the "politeness" is completely hollow and is in fact fear.
Social norm would then be "who has the biggest most prominent guns wins/has right of way/is right".
Sounds too much like medieval times...

And don't tell me that if everyone has a gun it will be a level playing field. (think weapon, fitness, health, mood, social settings, fear of injuring someone you love or have some responsibility over, etc..., etc.. ,etc...)

Re: It's about time!

[Wookact]

Well I will clue you in, having nachos or a cold soda thrown at you are also not valid reasons to kill someone. Valid reasons to call the cops and press assault charges maybe, but not valid reasons to shoot someone. Next time you step on someones shoes or accidentally elbow them when walking past would they be justified in shooting you, because you certainly cause more harm then being hit with a piece of popped corn would.

Re:It's about time!

[ewibble]

The fact is, there was an argument and it got physical.

Um throwing popcorn, is not exactly life threatening unless you have a very sever allergy to one of the ingredients

I get your point that a news report isn't exactly "the facts", but we can only discuss the events based story. Its not like he is going to get convicted because of anything that is said on slashdot.

Re: It's about time!

[Grey Geezer]

and you think this is a good thing?

I agree that something less than death was called for. It's tragic on many levels, but it probably would have been beter if he had been killed before he was able to pass his genes on. Hopefully his daughter is young enough that she has not had time to learn any of her father's self-centered, and inconsiderate behavior.
I blame theatre owners and managers too. I also blame us. If we, collectivly, had been less tolerant of cel phone related rudeness, perhaps the victim would have been less inclined to be so inconsiderate.
Frankly, I'm surprised there hasn't been more of this kind of thing.

CNN says the old guy had the gun on him

[tlambert]

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

"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:CNN says the old guy had the gun on him

[hondo77]

If Reeves were a crazed nut job, he would have not sat and removed his hands from the weapon and waited for the police.

You did read the part where, "It happened that an off-duty deputy sheriff from Sumter County was among the 25 people theater at the Grove 16 complex. He rushed to the scene to make sure no more shots were fired and the shooter would stay put," right?

I'm still voting for crazed nutjob.

What color is the sky in your world wihere "assault with popcorn" justifies the use of deadly force?

Re:CNN says the old guy had the gun on him

[Belial6]

Reeves was an ex-cop. Thus he had a reasonable expectation that he would not face the full force of law that your average citizen would. He would also know the very best actions to take to help him avoid the negative consequences of his action.

His behavior does not in any way indicate whether he was a nut job or not.

Re: It's about time!

[Rinikusu]

Actually, yes. Maybe her mother can find a man who's not such a fucking douche that will be a better role model for her. As it is, when she grows up, she gets to tell everyone her dad was murdered for being asshole.

Re:It's about time!

[jedidiah]

> Welcome to Florida. Concealed carry, Stand Your Ground. Even in a movie theater over a cell phone / popcorn dispute.

Except in the ghetto people are going to carry anyway regardless of what the law says. Making the terrified old white man feel empowered won't impact anyone else that's already running amok.

Re:Finally some good news for a change.

[Wookact]

That certainly changes things doesn't it!! I mean if people cant watch the movie trailers then whats the point of going to the movie. Most certainly a capital offense to interrupt those. Grow up.

Re:It's about time!

[ewibble]

he wasn't police, he was ex police.

Re:It's about time!

[jedidiah]

Battery is still battery and is a felony even if you think it's trivial.

Your very attitude is why we have the criminal code. People need "adult supervision" and consequences or else they will completely run amok and things will escalate to manslaughter.

Ban texting!

[DeanCubed]

Yes, let's all talk about TEXTING in this story, instead of the more obvious: "Why are there not more strict gun laws that prohibit people from bringing guns into public places?"

But no, TEXTING is the NEW DEVIL.

Sounds fair to me

[WillAffleckUW]

At least he didn't reload.

Re:Is it bad that I instantly assumed it's in the

[Grishnakh]

This has absolutely nothing to do with gun regulation. This was a retired police officer. I don't think there's a single state in the union where retired police officers don't get special rights and privileges regarding carrying guns. As one other responder here pointed out, even in ultra anti-gun NYC, retired cops can still carry guns.

For some reason, gun control measures and proposals here in the US from the left never include cops or former cops. They always get a special pass.

Re:Oh? Tell that to the Star Wars Episode 1 previe

[DexterIsADog]

...the wife was injured through her hand by the shot as she had her hand on the husbands chest attempting to restrain him, so it's likely that he's done this sort of flying off the handle before...

Well, this really demonstrates your point of view. I think if I were she, and some old crazy dude pulled a gun on my husband, my last act for my spouse would be to put my hand up... to shield him.

That's kind of heart-breaking. Your assumption makes my blood run a little cooler, though.

Re:It's about time!

[ewibble]

What are you on?

Ok I assume you trying to get a reaction, I hope.

Everyone in this world is a jerk sometimes, just like you are posting that the best outcome is that someone died because they texted in a movie, and a 3 year old lost their father.

If we killed everybody that was slightly inconsiderate sometimes, there would be nobody left.

Re:It's about time!

[Anonymous Coward]

"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."

Wait, so you're saying guns are OK because the only people who kill people with guns are people who kill people with guns? While admitting that training and experience can't be used to predict who those people are going to be? Well, I know I'm completely convinced.

I wonder what his 3-year-old daughter thinks

[haaz]

Yes. I have to wonder what the three-year-old daughter of the man thinks. The three-year-old daughter of the now-dead man. It's utterly shameful that this happened. Especially the way that it ended the man's life.

Re:It's about time!

[DexterIsADog]

You have lost all sense of proportion (if you ever possessed it). An unarmed man was murdered for texting by another man who escalated a confrontation with a gun. If the old coot didn't have a gun, he probably would have done what he SHOULD have done, which is take a different seat when he came back to the theater after telling on the texter for texting during the PREVIEWS.

No gun, problem solved. A man goes home to his daughter, and an old coot doesn't go to jail for murder.

So what if the texter would have gotten off "scott free" for a social faux pas? The old man was absolutely in the wrong. You can either learn that lesson, or perhaps find your own life ruined when you react like a crazy person. Good luck with that.

Re:It's about time!

[Macgruder]

And if that's the extent of it, I agree. I believe that the use of potentially deadly force is only justified when that same force is first used against you, or you're in immediate and imminent danger of having it being used against you.

So far, nothing in this story leads me to believe that was the case. But we'll see what, if any, new information comes out.

Re:It's about time!

[DexterIsADog]

Yes, that's exactly why this situation occurred. Without disincentives to carrying guns and murdering people, gun users will keep murdering.

In the U.S., around 10,000 per year. And you think this is okay.

Re:It's about time!

[gerardrj]

The account I read at NYT is that the shooter left the theater to get a theater employee but came back in without finding one. The altercation then escalated to the shooting. There was no mention of the shooter leaving the building and certainly no mention of walking to a car to retrieve a firearm; where are you seeing that information?

There is a video recording of the incident. All large theaters have night-vision cameras watching the audience and this issue will be quickly settled once prosecutors see that recording. They either file charges based or not, knowing that a jury will convict or acquit based upon that video clip.

Re:No, I would not

[Anonymous Coward]

DEATH IS NOT AN APPROPRIATE PUNISHMENT for beating someone with your fists.

The person who initiates the attack doesn't get to determine what is "an appropriate response".

This is one of many reasons why it is a bad idea to attack a stranger. They might just kill you.

Re:It's about time!

[gerardrj]

Ah... We have an eye witness with infallible determinations of intent and an eidetic memory of exactly what happened in a dimmed theater.
I wish there were more people like you in the world.

Re: It's about time!

[AbelGoddard]

No, he went to get a manager. How about YOU read the article?

Re:It's about time!

[AaronMK]

Exactly. If the "turn off your phones" banner had only before the previews instead, this shooting would have been completely justified.

Re:Is it bad that I instantly assumed it's in the

[quenda]

Just a luck guess. It could easily have been South Africa, or anywhere in Latin America.
US gun violence is only high by the standards of the developed world.

Re:It's about time!

[allcoolnameswheretak]

Right. The bad guy walks back into the cinema with his gun. Raises it into texters face, and *BAM* headshot! Brave, well armed Americans in the audience do the only logical thing of drawing their own weapons and *BAM* *BAM* *BAM* shoot the bad guy once in his guts, the other shot goes astray and the third one pierces a little girls lung, right through her popcorn bag. Bad guy is seriously hurt, but he's not down yet. Instinctively he defends himself and shots another two shots into the audience *BAM* *BAM*, he's a trained ex-police officer so he scores another headshot right in the eye while another shot ricochets of a wall and obliterates a guys jaw as he was fleeing the scene. Finally another gunman aims true and hits bad guy right in the chest. America wins!

Casualties:
1 bad guy (internal bleeding)
1 texter (headshot wound)
1 brave american hero (headshot wound)
1 little girl (suffocation in own blood)
1 pussy fleeing dude, hospitalized, survived, will talk funny for the rest of his life. Serves him right for not standing his ground

Re:illegal vs. wrong

[holophrastic]

If you want to watch a movie your way, wait for the dvd. if you choose to go out in public, accept what the public does. It's not wrong if it's not hurting anyone.

Re:It's about time!

[Wookact]

Your sense of proportion is completely out of whack. In fact it is so out of whack that I think there needs to be disincentives for it.

Re:It's about time!

[gerardrj]

I can't recall: which book/verse exactly is it where your god tells you to arm yourself to the teeth to protect yourself?
I see lots of indications of pacifism in the biblical text, up to Jesus showing us that we are better off allowing ourselves to die with our faith and morals in tact than to raise a fist, or even voice, in opposition to our oppressors.

Re:It's about time!

[gerardrj]

Naa, we needed one more shooter to shoot the first shooter thinking that another mass-shooting was about to happen. THAT would have been a justified shoot to me.

Re:What is wrong with you people???

[ewibble]

Its about a proportional response, by all means, confront them, call the manager, argue with them (be aware that might disturb someone else in the theater), even throw popcorn. Don't shoot them. Can you see the difference? The former ones cause minor non-permanent inconvenience, for a minor inconvenience.

Re:It's about time!

[Obfuscant]

How is getting the manager any different as far as self defense is concerned? If he was in fear for his life, he shouldn't have come back after leaving.

Maybe he wasn't in fear of his life until after he came back without a manager and tried to discuss the problem with the texting patron himself? We don't know, the reports don't have enough information to make any judgements.

As for the other comment that "throwing popcorn" isn't violence, well, it's a sign that things are getting physical and may have been only the tip of the iceberg. Once again, we don't know all that happened, but like I said, we do know it did start to get physical.

Florida Theme Parks

[Guppy06]

The shooter was previously the head of security at Busch Gardens.

Consider this standard of behavior when next planning a trip to Florida's theme parks.

Re:Reminds me of why some cinemas BAN cell phones.

[UnknowingFool]

It's a chain called Alamo Drafthouse in Texas that started in Austin. I've been to a few of them. They were started when the owner and his wife became fed up on how the movie theater experience became less enjoyable over the years due to the patrons. So their theaters try to bring back an enjoyable experience for adults by doing some things differently.

• No one under 18 (unless special screenings for children). I have nothing against children but some adults go to the movies to get away from children for awhile.
• No talking or texting during the movie. There were some funny ads they run including stars like Danny Devito and ex-governor Ann Richards on how they would kick your ass if they caught you talking or texting at the Drafthouse. There are exceptions to these rules but only for the signature events.
• Signature events. They don't just show the newest movies but they have special screenings for older movies like Girlie Night, Sing-alongs, Quote-alongs, etc. In Quote-alongs you are encouraged to yell out lines like in the Office Space Quote-along: "No way! Why should I change? He's the one who sucks."
• No late arrivals (this was added this year). If you are late, they'll refund your money rather than let you walk in and disturb everyone else.
• Real food. Having been to some, it's not 5 star cuisine but it certainly is better than the hot dog and stale nachos you get at other theaters. Pizza, salad, burgers, etc.
• Alcohol. Yes, you can get a beer, wine, or cocktail and watch the movie. And good beer not just Pabst Blue Ribbon or Bud Light.
• Servers. They get your order and come back to check up on you.

Boggle: how did he think that would HELP?

[gerardrj]

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:Boggle: how did he think that would HELP?

[gerardrj]

Well the duty of a police officer is generally: to protect and serve. What most people don't understand is that they don't protect and serve the people individually, the police protect and serve the laws and institutions of the government of their jurisdiction.
The police are there to help the government maintain control of the society as the laws define it. Generally that means the police show up after crimes or other offenses, gather evidence, arrest suspects and present them to the prosecuting attourney for prosecution/trial; or cite them for a civil infraction. The police have no legal responsibility to protect you, or me, as a an individual person.

My point about the shooter is that he started complaining to the texting guy, apparently because the texting process was bothering/interrupting his enjoyment of what was on the screen. If the shooter was truly interested in seeing the presentation then his best course of action would have been to wait for the texting to stop, relocate or wait for a theater employee to resolve the situation. If his goal was to see a film then discharging a firearm in the theater was diametrically opposed to his interests.
People don't, in a rational mindset, act in anything other their own self interest.
Mark my words: we're going to find out this guy had some mental/psychological issues that triggered this incident.

Re:Boggle: how did he think that would HELP?

[AthanasiusKircher]

My point about the shooter is that he started complaining to the texting guy, apparently because the texting process was bothering/interrupting his enjoyment of what was on the screen. If the shooter was truly interested in seeing the presentation then his best course of action would have been to wait for the texting to stop, relocate or wait for a theater employee to resolve the situation. If his goal was to see a film then discharging a firearm in the theater was diametrically opposed to his interests. People don't, in a rational mindset, act in anything other their own self interest.

What the heck are you talking about?!? A guy apparently randomly shoots another guy in a movie theater, and you're trying to figure out if he was "rational"?? Of course not! Suppose shooting the guy would have achieved his goal -- say he decided not to see the movie, and was trying to leave to go to the bathroom, but this other guy got in his way... so the first guy shoots him. He walks over the body and goes to the bathroom... thus achieving his goal. Would that make him "in a rational mindset"?

Of course not. He started acting against his own self-interest the moment he decided to murder someone without being in any serious danger or anything else himself (at least according to media reports). Even if he managed to get to watch the film, he'd ultimately be arrested and go to jail. So... regardless of whether he could logically achieve his goal, it seems likely he was deranged or unstable in some way.

Re:Boggle: how did he think that would HELP?

[gerardrj]

What I'm talking about is that this isn't a gun control issue. This, like so many shootings before it, is a mental health issue.

People jumped all over the NYT for saying this was raising the debate over cellphone use in theaters. People started calling that stupid as it was "obvious" that this was really a gun control debate.
I'm saying both those camps are stupid: This is raises the bar of the discussion of the failed healthcare system in this country. When we have a population that can snap so easily as to kill another person over such a minor incident: we need to get our heads straightened out.

Re:Boggle: how did he think that would HELP?

[slothman32]

re: your sig
You do know that the "..." part is important too?
The second one paraphrases, "to the states" meaning that the state can illegalize it and make it not, "to the people."
It's not just fed or people.

Of course all this is moot depending to what Congress and the courts say.

Re:It's about time!

[UnknownSoldier]

*Any* ideology taken to an extreme is never a good idea in the long run.

Laws aren't black and white; there is the Spirit of the law, and the Letter of the law; you seem to be conflating the two. :-(

--
Success not only involves the destination (result) but the journey (work) along the way.

Re:Finally some good news for a change.

[DocSavage64109]

Grow up.

From what I understand, part of growing up involves being considerate of others -- not texting during their enjoyment of movies and previews

Re:It's about time!

[Guppy06]

p.s. The shooter will spend the rest of his life in jail

You're kidding, right? Did you miss the fact that this happened in Florida? He'll walk, just like Zimmerman.

Re:Is it bad that I instantly assumed it's in the

[davester666]

Cops statement: I believed he was terrorist about to send a text message that would detonate a bomb in the theater. Where do I pick up my CMH?

Re:It's about time!

[Macgruder]

Thank you for your kind wishes and I in turn wish for you to have joy and happiness in the days to come

Re:It's about time!

[orgelspieler]

Actually, the shooter is only charged with 2nd degree murder, so the only reason it will be the rest of his life is because he's so damn old (25 year minimum if a firearm is used - source). But since he's a retired cop, I'm sure the "justice" system will find some way for him to get off scot-free (citation needed).

This whole thing is just crazy. I'd much rather have people texting in the row in front of me rather than talking on the phone or to each other. Did he really think that the best way to watch a movie in peace was to murder somebody before it even got started? Did he think he could just sit down and enjoy the rest of the show?! WTF!

I think this guy's punishment should be a cell phone that only receives texts, that everybody in the US can send to whenever they want. No ringer silence option. Mandatory battery recharging. And he has to go to one movie a day with it. In the bad part of town.

Re:It's about time!

[UnknownSoldier]

Lack of respect, lack of boundaries, lack of communication, emotional instability.

All these psychological problem led to escalation and homicide.

Re:Reminds me of why some cinemas BAN cell phones.

[Dishwasha]

I can't wait for the Alamo Movie Drafthouse intro that encourages patrons to not text or talk or else "Curtis Reeves will shoot your ass".

Sorry, too soon?

Re:It's about time!

[LF11]

Here's where your argument falls flat. Without his gun, that 71-yo might be dead on the floor after being assaulted without provocation by a man 30 years younger.

Re:It's about time!

[orgelspieler]

It's a shame they forgot to run the "please don't shoot each other" banner before the previews. Maybe this whole thing could have been averted.

Re:It's about time!

[DocSavage64109]

Yes, that's exactly why this situation occurred. Without disincentives to carrying guns and murdering people, gun users will keep murdering.

Thus we have laws to discourage such activity.

Re:It's about time!

[LF11]

Not if the 43-year old attacked him or gave him reason to believe he was about to be assaulted. Then the shooting becomes self-defense, and the (ex) officer will spend no time behind bars (and reasonably so).

Re:It's about time!

[orgelspieler]

I think you misspelled "buttery"

Re:It's about time!

[clarkkent09]

It's more complicated than that. In states without stand your ground law, yes, you are expected to leave the area if you can, before you get to the point of using lethal force. However, he could make a case that he didn't expect a minor argument over texting to escalate to that point. It is not reasonable to expect a person to avoid all interaction with other people just because they have a gun in their pocket.

Furthermore, since Florida does have stand your ground law, he is NOT required to leave a place where he is engaging in a lawful activity, such as watching a movie (that btw he paid for). I don't know if the fact that he left and came back complicates things but I doubt it.

Re:Is it bad that I instantly assumed it's in the

[Xest]

To be fair that doesn't make it not about gun regulation, it just means gun regulation also has to start affecting nutjob retired cops :)

Re:Is it bad that I instantly assumed it's in the

[operagost]

This is mostly accurate. How is that police can argue they need access to things like modern fully-automatic weapons when non-law-enforcement citizens don't have access? Training? Anyone can receive equivalent training.

Re:Is it bad that I instantly assumed it's in the

[cusco]

Now **THAT** is entertainment!

Re:It's about time!

[DexterIsADog]

Laws against murder, vigilantes murdering people for texting, that sounds about right.

In your head, it's all shorts and sparks, isn't it?

Re:Is it bad that I instantly assumed it's in the

[Grishnakh]

Good luck with that. Apparently there's a Federal law that gives them these privileges. When was the last time you ever heard the gun-control crowd suggest stricter gun control measures for cops or ex-cops?

Wow.

[jdawgnoonan]

Glad to see that the local law enforcement is so effective.

Re:It's about time!

[AaronMK]

With popcorn, the felony is actually "a salt and buttery".

Re:It's about time!

[Roachie]

I like to think the world just became a slightly more considerate place.

Correction - I missed a word in a news story

[Fencepost]

My post above is incorrect - I missed a "who" when I saw the witness article quoted. There's no indication that the victim did anything except (possibly) throw a bag of popcorn.

Re:Reminds me of why some cinemas BAN cell phones.

[Yosho]

Several years ago, I actually do remember seeing a pre-movie message at the Drafthouse from a police officer who stated with a straight face that if you talked during the movie, she would shoot you and blame it on a crackhead. It was pretty funny at the time, although it seems even more appropriate now.

Re:It's about time!

[AlphaWolf_HK]

Both, actually.

Re:It's about time!

[roc97007]

> However, if you had the power and means to restrain the attacker without causing harm and delivering him to authorities for arrest, then THAT would be the correct option, not shooting him.

Speaking as a self defense instructor, (part time in the evenings, when I'm not being paid to do IT geek stuff) there are lots of ways for a restraining situation to go wrong, especially if you don't know the person's strength, training and weaponry. I might try it were it only me at risk, but if my family is threatened with severe injury or death, It would be irresponsible for me to wrestle with someone if I had more effective means at my disposal.

That said, one does have to do a risk assessment; someone throwing popcorn in a theater is clearly not threat of bodily harm and doesn't justify a lethal response. My understanding of self defense laws boils down to: If a reasonable person would be afraid for their life (or a loved one's life), lethal force is justified. Else, no.

But I'll grant you that lethal defense of loved ones isn't something to feel good about. It's just better than the alternative.

Re:Finally some good news for a change.

[AlphaWolf_HK]

Well I don't think it was during the movie, TFA mentions it was during the previews. I personally don't mind if people talk or text during previews because I didn't pay to see the previews and people are still finding their seats during previews anyways; during the movie is something else entirely though.

Re:It's about time!

[roc97007]

My local theatres displays the "please turn off your phones" banner *after* the previews and before the main feature just to reinforce this point.

As do the theaters in my area. In fact, it's common to see phones out until the feature starts. Most are probably trying to remember how to silence their phones.

Re:It's about time!

[markass530]

no such thing

Guilty or not? The argument.

[hoggoth]

Slashdot: All right, Did the shooter commit murder? The battle of wits has begun.
Me: But it's so simple. Someone shot someone else to death over an argument. So clearly he will fry for this!
Slashdot: You've made your decision, then?
Me: Not remotely. The shooter is a cop, so as a general rule he will be declared innocent and 'just doing what is right'.
Slashdot: Truly you have a dizzying intellect.
Me: Wait till I get going! Now, where was I?
Slashdot: A Cop.
Me: Yes, a cop. But he is an EX copy, so clearly he will be found guilty.
Slashdot: You're just stalling now.
Me: You'd like to think that, wouldn't you? He is an ex-cop, but this is FLORIDA. As everyone knows, Florida is entirely peopled with criminals, and criminals are used to having people shoot each other in the movie theater, so clearly he will get off.
Slashdot: You're trying to trick me into giving away something. It won't work.
Me: IT HAS WORKED! YOU'VE GIVEN EVERYTHING AWAY! I KNOW WHAT THE VERDICT IS!
Slashdot: Then make your choice.
Me: I will, and I choose - Look! Miley Rae Cyrus is twerking!

Re:A Message

[SecurityGuy]

You know, proportion is a good thing. Texting during movies is darned annoying, and there should be a consequence. Like, oh, I don't know, a stern "Hey, knock it off!" Or having the theater staff escort you out. There are things where being shot is an appropriate consequence, but this isn't one, and that's lucky for you (and me, and everyone else), because I promise you at one time or another, we've all done something more offensive than text in a theater.

Why is it the customer's problem?

[roc97007]

The part I don't understand is why the retired officer felt he had to confront the patron? This is a job for management, not for mob justice. The "turn off your phones" message explicitly states (at least in our area) that management will remove patrons who violate the rules. (Which, one could argue, the patron had not yet violated, as the feature had not started.) So the retired officer could request the patron to stop texting, and then report him to the manager, and that's the end of his involvement.

We won't know all the details until after the trial, and maybe not even then, but it sounds to me, from the few articles I've read so far, that the retired officer confronted the patron, then went outside to report him to management, (*not* to "retrieve his gun from the car" -- as a retired LEO he would have had it on him) and then, not getting an immediate response from management, (probably because the feature had not started yet!) went back to the theater and confronted the patron again. I suspect this is going to look bad for him in court.

Re:It's about time!

[noh8rz10]

this man could have just walked out of the movie theater. This wasn't a self defense, this was a righeous indignation need for justice.

Another Curtis Reeves?

[orgelspieler]

Another Florida officer named Curtis Reeves shot and killed a teenager for looting. But it couldn't be the same guy because the ages don't add up. This guy was 33 in '82, making him 64 now. By 1982 he already had two dozen complaints against him, including 8 write-ups. You'd think after the first few, he would have had some sort of actual punishment. Not exactly a squeaky clean record. Who knows, maybe it is the same guy, just a wrong age in one article or the other?

I used to get really upset over this stuff....

[argStyopa]

...I mean, the gross disrespect shown other patrons during movies not to mention the nearly animalistic behavior, the welfare moms bringing their 8 children down to see some R rated flick sitting right in front of me, the ridiculous prices for everything from tickets to snacks, the frequently-unfocused crappy projectors, etc.

Then I bought a 60" HD plasma and a fantastic 7.1 onkyo sound system and I don't get upset about how horrible movie theaters are any more AT ALL.

The other night I watched Lawrence of Arabia in blu-ray with my kids snuggled next to me, and I was truly in my happy place.

Re:It's about time!

[Rockoon]

It's hardly self defense when you go out to your car to get a gun and come back.

True, but its also an ignorant thing to talk about considering that that didnt happen.

You didnt make it up.. but you are just faithfully repeating what others made up.. what others intentionally lied about.. like the good little cock sucking sheep with the same agenda that the liars had.

You hate guns, and you repeat lies regarding them. You haver zero worth in any conversation until you learn the difference between being a sheep and being a rational human being.

Re:It's about time!

[weilawei]

Adult supervision, like a 71 year old retired police captain who decides that murder is an appropriate response to non-lethal force?

God Bless America

[triffid_98]

Is it wrong that I instantly channel this when I read the story?

God_Bless_America-Theatre Scene

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_Bless_America_(film)

Re:God Bless America

[RockDoctor]

Nope, it's not wrong.

Re:Is it bad that I instantly assumed it's in the

[Bill_the_Engineer]

It is my understanding that LEOSA only removes the requirement for a conceal carry permit. Private and State property can still prohibit the weapon from being allowed on premise. Also LOESA does not override the gun free school zone law.

Re:It's about time!

[wiredlogic]

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.

Emergency vehicles with active lights, sirens, or both have the right of way in all situations. If you are involved in accident with such a vehicle you will be held responsible if it can be shown that you disregarded their right of way.

Re:It's about time!

[murdocj]

When I hear news like this I'm sad that such a trivial incident escalated into a fight and then a shooting. Given that the texter didn't care about what was showing, when he found out he was annoying someone, why not just walk to the back of the theater or into the corridor and text from there? It didn't have to become a confrontation.

Re:A Message

[GameboyRMH]

It's understandable that he could have got some confusing information from the George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin incident.

Are you dumb or are you trying to justify murder?

[aepervius]

Look I have seen *plenty* of situation where one person (sibling, friend, S.O., fatehr/son) put the hand over the arm, the chest or whatever. Those are gesture to *calm* down the person, and are in no way shape or form a restraint against a violent gesture to come. That youa re trying to use it as a justification to fear immeninent violence says more about you , and your *utter inability* to analyze a situation , than it says anything about the victim. You are the poster child on who should not be allowed to have a gun, just by the plain fact they can be misinterpreting normal social situation as imminent violence.

Re:Finally some good news for a change.

[Wookact]

Just because others need to grow up does not mean they need to be shot. It also does not mean that you don't need to grow up.

Re:It's about time!

[R3d M3rcury]

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.

I really hope you're being facetious.

Remember that the "bad guy" in question was a retired police officer. The sort of person who the NRA would say should be allowed to carry a weapon into a movie theater. He has received years of training on how and when to use a weapon at taxpayer expense.

Re:Oh? Tell that to the Star Wars Episode 1 previe

[omnichad]

If my home had a 4K projector and a 400" screen, I'd never leave home. Youtube doesn't perform well at 4K anyway.

Re:Oh? Tell that to the Star Wars Episode 1 previe

[Talderas]

You're making the assumption that she was aware the old man had a handgun out.

Whether or not the post you responded to is right in the motive for her action if she had one or both hands on her husbands chest, and was shot through one, then there is a probability that she was facing her husband and not the old man and completely unaware that he had drawn the handgun.

Re: It's about time!

[Jhon]

"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?"

From what I read, that is a gross characterization of what happened. The suspect didn't shoot out of annoyance.

It sounds like there was a back and fourth between the two that escalated. That the victim was asked to stop texting (I assume politely, but perhaps not). They faced each other, for some reason the victim (a very tall and built guy) threw his popcorn at the old man. They were face to face. It's not out of the question that the old man shot when the victim became aggressive.

I'm not saying that's what happened exactly -- but to say the guy shot some other guy because he was annoyed is just wrong. I have mod points and I was going to 'overrate' you but I doubt anybody would understand why. I hope that others with mod points will read this and mod you down.

I fully agree with you that cheering is disturbing. Not only that, it's flat out sick. I just don't see your posting being worthy of "+5 insightful".

Re: It's about time!

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that the error rate for CWP firing is about 2% compared to about 14% for police...so your hypothetical, while terrifying, isn't how it actually happens...like ever.

Re:It's about time!

[MacAndrew]

It's a funny wisecrack but note.... "Ambulance chasing" is grounds for disbarment. The bar imposes a waiting period of several weeks, as it should. And most lawyers don't regard the ones who approach victims and their families, looking to skim easy cases, with any high regard—like any profession, there are the good and the bad.

HOW DARE YOU!!!

[wganz]

BRING LOGIC & REASON TO A SLASHDOT DOGPILE.
How else will the snarky little twits get their cheap shots in on all their perceived villains of the world?

BTW. Has anyone blamed Bush for this yet?

How do you figure out who a good guy is?

[Valdrax]

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?

[mythosaz]

There are few certainties in this world.

Heck, with 7% of humans who have ever lived alive today, we've only got a 93% mortality rate...

Re:How do you figure out who a good guy is?

[melchoir55]

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:How do you figure out who a good guy is?

[Valdrax]

We should create a society of people who can handle responsibility and understand there are consequences to their actions.

So, in essence, your proposed society only works if we fundamentally change humanity. Congratulations. You've also proposed the fix that makes communism, libertarianism, anarchy and Star Trek-like utopias work. If humans were rational, moral, and responsible, then any social structure would work.

But we don't live in that world. Ours is far more imperfect. Most violent crimes, just like this one, are crimes of passion not reason. This was a retired cop. Someone whose job had been to uphold laws and deal out the consequences to those who did not uphold their responsibilities. And yet, in a fit of anger, he forgot all of that.

This is why, for example, the death penalty has little deterrence compared to life in prison. Most people committing violent crimes are not thinking about the consequences, weighing the risks, and then rationally deciding to go through with the crime. Most people are just acting on impulse. Stupid, angry impulse. You can't fix that by just getting on a high horse and demanding that people be better, and the law should not be based on that pipe dream.

The only thing you gain is the illusion that by making a bunch of stuff illegal you have somehow made the world safer.

The whole point of a weapon is to make the wielder more dangerous to their opponents. Guns make violence easier and more effective; it's what they are designed to do, after all. Removing concealable weapons from the general populace means that only cops and hardened criminals will have them. No amount of legislation will prevent the truly dedicated from using violence to achieve their aims, but it would at least prevent one stupid mistake, one fit of short temper from depriving a child of a father.

There is no evidence that the presence of a gun during a moment like this decreases risk of harm instead of increasing it. No amount of other people in the audience with guns would have stopped this. They would have, at best, added to the body count.

Re:It's about time!

[jeremyp]

It's more likely he would have backed down as soon as things started getting heated.

Re: It's about time!

[Valdrax]

Actually, yes. Maybe her mother can find a man who's not such a fucking douche that will be a better role model for her. As it is, when she grows up, she gets to tell everyone her dad was murdered for being asshole.

If that's the standard, then based on your tone, I hope you aren't a parent.

Wouldn't need another child losing a loved one.

Re:It's about time!

[murdocj]

My theater displays a "please turn off your phones" BEFORE the previews. It shows the previews and then launches into "the main event" without any pause of interruption. In fact, the only way you know it isn't yet another preview is that there wasn't a "this preview is rated xyz" banner.

Re:It's about time!

[omnichad]

Assualt and battery is not the same as Salty and Buttery.

Re: It's about time!

[Joce640k]

Well I will clue you in, having nachos or a cold soda thrown at you are also not valid reasons to kill someone. Valid reasons to call the cops and press assault charges maybe, but not valid reasons to shoot someone.

That depends. What happens if the other person is a lot bigger and stronger than you and looks like they're about to open a great big can of whup-ass when they run out of popcorn?

Re:It's about time!

[murdocj]

Finally... a reasonable post. Wish I had some mod points.

Re:was the movie Beyond this Horizon?

[KernelMuncher]

The movie industry won't collapse, they'll just finally have the incentive to stream new movies into everyone's homes instead of movie theaters. .

Re:Canadian Cineplex has cellphone games before mo

[omnichad]

Even that is probably before the lights darken and the previews start.

Re:It's about time!

[lgw]

I can't recall: which book/verse exactly is it where your god tells you to arm yourself to the teeth to protect yourself?

Much of the Old Testament, actually. There's a ton of war stories with the theme of "our tribe won because our god was better" in there, and the idea that it's fine, or even required, to raid the neighboring tribe isn't questioned. To many Christians the New Testament deprecated all of that stuff, but that gets into specific faiths, and I never could keep them all straight.
 

Re:It's about time!

[shentino]

It's a salt and buttery.

Re:It's about time!

[Narcocide]

Can't say I've never been enraged by lit phones in a theater either...

Re:It's about time!

[easyTree]

So... In theory, disbarment is an option but in practice, live and let live (with a whiff of sneer) ?

Re:It's about time!

[shentino]

He's already being charged with second degree murder.

Re: It's about time!

[shentino]

The texting was a pretext, the cop should have arrested him for copyright infringement for having a cellphone in the theater, no doubt recording the movie.

Re:It's about time!

[R3d M3rcury]

I don't believe there is any excuse for shooting someone in a theater.

Tell that to John Wilkes Booth.

(Okay, I admit it's a reach...)

Re:Finally some good news for a change.

[jeremyp]

Previews are adverts.

If the guy had been texting during the actual movie, it's pretty antisocial, but it's still not a reason to kill him.

Re:HOW THE FUCK DID YOU GET AROUND THE POST FILTER

[shentino]

Don't yell in a crowded theater.

Re:It's about time!

[LF11]

It's possible, but when someone is right in front of you, getting visibly more angry by the moment, there may not be a lot of opportunity to back down.

Here's something most people seem to forget: Throwing popcorn at someone is assault. If I ever throw popcorn in someone's face, it will be a distraction for the next thing coming. If you throw popcorn in someone's face, that's asking for a fight. That means you are ready and prepared for a fight. Furthermore, when standing in those tight theater isles, it is difficult to move quickly. Fast escape -- the preferrable option -- isn't necessarily possible when you have an enraged man potentially climbing over seats to get at you.

I hope this does not seem like I am inventing excuses for the officer. I am not. I think it is extremely likely that he will be found to have had a history of anger management and violence issues. I do not trust police being the only ones with guns (the theater was a "Gun Free Zone") and I think this tragedy further underscores that point.

Nevertheless, I also think we should not jump to conclusions. A lot of people jumped to conclusions about the Trayvon Martin case and were terribly wrong.

Re:It's about time!

[Wookact]

Sure, he may be clearing his hands, but what if he is doing so to defend himself? In fact it sounds like he needs to defend himself. If I had my hands full of grocery bags and you were confronting me, and I felt I was in danger I might just drop the bags to prepare to defend myself. Claiming that as a valid defense for shooting someone is ridiculous.

Re: It's about time!

[Wookact]

Your sense or proportion is messed up.

Re:It's about time!

[MacAndrew]

No, this one is taken seriously. Other lawyers don't want these guys to be lawyers. I agree with cynicism towards bar enforcement generally, but this one is rightfully a hot button.

Note that there is a very serious free speech issue here too. It's still unclear what attorneys can or should say on websites and it ads.

Disbarment would be a very rare sanction! But at least most attorneys (generally as decent as anyone) and the public agree on something.

And, uh, actually chasing an ambulance and causing accidents is a whole 'nuther problem.....

Re: It's about time!

[Wookact]

Then I would ask why you picked a fight with the big bad scary man instead of getting management involved. The guy texting was an a-hole, but the fact of the matter is that the old man started the mano e mano fight instead of getting the manager, or switching seats.

Re:It's about time!

[PRMan]

Too bad the people that came in your house were undercover cops and now you are guilty of shooting a federal officer.

Re: It's about time!

[Twinbee]

I thought he was being sarcastic. That would've been much funnier and more cutting.

Re:It's about time!

[M1FCJ]

You're absolutely right. Popcorn's already marked as a WMD so pulling your gun and shooting someone just because there were some popcorn flying is sooo justified...

NOT!

Are you fucking insane?

The only thing that can stop a bad guy with a

[oscrivellodds]

cell phone is a good guy with a gun!

Re: It's about time!

[Joce640k]

An armed society is a FEARFULL society. FTFY

If you have to be "polite" because you fear someone shoots you because you may sound "disrespectfull/unfriendly/annoying" the "politeness" is completely hollow and is in fact fear.

Either that, or .... you could read the entire book and not just repeat a one line quotation taken out of context.

Re:It's about time!

[bitt3n]

then escalated it further into the physical realm

then the texter escalated even further, into the spiritual realm

Alamo Theaters

[nobuddy]

These are growing, and opening new ones in different places.

you are warned when you buy the ticket, when the ticket is torn, on the door, and on the screen in text as well as audio
"Turn off your phone. No text, no calls. if you take your phone out of your pocket, you will be ejected from the movie with no refund."

And then they actually DO it. Ushers stand and watch the crowd the whole movie.
Also, they record your bitchy phone calls if you call to complain, and add those to the audio portion of the warning.

And they serve beer.

Texting VS Altercation

[DarthVain]

Biased summary, and silly comments.

The guy wasn't shot because he was texting during a movie, or even the previews.

He got shot because he got into a heated argument and altercation with someone who was carrying a guy and obviously trigger happy (or paranoid, or very threatened).

This has little to do with texting and movies, other than it started the whole mess.

Clearly a case of standing your ground

[mileshigh]

The shooter that is...

Re:It's about time!

[Macgruder]

I'm not trying to spin anything. If anything I'm trying to unspin things by pointing out we don't have all all the information yet.

Re:Remember

[M1FCJ]

Kill a pig or an ex-pig, you will NOT get a fair hearing, even if you're right. All around the world, the system is riggest against you, the prosecutors and the pigs will do everything to blacken your reputation and ruin you. End of story. No happy ending.

Re:3 year olds can't even read.

[M1FCJ]

When you're dead, you can't tell your end of the story. Then it's always the person who killed you makes the story and that's the story that will count during the court hearings.

Re:It's about time!

[barc0001]

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:A Message

[barc0001]

Doesn't matter. The NSA already knows who it is. The rest is just paperwork.

Re: It didn't have to become a confrontation.

[DocSavage64109]

Exactly. None of this would have occurred with a little mutual respect and common decency.

Re:It's about time!

[roc97007]

> I don't see that in the article. He went to complain to the theater manager.

Correct. It seems from the sequence of events that (because a manager did not return with him) he either couldn't find a manager, or the manager did not respond quickly enough. (Possibly because the movie had not started yet.)

> Both guys sound like assholes.

Agreed. But one asshole was armed and shot an unarmed asshole when (according to TFA) there didn't seem to be any major indications that the armed asshole's life was threatened. The armed asshole is now charged with second degree murder. (Again, from TFA.) Because being an asshole, in and of itself, shouldn't be a capital offense.

Something else occurs to me. I freely admit this is speculation based on my own experiences with law enforcement. You know how LEOs are trained -- they take command of a situation and use intimidation to keep the citizen (or perp -- to a LEO the terms are often synonymous) in line. So it stands to reason that a retired LEO, a Captain I think TFA said, would be using this mode with the victim. But he's not wearing a uniform, and he has not in any way identified himself as a LEO (because he wasn't one at that time), and so, to the other asshole (the one who got shot) he must have seemed a particularly livid asshole of the first degree. It would then (it seems to me) be natural for the unarmed asshole (the one who got shot) to object to the armed asshole getting in his face.

Like a lot of IT people here, I'm on call, which means I sometimes get a text or alert or (rarely) a call (on vibrate) in a theater. I always leave the theater to deal with it, as I realize that being accessible has to be balanced with not being an asshole. I'm now a little bit concerned, though, that if a prod system goes offline and I get a text, some retired LEO might take a shot at me.

Re:It's about time!

[roc97007]

According to TFA, the former LEO was charged with second degree murder.

Re:It's about time!

[roc97007]

Hahahahaha NRA shill spotted already.

"Who knows what happened" and then proceeding to paint the victim in the worst possible manner, despite witness testimony of the transpired events.

How does that make him an NRA shill? Perhaps you meant a LEO shill?

Psycho cop, worse texter

[Anonymous Coward]

Normally, I presume the cops are guilty as hell. In this case, I'd have a hard time convicting that psycho
if I was on a jury again. Yeah, it's wrong, but I understand where he was coming from. ;)

Re:Death penalty?

[mark-t]

What the guy texting deserved was to be kicked out of the theater without a refund. What the guy who decided to shoot him for what he did deserves at least 2 decades behind bars.

Re:It's about time!

[cayenne8]

*CLAP* *CLAP* *CLAP*

I'm guessing this led to a standing ovation for said officer!!

Ouch....no -1 flamebait.

No sense of humor out there, eh?

Re:It's about time!

[cayenne8]

Too bad the people that came in your house were undercover cops and now you are guilty of shooting a federal officer.

If they don't have a warrant and announce themselves, they deserve what they get, no?

Re:It's about time!

[Darinbob]

He left to get a manager according to the article, nothing says he left the building.

The texting was also during the previews, which is when many people are still arriving and they haven't even shown the "turn off phones" message.

Re:Is it bad that I instantly assumed it's in the

[BasilBrush]

Almost every jurisdiction with gun restrictions makes exceptions for active duty and retired cops.

American jurisdiction, perhaps. In the UK, armed officers can only carry in the hours they are on duty. They don't get to carry when they are off duty, let alone when they are retired.

Re:It's about time!

[mark-t]

Shooting someone for texting during the movie is fine with me

Uh.... what?

Re:Is it bad that I instantly assumed it's in the

[BasilBrush]

For some reason, gun control measures and proposals here in the US from the left never include cops or former cops. They always get a special pass.

Because politics is the art of the possible.

Re:It's about time!

[mark-t]

Why would a federal officer, who has not identified himself, break into the guy's house and threaten him or his family with a weapon?

Re:It's about time!

[TapeCutter]

Same here in Oz, technically emergency vehicles must obey road rules even with lights and sirens on, however for some long forgotten reason the "royal mail" truck does not.

Re:It's about time!

[Zomalaja]

I read that the theater has signs conspicuously posted that say "This is private property and no firearms are allowed".

Re:It's about time!

[Darinbob]

Right of way does not mean right to keep going when it's not safe. Ie, you have right of way when your light turns green, but you can not legally proceed if the intersection is blocked. Yes, it may be another person's fault for still being in the intersection, but it is also your fault for going ahead when there's something blocking the way.

Re: It's about time!

[allcoolnameswheretak]

You might want to explain what "CWP firing error rate" is supposed to mean. As googling it, only reveals "Concealed Weapons Permit", which I am not sure can be fired erroneously or otherwise.

What I do know from life experience however, is that in a theater, there are people all around you, except maybe directly above and below you.

Re:It's about time!

[mysidia]

Well he's not texting anymore. And the guy with the gun isn't shooting people anymore. I think this is a win for movie-go'ers.

Except the ones present during the altercation, that got the shit scared out of them.

By the way loud argument and shooting are both way more disruptive than texting

I motion that guns be banned from theatres, and there should be signs hung up that say "Please check your weapons at the door," and "No shooting during the movie.".

Re:Oh? Tell that to the Star Wars Episode 1 previe

[Vanderhoth]

Most of the movies I've been to in the last two years just show regular tv comercials for twenty to thirty minutes, then there's two or three previews then the movie. It feels like such a rippoff, cost me $50 (two tickets, One popcorn combo with two pops) to take my wife out on a date night, plus I had to pay for a babysitter (another $30), just so I can watch crap I activaly avoid on TV. Maybe that's why Empire Theater in Nova Scotia, was sold off to Cineplex. Maybe that's also the reason so many people wait to pirate the movies instead of going to the theaters.

Re:It's about time!

[mysidia]

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.

To be clear... it seems that was not an argument. The old man was harassing the person who was texting, which resulted in loud rebukes and other defensive actions.

In that case, the argument of self-defense would be invalid. Clearly; aggravated 2nd degree murder.

The shooter should be hanged.

Re:It's about time!

[Darinbob]

It's Florida, so that makes it a shoot-first-make-excuse-later state.

Even having someone young punching an elderly person is not reason to shoot. If your theory was true, there were other patrons who could have restrained the younger person.

Re:It's about time!

[mysidia]

This was a retired COP. Even under the most fascist gun control regime, this is the kind of guy that's going to STILL be armed.

Not in England, he wouldn't be; the majority of cops aren't allowed to carry firearms either, only the firearms division.

Re:It's about time!

[mythosaz]

Correct. Nobody, not even fire trucks, has the right of way. You, however, as a "normal" driver must yield the right of way to fire trucks. It's a subtle difference but an important one. [This is true for pedestrians in crosswalks. They don't have the right of way either. You must, however, yield the right of way to them.]

Moral of the story? You're always in the right until you're in the wrong.

Re: It's about time!

[jtnix]

Of course his 3 year old can't read. He was probably texting the baby-sitter a message for them to relay to his kid on his kid's phone.

Lots of parents get a phone to go with their kid wherever they go.

Re:To those highlighting the need for gun control.

[kyncani]

Why would the law be any different between ordinary civilians, retired officers or not ?

Re:It's about time!

[Darinbob]

But that's a higher morale standard. It's sort of like the right to be an asshole. Yes you have that right, but it is still vastly preferrable to not exercise that right and exercise civilized virtues like self restraint.

And a lot of Biblical things get misinterpreted or used out of context, etc. Ie, in the old testament, "an eye for an eye" is used, and it's a common quote. However that rule was initially intended to set a limit. That is, the punishment should not be greater than the crime. Ie, shooting someone to protect your wallet is not justified even under the old testament. In the new testament it goes further and suggests that people strive for a higher standard, so that instead of eye for an eye it is suggested that when struck on a cheek you turn the other cheek instead of retaliating, and that's a much more difficult concept to grasp (although Bill and Ted had figured it out).

But of course it's the Bible, which means lots of Christians treat it only as loose guidelines.

Re:It's about time!

[Darinbob]

He was texting during previews only, there's no evidence he was an asshole. Glad you're not in charge of deciding who lives and dies.

Re:It's about time!

[Darinbob]

Yup, if being an asshole deserved the death penalty, the human race would become extinct.

Re:It's about time!

[mysidia]

Here's where your argument falls flat. Without his gun, that 71-yo might be dead on the floor after being assaulted without provocation by a man 30 years younger.

No... the 71 year old was clearly acting carelessly; he started the argument apparently by harrassing the texter repeatedly, then taking actions to provoke them further, and with his gun -- placed a large number of innocent bystanders in apparent lethal danger, by shooting in a dark theatre.

Note that the shots he fired killed one person, and the wife was shot and injured as well.

Aside from the fact, the 71 year old's argument with the texter was more disruptive than the texting;

He had clearly been able to flee or escape the situation, as evidence by the fact, that he had left earlier, which negates the argument of self-defense. The 71 year old was being apparently stubborn, and reacting in an a manner not proper in a civilized society.

Re:huh?

[Darinbob]

I think he meant that the Americans are revolting.

Re:Oh? Tell that to the Star Wars Episode 1 previe

[DexterIsADog]

Okay, and maybe blue fairies were involved. This speculation is piled too high - the assumption that her hand on his chest was to restrain him, and the *pure* speculation based on that slim reed that he had a history of altercations, is just silly.

I'll revisit this when a reasonable body of facts are available.

Re: It's about time!

[DexterIsADog]

I've read ALL of Heinlein's novels and stories, probably before you were old enough to read.

I assert that your use of that quote is WILDLY inappropriate.

And now you've said something even dumber; "The point is that the overall politeness of society goes up every time you shoot somebody who acts like an asshole in public..."

You missed his point entirely.

Re:It's about time!

[mysidia]

So GP indeed may be jumping to conclusions on that account. As for the rest of your argumentation, yes, one punch from a strong guy could kill a 71-year-old

As a retired cop, who was being afforded a special right to carry a gun in a gun-free theatre, that the vast majority of 71 year olds would not be allowed to do, I would hold him to a much standard --- he knew, or should have known how to most safely handle the situation, and he clearly did not do the right thing.

Even if he won't be serving any jail time, he deserves the conviction, so he can have the felony on his record --- which will prevent him from ever legally carrying a gun again, for the rest of his life.

Re:It's about time!

[Nyder]

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?

Considering the shooter is a retired police officer, who should of known better then to use his gun, I find it sort of weird. I mean, what sort of police force did he retire from that makes him think it's okay to kill/shoot someone for disrupting the movie you are at?

Guns don't kill people, but retired cops do.

Guy on bike vs. pedestrian

[tlambert]

Yeah, but a drunk guy on a bike can't kill pedestrians, but with a car, he can.

Guy on bike vs. pedestrian:

San Francisco, US:
http://blogs.kqed.org/newsfix/2013/07/23/san-francisco-cyclist-pedestrian-death/

Dorsett, UK:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/dorset/8197430.stm

Re:Death penalty?

[denzacar]

What the guy who decided to shoot him for what he did deserves at least 2 decades behind bars.

Considering he's 71, and a retired police captain... that's kinda ironic. In several ways.

Re:It's about time!

[Nyder]

... Shooting someone for texting during the movie is fine with me, but shooting them for texting during the trailer previews is unjustified.

You do realize that you aren't going to finish the movie? Police, ambulances, etc is going to be showing up, the lights will be put on and the movie will be stopped.

That seems more annoying then someone texting.

Re:It's about time!

[LF11]

Were you there? You speak with the authority of one who saw it happen.

Lots of people spoke similarly about George Zimmerman. They believed the media, and were wrong.

It is perfectly plausible that the wife attacked the ex-cop as well, after the first shot. As for harrassing, I am sorry but asking a texter to put their phone away is NOT harrassment. I have done it several times, and I have been asked to put my own phone away.

As for shooting in a dark theater and the rest of our claims: were you there? My theater doesn't darken fully until the actual feature begins. I would have no problem shooting accurately up until that point, and if I had a laser or tactical light attachment, I would have no problem after the theater darkened either.

Something for you to think about: when you go to the theater, it is quite likely that several firearms are present in the audience around you. The likelihood drops where it is illegal to carry, but in most of the US, you can probably count on multiple loaded guns within your immediate vicinity.

You may hate guns, but they are all around you. We just don't show them off.

Re:It's about time!

[mythosaz]

Yes and no.

I just said this above, but I'll repeat it. "You're always in the right until you're in the wrong." That's the pro-gun-agenda (whomever they are) people's logic behind an armed population. Anyone carrying a gun is a defender of liberty, ready to stop someone from attacking a guy in a theater. Anyone shooting a guy in a theater is a lunatic, hopefully to be stopped by a "good guy."

Don't get me wrong. I'm a gun owner, and on rare occasion a gun carrying member of (I think) the "good guys." I generally don't see a need to carry my gun for full-time self defense. I just have it on me when I'm going to and from the range, or out into the wilderness for the weekend, plus a smattering of other times when it makes sense to have it.

Of course, I'm in Arizona, where they practically issue guns to people with proof of citizenship. YMMV.

Re: It's about time!

[mythosaz]

You've described a zany hypothetical situation where a "good guy" with a gun "helps" by shooting into a crowd.

The person responding to you replied by telling you that 98% of shoots by CCW holders are "righteous" where only 86% of police shoots are. The other 14%, presumably, are police shooting people holding cell phones and other fuckups.

I have no idea if his stat is true, but if so, by an overwhelming majority a CCW holder (a guy who just wants to carry his gun) is less likely to shoot into a crowd than a cop by a factor of 7:1.

The idiot in this story is part of the 2%, clearly -- although he's likely a minority among that 2% as well.

Re:Sounds like a case of senile agitation

[shentino]

Gunshots in the audience tend to get the movie put on pause anyway.

Re:It's about time!

[Anonymous Coward]

You might achieve the mythical +5 Troll! Keep modding folks!

Alternate Title

[Jaborandy]

Alternate title: "Man Shot To Death After Striking Retired Police Officer In Dark Room"

When you put it that way, it's not ridiculous. Probably wouldn't have received national attention either. Yes, the fight started over texting, but it was finished when one of them hit the other. Violence in public is risky. You never know how the other guy plans to defend himself. Don't be an asshole and hit strangers, and you won't get shot by the tiny percentage who carry guns.

--Jaborandy

A sad truth...

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no penalty for being rude anymore.

We have reached a point where the only allowed response to even an obscene level of rudeness is to "give them a good talking to". Seeing that the type of person who is insanely rude is also the type of person who learned to mentally do the equivalent of going, "La la la la la..." with their fingers plugging their ears there is no recourse against them. They automatically have won... unless someone escalates it to a physical confrontation.

Once upon a time people (even bad ones) defaulted to being courteous because there was a very real chance that someone would take them to task in a very real and physical way over their lack of respect and courtesy.

Civility as a norm is sorely missed.

Re:during the ads who cares?

[DocSavage64109]

I'm as ready as the next guy to dump a jerks cell phone into their soda during the movie, but during the ads who cares?

Apparently other patrons.

Re:It's about time!

[gerardrj]

Right... the old testament is the Jewish book. Christians are supposed to be all about the "new" post-12 step program god who was all about peace and love.
The whole IDEA of Christianity is that christ (Jesus) came to Earth to reform us and teach us the new ways. No true Christian should be clinging to the OT to justify violence.

There's that bit during the last supper...

[denzacar]

Where Jesus tells his pals they should all be packin iron.

Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.
--Luke 22:36,

Right to bear arms? Fuck that sissy shit.
JESUS COMMANDS YOU TO ARM YOURSELF!

Re:It's about time!

[Dieppe]

Shooter leaves the theatre, and then comes back a few minutes later. Couldn't he have, I don't know, sat somewhere ELSE if he was afraid for his life enough to kill over? Yeah, the shooting wasn't warranted. He could have left and got his money back and this happened during the previews not the movie itself. Still strong enough reason to kill somebody?

Re:A Message

[MrKaos]

So says the guys who keeps on getting proved wrong.

So now I guess...

[BringsApples]

...we get metal-detectors at movie-theaters? Ooo, or how about those X-ray (nude) body-scanners.

Re: It's about time!

[murdocj]

Really? Suggesting that the texter could have avoided the incident by moving to the back of the theater is modded "Troll"?

Re:It's about time!

[blippo]

No it isn't.

It's a total loss for civilization, what it is.

There is now a disabled widow and a fatherless child.

A moviegoer have been killed because he texted his (presumably) babysitter, *before* the movie.

As a moviegoer I'm not really seeing the upside of getting shot, so I guess I'll just stay home.

And as several idiots at slashdot has modded this comment, not as troll, or even funny, but fucking insightful,
I've come to the conclusion that I've wasted too much time in my life reading comments on Slashdot,
which was apparently totally pointless too.

Bye.

Other than that Mrs. Oulson...

[nonregistered]

how was the movie?

Never bring an iPhone...

[nonregistered]

to a gunfight.

Re: It's about time!

[kenh]

It also shows you how 'full of crap' these gun free zones (like movie theaters) are... Why didn't the shooter obey the law, as noted on the sticker by the theater door that 'weapons are not allowed'?

Re: It's about time!

[weilawei]

So, in order to solve one thing you find personally inconvenient, you extrapolate and assume that all others in your vicinity share your opinion. Now, I share your opinion that phone usage during a movie is rude. I don't share your opinion that a jammer is a valid solution, because it also constitutes something which is not only obnoxious, but illegal to boot. Furthermore, it's obnoxious to a larger amount of people, and it's difficult to control exactly who you affect with it. It is, in essence, untargeted. A phone, at the very least, can be used on mute underneath a coat, in order to check a pager or text messages. Better still, I could take my phone outside the theater and use it--but wait, you're still jamming it.

Before you decide to shove your opinions down another's throat, especially by advocating illegal measures and vigilantism, perhaps you should stop to consider the broader ramifications of your response, rather than just the bits you find convenient.

Re: It's about time!

[kenh]

You have a warped sense of humor...

Re: It's about time!

[kenh]

That's why you should bring a silencer with you - no one would know what happened until the lights come back up...

Sensational but misleading headlines on this, aye.

[rat_axe]

As Jaborandy points out, the texting was only prelude to an "altercation". This is what prompted the shooting, and undoubtedly we will hear some version of self-defense claim from the shooter's attorney eventually. The news outlets' packaging of this story as practically an execution for the offense of texting is misleading to say the least. For those of us who don't have the time to delve into the details of these stories, the risk is we come away from the headlines with a false impression of what happened. This is not in any way to judge the merits of the case or exonerate the shooter (it would be extremely hard to imagine him feeling his life was in danger from a 43-year old suburban parent there with his wife), but just to say be careful what conclusions you jump to.

Just to stir up the pot a little, I'll say this: it's another example of Florida's asinine gun permit clause which mandates that concealed weapons stay concealed as opposed to "open carry". Several of these high-profile shootings probably would have been avoided if the eventual victim knew beforehand that their opponent was armed.

Re:About time!

[weilawei]

The right to offend is more important than the right to not be offended.

Re: It's about time!

[ceoyoyo]

Whoopsie, you had headphones on or the stereo turned up loud and he popped in to see if anyone was in danger from the chimney fire he spotted.

Stick with violent paranoia though, it makes life grander.

Sunshine state my ass

[sjames]

Hanging chads and butterfly ballots, police tazing 1st graders, gunning down unarmed men in their own driveway and now in movie theaters. Not to mention they have face eating zombies. WTF?!?

Re: It's about time!

[ceoyoyo]

Sure is. Police, military, whatever. It's a job that comes with specific rights and responsibilities. No matter what your screwed up bro code says, when you retire, get fired, suspended, whatever, you no longer have those rights and responsibilities.

An ex cop is a regular citizen who happens to have been a cop in the past.

Re: It's about time!

[ceoyoyo]

Kind of ironic since in this situation people ran amok and it escalated to manslaughter.

Re:It's about time!

[breeze95]

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?

/quote The elderly man didn't shoot the texter over his texting. He shot the victim because the victim physically assaulted him with a bag of popcorn. The moral of the story is, don't physically assaulted someone unless you are prepared to deal with the consequence.

Nyan cat

[Nemo's Night Sky]

"Woman shot to death for playing Nyan cat during movie." Wife says

Re: It's about time!

[demonlapin]

Not legally, they're not. Retired LEOs enjoy numerous privileges not available to the general populace. This law, for example, grants active and retired police a concealed carry permit that must be honored in all 50 states (there is no such thing available to private citizens), AND it can only be overridden by state laws that prohibit possession on state property or provisions of state law that allow private property owners to bar concealed weaponry.

Re:It's about time!

[Rockoon]

If I had my hands full of grocery bags and you were confronting me

Your story is shit because its you confronting me. Are you really this ignorant of the story we are talking about?

The man who was rudely texting later confronted the man who had went to find a manager. The dipshit texting man who is now causing a confrontation throws his popcorn at the man who went to find a manager, and then clears his fucking hands while his girl tried to hold him back.

I might shoot your ass dead too, because (a) you are causing the confrontation, (b) you are escalating the confrontation, and (c) you are actively readying up for physical violence.

Re:It's about time!

[Lectoid]

I was taught in my concealed weapons class to only defend yourself (and likely anyone under your care). If you can, always retreat. And if you come upon a gun fight (whether one or both parties have guns), you don't know what the situation is so don't get involved. One could be an undercover police.

Obviously...

[Chewbacon]

He was texting on the shooter's ground.

Re:It's about time!

[mdielmann]

I believe that the use of potentially deadly force is only justified when that same force is first used against you, or you're in immediate and imminent danger of having it being used against you.

I'd propose that it's justified if someone else is physically threatened, as well.

Re:It's about time!

[OneAhead]

If there was a reasonable fear of being attacked, then the only way he could defend himself is with a gun.

Oh come on, now you're just playing dumb! Other options include:

(1) Get away. "Stand your ground" be damned - it's the first thing any "reasonable person" in the world will do when faced with a (real or imaginary) threat of bodily harm. It's not that the victim had a lot of opportunity to go after him, in a theater with other moviegoers and with his wife restraining him.

(2) Nothing indeed. At 71 years old, most people are not that frail yet. The guy has
* police training, which includes a minimal amount of hand-to-hand and restraining skills
* the higher ground (the victim was sitting before him in a movie theater)
* environmental obstacles that can be used as an advantage (rows of seats)
* awareness of the danger of getting hit. Most people who die after taking one hit do so because they were caught by surprise; even without any martial training, an alert person will instinctively block to minimize damage to critical areas.
With all these advantages stacked up, waiting for the other guy to try something more serious than throwing pop corn does not seem to be a deadly risk. Especially since most men are less likely to get physical in the presence of their wife in the first place. And even *if* the guy takes a swing and you, you block as good as you can, cry for help and the other theatergoers will quickly restrain him. It's not that it's just the two of them in a dark alley... which makes your "take a beating" option sound exaggerated at best.

(3) Declare you have a gun, or even pull it and threaten the other party. Very safe to do at the distance of a row of theater chairs. Staring into a barrel will definitely cool their eagerness to fight, something a retired police captain ought to be very familiar with. People get mugged at gunpoint every day in the US city I currently live in, and most of them don't get physically harmed in the process. Aren't ex-cops supposed to have better judgment in these things than the average junkie mugger?

Especially with option (3) on the table, and with cops being trained to try to subdue people at gunpoint without shooting if the situation is sufficiently serious and other options have failed, it seems clear that the perp must have lost his temper and shot the victim out of rage, not fear. And I bet you he'll be put away for it.

Re:Oh? Tell that to the Star Wars Episode 1 previe

[AK Marc]

The report from the witness I saw indicated that the draw and firing was quick, and he was already restraining her husband prior to the shot. He was held back by his wife, and threw popcorn at the shooter. If she wasn't holding him back, he likely would have been throwing punches (so indicates the shooter), so the shooter held a belief that he was subject to a violent attack with the capability of ending his life. So he ended the confrontation.

If this doesn't end in an acquittal, I hope the Blacks burn Florida to the ground. This shooting was more justified than "that other shooting".

Re: It's about time!

[Anonymous Coward]

What? Only in 'Murica are EX-cops still armed. Former cops are not cops anymore but ordinary citizens like everybody else. You leave the badge behind and the gun when you quit.

Re:It's about time!

[Alomex]

physically assaulted him with a bag of popcorn.

You are being ironic right?

Re:It's about time!

[Pseudonym]

Sounds like a good argument for mandatory training, to me.

Re:It's about time!

[Pseudonym]

Of course, I'm in Arizona, where they practically issue guns to people with proof of citizenship.

Oh, so that explains why Arizona cops are required to check your citizenship papers if you look a little bit brown. I was wondering that.

Re:It's about time!

[Anonymous Coward]

that is still kind of true, but police officers are rarely the good guys. Most of them don't join to make society a better place, but to get power over others, and a chance to be violent with no repercussions.

Re:Finally some good news for a change.

[wvmarle]

Death penalty? What you're saying there is, "Killing someone is a bad thing to do, so we'll kill you." Pure hypocrisy.

Re:Finally some good news for a change.

[wvmarle]

Then there would have been at least two crazy guys clinging to bringing their gun everywhere.

One dead and one wounded is more than enough for a simple argument. And that's just the physical aspect of it, not considering the psychological damage of the surviving (and wounded) wife, and the rest of the people present in the theatre who easily could have been hit by a stray bullet.

Re: It's about time!

[Anonymous Coward]

Only a small number of gun owners ever shoot someone, and most of the people doing the shooting are career criminals, not pissed off old assholes like this guy. It doesn't makes sense to ban all guns just to get to a few of them.

Re:It's about time!

[Jamu]

Indeed. It's easy for me to make a comment like that when this tragedy doesn't effect me. Apologies if it offended.

Right so!

[garry_g]

That's why every red-blooded American was granted the right to bear arms by the founding fathers ... to shoot those mother-f@cking @ssholes that text during a movie (preview or main doesn't matter).

I wonder how many thousands of deaths it will take before America finally wakes up and reduces that 2nd amendment right to the arms that were current at the time of that amendment ...

Re:Right so!

[moeinvt]

If you seriously subscribe to that interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, then, by direct implication, the 1st Amendment applies only to word of mouth, the quill pen and the printing press. Also by implication, the 4th amendment would apply only to printed or hand written "papers".

Looking at the # of firearms-related deaths and assuming you can save those lives through gun bans is naive. People will find alternate means of committing suicide(leading cause of firearms-related deaths). Murderers will find other means to kill. Criminal gangs (a major source of gun violence) will ignore gun bans entirely.
Furthermore, you would leave the population completely vulnerable to armed criminals. That's not about saving lives, it's merely swapping one set of victims for another.

Overkill perhaps

[xenobyte]

I guess killing the texter is a bit overkill, but how hard can it be to just fucking stop texting when asked to?! Sheesh!

If he refushed, stand up and point to the holstered gun and ask the texter to leave. No threats at gunpoint, no killing and the texter would have to leave as texting is banned and he has no choice anymore.

Good for the Goose

[TranquilVoid]

I hope he used a silencer, otherwise that's just plain hypocrisy.

Re:It's about time!

[Japie_H]

God Bless America

Never expected this movie to be accurate...

Re:It's about time!

[psychonaut]

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.

Funny how governments the world over routinely and very effectively overrule your god with impunity. Is he not interested in enforcing his divine law?

Re: It's about time!

[msi]

An armed society is a polite society.

it obviously isn't.

Justified.

[sabbede]

The guy wouldn't turn off his phone. After being asked, complaints to management... He was a jerk, and he got shot for it. Good.

Re:A Message

[shutdown -p now]

Regular people carrying firearms are generally aware of it. The problem with the guy in question is that he's an ex-cop. US gun laws are written in such a way as to make cops and ex-cops a very privileged class - they can carry most everywhere regular folk can't, without a need for permits etc. They also carry the "I'm not a civilian, because I have a gun" mentality. The only thing that I'm surprised about is that it took so long for something like this to happen (normally, cops tend to go for unwarranted lethal force while on duty, and we hear less about that because the cases get covered up or chalked off as "unfortunate accident").

Re:Finally some good news for a change.

[sproketboy]

If I'm an idiot then you're a shit eating monkey.

Re:It's about time!

[shutdown -p now]

Was a gun or other weapon found on the victim of the shooting? No.

Did any witnesses mention a physical altercation (no, throwing popcorn isn't a "fight")? No.

Sure, ultimately it'll be the court that will rule on the facts of the matter, but this seems to be very much a clear-cut case.

Also, the fact that guy was already charged with murder is quite telling in and of itself. People generally don't get charged in cases of clear self-defense (well, at least not white people - and definitely not ex-cops).

Re: It's about time!

[dwpro]

I don't see that as altogether different from fear of public ridicule or being given a ticket. Fear is a prominent mechanism for politeness, as evidenced by the poor behavior of many US drivers when they think they are immune from reprisal.

Re:It's about time!

[MikeBabcock]

A theatre half an hour away does that too but the keep the house lights on dim until the main feature, at which point they go completely dark.

Re:It's about time!

[ilsaloving]

Looks like I've been modded by a Zimmerman supporter.

Re:It's about time!

[MikeBabcock]

Especially fun when the guy at the bus stop clutches his chest and the lady next to him tries to dial 911.

Re:Oh? Tell that to the Star Wars Episode 1 previe

[DexterIsADog]

1 - He shouldn't have had a gun in a movie theater.
2 - He should have retreated instead of returning to the same seat to press his "rights", which he did because he knew he could draw and fire.

The shooter was in the wrong, and he's going to rot in jail for murder. It's telling that you reference "the Blacks". That says a lot about you.

Re: It's about time!

[mark-t]

A police officer with a warrant would still identify themselves as an officer to anyone who was unsuspecting.

Re:Are you dumb or are you trying to justify murde

[TangoMargarine]

Perhaps depending on the position of the wife, I would say arm vs. chest mean very different things.

Re:It's about time!

[Lord Kano]

Shooting someone for assaulting you often is.

Re:It's about time!

[j-turkey]

I misspoke - I actually meant the Bill or Rights rather than the constitution itself. A grant is perhaps a less than ideal choice of words. How about "guarantee" instead? Maybe limitation of government powers?

Re:It's about time!

[dave420]

No. Welcome to the tragedy.

Only in New York..

[doccus]

...Only in New York would a retired cop still carry around a gun , even in a movie theatre. Was it a "Shoot-em-up" flick?

Re: It's about time!

[chris.m.greenman]

And in any state that allows concealed carry, training IS mandatory in order to carry.

Re: It's about time!

[DontScotty]

It prevents repeat offenders, that is what it solves.

Tragic story, equally tragic reporting

[rjgill]

This news article spent all its fluff text berating cell phone use in theaters and labeling it as a rising problem, while completely skipping over the insane individual who KILLED someone.

Re:Tragic story, equally tragic reporting

[Gallomimia]

This news article spent all its fluff text berating cell phone use in theaters and labeling it as a rising problem, while completely skipping over the insane individual who KILLED someone.

Insane individual who used to be a cop.

Re:Oh? Tell that to the Star Wars Episode 1 previe

[AK Marc]

Both apply to the Zimmerman/Martin incident. He didn't need to take his gun with him to "look at a street sign" and he followed a "suspicious" person until there was an altercation, without ever retreating, even after reporting the person as suspicious to the police.

I figured someone would complain about "the Blacks" but how else would you describe the groups that protested the Zimmerman/Martin incident?

It looks to me like it'll come down to "black kid shot = acquittal, white adult shot = conviction" The race situation in the US is fragile. Since you flatly indicate he'd going to rot in jail, how would you compare two guys in a fight in a theater, one ending up shot, to one guy "stalking" another with a gun, getting into a fight and one ending up shot?

Incidents like this may be looked upon as isolated in court, but not in the public view. So, how do you compare it?

Re: It's about time!

[Joce640k]

And now you've said something even dumber;

But still not as dumb as telling me I think it's polite to shoot people.

There's a catch in the Florida Law:

[OurDailyFred]

Reeves (the shooter) is 71. At that age, you have different rights in Florida than someone who hasn't become a senior citizen.

1. Assaults give you a right to defend yourself if you FEEL threatened. Throwing a container of popcorn at another person is an assault if it is done in anger.

2. According to the suspect's lawyer, the "Stand Your Ground" law would cover someone, aged 71 who is assaulted in a place he or she has a right to be.

3. The federal law covering retired police officers carrying firearms gives them the right to carry in most places, including places which post signs like the Cobb Theater has done which tell patrons that firearms are prohibited. Thus a seasoned police officer in Florida would likely be carrying his firearm all the time, as he was required to do during his career. There are provisions that the department where the officer last served must sign off on the retiree's qualifications annually, and the officer must re-qualify on the range as do serving officers.

4. Pasco Sheriff Chris Nocco spoke informally with the deputies at the scene and the consensus was to proceed with the murder 2 charge. But, a good case can be made by a good lawyer that the 71 year old man was within his rights to defend himself against an assault if he can convince a jury that he was in fear for his life or grievous bodily harm.

Much could be said about the rule in Alamo Drafthouse theaters where if you tell Siri you would like to send a text, she replies, "I'm very sorry but you're in an Alamo Drafthouse movie theater, and the use of phones is strictly prohibited. Please don't be rude."

This is an unfortunate case which has consequences for both families (The suspect's son is a serving Tampa Police officer).

This will be an interesting case if it goes to trial.

(FWIW, In the winter I live about ten miles or so from the Cobb Theatre, although I have never attended a movie there.)

Re:There's a catch in the Florida Law:

[Gallomimia]

I found this summary of the situation very enlightening as I read the actual article, after reading this. It appears that the shooter knew all of this in advance, being a seasoned veteran of the force. The gun went off only after there had been an assault. He was pissed and looked for his excuse to kill the asshole who is not only texting in a theater, but also not doing what this old cop says.

Re:It's about time!

[roc97007]

That said, one does have to do a risk assessment; someone throwing popcorn in a theater is clearly not threat of bodily harm and doesn't justify a lethal response.

Was the popcorn covered in hot butter? If so, how hot was the butter? Was the retired police officer allergic to corn? Lots of unanswered questions...

Well, since it was a commercial movie theater, the butter was most probably congealed into a cold slimy coating.

If allergies are grounds for lethal self defense, we'd have to equip peanut allergy sufferers with rocket launchers. That might be entertaining, from a distance.

Re:It's about time!

[Si]

Go back to your playpen, the adults are talking.

rudely texting

or just possibly NOT rudely doing anything at all, and in fact texting. During. The. Previews.

causing a confrontation

X tells Y to stop doing something. Y tells X thanks but no. Regardless of what happened later, who caused the confrontation?

clears his fucking hands

Really? Really? You really think throwing popcorn at someone is

readying up for physical violence

? You need to get out more. As if the presence of popcorn is going to prevent a punch being thrown.

 

Re:It's about time! What movie were they watching?

[notonthegrid]

Maybe Hollywood has been putting subliminal messages into their flicks that
cause people to go wacko in movie theaters?

Re:Oh? Tell that to the Star Wars Episode 1 previe

[AK Marc]

Then make the substitution, and re-read the statement. I was using the words that they used to describe themselves. I'm not sure how that's racist when that's how I was asked to call them.

Past your complaints on my word selection, what is your assessment of the situation?

The USA is cursed

[Occams]

Cinema owners have no right to stop texting. The carrier purchased a license to use the spectrum at great cost and the cinema cannot take away the right given by the Federal government through that license. Using it is bad manners but nothing more. Crazy old gun nut. The curse of the Second Amendment.

Re: It's about time!

[Si]

Haha yeah, I used to think Heinlein was great when /I/ was thirteen, too! If you want to go kill everyone who's impolite and unapologetic, you'd better have a LOT of ammo. Here's a free hint: shooting someone teaches them nothing. If you want to convert people to your point of view (perhaps being unapologetic about being impolite is a bad thing), work to convince them of it, instead of thinking how much better would the world be if everyone but *me* were dead.

Oh, you're a jerk, and I'm not sorry. You gonna come shoot me now?

Re: It's about time!

[Si]

One day you'll realise that the problem with your assertion is that of who gets to define what acting like an asshole is, and why that really shouldn't be left up to the guy with the gun.

Today is not that day.

Sigh

[Tannasgh]

Seriously? I don't think the texter is the story here, it's the ticking time bomb of rage issues that carried a gun into a public place. There is a high probability he was going to go off eventually, it just happened to be a person texting that untwined his rope. It could have been a driver, someone walking to slowly, or a rude clerk in a store.

Re:It's about time!

[JamieIanMacgregor]

Is there a point where senility takes precedence over the right to own a gun?

License to Murder

[Martin Spamer]

http://www.infowars.com/kelly-thomas-verdict-cops-now-have-license-to-murder/

Re:Oh? Tell that to the Star Wars Episode 1 previe

[DexterIsADog]

Oh, now I get what you're talking about. You think it's unfair if the white guy goes to prison for killing the white guy, when the other white guy didn't go to prison for killing a black guy.

Honestly, yours was the first reference I saw to race, and it never even entered my mind. It didn't matter to me what race either of the guys in this new case was.

But, jumping on me is just barking up the wrong tree. Nothing I posted compared the two cases, so stop wasting your time - you have no idea what I think of the Zimmerman case.

Re: It's about time!

[DexterIsADog]

And now you've said something even dumber;

But still not as dumb as telling me I think it's polite to shoot people.

Lol, whut? I QUOTED YOUR POST. Here, these are your words, again:

"The point is that the overall politeness of society goes up every time you shoot somebody who acts like an asshole in public..."

You are a fucking retard.

How many innocents are you willing to sacrifice

[Xaedalus]

in an "armed" society, where not everyone has the same level of impulse control?

Re:It's about time!

[Trikenstein]

I've read several stories about this incident. None of them mentioning him leaving the theatre to retrieve his gun. All mention him stepping out to find a manager and returning without one. But no one has said he left the cinema to go to his car.

Re:Oh? Tell that to the Star Wars Episode 1 previe

[AK Marc]

I didn't ask your opinion about what you thought about Zimmerman. Your statement about the hand being for a shield was factually wrong, according to witness reports. The indication was that the hand was holding the texter back. A 71 year old man, being threatened by a younger, combat-trained person could reasonably fear for his life. I also find it interesting that the general consensus here is that the shooter should be found guilty, when a similar case (but with a black dead person) the consensus was that the shooter was justified and should go free.

We'll see how the case plays out in the courts, and how America reacts to the verdict. I predict some unrest if the white victim provoked shooting gets a conviction when a black victim for a provoked shooting gets an acquittal. Many will see that as a racial issue. I've already seen it mentioned as such in the press, but I have no idea if that's a general feeling, or sensationalist reporting.

Re:Oh? Tell that to the Star Wars Episode 1 previe

[DexterIsADog]

I didn't ask your opinion about what you thought about Zimmerman. Your statement about the hand being for a shield was factually wrong, according to witness reports.

So what? Stories develop, facts become clearer. Oh, you want a brownie point? Excellent, (poof!) here's your brownie point.

Here are your words again: "I hope the Blacks burn Florida to the ground"

The fact that you wrote that is the bigger problem here for you. Try working on that. I'm done exploring your attitudes toward race. I don't like to get that stuff on me.

Re:Oh? Tell that to the Star Wars Episode 1 previe

[AK Marc]

America is racist. You prefer to ignore the problem and pretend you aren't racist, while being a closet racist. The fact that you are so afraid to talk about race relations as an issue indicates you are racist and don't want it to show. Did you not notice the protests around the Zimmerman/Martin incident? Did those not exist because you prefer to not talk about race?

Not Long after that

[rhalstead]

Not long after that there was anothe movie theater incident that only a few of the mainstream media covered. A guy started shooting and a woman with a CCW Dropped him, quite likely saving many lives.

That may be but...

[rhalstead]

After the first shot is fired and the adrenalin rush hits, your fine motor control is gone. Most people including cops are lucky to hit the side of a car once someone takes a shot at them. You may be "cool hand luke" but that adrenalin dump is likely beyond your control.

You're all missing the most important question:

[Gallomimia]

Was the phone on vibrate or silent, or was it constantly beeping and booping or possibly sounds to match keypresses while the user was typing?

I Can't Wait For...

[guyrowlands]

Lone Survivor II. Meta-narrative about widow who seeks revenge against [...] for [...] because [...] and then [...].

The arguimene was because he was texting.

[rhalstead]

And officers, whether active or retired are supposed to know how to de-escilate these situations. We don't know why the guy retired. It might have no been for reaching retirement age. Many times people in these high stress, high risk professions are "retired" because of "other reasons".

Sad

[jbee02]

That's all there is to say about this. This no way to make sense of this. It's hard to imagine that the shooter was anything but mentally ill. Nothing but a sad tragic event.

Re:Sad

[JustNiz]

> It's hard to imagine that the shooter was anything but mentally ill.

Yeah the bit about him being a police captain already gave that away.

Re:It's about time!

[stealth_finger]

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?

Maybe the next inconsiderate douchebag thinks twice before texting, because maybe there is someone else willing to shoot inconsiderate people. The shooter sacrificed his comfort and life for civilization and the desire of rational people everywhere to have quiet movie theaters.

What you trigger happy kill the annoying texter people keep missing is the shooter ruined the film for everyone involved not just one guy who could, what, see a glow out of the corner of his eye? Hear some faint tapping? Now no one gets to see the movie, everyone has to hang around and give statements, one guy is dead, a family ruined, the shooters family are probably pretty distraght too. The whole cinema probably closed ruinung how many peoples plans? And the guy texting is the 'inconsiderate douchbeag'? Fuck you.

What?

[Desty]

It appears that you either did not read, or did not understand, the comment to which you replied.

Re: It's about time!

[stealth_finger]

He didn't shoot him for texting, he shot him after he turned out to be a complete asshole over it and started throwing popcorn.

Oh, that's much better then.....

It was legal

[evchim]

He probably thought the texter way trying to pirate the movie with his cellphone. Piracy is punishable by death-on-sight these days right?

Re:It's about time!

[AliasBackslash]

The article says he left to get a manager, it says nothing about going to his car to get his gun.

Re:Retired LEOs

[AliasBackslash]

This is not true. As a former military member, we are NOT more exempt from background checks. The only difference between former mil/cop and a civ is that in a very few states, we can get our concealed carry license without taking the gun safety class because we were already well trained in gun safety in boot camp/qualification inspections/classes that were required for our jobs. We are not just handed a CC license though, we still have to show our DD-214 and prove a clean service record and go through background checks even in the states that exempt us from the gun safety class. Also, when purchasing weapons, we still go through the same process as a civilian.

Re: It's about time!

[ProzacPatient]

It's not a fantasy. I had someone try to break into my house once. I have a friend who hid in a broom closet with a her mother and they armed themselves with a broom for a weapon because there was a rapist outside the window watching them while doing nasty things to himself and on another occasion I have a friend who was home alone when two thieves broke into the house and confronted her.

Mind you I live in a rural mountain community and not a crime ridden suburb with bars on the windows.

It. Is. Not. A. Fantasy.

Re: It's about time!

[FuegoFuerte]

Uh... false. Sorry.

I wouldn't mind if it were so, but here in Washington it's $52.50, an application, and a set of fingerprints - After that, the state shall issue within 30 days unless something shows up on the background check.

It's the main reason we don't have reciprocity with a lot of states - we don't meet their training requirements.

Thrown popcorn does not require deadly force

[guerres]

From what I gathered, these guys went to the movies to relax and catch a good flick. Then Chad Oulson's babysitter sent a text needing response. Than Curtis Reeves told Ouls to turn off his phone. Another text from babysiyyer, Reeves gets into it with Oulson, Oulson throws beg of popcorn at Reeves. Reeves feels threatened, so he pulls oit hie guns in a dark theater and shoots Oulson dead.

Re:It's about time!

[lsatenstein]

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?

And as a Canadian, I wonder about all the gun killings in the USA and the school shootings and the anger shooting and anger killings and the NRA and their $$$ lobbying. Americans, keep on killing innocents, nothing wrong with having guns for everyone. After all, there are snakes, and other dangerious vermon roaming the streets, cattle rustlers, and the need to protect your ranch, (stolen from the indians) from being stolen from you. And to make certain your slaves don't excape.

Time to become civil, don't you think? Without universal right to guns, a good 1/3 of US prisons would empty as there would have been no incarcerations due to shootings and people injured or killed.

Re:Dude was checking in on his kid at home one las

[AC5398]

Ok, you and the wife are at the theatres. You are texting the babysitter who is posing as your three year old daughter. You do this, in a rare moment of 'I never do this during the previews but my three year old is being very funny', during the previews.

An older gentlemen behind you tells you to turn the cellphone off. You note he is angry.

At what point do you think to yourself, "I can take this old geriatric in my sleep", and tell him to frak off?

Geriatric goes to find a manager. He comes back managerless.

At what point do you think to yourself, "I'm going to take this old geriatric outside," and ask grandpa if he told tales to management on you?

At what point do you throw your bag of popcorn at him?

Me, I think you'd probably tell the geriatric you were sorry, it is your three year old daughter, possibly make like you were worried about her, and put the phone away.

This doesn't excuse the geriatric bringing a gun to a theatre and shooting someone to death, I just think you'd behave better than the dead gentleman did.

Re:Previews!

[AC5398]

I had someone get mad at me for using my cellphone BEFORE the previews (lights were still on in the theatre). I'm just glad I put the phone away.

Re:About time!

[geminidomino]

So then you're happy for us to hope some psychotic dickhole shoots you in the face for being a douchebag on the internet? "Golden Rule," and all.

Amity: The Sequel

[KingGypsy]

“Despite the tragic altercation in a Florida movie theater, which as reported is an isolated incident, movie theaters are a safe and enjoyable entertainment destination for millions of people,” National Association of Theater Owners spokesman Patrick Corcoran told reporters.
Mayor Vaughn: [to reporter] I'm pleased and happy to repeat the news that we have, in fact, caught and killed a large predator that supposedly injured some bathers. But, as you see, it's a beautiful day, the beaches are open and people are having a wonderful time. Amity, as you know, means "friendship".

Re:It's about time!

[JazzLad]

I nominate clipping your fingernails in public.

Re:It's about time!

[robsku]

I has anabolic steroid.

Re:It's about time!

[robsku]

Finally some words of reason - thank you :)

Re:No, I would not

[robsku]

True, true, however I doubt that GP want's to "go around physically attacking people" anymore than I do (which is nil), and I'd still say I would not wan't to shoot someone who is going to beat me... Gas or taze maybe but not shoot.

Anyway I'm not a gun touting amurican so I'm not expecting you to understand :)

Re:About time!

[robsku]

I make it a habit to live by the 'Golden Rule'

"It's not gay if it's in a three-way"?

Re:What is wrong with you people???

[robsku]

What an excellent reply for guy being baffled why people must take everything to the extreme: take it to the opposite extreme.

Because it's internet I'm unsure wheter to applaud you for a joke well made or to wonder how anyone can be that stupid... *confused*

Re:What is wrong with you people???

[robsku]

/me is having hard time understanding how on earth some people need to be explained the above :o

It's saddening, don't you think?

Re: It's about time!

[fast turtle]

if this had happened in Texas, the defense "He needed to be shot" is actually a reasonable defense to the charges this shooter will face. In fact, he may only be charged with publicly discharging a firearm then.

As someone else pointed out - "An armed society is a polite one", another benefit of an Armed Society is the inability of the Government to get away with the crap they do today as "We The People" have the fucking final say, not the god damn one percenters and shits currently buying our government.

One thing I'd love to see reinstated is Dueling with a dueling field and proper judges. Put your fucking life where your mouth is instead of proving your a blathering idiot.

Re:It's about time!

[ComputersKai]

Sadly, everyone seems to lose. Cop probably will get off lightly with a sentence in prison, as he did make contributions to society which could be taken into account, but still he had no reason to kill a man for texting. Still, it seems kind of cruel that he may spend the rest of his life incarcerated. The man who got killed definitely had an unjustified death; you don't bring guns into movie theaters, and you don't fatally shoot them for pelting you with popcorn (we don't even know if that actually happened).