Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
Cell phones or guns: take your pick.
Texter gets what he deserves vs. more cop brutality. My brain can't handle it.
http://www.rootstrikers.org/
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.
He was texting during the previews, which, unless things have gotten even worse, do not constitute "the movie". Get your headlines right.
Note that the title is wrong -- he was shot for texting during the previews, not during the movie itself.
People cause shitstorms.
Left MS Windows for Linux Mint and never looked back!
Vote for Bernie in 2016!
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.
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.
So says the guy that doesn't even have enough balls to post under his username on an internet site.
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?
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.
Well, I mean, if he shot him in the leg or something, he'd just be screaming through the whole movie.
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?
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.
You can never know everything, and part of what you do know will always be wrong. Perhaps even the most important part.
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.
Who ordered that?
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.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
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".
I read that he left the theater to report the guy who was texting, not necessarily to get his gun.
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
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.
Sig. Sig. Sputnik
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.
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.
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.
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?
You have a warped sense of entitlement. Shooting someone for texting is never justified.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
They are no different than Street gang thugs. Even retired they believe they are above the law.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Someone seems to have forgotten.
NRA? It's not the NRA who says that police should be allowed to carry guns but ordinary citizens shouldn't.
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.
Nullius in verba
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
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.
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.
sudo mod me up
It just makes you an asshole with a gun.
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.
AJ Henderson
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.
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.
I'm not crazy,I'm actively irresponsible.
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.
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.
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.
I'd say someone getting murdered would ruin my movie going experience more than someone texting.
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.
Let's have some facts:
There is a very recent article about Reeve's appearance in court and what
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
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.
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...
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
Requiem for the American Dream
Cheap Mexican food causes shitstorms.
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.
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.
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.
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...)
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.
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.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
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.
Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
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.
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.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
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.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
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.
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.
Is it just me, or do you hate it when people say "Is it just me..."?