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?
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...
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.