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

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

[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

[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?

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

[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.

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.

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: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

[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:Dead

[GungaDan]

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

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: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: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.

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: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!

[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

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.

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

[daremonai]

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