Texting in a Movie Theater can be Lethal

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Status
Not open for further replies.

BLADEMDA

Full Member
Lifetime Donor
15+ Year Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
22,315
Reaction score
8,963
CNN) -- It started with a father sending text messages to his daughter during the previews of a movie.
It ended with the 43-year-old man shot dead amid the theater seats, and a 71-year-old retired police officer in custody.

The shooting Monday during a 1:20 p.m. showing of "Lone Survivor" at a Wesley Chapel, Florida, movie theater escalated from an objection to cell phone use, to a series of arguments, to the sudden and deadly shooting, according to police and witnesses.

As a male moviegoer texted, the man seated behind him objected, and asked the texter to put his phone away.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/13/justice/florida-movie-theater-shooting/#

140113204900-fl-movie-theater-shooting-00004502-story-body.jpg
Man killed in theater over texting
http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/13/justice/florida-movie-theater-shooting/#

140113153209-sot-nr-fl-movie-theater-shooting-00010730-story-body.jpg
Police: Moviegoer killed for texting
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.

Two seats away Charles Cummings and his son watched the squabbling.

When Reeves returned, he was without a manager.

"He came back very irritated," Cummings 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. And then came something unimaginable -- except maybe in a movie. A gun shot.

Oulson was fatally wounded. His wife was hit, too, through the hand as she raised her hand in front of her husband as the shooter drew a handgun.

Oulson staggered toward the Cummings and fell on them, Charles Cummings said.

The shooter sat down and put the gun in his lap.

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.

It also happened that there were two nurses there and one came to Oulson's side and performed CPR until paramedics arrived.

Oulson later died. His wife, Nicole, suffered a non-life threatening wound to her hand.

"I can't believe people would bring a pistol to a movie," said Cummings, a Vietnam veteran who had celebrated his birthday by going to a movie with his son.

Reeves was sitting with his wife, Pasco County Sheriff Chris Nocco said.

CNN affiliate Bay News 9 reported that Reeves was arrested on a charge of second-degree homicide. It could not be determined Monday night whether he had retained an attorney.

Reeves retired in 1993 as a captain with the police department in nearby Tampa. He was also director of security at Busch Gardens until 2005, the station reported.

Bay News 9 spoke to a neighbor of Oulson's who said the dead man was a very nice guy who he couldn't envision being involved in an incident like this.

"Always smiling. I've never seen him angry," Bill Costas said. If I needed help with something he was always there.

"Totally different guy. Like I said, it just doesn't make sense to me. Not from what I know of him."

The shooting happened at about 1:30 p.m. inside one of the theaters at the Grove 16 complex, sheriff's spokeswoman Melanie Snow said.

"This was an isolated altercation between two guests that escalated unexpectedly. The safety, security and comfort of our guests and team members are always our top priorities, and we are truly heartbroken by this incident," Cobb Theatres, which operates the Grove complex, said in a written statement.

On the theaters' website is a list of prohibited items and actions. Among them: No cell phone use, including texting, in the theater auditorium. And no weapons allowed.

Members don't see this ad.
 
They're both at fault. One just happened to have a gun.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Members don't see this ad :)
On the plus side, it's reassuring to know how good a shot he was.
 
Wow. Some of you guys are actually also blaming the texter. I can only shake my head. In your blind overzealous, unrestricted support of gun ownership, your willing to blame anyone who gets shot that it must have been their fault. That a person carrying could not have been in the wrong.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
In the final analysis, if the movie theatre texter hadn't been a self important douche, he would be alive today. You have to pick your battles, a lesson he learned the hard way.

Turns out don't have to pick your battles if you have a gun and the other guy doesn't.

It's a slippery slope. Someone harming yourself or your family, yes. Someone harming your property, maybe (hopefully really important). Someone kicking your ass for something you started, not so sure. Someone cutting you off the road, no. Someone texting in a movie theater or throwing popcorn at you, c'mon.

We've all done obnoxious, douche-y things, sometimes unintentionally. It's not grounds for being shot. If it were, we wouldn't have any surgeons left.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
I'm not blaming the texter, however his actions and subsequent bluster and douchbaggery directly lead to his getting shot.
I would have said, "Yeah, sorry man, I'm just putting it away." put my phone on mute and put it in my pocket. I'd still be here.
Is it worth starting an argument about when it is and is not OK to text in a theater? I think not.
When the lights go down, you should leave if you want to continue to text or use your phone. It's really just common sense and courtesy.
 
If the story is complete in all the major details they are both way out of line. You don't throw food at a 70yr old man and you don't get to shoot someone for throwing food
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Wow. Some of you guys are actually also blaming the texter. I can only shake my head. In your blind overzealous, unrestricted support of gun ownership, your willing to blame anyone who gets shot that it must have been their fault. That a person carrying could not have been in the wrong.

That's right. You know why? Because if you read the story, it clearly states that he got up and asked if the other guy had gone to tell on him. If he had just a) followed the rules to begin with OR b) stopped texting when asked to OR c) not antagonized the other guy, he wouldn't have a hole in his chest. Instead, what happened was he does what a lot of people do. They figure that other people are constrained by society, allowing them to push their buttons (women, by the way, classically do this). And then he found out that the other guy didn't care about society, lol. Now he's dead.

Second of all, your zealous hatred of guns clearly has you babbling incoherently.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
That's right. You know why? Because if you read the story, it clearly states that he got up and asked if the other guy had gone to tell on him. If he had just a) followed the rules to begin with OR b) stopped texting when asked to OR c) not antagonized the other guy, he wouldn't have a hole in his chest. Instead, what happened was he does what a lot of people do. They figure that other people are constrained by society, allowing them to push their buttons (women, by the way, classically do this). And then he found out that the other guy didn't care about society, lol. Now he's dead.

Second of all, your zealous hatred of guns clearly has you babbling incoherently.

So, you basically say the texter was asking for it. How about just maybe, the other guy could have let an usher or an employee handle it. Seriously, you sound like a guy that would blame a girl getting raped on the girl for wearing provocative clothing.
 
They were both idiots.

What gets me is that the daughter being texted was said to be three years old. Apparently at three years old she has a phone and is being interrupted in whatever she is doing to look at texts? She can read texts?

Weird lives kids have these days.
 
I love people who blame the existence of guns, and not the person who decided to pull the trigger.



I also agree with some of those above. They're both entitled ******s.
 
So, you basically say the texter was asking for it. How about just maybe, the other guy could have let an usher or an employee handle it. Seriously, you sound like a guy that would blame a girl getting raped on the girl for wearing provocative clothing.

That's right, he was asking for it. At each step of the way, he chose a path that continued to escalate the situation, including confronting the man for "telling on him," which is wholly unnecessary. Especially since going to "tell on him" is the actual way to handle it, as you noted. You're not even following your own argument. [EDIT: In other words, if the guy had been texting and suddenly the other guy shot him, then I'd say he was wrong for texting, but clearly not asking to be shot. In this instance, he's wrong for texting and then when the other man correctly went to complain about it and returned, he continued to escalate the situation. Now he's asking for it.] At no point did he say "oh, you know what, I guess I was doing the wrong thing." Now he's dead and I don't actually feel that badly about it.

As far as the rape thing, sure. I've said this before on here in a different part of the forums. At some point, after pages of arguing, it always comes down to certain people saying "yeah, a woman should be able to walk down a street at midnight completely naked and drunk and not have anything happen to her." You most likely feel that same way. Guess what? You're going to often be sad.
 
Last edited:
They were both idiots.

What gets me is that the daughter being texted was said to be three years old. Apparently at three years old she has a phone and is being interrupted in whatever she is doing to look at texts? She can read texts?

Weird lives kids have these days.


They were not both EQUALLY idiots.

Getting into an argument with some confrontational jackass, rather than turning the other cheek and letting it blow over, is everyday idiocy. If you haven't done that at least once this month with your family, friends, management, or nursing staff you must have the inner calm of a Buddhist monk.

On the other hand carrying an illegal concealed weapon onto private property, then confronting someone on that property over using his cell phone, and then murdering him with the gun you illegally brought onto the private property is exceptionally rare stupidity. As in, rare enough to make national news.

Both of these guys were not equally responsible for this. One is a victim, one is a murderer.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
They were not both EQUALLY idiots.

Getting into an argument with some confrontational jackass, rather than turning the other cheek and letting it blow over, is everyday idiocy. If you haven't done that at least once this month with your family, friends, management, or nursing staff you must have the inner calm of a Buddhist monk.

On the other hand carrying an illegal concealed weapon onto private property, then confronting someone on that property over using his cell phone, and then murdering him with the gun you illegally brought onto the private property is exceptionally rare stupidity. As in, rare enough to make national news.

Both of these guys were not equally responsible for this. One is a victim, one is a murderer.

If he had a permit (I haven't seen a story that he didn't) then he wasn't breaking the law by carrying there. In florida, carrying on to private property (even if posted not to, like most theatres are) isn't a crime. The property owner can just ask you to leave if they discover the gun, if you don't leave it's a crime (treapassing).
 
They were not both EQUALLY idiots.

Both of these guys were not equally responsible for this. One is a victim, one is a murderer.

They were both equally idiots (which is different than deserving to be shot)

They were also both victims, just of different crimes. The dead guy appears to be guilty of simple battery on a 70yr old man. The old man appears to be guilty of murder.

Neither is ok, neither is innocent, neither would have died if either of them had any sense
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
The point: always consider the possibility that others are crazy and have weapons before you decide to F**k with them!

+1

There's always a bigger fish.


I do agree with Perrotfish. There's plenty of stupidity to go around here, but that doesn't mean everyone was equally stupid. Throwing popcorn at a crotchety cantankerous old man is surely a douchey move, and might even rise to the threshold of battery, but it seems unreasonable on the surface to perceive that as an imminent threat to life.

Also, let's not forget that there were two victims here. The guy with the gun also shot through the hand of another person. If you're going to shoot someone in self defense, you're obligated morally and legally to not harm innocent bystanders.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
If you're going to shoot someone in self defense, you're obligated morally and legally to not harm innocent bystanders.

In florida, the aggressor (criminal) is legally liable for all injuries during an event, including those caused by victims defending themselves.

It's a moot point as this guy likely goes down for murder if reporting has been accurate
 
In florida, the aggressor (criminal) is legally liable for all injuries during an event, including those caused by victims defending themselves.

It's a moot point as this guy likely goes down for murder if reporting has been accurate

You're right, I shouldn't have made the 'legal' comment, got carried away with my thoughts. :) State laws do differ ... as I recall most states will hold the person committing the felony responsible for any injury or death related to that crime.

To clarify, I think that anyone, armed or not, has a moral obligation not to hurt innocent bystanders even in self-defense. Better to risk injury or even death yourself than to bring someone else into the fight and injure or kill that person. Even if (huge IF) this old guy in the theater was somehow justified in shooting the dead guy, and based on what's reported I don't believe for a second that he was, the fact that he managed to also shoot the dead guy's wife reflects very poorly on him.
 
Lesson learned from this:
Don't bring a bag of popcorn to a gunfight.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Maybe the shooter was allergic to popcorn or paper bags, hence the life-threatening event. :p
 
The point: always consider the possibility that others are crazy and have weapons before you decide to F**k with them!
Actually, that's exactly the point of letting people have guns. There is a small town somewhere in the South (I don't remember the name) where all the residents are required by law to own a gun. They have an incredibly small number of violent crimes.
 
Actually, that's exactly the point of letting people have guns. There is a small town somewhere in the South (I don't remember the name) where all the residents are required by law to own a gun. They have an incredibly small number of violent crimes.

That's also true in Alaska, I think, where a large majority of people own guns. In contrast, places where the strongest gun control laws exist have ridiculous amounts of gun violence.
 
Actually, that's exactly the point of letting people have guns. There is a small town somewhere in the South (I don't remember the name) where all the residents are required by law to own a gun. They have an incredibly small number of violent crimes.

Nelson, GA has a town ordinance requiring people to own a gun and ammunition. Silly political grandstanding is what it is - violations aren't prosecuted, people who can't afford or just don't want a gun are exempted. Just some small-time small-town nonsense from fame-seeking council members presumably elected by a total of 50 or so votes in a town of 1000 people.

At best, it's the old 'armed society is polite society' argument. I don't buy that cause/effect theory, and I firmly disagree that politeness or crime deterrence is a reason people should be "allowed" to own weapons.

Self defense is the most basic of all human rights. Absent a weapon, self defense against a strong, determined, or armed attacker may be impractical or impossible, especially for old people, weak people, female people, people without Kung Fu master skills. Therefore the right to self defense is meaningless if the right is hamstrung by weapon prohibition.

We in the US are fortunate that every individual's right to own a weapon for the purpose of self defense is protected by the Constitution (protected, not granted) and that this individual (not collective) right has been upheld by our Supreme Court. We shouldn't frame the discussion with phrases like "letting people have guns" because it implies that this is a right that a government can legitimately give. It's not.

Good goverments can and do remove or restrict that pre-existing right after due process - as ours does for convicted felons and the mentally ill. Bad governments remove or restrict that right for other reasons.

But my government doesn't "let" me own guns any more than it "lets" me speak or "lets" me never go to church. It just (mostly) obeys its charter and doesn't interfere with my gun ownership (much) or interfere with my speech or make me go to church. Semantics, sure, but words have meaning.
 
At best, it's the old 'armed society is polite society' argument. I don't buy that cause/effect theory, and I firmly disagree that politeness or crime deterrence is a reason people should be "allowed" to own weapons.

I think you're just being touchy about it. Owning a weapon to deter crime is perfectly valid.
 
I think you're just being touchy about it. Owning a weapon to deter crime is perfectly valid.
Yes, I really AM touchy about it.

I agree, owning a weapon to deter crime IS perfectly valid. (Though it would seem to require open carry, the deterrent value of which is debatable.)

As a justification for a government or other authority to "allow" me to own a weapon, no, I don't accept that. It's a dangerous line of reasoning. It implies that it is a privilege to be granted, when it is a right that must not be removed without due process.

Like I said, semantics, sure, but words have meaning.
 
I agree, owning a weapon to deter crime IS perfectly valid. (Though it would seem to require open carry, the deterrent value of which is debatable.)

Not necessarily, since the knowledge that any random person COULD be carrying a gun (i.e., uncertainty) is deterrent for most people. Whereas, as his point was, if you know that nobody has a gun, then you really don't care. Open carry would basically just let people know who to target. The best scenario is that a high percentage of people own guns and conceal.

Agreed that the government doesn't "let" you own a gun, but if you're interested in semantics, good luck. 99% of people don't even know what you or I mean by that at this point, thanks to years of repetition by the left. We keep talking about "letting" hunters own guns and that being a reasonable compromise when that misses the point entirely. No squirrel has ever threatened me. However, the government can (and does, even if it's in a polite way where they come and yearly confiscate your property "voluntarily" through taxation or tell you how to run your practice).
 
The Ex-Cop who shot the loud-mouth but unarmed person in Tampa will likely do time in prison. Stand Your Ground Law and Justifiable Defense won't work in this situation. An argument and even a small fight (they were seated in a movie theater) isn't grounds for lethal force. When you carry a gun the responsibility for using that weapon properly with comes with it. An obnoxious idiot texting and spouting off doesn't justify killing him; neither does escalating the situation which results in a minor physical altercation
 
To the person who said they don't feel bad that someone is dead over this, what the f*ck is wrong with you? And, go f*ck yourself. As a father who has been in this situation, sending a last minute text to a babysitter with a question about MY young daughter, I'm glad some as5hole wasn't there to shoot me when I gave him back the attitude he was giving me. You're not bothered that some young girl now will grow up without a father because some crotchety old sh:tbag was annoyed that someone was texting during the f*cking PREVIEWS? He deserved to be shot and KILLED for throwing popcorn?? F*ck you, sir.

Jesus Christ what the F*CK is wrong with people?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Wow, this guy is bad ass. Also, his post is about to be deleted.
 
Delete it. If this is the kind of people I'm interacting with here, I won't miss them.

Oh, I don't care at all about what you wrote. In fact, I'd enjoy responding to it and I'd end up making you cry. And then SDN users would start reporting my posts while ignoring yours. This place is filled with infantile hypocrites in that way.
 
Not likely. Your opinion of anything is already moot in my eyes. You're the symptom of a larger problem as far as I am concerned. Good day, and go f*ck yourself.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Not likely. Your opinion of anything is already moot in my eyes. You're the symptom of a larger problem as far as I am concerned. Good day, and go f*ck yourself.

No, not "not likely." More like "quite certainly." Neither you nor your pal who keeps giving you likes can take what you dish out. Fortunately for you both, SDN protects the weak, so you won't be bursting into tears right now, so count your blessings.
 
ruralsurg is a troll btw, easier to just click "ignore"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top