The older I get, the more I empathize with Serial Mom.

Apparently he wasn't even texting during the movie. It was still the previews. I'd post a link, but I'm on my mobile device.

and all of these people except for the victim are Police... so the fury of the gun control people rose... and then seems to have gone silent upon the realization that these guys are the one always exempted from the rules, because they ARE the executors of the rules.

It's a sad miserable event, that was just an altercation over stupid stuff... but it escalated into a tragedy because one person was willing to kill somebody to make them OBEY.

Humans can be powerful stupid.

I think what's scary about this is the courtroom was packed with supportive Police Men.

Protecting and Serving themselves. Not the citizenry.

Apparently this isn't the first argument about texting that he's had.

This is one of those cases where there are opposing ideas that both need to be considered.

First: The shooter needs to go to jail forever. Pro-2nd-Amendment activists should be the first in line wanting to send him there. Rights come with responsibilities. You have the right to carry a gun, but you are absolutely responsible for what you do with it.

Second: Acting rude increases the likelihood you will get shot. The guy didn't just pull out his gun when he saw the iPhone; it was after rude responses and the texter acting like an asshole. It's impossible to have this kind of confrontation without both parties being in the wrong. Again, see above, there's no justification for shooting him, but if he had just put away his cell phone he'd still be alive.

Asshole shot.

Asshole got shot.

Moral? Don't be an asshole.

Oh, is that "blaming the victim"? Tough shit. More "victims" need to get blamed -- it helps others to avoid becoming a victim.

Well, when one is an asshole who brings a bag of popcorn to a gun fight . . .

This is one reason why I tend to "back down" when meeting rude assholes - one never knows how much "on edge" they are and just what might set them off.

Does my backing down encourage or reward their rude behavior? Yep, but, at least I'm not dead over it. Some things just aren't worth a fight.

This was not a scene worthy of Gran Turino.

This was an unwell man unchecked and not disarmed by people who could have known better - his family.

A friend of mine disarmed her father when toxic build up from liver failure made him mentally unstable. I think the info in the article Jim linked to was armed flag that this guy turned the corner awhile ago. Age related cognitive decline needs to be considered by well family members of people who are deteriorating and doing alarming things such as following a woman to the restroom to harass her.

...was a *red* flag that this guy...

This was an unwell man unchecked and not disarmed by people who could have known better - his family.
________________________________

Well said.

As I mentioned before, we don't sneer anymore at the idea of trying to intercept - and help - disturbed people BEFORE they go "postal" on the grounds that adults can't be closely supervised the way children can. Nor do we consider it a foolish waste of time to try to nip animal abuse in the bud (whether by a child or an adult) just because such abuse is often done in secret and every adult already knows such abuse is illegal.

Why, then, do we so often act so uncaring regarding other forms of teen/adult violence, as if the victims should just lock themselves up all the time?

"This was an unwell man unchecked and not disarmed by people who could have known better - his family."

How do you know he is unwell? Should he be deemed unwell because he does not like people texting in theaters and has the balls to say something to them? Is it what he says or how he says it?

Should an old man be checked if he wants people to stay off his lawn?

I think this is an unusual occurrence. Maybe it is one of those teachable moments we hear about.

Also, he did not go "postal." He had a specific target for a specific reason (and it wasn't apparently for texting).

>Apparently this isn't the first argument about texting that he's had.

True, and as a commenter at a different site noted, this guy was about to boil over. No help from the manager apparently, young whippersnapper treating the former cop with contempt and throwing popcorn at him...

He could have been the main character in an old short story by Jack Ritchie: "For All the Rude People". It's getting more relevant every day.

Not an excuse. The old guy snapped and has to pay the price. I feel a lot of sorrow for both of their wives.

"The old guy snapped and has to pay the price."

Unless he pleads guilty, the jury will decide if he has to pay a price. I get a chuckle out of those who say he snapped, was disturbed and on. Are you saying he wasn't sane when he pulled the gun and fired?

Actually, I think the big, tall guy snapped and boiled over when the old man confronted him for his bad behavior. Instead of turning off his phone and apologize (actually just turning off the phone would be fine), he stood up (showing his size) and confronted the old man. Bad choice, but he sure showed that old man who was boss. He just didn't know the old man had an equalizer - kinda like the old west.

Texting is essentially silent, right? I haven't been out to a movie in years; why is this behavior offensive?

It's not like this...

"why is this behavior offensive?"

The light. Makes you look, or distracts from the movie screen.

Karma should happen more often.

All of a sudden there's a bright light, and it's an armed man gunning down an unarmed man.

But the unarmed man was rude. Let's kill him.

Dave is exactly right. All of a sudden, there's a small bright light, much brighter than the movie screen, drawing your attention. It's seriously rude.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at January 15, 2014 5:53 PM

I remember the days when an usher walked up and down the aisle every fifteen minutes or so shining his flashlight on the rows to keep people's naughty bits in their pants or inside of their blouse, and under their skirt. Fortunately no one shot him....

And I agree with Crid. This was the previews for God sake.
The guy behind you munching popcorn is a bigger annoyance.

Sending a text or receiving one doesn't exactly create a search beam. It is a glow.

It is the freeking entitlement mentality again.

This retired cop was looking for a reason to become irate, and he found one.

Dave, I "know" he's unwell because I deem that a man who follows a woman to the bathroom to harass her for something she's no longer doing is a man who is unwell. And that is the only standard required for one family member to remove firearms from another family member. Gun safety starts at home.

First: The shooter needs to go to jail forever. Pro-2nd-Amendment activists should be the first in line wanting to send him there. Rights come with responsibilities. You have the right to carry a gun, but you are absolutely responsible for what you do with it. -- clinky at January 15, 2014 12:21

There is currently a bill in front of the Ohio government for Constitutional Carry. Even some from the NRA side are saying there needs to be a training requirement on it. But there will still have a CCW license available to synchronize with other states.

I look at it like the driver's license requirements. Most states will allow a 14 year old kid to drive tractors with loads from farm to farm w/o a license in the state. But he isn't allowed to go from IN to an OH farm. The 14 yr old knows this. If he breaks the law he is subject to punishment. If he doesn't he may be held responsible.

The smart Constitutional Carry person will seek out more information. The stupid one will do it regardless of how illegal it may be,

====================

In this particular case, he was a retired cop. That means he probably was "assaulted" at least once in his career. That he didn't have enough rationality that popcorn flung at him does not rise to the point of lethal response means you either check his faculties and competence and confine him to an institution or send him away for a long time (life should not be an automatic either).

I'm a 2A supporter but want people to be responsible. I also want LEO and prosecutors to be responsible too.

A flashlight would have been an equalizer.

Pulling a firearm was a game changer.

Proportion matters.

@"Dave is exactly right. All of a sudden, there's a small bright light, much brighter than the movie screen, drawing your attention. It's seriously rude."

I second this too. I find it very distracting, no matter how hard I try it's impossible to not have my attention pulled from the movie and it literally ruins the movie experience.

I found sort of 'secondary' mental effects too: Firstly as it happens often, I started finding myself sitting in a movie theater just kind of 'anticipating the inevitable distraction' from some jerk, it's impossible to relax and enjoy a movie if you know it's likely to be ruined anyway. Secondly, it's often not a once-off, theater texters often do it repeatedly during the same movie (texting is frequently a back and forth conversation, so it's a case of a bright light flashes on for a few minutes, then off for a few minutes, then on again for a few minutes, then off again, and so on for ages). That's double-distracting, and once a texter starts, the rest of the movie I can't relax as mentally I know in a few minutes time that light is probably going to pop on again.

My solution to the irritation was very different to that of Reeves, I simply stopped going to movie theaters. I love watching movies at home now.

Most texters would probably just stop if you call them on it. It takes a special kind of arrogant bully to firstly mock the person who is calling you on your own inconsiderate behavior, and secondly throw a bag of popcorn at them. And bullying an old man in a movie theater.

The fact that he thought it perfectly OK to bully an elderly man in a movie theater also suggests this probably isn't the first time Mr Oulson bullied strangers. Obviously it doesn't justify murder, but if you go around doing things like throwing popcorn at strangers, you shouldn't really be surprised if one day you push some crazy guy over the edge. The lesson is that poking tigers can be harmful to your health. He also irresponsibly put his wife in danger by escalating the conflict unnecessarily.

Actually movie theater owners have been allowing this shit to continue since the invention of cellphones, it's surprising something like this hasn't happened before. It's the movie theater equivalent of road rage.

>Are you saying he wasn't sane when he pulled the gun and fired?

Are you saying he was?

"All of a sudden there's a bright light, and it's an armed man gunning down an unarmed man."

That's not how I read it went down. Are you just being hysterical or do you have a link?

"Sending a text or receiving one doesn't exactly create a search beam. It is a glow."

It is disturbing to others. It is rude. If it was not a problem, the theaters would allow it.

"This retired cop was looking for a reason to become irate, and he found one."

You do not know that.

"Dave, I "know" he's unwell because I deem that a man who follows a woman to the bathroom to harass her for something she's no longer doing is a man who is unwell."

A woman said he did that so it must be true. Actually, all we know at the moment is that is hearsay from a woman who was also rude and he confronted her. She wouldn't be elaborating now would she?

You need very little to "know" and "deem" someone unwell. I don't think you'll get on many juries.

"That he didn't have enough rationality that popcorn flung at him does not rise to the point of lethal response"

Maybe it was a gut reaction that the much larger man had a fist to follow the popcorn. He should have let the big gut break his face before he shot. We weren't there to know.

"A flashlight would have been an equalizer.

Pulling a firearm was a game changer.

Proportion matters."

You are wrong. Also, we weren't there. What was the size and age differences between the two? Are you aware that one punch can kill a man? Especially a large young man hitting a frail old man.

Whose post was that? Oh, Gog_Magog. I guess that's who is being hysterical.

Now me, I think the guy went a little nuts, yeah. Murder over texting isn't sane. I'm afraid the insane part of me finds it justifiable, but sane? No.

">Are you saying he wasn't sane when he pulled the gun and fired?

Are you saying he was?"

I'll leave speculation about his sanity to the sanity speculators.

> It's seriously rude.

Are there any movie-theater rudenesses that achieve "seriousness"? I mean, is it worse than a guy spilling a drink on your date?

"I mean, is it worse than a guy spilling a drink on your date?"

Yes, if the spilling was an accident.

"Murder over texting isn't sane."

That my be a headline used but in the instant case the man wasn't murdered for texting. You'll note that he was not texting when shot. He was towering over and moving toward the shooter after having thrown a box of popcorn. What was he going to do next - apologize for being rude?

> It's seriously rude.

Are there any movie-theater rudenesses that achieve "seriousness"? I mean, is it worse than a guy spilling a drink on your date?

Posted by: Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at January 15, 2014 9:36 PM

No, and it is certainly no worse than people,leaving their seats to go to the restroom or the concession stand.

Or taking out a crying child

Or coughing, or clearing your throat or sneezing.

I am one of those people who has never seen someone texting in a movie theatre, because I am watching the screen. And the sound system is generally turned up loud enough that I dont hear anything either other than the theatre door banging every time someone enters and leaves which is frequently.

And if you are really bothered by the ordinary noise that,people are,going to make, it kind of begs the question as to why you ever leave the house.

I guess the Rocky Horror Picture Show kind of spoiled the whole movie theatre experience for all for all of you Trappist Monks.

"And if you are really bothered by the ordinary noise that,people are,going to make, it kind of begs the question as to why you ever leave the house."

?

That my be a headline used but in the instant case the man wasn't murdered for texting. You'll note that he was not texting when shot. He was towering over and moving toward the shooter after having thrown a box of popcorn. What was he going to do next - apologize for being rude?

Posted by: Dave B at January 15, 2014 9:47 PM

Maybe, but the wife of the dead guy was shot through her hand, which she had across her husband's chest, so she either got up with him, or maybe he wasn't advancing?

Glad to know you were there Dave B, and know exactly what went down.

If the prosecutors do as sorry, and biased a job as in the Travon Martin case, the guy might just get off.

Bet he argues "stand your ground".

"Maybe, but the wife of the dead guy was shot through her hand, which she had across her husband's chest, so she either got up with him, or maybe he wasn't advancing?"

Let's see. He was shot in the chest. She was shot in the hand. Well, that would put her hand in front of his chest. So how could it be that she stayed in her seat (you said either)? It appears she was holding him back. I don't know, like I said I wasn't there. But we know she put her hand in front of his chest and the shooter shot him in the chest. He was facing the shooter.

"Glad to know you were there Dave B, and know exactly what went down."

Where did I say that?

"If the prosecutors do as sorry, and biased a job as in the Travon Martin case, the guy might just get off."

Obviously you would be deemed to be prejudiced on the current issue. You know that weakens your opinion don't you.?

Oh, and Isab, I was commenting on the statement made that the dead man was murdered for texting. He was not. Why do you think he was shot?

It means something that this thread has so many responses... We all agree that pulling gun was inexcusable, and using it was murderous... But there's still a verge for us to consider.

I think texting in a theater is rude behavior, but its not seriously rude.

The tyranny of small differences can be a lot of fun.

That may explain Obamacare.

It means something that this thread has so many responses... We all agree that pulling gun was inexcusable, and using it was murderous... But there's still a verge for us to consider.

I think texting in a theater is rude behavior, but its not seriously rude.

The tyranny of small differences can be a lot of fun.

That may explain Obamacare.

Dave, I know the difference (in function and in standards) for being on a jury versus being on the comment section of a blog.

Lenona -
Thank you.

~

Oh, and Isab, I was commenting on the statement made that the dead man was murdered for texting. He was not. Why do you think he was shot?

Posted by: Dave B at January 15, 2014 11:09 PM

I think this is a semantics game. The man was shot because another man initiated a confrontation over something the murdered man did, that would not be classified as provocation, in any court of law.
Therefore , the aggressor, was the man with the gun.

Im guessing there must have been a few witnesses, who by the way, had their whole day "rudely destroyed" by someone with a gun trying to enforce his version of etiquette .

Obviously you would be deemed to be prejudiced on the current issue. You know that weakens your opinion don't you.?

Posted by: Dave B at January 15, 2014 10:54 PM

Only in your mind. Juries are sometimes very fickle and stupid.
And I think my law degree strengthens my opinion.

I was speculating. And I think the verdict in the Travon Martin case was the correct one, but the fact that this latest shooting also occurred in Florida, will be relevant to how it is prosecuted, and how it is defended.

Comprehension skills may be a little lacking here.

Let's review:

Guy was texting. Another guy was bothered by it and said something. Guy who was texting gets up and throws box of popcorn at the guy who was bothered by the texting. That in itself was uncalled for. Not worthy of getting shot, but uncalled for. Guy who was accosted by popcorn box gets pissed, gets up, fires at guy who threw popcorn box. TOTALLY uncalled for, overreaction obvious. Bottom line, one man dead, one woman's hand shot, old guy needs disciplinary action. Jail time? Quite possibly. Mental health evaluation? Most certainly. Removal of firearms from his person? Most definitely. Big trouble for all involved? Without a doubt. Rudeness evidenced in BOTH PARTIES? Absolutely. Disposition? Can't bring the popcorn thrower back from the dead; punishment for the shooter inevitable.

One would think.

In the middle of blizzard here this morning and the coffee hasn't completely warmed up the old body yet, hopefully thinking part functioning on most cylinders.

"Comprehension skills may be a little lacking here."

Maybe, maybe not.

We have a tabloid worthy event because we have little knowledge of the event at this point. Dead man not talking to press. Shot women apparently not talking to press (in the articles linked and noted). Shooter not talking to press.

I remember Amy had a video of an attorney and a policeman giving a lecture on how not to talk to the police, no matter what. Talk to your lawyer, not the police. If you read the little bit reported in this case, that is what the retired officer did - sat silent.

It is to be expected for everyone to have different interpretations of the events. I like to think I am not prone to jumping to conclusions on little factual evidence. Time and the legal system will flush things out, but that won't always satisfy all of us (see OJ and Zimmerman).

I do enjoy pointing out absurdity, such as he shot him for texting. I doubt the shooter would agree. If he did, then and only then, I would question his sanity.

"Rudeness evidenced in BOTH PARTIES? Absolutely."

Flynne's comment gives an opportunity for how I react to what can be said that screams out to me. Unless one calls the act of shooting rudeness, the shooter was not being rude. If his mind and reactions were working properly, his shooting was an act of self defense. If he shot the guy out of anger it is beyond rudeness, we call it murder.

A woman said he did that so it must be true. Actually, all we know at the moment is that is hearsay from a woman who was also rude and he confronted her. She wouldn't be elaborating now would she?

Posted by: Dave B at January 15, 2014 9:22 PM
______________________________________

And if a man had said HE was followed to the bathroom - or anywhere else outside the individual theater room, for that matter - would you be just as distrusting of that story?

Why would she be more likely to lie just because she's female? What does she really have to gain by it?

After all, if this murder story were just a long-ago rumor, we MIGHT be inclined to disbelieve it, but we know it's true, bizarre though it may sound to some. How is the woman's story anywhere near as bizarre?
__________________________________

Also, he did not go "postal." He had a specific target for a specific reason (and it wasn't apparently for texting).
___________________________________

Hair-splitting. The killer is clearly a man who's lost moral control. Besides, as I said, we need to stop thinking that any particular violent person cannot be controlled and/or rehabilitated - that sort of surrender on society's part is a slippery slope. (Trouble is, of course, boys and men often don't ask for help when they need it - so it's up to loved ones to look out for a man before he hurts somebody.)

"And if a man had said HE was followed to the bathroom - or anywhere else outside the individual theater room, for that matter - would you be just as distrusting of that story?"

Yes.

"Hair-splitting."

Oh. Ok. I just don't know what going postal means.

"The killer is clearly a man who's lost moral control."

Your clarity thingy works different from mine.

"Trouble is, of course, boys and men often don't ask for help when they need it"

And, of course, you know when we need it. Sorry, I didn't know that.

And, of course, you know when we need it. Sorry, I didn't know that.

Posted by: Dave B at January 16, 2014 2:23 PM
__________________________________

Who said I did?

Even close relatives and friends - or even lovers - don't always know when someone is leading a double life - or is about to do something awful. We've all heard murder news stories where neighbors and relatives alike might say "he was such a quiet man." Well, pardon the cliche, but maybe it IS the quiet ones who have to be watched.

Not to mention cases where a man might act slightly disturbed, occasionally - but no more so than many frat boys. (Not that I think frat boys are harmless.) Case in point: The Craigslist Killer, Philip Markoff. While little details about his sometime anti-social behavior came out after he was arrested - such as his drunken attack on a classmate, Morgan Houston (in front of other students, who rescued her) and, according to a former classmate, "he had this hatred for people he thought were beneath him" - his fiancee had NO idea there was anything off-kilter about him. (However, one psychiatrist - Dr. Michael Welner - said Markoff wasn't leading a "double life" - it was a crime spree.)

So, it seems, stopping people from committing violent crimes takes a lot of vigilance - since often they're the friends and relatives you wouldn't suspect at all of such things.

"Who said I did?"

Me. You keep trying to apply the instant case, which we know little about, to other cases and make some sort of comparison. I think that is very dangerous ground to tread on. Although there may be similarities in shooting cases, each one is based on an individual actions and each has his own reasons. Most of which we will never know but there will never be a shortage of those who say they do.

Conviction in our system comes from the jury, and should not come from the court of opinion.

Conviction in our system comes from the jury, and should not come from the court of opinion.

Posted by: Dave B at January 16, 2014 4:28 PM

So lectures Dave B, as he wags his electronic finger at us.

Sometimes the only justice you are going to get is in the court of public opinion.

And it is not like we all are going to form a lynch mob, and string the guy up.

Conviction comes from a jury, or sometimes a judge, but more often a plea bargain, but the court of public opinion is the more valuable one because in that court we debate policy and shape attitudes, which elect the representatives who write the laws.

I think the debate over the Travon Martin case was very valuable in educating people what is self defense and what is not.

Generally when someone tells me to leave the verdict to a court of law, I interpret that as "shut up, you are not entitled to an opinion, because you weren't there,"

Well guess what? I didn't have to be there to decide that if there had been a colorable claim of self defense, the judge would have probably granted bail.

"Conviction in our system comes from the jury, and should not come from the court of opinion."

Posted by: Dave B at January 16, 2014 4:28 PM

Wrong.

Civilization is a sport where Monday morning quarterbacking can influence the next play.

~And on that note, I am logging off for the weekend to go play outside.

Sigh. Change of venue. You two may dislike our system of justice, but it is what it is. It is not a popularity contest based on press reports - at least it was never intended to be.

I wonder what he'll say on the stand?

"I picked a fight with a texting jerk because I knew I had a gun in my pocket, and when the guy laughed at me and threw popcorn, I shot him to death and wounded his wife, making his child fatherless and his wife a widow.

Because, hey.

He could have had a Snickers bar.

And also I'm a cop. Or I used to be a cop. But I'm not very important any more.

Now who's the big man again? Huh?

Me. That's who!"