Maybe they were frightened of this crazy old man with a vendetta... and left.

As far as moving to another seat - there were only 25 people in the theater - certainly there were other, equally 'satisfactory' seats available. And no, he shouldn't have to change seats - but, being a responsible gun owner and an ex-cop, certainly he knew rather than escalate or exasperate the situation by returning to the same seat, the choice is to defuse the situation. Stepping away isn't, as fint indicated 'unmanly,' it is the commonsense thing to do. Returning to the same seat is begging for the situation to escalate, why, it is a stupid movie for gosh sakes.

And stomachmonkey - no, we shouldn't be avoiding all confrontation, but in this case - we are talking about texting in a movie theater before the film started. There is really no need for any sort of 'confrontation' here, especially one that escalates to killing another person. The old man did the right thing by going to the management, it was just he was too impatient to wait for them to do their job.

You talk about options. Carrying a weapon gives you lots of options - many of them bad. Unholstering in a movie theater over this incident is one of those bad options. People do stupid and rude things all the time, they don't get shot over them, nor should they expect to.

That is what I am finding very unsettling about your, and others, (this includes you too Baz) tone on this thread, is that you seem to place equal blame on both parties. Throwing popcorn is rude, killing someone for it is insane. There is no 'equal' here when it comes to this situation. This isn't the joke of bringing popcorn to a gunfight.

It was the friggin Previews, explosions and fire probably all over the screen, and the light from a phone is gonna bug you? The movie preview must not have been very interesting.

The texting was about his child and a babysitter, who may or may not have been experienced with the family. I want the texter to be in touch about his daughter. In an emergency you would want him to be available for contact. If my kids were in a theater I would want them to be able to message me.

Maybe seats where texting is allowed in a theater? Or just ban parents and children from theaters. That will do wonders for the industry. (green font)

When the popcorn flew the old guy could easily have had the man ejected from the theater. End of story. No way the shooting is justified.

And Fint, this was probably the first guy who objected to the dickhead's complaining, probably because the the welfare of his daughter was involved. It was the friggin previews, not the actual movie. Big Difference !

Why is it begging for escalation? You are assuming the texter was an *******? What do you base that on?

Yes, the old guy went to management and returned to his seat and for all we know was content to sit and quietly fume until management arrived to deal with it but upon returning was taunted by the texter, ie, at that point the texter escalated it.

Why is the burden on the old guy to move? Why could the texter not get up and move to get away from the frightening crazy old man? Seems a prudent thing to do, no?

"Hey honey, this guy is nuts and smells of used Depends, let's just move"

It was not a babysitter. The child was in her regular daily professional day care facility.

This occurred during the day, not evening. Both parents work opposing shifts and the wife took a sick day to go to the movies with her husband.

And I'm a Dad, and yes, my kid should 1000% be able to reach me in an emergency.

If I'm sitting in the middle of a movie (or anywhere for that matter) and get an Emergency text I'm not texting back, I'm grabbing my wife and we are out of there.

he forgot he's no longer a Cop....
lock him up..

Rika

:)

Because the old man didn't like texting - so complain about it, and change seats. Again in a theater that has only 25 people in it - there are plenty of options. And yes, if you know that if there is a situation where you know you have a chance of getting upset (as obviously texting did push buttons with the old man), just move. Don't go back expecting the behavior to stop - that isn't usually the case. Just remove yourself from the confrontation, cops tell you to do that all the time, why wouldn't he be aware of the very same solution every cop in America hands out. Leave, don't make it worse by returning.

Heck, if you were the texter it certainly appeared that the old guy left - he was probably grateful, and perhaps surprised when he returned to the same seat, when obviously the old guy had issues with texting before the feature started. There were people sitting right next to the texter (two of the witnesses), they didn't have issues, they were fine with this behavior, as most people are. That is what you seem to miss here - texting before the film starts isn't unusual or considered 'bad' behavior, no more than getting up and going to the concession stand, or talking to your date.

Again - the disturbing trend to place equal blame on both parties - one chose to throw popcorn, stupid move, the other chose to kill, insane move.

You're still missing the point. Because he was the one who was angry, frustrated, packing, and obviously, willing and able to use his weapon in this situation. You can almost call it an ambush. The deadly popcorn assault was all he needed in his mind to use lethal force. He'd been itching for trouble at the movies for weeks and finally found it. Had he really been interested in a peaceful viewing of the movie all he had to was change seats.

Guaranteed if the texter had been the one who shot the old man, the same lot defending the old man would be defending the texter saying he was threatened and within his right to defend himself and his wife. They can't see a situation for what it is, only that there was a gun involved and the one that pulled the trigger must be justified.

Wrong, old guy's wife was with him. Nowhere has it been stated that she left her seat when he went to get management. This is an EXCELLENT example of "debating without having read the whole thread or the links contained therein."

You're making points that fall flat because they're based on a faulty premise.

Just like the people who continue to assert that the old man began the verbal confrontation when he came back to his seat.

Several news reports linked or quoted in this thread have said that when the old man returned, the texter confronted him by asking if he went to management.

I realize this is mere speculation, but perhaps the old man's experience had been that many/most texters... especially those who don't respond with civility to being asked... yes, asked... that word has been in quoted or linked news reports here also, I believe... those texters many times don't turn their phones off after the feature begins (or after the trailers begin).

Don't be so focused on "believing" there is a trend to place equal blame on both.

Just admit that from what we know at this point, the texter could have easily defused the whole situation by not acting like an azzhat to begin with.

Also, please stop saying the old man should have just moved (implied: because that's what you would have done).

He did what he thought best. He stood up to a bully, the bully assaulted him, and he had to think of himself and his wife regarding his response.

if the child is in his normal day care then it's even more likely the text was an important one that needed addressing. It was the previews. The guy semi apologized when he told the shooter it was about his daughter.

The wife should sue the theater for 1) allowing the gun inside and then 2)not properly supervising the audience who have paid to enter.

"He stood up to a bully, the bully assaulted him, and he had to think of himself and his wife regarding his response.
__________________"


you could say that just as easily about both guys

Pure BS fantasy on your part.

Given the facts as we know it now, if the texter had whipped out a gun to defend his right to annoy other movie patrons, I don't see anyone here defending him.

Get over yourself... you obviously cannot defend your points without attempting ridiculous leaps of illogical thinking.

The shooter was 100% wrong and this is a tragedy.

I read the article way back when this whole mess started... tried to pull it up to get my facts straight but it won't open right now.

A) "Why didn't either of them move to avoid the confrontation?" Popcorn guy was there with his wife, I think it said the cop was there with someone else too.
This is silly I know but sounds like we had two alpha males butting heads, to move would be to lose face with the others there.

B) When the cop got back from complaining... popcorn guy asked if he had complained to management (what is this high school? Did you tattle to the teacher?)... no doubt words were exchanged... then popcorn flew... then bang.

People get killed for stupid things every day, getting cut off on the freeway, steeling a parking spot, grabbing the last microwave on sale on black Friday... it is all senseless and stupid... just like getting shot for texting during the previews.

So why did the texter not get up and move?

Look, the guy did not deserve to die. No one does over something so insignificant but he had a significant part to play in how this turned out.

Every option that you say the shooter had the texter had yet somehow he is not burdened with any of the responsibility for how this situation unfolded.

To deny that is silly.

simmer down now. :rolleyes: What is fantasy is anyone defending the old guy and actually thinking that they are using logic to make their case.

Wrong.

1. The texter didn't "stand up to a bully."
2. From what we know at this point, the texter initiated the assault on the old man.
3. The texter was implicitly not thinking of his wife at all... he put her at risk by being a complete azzhat.

Any questions?

I see you are now running away from the ridiculous "point" you attempted to make with teenager-level logic.

Let's see how many people defend your "fantasy example" of the texter whipping out a gun.

Wait for it...

Sorry, Heel. Pretty clear who the bully was in this case. The guy with the gun always has the upper hand. He can use lethal force without much effort. All of this "logic" talk and you haven't even considered that the wife was shot and other innocents could have been shot as well. Clearly the victim was a hothead - a trained and retired police captain would know to leave this situation if he wasn't looking for trouble.

it was a ridiculous point to show how ridiculous it is to defend the old man. I don't expect anyone to support it.

Now for another point. The solution to avoiding the confrontation was completely the old mans responsibility. He chose not to avoid it. Instead he confronted the guy that was annoying him, he let his internal rage start a fight. He had every opportunity to get up, leave the theater and demand a refund because the theater didn't enforce their policies. He chose the path he new he could win because he had a gun hidden and it gave him the upper hand.

Maybe they weren't shot because they chose not to argue over such an insignificant misunderstanding and simply let it go instead of raising their voices and throwing crap.

That is the big difference between the guy who got shot and the other instances.