Heroic Theatergoer Smashes Cell Phone, Gets Thrown Out

all the reason to not go to the movies or plays. People just don't give two shits about anything but themselves.
 
When I saw the headline I thought the person was talking on the phone, and thought it appropriate civil disobedience. What he did was criminal, but he tried to handle it diplomatically first. He is willing to accept responsibility for his actions and pay the price.

Since she wasn't actually talking on the phone, I guess my support of his actions depends on how distracting her actions actually were. Was it a bright screen in a darkened room, impairing his clear vision, or was he just irritated by the group and was the cell phone use itself something he could have ignored easily enough.

His actions may also get him banned from the theater. That would be a shame. Her actions should get her banned from the theater, unless she is willing to swallow her pride and apologize.
 
You want to be passive-aggressive by using your mobile device while the show is running? Then I'll be passive-aggressive with my show enjoyment device (jammer) while the show is running.

Truthfully , this is the reason why multi-band jammers were made. Keeps the inconsiderate people silent during all kinds of performances.
 
BoogerBomb said:
Not illegal to talk in theater, but you better be ready for the person who is armed that you piss off and doesn't give a fuck. Too dangerous today to not give a fuck about consequences of fucking with people property. People go batshit for lesser stuff.
Click to expand...

Yep, I'm 6'1" 250lbs and my wife doesn't let me scold anyone cause they get defensive of my size mostly. She always says, " you never know who has a Gun now". I said, " if they miss, that gives me a chance to fire back with my 9mm!".
 
Vectrexer said:
Truthfully , this is the reason why multi-band jammers were made. Keeps the inconsiderate people silent during all kinds of performances.
Click to expand...
I always worry about the legality of those though, as I could see someone suing you because they couldn't make or receive some kind of emergency call. For example, if some audience member is a specialist physician and he wasn't reachable because of your device and someone died.
 
BroHamBone said:
Yep, I'm 6'1" 250lbs and my wife doesn't let me scold anyone cause they get defensive of my size mostly. She always says, " you never know who has a Gun now". I said, " if they miss, that gives me a chance to fire back with my 9mm!".
Click to expand...

Is... is that some sort of sex reference?

Joking aside, it does sound kind of weird how you talk about your size then, what seems to be a firearm. 9mm just doesn't sound like a slang for a fist or some sort of physical attack, but maybe I just don't now slang that well.

Ducman69.... very true..... but techincally, you are supposed to have your phone on silent, not vibrating, so if that's the case, then they probably wouldn't be able to know that their phone went off in the theater.

I want a jammer too!
 
Ducman69 said:
I always worry about the legality of those though, as I could see someone suing you because they couldn't make or receive some kind of emergency call. For example, if some audience member is a specialist physician and he wasn't reachable because of your device and someone died.
Click to expand...

Question is, how likely is it that you'll be found out to be the one with the jammer? In a theater full of people, it could be anyone :p
 
Ducman69 said:
I always worry about the legality of those though, as I could see someone suing you because they couldn't make or receive some kind of emergency call. For example, if some audience member is a specialist physician and he wasn't reachable because of your device and someone died.
Click to expand...

as someone who supports a 911 dispatching system, I would be pretty upset if I missed an emergency page because someone was playing with a jammer.
 
Nope also jammers are illegal here in the states to possess and sell you can buy components and make them but still illegal to use felony if I remember right.
 
Serpent said:
Don't see why not. She was being a dick. There's something called "Etiquette," and while I can't say I applaud destruction of property, I doubt he was really trying to destroy it, just relocating it, so she can't be a disturbance.

I had a time where I was on the verge of pouring soda over a group of people, held back though.

I can understand that you might need the phone for an emergency, but it seemed clear that she wasn't.
Click to expand...
He said he threw it far enough to break it. What I don't understand is how people condemn her for poor etiquette and applaud him for terrible etiquette. From what the article says, she was using the phone silently, and while she may have been a disturbance, I can't imagine it was anywhere near the disturbance of him snatching her phone and tossing it away.

It is entirely up to the establishment to enforce their own rules. If they don't enforce their own rules then it's not up to the patrons to enforce them, it's up to the patrons to complain and demand a refund.

You know why you held back? It was probably one of two things...

1) Fear of having the shit kicked out of you.
2) It would be a fuckwit thing to do, hence that little part of your brain that warns you that you are about to do a fuckwit thing informs the reckless part of your brain "hrm, maybe we shouldn't do this".

Two douche moves don't make a non-douche.
 
Most of you talking about complaining about having to throw things at people on the phone, just go and talk to someone who works at the theatre; they'll talk to the person, give them a warning and if they continue they will make them leave.

At least, that's how I've done it previously.
 
I am sure the 18yr old with the flashlight will really be taken seriously but the person you would be complaining about....
 
ServerKing said:
I am sure the 18yr old with the flashlight will really be taken seriously but the person you would be complaining about....
Click to expand...

Go to a better theatre.

It's happened a few times for me, I've only ever had to complain twice before they were asked to leave (at which point they stopped).

It won't always work, but it's better than sitting all silent then bitching about it on an internet forum later. :)
 
ServerKing said:
I am sure the 18yr old with the flashlight will really be taken seriously but the person you would be complaining about....
Click to expand...
Again, not your responsibility to enforce the rules of an establishment. If you want to go up and demand a refund because they can't enforce their rules, that's a perfectly acceptable protest.

If they are stupid enough to ignore an employee telling them they have to turn off the phone or leave, it is still their problem, the establishment's problem and the problem of the authorities or security who the establishment call to remove them if they refuse to leave.

At no point in time does it become the responsibility of a patron to damage the property of another patron.
 
Bigbacon said:
all the reason to not go to the movies or plays. People just don't give two shits about anything but themselves.
Click to expand...

Yup, the people here advocating violence over someone browsing the web on their phone in a place they probably shouldn't be, are crazy... selfish "me me me I'm all that matters" people who think they are king of the world to attack whoever they please. They talk with the logic of "special needs" (due to inappropriate behavior, not mental disability) grade-schoolers. We have laws in this society, and they don't say you are free to attack whoever you please or grab their property, let alone damage it. There is an appropriate way to complain, and that is with words and/or to theater staff. If the theater staff don't want to touch it, then that's on them, and you should ask for a refund and leave, not attack someone (and make no mistake, that's what forcefully grabbing a woman's hands to wrangle a cell phone away from her, then destroying it is).
 
Serpent said:
Don't see why not. She was being a dick. There's something called "Etiquette," and while I can't say I applaud destruction of property, I doubt he was really trying to destroy it, just relocating it, so she can't be a disturbance.

I had a time where I was on the verge of pouring soda over a group of people, held back though.

I can understand that you might need the phone for an emergency, but it seemed clear that she wasn't.
Click to expand...

That's insane... you can't just grab people's stuff out of their hands. YOU are being a "dick" for breaking the law and attacking someone. I hope you realize that pouring soda over people is in many states considered or able to be pressed as assault... I'd recommend learning to control your impulsiveness.

Besides, considering you hear about people being shot over parking spaces or simply honking at someone who cuts them off? I sure wouldn't grab a phone from someone and throw it... just out of self-preservation, even if I thought it was morally fine let alone legally (which I don't, and it isn't)..
 
It's all part of the the general publics' growing expectation to be able to do "what the hell they like and damn anyone else!"

What I call the 'Granola' principle.

Let me explain. In the UK we have an advert on TV that shows this principle perfectly.

A group of people are there at the pinnacle of their career, waiting for that special moment which is about to arrive, its important, a true once in a lifetime thing. Everyone is told what to do and what not to do. The most important thing is to not make a sound. A simple instruction.

But no, one of them makes a sound and ruins it all for everyone. But when challenged they just look incredulous and make out they have every right to do what they did and ruin it for everyone else because their need was all the more important. What's the harm? I had no choice! etc. etc.

The advert is here - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lz6MDiaajYE

So when we see someone acting selfishly in a self-righteous way to others we say "Granola!"

God I want to punch that guy.
 
GoldenTiger said:
That's insane... you can't just grab people's stuff out of their hands. YOU are being a "dick" for breaking the law and attacking someone. I hope you realize that pouring soda over people is in many states considered or able to be pressed as assault... I'd recommend learning to control your impulsiveness.

Besides, considering you hear about people being shot over parking spaces or simply honking at someone who cuts them off? I sure wouldn't grab a phone from someone and throw it... just out of self-preservation, even if I thought it was morally fine let alone legally (which I don't, and it isn't)..
Click to expand...

She attacked him. She slapped him. She is guilty of battery, he is guilty of destruction of property. Which is the higher crime?
He's a dick, but she is a . I say toss them both out and forget about it.

If I owned a theater, I would use the paint that blocks cell signals, I would but a sign on the door stating that, and the only customers I would lose over it would be the self important pricks, and the rare on call emergency worker. I might even gain customers were I to advertise that cell phones did not work. Cell phones, and babies are the two primary reasons I do not go to the theater anymore.............. Well, that, and the fact that much of what Hollywood puts out these days is crap.
 
GORANKAR said:
She attacked him. She slapped him. She is guilty of battery, he is guilty of destruction of property. Which is the higher crime?
He's a dick, but she is a . I say toss them both out and forget about it.
Click to expand...

In response to being attacked, she did, that is. Hardly the same thing.
 
GoldenTiger said:
That's insane... you can't just grab people's stuff out of their hands. YOU are being a "dick" for breaking the law and attacking someone. I hope you realize that pouring soda over people is in many states considered or able to be pressed as assault... I'd recommend learning to control your impulsiveness.

Besides, considering you hear about people being shot over parking spaces or simply honking at someone who cuts them off? I sure wouldn't grab a phone from someone and throw it... just out of self-preservation, even if I thought it was morally fine let alone legally (which I don't, and it isn't)..
Click to expand...

I didn't and he didn't attack anyone. Especially if he grabbed the phone and threw it before she slapped him, doesn't even seem like there was even a chance for her to react for there to be much of an exchange.

But like I said, I don't applaud the destruction of property, but she was being a dick, and not only to him, but to everyone else who wanted to watch a movie. The establishment definitely weren't much better. And so, I think of him as some to be congratulated. People who don't care that they bother others doesn't sit high on my list, so that's my bias.
 
GORANKAR said:
She attacked him. She slapped him. She is guilty of battery, he is guilty of destruction of property. Which is the higher crime?
Click to expand...

Slapping? In the US at least, If someone grabs your cell phone, wallet, purse, whatever, you're free to do a lot more than that without getting in any trouble. You wouldn't be justified in say, shooting the guy and stringing his family up from the rafters, but you could turn around and put your fist through the guys face a couple times, or use pepper spray/tazer, and the cops would tell him to take it like a man and just go home.
 
^They probably would, and it'll probably be partly biased on their part about women being the weaker sex and need to be protected. Lots of that crap going on, despite the scream for equal rights (and responsibilities). Specially if they go "take it like a man."
 
Also breaking the cell phone/throwing it is a REALLY bad idea. You could very well just eek into the range of felony destruction of property in many states. Sure, with a clean record you could probably get it reduced to a misdemeanor, but why risk all that drama over someone derping around on their cell phone?

Not worth it. Not even close.
 
Serpent said:
I didn't and he didn't attack anyone. Especially if he grabbed the phone and threw it before she slapped him, doesn't even seem like there was even a chance for her to react for there to be much of an exchange.

But like I said, I don't applaud the destruction of property, but she was being a dick, and not only to him, but to everyone else who wanted to watch a movie. The establishment definitely weren't much better. And so, I think of him as some to be congratulated. People who don't care that they bother others doesn't sit high on my list, so that's my bias.
Click to expand...

People who physically attack people at random don't sit high on my list. The right way to go about resolving a problem is NOT to grab someone's stuff out of their hands (that IS an attack, how do you think he's getting the phone?) and then throw it, causing a large disturbance. Those are the actions of a barbarian, not a man in ANY civilized society. And in regards to slapping him in reaction to being physically moved/touched/etc. and having her expensive property thrown/destroyed? He's lucky she didn't press charges. Not a single court in this country would even pay any attention to the self-defense/reactionary effect.
 
NKDietrich said:
Slapping? In the US at least, If someone grabs your cell phone, wallet, purse, whatever, you're free to do a lot more than that without getting in any trouble. You wouldn't be justified in say, shooting the guy and stringing his family up from the rafters, but you could turn around and put your fist through the guys face a couple times, or use pepper spray/tazer, and the cops would tell him to take it like a man and just go home.
Click to expand...

Yup, and that's what would happen in many cases, too. Someone messing around browsing on their cell phone during a show is NOT reason to attack them... it's not only illegal but is also completely excessive a means to try to "deal" with it, let alone the moral issues that I think anyone who's not defective can understand. He's lucky she wasn't packing heat, I could EASILY see someone getting shot trying to wrest a phone from someone else's hands at random, startling them, and the person thinking that the guy's trying to assault them and shooting as what they think is danger in self-defense.
 
NKDietrich said:
Slapping? In the US at least, If someone grabs your cell phone, wallet, purse, whatever, you're free to do a lot more than that without getting in any trouble. You wouldn't be justified in say, shooting the guy and stringing his family up from the rafters, but you could turn around and put your fist through the guys face a couple times, or use pepper spray/tazer, and the cops would tell him to take it like a man and just go home.
Click to expand...

Actually she slapped him after he tossed the phone. If she were trying to get it back, force is allowed to varying degrees depending on locality, if she is trying to avenge the phone, the legal allowance to use force disappears.
 
It's a typical male reacting with the usual hormone-driven, hyper sensitive emotional response that turns physically violent. It's just some stupid movie and getting that freaked out about it that you start physically assaulting other people and throwing their stuff just speaks volumes about how irrational people get over something as meaningless as entertainment.
 
GORANKAR said:
Actually she slapped him after he tossed the phone. If she were trying to get it back, force is allowed to varying degrees depending on locality, if she is trying to avenge the phone, the legal allowance to use force disappears.
Click to expand...

You'd have a point if he simply snuck the phone off the table and placed it somewhere and she was mad and just trying to figure out where he put it, or some similar scenario. But when he removed it from her person by force, it became robbery and/or assault. As soon as he laid hands on her, it was will within her rights to respond physically. It's up to law enforcement and the courts to decide if the response was within reason.

Slapping someone who just grabbed your personal property out of your hand and broke it? That's not even borderline. That's well within acceptable force for the situation. You could get away with a LOT more.
 
NKDietrich said:
You'd have a point if he simply snuck the phone off the table and placed it somewhere and she was mad and just trying to figure out where he put it, or some similar scenario. But when he removed it from her person by force, it became robbery and/or assault. As soon as he laid hands on her, it was will within her rights to respond physically. It's up to law enforcement and the courts to decide if the response was within reason.

Slapping someone who just grabbed your personal property out of your hand and broke it? That's not even borderline. That's well within acceptable force for the situation. You could get away with a LOT more.
Click to expand...

Again, if I steal your wallet you can use force to recover it. If I grab your wallet and toss it away in front of you, you no longer have legal grounds for force. You get to call me a dick, call the cops, or just walk away and pick up your wallet. You do not get to hit me. That said, were I on the jury, I would not vote to convict you had you put knuckles to my grill in a situation like that.

He grabbed the phone and tossed it. She then attacked him. She was not in the defending or recovering phase of the incident. She was in the retribution stage. Plenty of people in jail for going past the defend/recover stage. Hell, using violence to recover an item is not even allowed in some states.
 
CreepyUncleGoogle said:
It's a typical male reacting with the usual hormone-driven, hyper sensitive emotional response that turns physically violent. It's just some stupid movie and getting that freaked out about it that you start physically assaulting other people and throwing their stuff just speaks volumes about how irrational people get over something as meaningless as entertainment.
Click to expand...

People just seem to have increasingly thin skin when it comes to other human beings doing annoying stuff. No one knows how to handle things like an adult anymore. Look at this forum, every time a thread comes up about someone being annoying, everyone immediately jumps to the solution being theft, destruction of property, assault, or some other illegal behavior to thwart them. Some people are just venting, others actually seriously believe it's acceptable behavior.
 
NKDietrich said:
People just seem to have increasingly thin skin when it comes to other human beings doing annoying stuff. No one knows how to handle things like an adult anymore. Look at this forum, every time a thread comes up about someone being annoying, everyone immediately jumps to the solution being theft, destruction of property, assault, or some other illegal behavior to thwart them. Some people are just venting, others actually seriously believe it's acceptable behavior.
Click to expand...

I wonder if it has something to do with population density increasing. It's sort of like rats given an unlimited food supply but limited space turning violent with one another and creating social problems that result in them hurting or killing one another. In a way, it might be a way for the population to reduce pressure on itself on a more grand scale that introduces behaviour aberrations at an individual level. It might exhibit itself as a cultural change or a general shift in population consensus, but I think those are just symptoms of problems in the inadvertently created "group mind" trying to control itself.
 
GORANKAR said:
Again, if I steal your wallet you can use force to recover it. If I grab your wallet and toss it away in front of you, you no longer have legal grounds for force. You get to call me a dick, call the cops, or just walk away and pick up your wallet. You do not get to hit me. That said, were I on the jury, I would not vote to convict you had you put knuckles to my grill in a situation like that.

He grabbed the phone and tossed it. She then attacked him. She was not in the defending or recovering phase of the incident. She was in the retribution stage. Plenty of people in jail for going past the defend/recover stage. Hell, using violence to recover an item is not even allowed in some states.
Click to expand...

That sounds nice, but the law doesn't care if you still had the item in your hand. You initiated a physical confrontation in which the victim can be expected to be furious and react violently. This isn't even some kind of legal gray area. It's ancient and is dealt with in court every day. The law recognizes that reasonable people will respond violently in the heat of the moment when physically provoked in a robbery, assault, or whatever, and protects those people. They don't hold you to technicalities.
 
Just to clarify, the major deciding factor in these types of situations is how much time has elapsed. This all happened within moments. Turning around and knocking someones teeth out? Acceptable. Waiting for them outside the theater with a bat? Unacceptable.
 
CreepyUncleGoogle said:
I wonder if it has something to do with population density increasing. It's sort of like rats given an unlimited food supply but limited space turning violent with one another and creating social problems that result in them hurting or killing one another. In a way, it might be a way for the population to reduce pressure on itself on a more grand scale that introduces behaviour aberrations at an individual level. It might exhibit itself as a cultural change or a general shift in population consensus, but I think those are just symptoms of problems in the inadvertently created "group mind" trying to control itself.
Click to expand...

I think it's more a symptom of heavy Internet use, because it seems more prevalent in people in their early 20s or younger. People can't just hit the Ignore button in the real world like they can on the Internet. They've kind of lost the ability to cope with annoyance when there isn't an avenue available for them to shut it out entirely. They react in unpredictable ways. Some bottle up their anger and go vent online, wishing they had the testicular fortitude to act on their bad impulses, so they'll cheerlead for people who do. Others are the guy in the article, who don't know how to deal with minor annoyances in public but aren't afraid to lash out and behave poorly.
 
NKDietrich said:
I think it's more a symptom of heavy Internet use, because it seems more prevalent in people in their early 20s or younger. People can't just hit the Ignore button in the real world like they can on the Internet. They've kind of lost the ability to cope with annoyance when there isn't an avenue available for them to shut it out entirely. They react in unpredictable ways. Some bottle up their anger and go vent online, wishing they had the testicular fortitude to act on their bad impulses, so they'll cheerlead for people who do. Others are the guy in the article, who don't know how to deal with minor annoyances in public but aren't afraid to lash out and behave poorly.
Click to expand...

I guess it's possible, but I'd like to think that humans were just as stupid before the Internet existed. Then again, I've got no way to prove that's true and there are occasional comments from behavioral science types that lend a lot of credibility to information technology being a contributing factor in how people choose to act and react to things around them. Humans weren't really made to be subjected to the stimulus we're giving ourselves through electronic mediums. Maybe it does have a detrimental effect. Maybe I should log out and hug my cat before going outside... :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top