Prosecutors: This wasn't the first blow-up for Florida theater shooter Curtis Reeves
http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/15/justice/florida-movie-theater-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t1(CNN) -- A few weeks before a texting dispute turned deadly inside a Florida theater, suspect Curtis Reeves had another run-in with a moviegoer, prosecutors said.
During Reeves' first court appearance on Tuesday, prosecutors said they had heard from another theater patron who said the 71-year-old former Tampa cop saw her texting and "glared at her the entire time throughout the movie" during a screening about three weeks ago.
When the woman got up to use the restroom, Reeves followed her and "made her very uncomfortable," prosecutors said.
CNN affiliate WTSP later identified the woman as Jamira Dixon of Wesley Chapel, the Tampa suburb where Monday's shooting took place.
snip
= new reply since forum marked as read
You should probably post some pro Warren stuff so your cred doesn't fall below an eighth of a tank 
while firing at her husband, is that also assault? 
She had it coming for marrying that texting bastard. Consequences.
(Seriously: I can't believe anyone is really blaming the victim or defending the murderer. Much less both. Bizarre.)
Funny, you sound JUST LIKE someone else that posts here...my my my...no doubt you will be back, you gun humpers cannot STAND it when reality shines a light on people like yourself, so you come here...say some stupid shit...and get banned again and again!
Don't any of you realize how fucking stupid and pathetic you look making up lies to play CYA for a gun humping murderer?
Anyways...no doubt you will be back, your type are like moths to a flame...sad unthinking creatures that react reflexively to certain stimuli...kinda like an insect.
I'm no bug! Now watch me blow my nuts off!
And in a state where an individual has the right to carry a concealed weapon into a movie theater ... texters should expect to be shot to death.
We can only hope that the shooter's courage in exercising his 2nd Amendment rights and the right to watch a movie without the annoyance of nearby texters will mean more 'class' amongst all movie-goers in the future.
: :
Seriously, I am shaking my head. What a big steaming pile.
The hall monitors got two of his posts hidden. 
Shame, I rather liked that last one, the fatbuddy's "assholish essence" statement was truly sublime.
Kudos to Skinner for a speedy dispatch.
SO what does that say about a person that shoots and kills another person over a text message? Don't worry, I know you cannot answer because you are a NRA troll that is banned, again.
When you come back, please let us know so we can pick right back up on this pathetic conversation you seem to be having with yourself!
cool post 
under a bridge I think I sense it in that one.
It's difficult, when some guy is picking his nose, driving with his blinker on, or texting in a theater, to keep from pulling out your gun and just blasting the feckless motherfucker right into hell where he belongs.
But then I met Jesus, and He told me to stop killing people with zero class. He said that putting up with someone who wants to text during a movie's previews is simply my cross to bear. It's made me a better person.
I still have distinct memories of being able to go to a movie and watch the movie. There might be some whispering, then somebody would give the whisperers a look and they'd get the message. Everybody could watch the movie and enjoy it.
I stopped going to the movies about 10 years ago. I had waited for a big, period, epic type movie to come out so I could get "lost" in it. Part of escapism of being at the big screen, versus the little, at home screen. Well, after several years of waiting for that type, one finally came out. I didn't go to the opening because I figured it would be crowded and noisy. Instead, on a midweek matinee when the kids would be in school. Except a group of teens skipped school for the movies and then jumped up and ran up and down the aisles, rode down the bannister (ultimately breaking it) and interrupted and disrupted the movie at every, single climax point. They deliberately ruined the movie for everybody who had gone to actually watch it, for their own form of "entertainment."
It seems to me, the majority of people used to have show some basic consideration for others, in exchange for the same directed toward them. Now I would say the majority of people have zero consideration for others and seem surprised that there are others out there somewhere, whether they are texting at a meal, on a date, in the middle of a conversation, driving, walking down the street, or whatever.
There has been a distinct decline in simple decency, respect and courtesy toward others. I usually laugh when such narcissists are then surprised to occasionally get some blowback, except when it turns tragic. I do find it interesting how many people make their judgements on who engaged in the "worse" behavior. It is all just bullying others.
In this case, the ultimate victim instigated the situation by breaking a rule, which rule is intended to ensure that all moviegoers get equal access to the movie. Asked 3 times to follow the rule, the victim refused to comply. When the disrespected person left and returned, the victim further escalated the situation by asking the disrespected person if he'd gone to get management. And then further escalated the situation by throwing popcorn at the disrespected person.
I look at this situation and what is see is a stupid, rude bully who met up with an equally stupid, but armed bully who wasn't going to take being bullied any more.
A nonbully would have left the theater and texted his daughter outside the theater, both out of consideration of the other person's rights and out of consideration for his wife and daughter. A nonbully would have left the theater, asked for his money back for the ticket and tried again later or waited for it to come out on dvd.
Personally, I have zero tolerance for bullying. Young bully had no manners because he's learned he can get his own way by being a bully. Well it's too bad his parents didn't bother to teach him basic manners when he was still young enough to learn them from his parents, because then he would still be alive. Now he's dead, and his wife and daughter are mourning. Old bully will probably be doing some jail time and then off to nursing home.
Bullies. They shit on everything. 
very small men.
It's a point that bullies always seems to forget, or maybe never get. They always think they're the biggest bully on the block. The fact is you never know when you might meet up with a bigger bully.
So the younger bully met up with a bigger bully. He had multiple opportunities to de-escalate the situation and be the "bigger man." Instead, he actively chose to escalate it and try to be the bigger bully. That's the risk you take when choosing to be a bully. One day you meet up with a bigger bully and then your bullying days are over, in this case for good.
may or may not have been bullying, depending on his tone of voice and choise of words, but certainly not polite or considerate of others. And yes, if you are in a movie theater and somebody is engaging in disruptive activity that is against the rules, you certainly do have a right to ask them to stop doing that behavior.
Getting up from your seat and confronting the elderly man after he returned to the theater, demanding to know if he'd complained to management, was bullying. The elderly man had every right to leave the theater and return. And since the texter was breaking rules, management had every right to ask him to stop if they chose to. Why go confront the elderly man about it?
I have no idea what "bearding a stranger" means. Why do you call me sir? I am female.
The elderly man approached the younger man and either requested 3 times that he stop texting in the theater. Regardless of whether he polited requested it or was snarly and just nasty (iirc each "request" became louder and more insistant, so the 3rd time was a "demand" :
1. The younger man could have apologized for disturbing the elderly man and assured him he would stop before the movie began. That would have been a polite response. He chose not to.
2. The younger man could have stopped texting. That would have been a polite response. He chose not to.
3. The younger man could have left the theater and finished his texting there. That would have been a plite response. He chose not to.
He had 3 opportunities to de-escalate the situation and 3 different possible ways to de-escalate. He chose, each time, to refuse the elderly man's simple request. Was he in his legal right to stay and text? Yes. Was it socially acceptable behavior? The way I was raised, it was rude. Was it smart? Considering the outcome, no.
Then the elderly man left the theater. He returned a few minutes later. The young man had 2 options at this point:
1. he could have remained in his seat and ignored the elderly man. That would have been the polite response. he chose not to.
2. he could go confront the elderly man and initiate an argument. That is what he chose to do. Was it legal for him to approach this strange man and demand to know if he'd gone to management? Yes. Was it polite? no Was it smart? considering the outcome, no.
The elderly man replied that he had been to management to complain. The young man had many options at this point:
1. he could have returned to his seat and minded his own business; since management hadn't come back with the elderly man, he was presumably free to continue texting. That would have been the polite response. He chose not to.
2. he could remain where he was and start arguing with the man, even though management hadn't come back with the elderly man. That is what he chose. Was that legal? Yes. Was that the polite choice? no, it was rude. Was it smart? Not considering the outcome
3. He could, of all things, have thrown his popcorn at the man. That is what he chose to do. Was it legal to do? I guess so; I don't know anything about any laws regarding popcorn throwing. Was it polite? No, it was extremely rude. Was it smart? considering the outcome, no.
IOW, he was approached by an elderly stranger with a reasonable request given the public situation; he chose to be rude and disrespectful. The elderly stranger left and returned. The young man initiated the second contact, getting up from his seat, confronting the elderly man who was acting within his legal rights to talk to the managers, arguing with him about the elderly man daring to go to management, and then throwing things at him.
I have never stated that the elderly man will not deserve whatever he gets for shooting an unarmed man over texting, because he does deserve what is coming to him. I do state the the younger man acted like a bully from the beginning, and sooner or later bullies find themselves facing bigger bullies.
I'm not in a court of law. I'm in general society. And in a social setting, if you treat people the way you'd like to be treated, you usually get better results than if you choose to be confrontational and insist on your right to do whatever you feel like whenever you feel like regardless of how much it may happen to inconvenience others.
It would have cost him nothing to have been accomodating to the elderly mans whim.
Failing that, it would have cost him nothing to have simply refrained from approaching and confronting the elderly man who was exercising his right to leave the theater and return to it.
He made stupid, rude, inconsiderate choices and paid with his life. You shouldn't pay with your life for being stupid or rude, but it is also true in a social setting that if you insist on confrontation and your right to do whatever you want whenever you want to whomever you want, you may meet a bigger bully than you are..
Response to warrior1 (Original post)
Response to Lex (Reply #40)
Response to Lex (Reply #52)
Response to The Magistrate (Reply #72)
Response to The Magistrate (Reply #80)
That goes into my toolbox. 
And the man got what he was looking for. 
