<p>I don’t understand the rage during previews, either. I have seen people do anything and everything during the previews. I don’t go off on them. A nice cue that everyone should settle down and be quiet is the lowering off the lights and the widening of the screen.</p>
<p>* A nice cue that everyone should settle down and be quiet is the lowering off the lights and the widening of the screen.*</p>
<p>^^^
They do that here for the previews.
The movie starts right after the previews, the previews iMO, are the indication that it is time to get settled and stop talking/ playing with electronics.
Those who can’t manage to do that during the previews, often keep going through the movie as well.
I do admit different parts of the country have different standards.
I was really surprised by the behavior when I went to a concert in Detroit. Although it was a very nice vintage theatre( Fox?), they allowed drinks to be brought in ( they often don’t in Seattle), & behavior reflected that.</p>
<p>It does concern me that so many people have weapons.
For example we live in a pretty nice neighborhood and we walk a lot.
We walk to do errands. ( there are sidewalks & lights)
However, the last three evenings, when H has been out walking, he has been just missed being hit by cars while in the marked crosswalk, and last night when he was trying to assist a man with a walker cross the street, they were both almost hit by two bicyclists. ( cars were stopped for them but the bicyclists didn’t)
It is really starting to ps him off & I don’t blame him, but I am afraid he will thump someones car next time they clip him, and they will pull out a weapon.</p>
<p>They look right at you, ( or seem to) and he knows they see him because they swerve around him, but why cant they wait?</p>
<p>After reading some of the commendation letters and thank you notes in Curtis Reeves’ file from when he was a cop with Tampa Police Dept…for me it is, wow, how could he do what he did the other day? When he was a cop he was rescuing puppies hit by cars, talking people out of killing themselves, protecting V.P. Bush, protecting presidential candidate Scoop Jackson. solving bank robberies, teaching at a college, running the TPD SWAT unit, etc., etc. </p>
<p>Interestingly, in Reeves’ TPD file, early year assessments of Reeves as a cop by his supervisors remarked Reeves was ‘aggressive’ and he had an attitude of ‘superiority’ to others not in his police unit. Aggressiveness and feeling superior to others I guess can contribute to making a good cop, but these traits Reeves had as a young cop maybe somehow eventually morphed as he got older into making him a monster who would shoot someone while arguing in a movie theater over something really petty.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.tampagov.net/pio/ReevesPersFile-004.pdf[/url]”>http://www.tampagov.net/pio/ReevesPersFile-004.pdf</a></p>
<p>
My observation is that however you are, usually you get more that way as you get older. And if you’re a retired cop, perhaps you miss the authority that you formerly had.</p>
<p>Niquii, I’m confused. You said:
</p>
<p>But at the same time you’re saying that texting during the previews is perfectly okay? So how is the victim not innocent?</p>
<p>It appears that the victim did participate in escalating the confrontation. However, if reported accurately, what he did is not remotely enough to provide any justification for what the shooter did. So while I think it’s true to say the victim wasn’t entirely innocent, it shouldn’t really matter in this case.</p>
<p>*It appears that the victim did participate in escalating the confrontation. *</p>
<p>Right, but it sounds like he behaved like many men (and maybe women) would in that situation except for maybe throwing the popcorn. </p>
<p>Many men would react to being told to stop doing something that they have a right to do at that moment. </p>
<p>When I recently went to see *Saving Mr. Banks<a href=“a%20delight!”>/I</a>, the theater had MANY reminders to stop texting and silencing phones before the actual movie started. </p>
<p>The trailers lasted OVER 20 minutes. Many were viewing their phones during THAT time, but from what I saw, everyone put their phones away when the movie started.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s unfortunate that the victim chose to engage in such a manner. But I’m sure he didn’t expect to pay the ultimate price for it.</p>
<p>Sobering lesson of the times.</p>
<p>Okay he may have texted when he should not have BUT another rule that was broken was bringing a gun into a theater that posted no weapons allowed. It was very hypocritical of the retired cop to want others to follow rules when he himself did not. If all rules were followed we would be talking about Oscar nominations. Too many people choose which rules to follow and which too ignore. Either way someone should have just calmly moved in this case. And yes inquii77 no one had to but a little girl would still have her dad if someone had calmly done so.</p>
<p>^^^</p>
<p>I’m not sure if that rule applies to active-duty and retired cops. They are permitted to carry weapons where others aren’t allowed to.</p>
<p>
We must first establish what actions took place that the victim is guilty of. Texting during the previews is not one. (Well, ok he did text but that’s not sketching you’d charge some with…anywho…) The man who was shot DID play a part in escalating the confrontation. He threw popcorn at the guy. He played a hand in the argument. Rather than being disengaging, he engaged in the confrontation. The guy who was shot IS the victim on a shooting, however he is not INNOCENT of engaging in the confrontation. </p>
<p>Sure, the act of Reeves shooting the guy isn’t justified, but the purpose of me saying the victim isn’t innocent is not to provide justification for the shooter. </p>
<p>Sorry, Shiloh, but I don’t buy it. A lot of things could’ve happened and the daughter would still have her father. If the guy didn’t bring a gun in, the daughter would still have her father. If the off-duty copped charged the shooter, the daughter would still have her father. And so on…</p>
<p>From the facts we have heard, it appears that the victim is relatively innocent compared with the shooter. The shooter’s lawyer will try to make a lot out of the thrown popcorn, but I don’t think that will get too far–unless the victim made threatening statements. That could affect the balance.</p>
<p>Imm not debating the victim’s or the shooter’s innocence or guiltiness in the legal system. Purely from a “who-did-what” standpoint. Perhaps, that’s where many posters mix up originated from. I’m unconcerned with the “legal fault” of the victim and the shooter.</p>
<p>*The shooter’s lawyer will try to make a lot out of the thrown popcorn, *</p>
<p>I’m not sure he will. I think he’s going to play some other card…senility, confusion, PTSD, or something like that.</p>
<p>No jury is going to buy a popcorn defense when popcorn is used to protect fragile items for shipping. </p>
<p>Heck, the cop didn’t even use the “stop or I’ll shoot” or “put your hands up” line which would’ve been his ole standard from his job. </p>
<p>I believe that cops are trained to either “shoot to kill” or “shoot to stop”. This guy chose the former for no sane reason. </p>
<p>I was talking to my sister about this case, she’s a therapist, and without knowing the shooter’s background, she commented that some people become “on edge” where even the most mildest things bother them to a very heightened degree…so their reactions do not fit the “crime.” And, as others have mentioned, she also mentioned that as a former authority figure, he may be just used to having others blindly follow his orders. He may see himself as someone whose “job” it is to “make sure” others are following rules (no texting). She also wondered if we’re going to hear that the shooter is an alcoholic.</p>
<p>There was absolutely no justification for what this retired cop did. The victim was texting during previews which is allowed in every theater I’ve attended. </p>
<p>Moreover, it seems this retired cop had a serious case of “respect my authoritah” or to reference something from my older relatives’ childhood…fits the stock stereotype of Imperial Japanese military personnel who arrogantly demanded respect from civilians at the point of a gun, sword, or bayonet. </p>
<p>Especially considering several reports have stated this retired cop followed a woman to the bathroom for texting a few weeks before. </p>
<p>Also, the reports were inconsistent as to whether the popcorn was tossed by the victim himself or by someone else. Has this been cleared up?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sorry, but being a senior citizen or older adult doesn’t give one the right to order others around, especially when said individual was himself breaking the rules by carrying a gun into a theater which barred them. </p>
<p>Moreover, if this theater was like the ones I’ve attended, texting during previews is perfectly a-ok. Theater rules only prohibit them after the end of previews where there’s a clear announcement to put away all cell phones/electronics right before the start of the main feature. On the flipside, many of the theaters I’ve attended WOULD have a problem if it was found you brought a gun on the premises. </p>
<p>Hypocrisy on top of overentitled authoritarian tendencies…seems like someone who loves throwing his weight around… </p>
<p>Makes one wonder whether those references to his “overly aggressive” and “feeling superior to others” tendencies from his early career report file were red flags which were overlooked or regarded as “good traits” for those in his profession.</p>
<p>Put that way, you have to wonder whether the father should have been carrying concealed.</p>
<p>The big tell for gun violence, at least the only kind that gets attention, is diminished mental capacity. In all it’s forms - including whatever this retired cop was suffering from.</p>
<p>Put that way, you have to wonder whether the father should have been carrying concealed.</p>
<p>I don’t think he would have had time to pull it out to defend himself. As it was, there was an off-duty cop a few feet away (likely also armed) who didn’t have time to stop the violence. Likely, he witnessed the words going back and forth but never imagined that it would escalate to gun violence.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As a man, I can definitely vouch that this would be how many men would react. To obey instantly upon being told what to do by someone with no apparent greater standing than ourselves in public would have been considered “feminine doormat behavior” or “giving undue deference to those with no greater status/standing than ourselves” and thus, strongly discouraged by many fathers I knew of growing up. </p>
<p>This mentality was also commonplace among many NYC residents back in the '80s and early '90s. If this retired cop tried telling someone to cease doing something that’s within the rights of the other person in NYC…especially on a subway car, the most likely response is likely something like “Who died and made you king?!!”…except expressed with much more profanity. </p>
<p>And if he shot the one making that statement or even tossing a bag of food in response, most NYC residents would have likely found the retired cop at fault for “not minding his damned business” and thus, provoking the incident in the first place. </p>
<p>To some extent, this mentality still holds to a lesser extent as illustrated by an incident a year ago when one older passenger tried to lecture a younger male passenger on shaking his head to a beat on his media player through headphones, that younger male passenger responded with a profanity-laden version of “Who died and made you king?!!” </p>
<p>While rare, many New Yorkers in the car who remembered NYC before the late '90s…including yours truly exchanged glances and amused smiles at seeing subway drama more reminiscent from that earlier period.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>From my perspective, any fault of the victim for escalating the dispute was rendered moot the instant the retired cop opted to take out his gun and shoot him in the chest at close range. </p>
<p>And incidentally, it seems even the sheriff agreed in comments and judge agreed in denying him bail.</p>
<p>*especially when said individual was himself breaking the rules by carrying a gun into a theater which barred them. *</p>
<p>Again, we don’t know if he was breaking the rules. Cops and excops are allowed to carry weapons at many places that others aren’t allowed to. </p>
<p>Cops and excops are allowed to carry weapons in forbidden places because they may need to assist in the prevention of a crime, or they may be confronted with an exCon who recognizes them and tries to attack them.</p>