<p>"Well, that’s probably when Reeves left and went to tell management isn’t it? "</p>
<p>Well, according to the widow’s earlier accounts, at first her H ignored Reeves words, but Reeves persisted, and then her H responded.</p>
<p>IF Reeves politely asked one time, didn’t get the immediate cooperation that he wanted, and then went to “tell mgmt”, then omg, what a tool. But, I don’t think that’s what happened. </p>
<p>Not sure what all the hypotheticals have to do with the price of beans, because again, it doesnt matter what you or any of us would do (though we have suggested what we would do). It matters what they did, and like Hunt’s earlier post about the kind of people who get into these altercations, they escalated as perhaps they were both prone to easily becoming hotheaded, even if the initial request was pleasant and softspoken.</p>
<p>*t</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’ve found that the use of shoulder messenger or laptop bags drops off when we rediscovered how backpacks could not only carry more stuff, but also better at distributing the load evenly over both shoulders. </p>
<p>Many friends also stopped using those either to avoid “looking too corporate” or more often, because back issues due to imbalanced loads have gotten to them. </p>
<p>Granted, the load imbalance issue experienced is because most friends and I myself carried laptops with all accessories due to professional and other requirements. Especially considering the laptops I used during and right after college used to have average weights of up to 10 pounds with all accessories including power brick. </p>
<p>Even if what the widow said was true (the accounts by the witnesses seem to vary) ignoring someone’s polite request to stop texting and continuing to text is rude.</p>
<p>I think he was on an anti-texter mission and Oulson wouldn’t stop so he went out to find an usher. He’d asked people to put phones away in that theater before and they complied. Oulson got belligerent. Obviously that doesn’t justify shooting him but I do think that’s probably why things escalated and then Reeves freaked out and shot him. imho. </p>
<p>
This is exchange made me laugh! :D</p>
<p>
It is not considered rude. For someone to request something, they must understand that the request can either be granted or denied, and they must accept the outcome of that request. It’s illogical to request for someone to stop doing something, they not do it, and they you say, “Well, you’re rude.” Turn the tables, isn’t it quite rude of the requester to request such a thing?</p>
<p>I believe he was on an anti-texting mission, as well, acting. </p>
<p>Eventually, Oulsen would’ve stopped texting. You can only text for so long! ;)</p>
<p>Ignoring someone when they are speaking to you is rude. </p>
<p>“Even if what the widow said was true (the accounts by the witnesses seem to vary) ignoring someone’s polite request to stop texting and continuing to text is rude.”</p>
<p>Well, it’s very likely that those other witnesses weren’t sitting close enough to hear the beginnings of these exchanges. So, it’s very likely that the others didn’t pick up on the problem until things got more escalated. </p>
<p>And we don’t know if Reeves initial request was polite. </p>
<p>“and then Reeves freaked out and shot him. imho.”</p>
<p>I have a problem with that. An experienced cop doesn’t get freaked out and shoot people over belligerence. That’s why I think the defense is going to eventually say that Reeves has something now wrong with him. </p>
<p>an experienced cop (and he had training in hostage situations) is trained to “calm things down” and keep things from escalating. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It may offend the subjective sensibilities of the one who felt entitled to make such a request…but at the very worst…ignoring the request to stop texting was a misdemeanor in level of rudeness. </p>
<p>Especially considering the shooter’s history in a prior movie texting incident is such that his initial request is more likely to have been overbearing and possibly even belligerent, not polite. </p>
<p>Being ignored in such a context is also something NOT worth getting agitated over to the point of kicking Oulson’s chair and other chairs as he went off to the manager as was attested in prosecution testimony during the bail hearing. If this was the case, the shooter did much more to instigate and provoke before the popcorn throwing than I had thought. </p>
<p>If anything, it betrays a bit of chutzpah on the shooter’s part considering how he acted in the Dixon incident and the fact his “rule breaking”* is a ginormously greater felony in the greater scheme of things. </p>
<ul>
<li>Carrying a gun into a business establishment with a clear no weapons sign, carrying a gun into a business which served alcohol which is a violation of state law, and then pulling out and shooting Chad Oulson.<br></li>
</ul>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, in the previous Dixon incident, the shooter did call in the usher, usher went over to the Dixons to order them to put away the cells or leave, and the Dixons complied. However, even then, the shooter wasn’t satisfied as he continued to grouse, stare at them, act agitated, creepily followed one of them to a woman’s bathroom, and he snarled/yelled* at another patron when his cell phone went off. </p>
<p>Moreover, the Dixons never said the shooter’s request or demeanor was polite in any way as an earlier commenter said. Probably a misinterpretation because the shooter used the word “please”…even though one can be rude while using such polite courtesy words depending on demeanor, tone of voice, and situational context. </p>
<ul>
<li>Depending on report.</li>
</ul>
<p>There are reports that his initial request was polite. And if someone was sitting on the other side of Oulson, they were just as close as his wife and could probably hear the exchange. And the sequence of what Oulsen said and when he said it seems to have changed somewhat with the wifes accounts or at least what was reported in thepress , so I suspect his wifes attorney has suggested she hush.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Being ignored in such a context is also something worth getting agitated over to the point of kicking Oulson’s chair and other chairs as he went off to the manager as was attested in prosecution testimony during the bail hearing. If this was the case, the shooter did much more to instigate and provoke before the popcorn throwing than I had thought.<a href=“Hopefully,%20I’m%20understanding%20correctly,%20cobrat.%20Correct%20me%20if%20I’m%20wrong.”>/quote</a> The context is you’re behind someone who is texting. You politely try to get their attention, but they ignore you. </p>
<p>In that context, I don’t think it’s adequate enough to be mad and kick their chair. 1) That is immature. 2) If someone is purposefully ignoring you, it would be more effective to peacefully leave the area to find an authority figure. That’s “stirring the pot”. That’s “adding fuel to the fire”. </p>
<p>"And if someone was sitting on the other side of Oulson, "</p>
<p>Was there anyone there? I haven’t heard that. The only people that I’ve heard that were close were the people in the row in front of oulson…the man who Oulson fell on after being shot. </p>
<p>These are pre-purchased seats in a rather empty theater. You buy them online and you can see where others have already selected. In such an empty theater, it’s doubtful that someone selected a seat right next to Oulson…that would be kind of weird in an empty theater. lol</p>
<p>Seems this has been beaten to death. Round and round with the same discussions. Is there any new information</p>
<p>Very doubtful, indeed. The theater I go to frequently in my area has reserved seating. Whoever I’m with and I always try to be surrounded by a circle of empty seats. </p>
<p>Additionally, if I’m sitting next to a group of people, if I’m not engrossed in my own conversation, I wouldn’t be really listening to what they’re saying. Especially, if their exchange is quiet and “on the hush hush”. If someone was repeatedly trying to get someone’s attention, I would pay attention, however. Even if it didn’t involve me, I would pay attention.</p>
<p>Yeah, even if there was someone sitting right next to them, they were probably busy playing Angry Birds or Farmville on their cellphones, so probably weren’t paying attention.</p>
<p>^^
No, cuz they’d be dead now.</p>
<p>Most die of boredom playing those silly games</p>
<p>Two words: Flappy Bird. (Angry Birds and Farmville is painfully dated).</p>
<p>While Flappy Bird has reached its peak, it is the reason for the spike of suicides of 2014.</p>
<p>Quick question: Do you guys think this will happen again? Or be the cause of increased reporting or awareness in theaters? I was in the theater with my friend and, while we were both using our phones, we looked at each other and had the same thought running through our minds. Cobb theater shooting. </p>
<p>
Perfect. Seems a problem with its own built in solution.</p>