Two Pepper Sprayed Over Phone Call At Fla. Movie
- Thread starter WonderNine
- Start date
- Status
Sportcat
Member
Don't show up to a pepper spray fight with a soda!
I'm with the LEO on this one.
I'm with the LEO on this one.
nero45acp
Member
From all accounts the sprayings/arrests was justified.
I live 10 miles away from that theater. I've went there twice since it opened, both times there were loud, obnoxious punks in the theater. I won't be back a third time.
nero
I live 10 miles away from that theater. I've went there twice since it opened, both times there were loud, obnoxious punks in the theater. I won't be back a third time.
nero
0007
Member
Yep, the critical question here is how DID we all survive BCP(before cell phones)? I was told I had to have a cell phone when I took this job, so I have one and it resides in my briefcase 24/7 set on vibrate mode... Which is where yours should be set if you are sitting in a theatre; unless you are inclined to prove to the world that your parents raised a mannerless child...
And for what it is worth, the St. Pete. Times is a PC socialist rag that would be the first in line to burn the officer if there was any way possible to do so.
And for what it is worth, the St. Pete. Times is a PC socialist rag that would be the first in line to burn the officer if there was any way possible to do so.
Gunsnrovers
Member
Quick question. Is it illegal to use a cell phone in a theater? I know it's not polite and I turn mine off as soon as the lights dim for the feature, but is it illegal?
Sportcat
Member
Probably not illegal, but the theater is a private business that can set its own rules.
The issue is not cell phones. Here is what seems to have happened:
1. Officer (employed as security by the establishment), walks into the theater and sees suspects behaving in disruptive manner. It does not matter that their activites are not illegal, because he is not arresting them...he is merely acting as security for the establishment. Private property rights, remember that? The movie theater has a right to decide if people can or cannot use cell phones on premises.
2. Cop asks them to stop.
3. They say no.
4. Cop, who is employed as security by the business, requests that they leave. Again, business invoking its right to decide who is allowed in or on their private property.
5. Suspects start to leave, then (apparently) attempt to assault officer.
6. Mace!
As always, I'm basing this on the news report, so who knows...but this seems to make sense to me.
Mike
1. Officer (employed as security by the establishment), walks into the theater and sees suspects behaving in disruptive manner. It does not matter that their activites are not illegal, because he is not arresting them...he is merely acting as security for the establishment. Private property rights, remember that? The movie theater has a right to decide if people can or cannot use cell phones on premises.
2. Cop asks them to stop.
3. They say no.
4. Cop, who is employed as security by the business, requests that they leave. Again, business invoking its right to decide who is allowed in or on their private property.
5. Suspects start to leave, then (apparently) attempt to assault officer.
6. Mace!
As always, I'm basing this on the news report, so who knows...but this seems to make sense to me.
Mike
Gunsnrovers
Member
Just wondering why an off duty cop was representing the theater and if he identified himself as an officer.
When I was working retail (back in college), we used to trespass customers we didn't want to in the store. Took their photo, told them if they returned we would call the cops, and kept the pics at the front register for all employees to see.
I'm not clear from the story if he was working off duty as mall security or if he was off duty in street cloths.
If he was joe moviegoer, I don't like it. If he was mall cop man, sounds fine to me.
When I was working retail (back in college), we used to trespass customers we didn't want to in the store. Took their photo, told them if they returned we would call the cops, and kept the pics at the front register for all employees to see.
I'm not clear from the story if he was working off duty as mall security or if he was off duty in street cloths.
If he was joe moviegoer, I don't like it. If he was mall cop man, sounds fine to me.
Again, thisis one of those facts that the media has left out. Funny, imagine that...
In my experience? OVERWHELMINGLY likely that he was working as uniformed security for the theater. This means he is in a special status (laws will vary on this state by state)...likely he is both a police officer and an agent of the Theater...which means that he is empowered to tell people the theater rules and regs, request them to comply with them, then request them to leave when they break them, and arrest them for trespass if they do not do leave.
Again, the exact details will vary from state to state, but thats the general gist.
Mike
In my experience? OVERWHELMINGLY likely that he was working as uniformed security for the theater. This means he is in a special status (laws will vary on this state by state)...likely he is both a police officer and an agent of the Theater...which means that he is empowered to tell people the theater rules and regs, request them to comply with them, then request them to leave when they break them, and arrest them for trespass if they do not do leave.
Again, the exact details will vary from state to state, but thats the general gist.
Mike
Oh, yes, and now that we have a second version of the story, which both makes a whole lot more sense and makes the officer's actions seem quite reasonable, I'm sure that we will have another post from WonderNine acknowleding the fact that 1. the cop could very well be in the right and 2. that his prior bloviating was premature.
I'm sure of it. I can feel it coming.
And, God forbid, if anyone manages to dredge up this case in a few months time and finds its disposition, if it turns out that the officer was exonerated, I know we'll hear an apology from him.
Magic 8 Ball says 'it is decidedly so.'
Coronotholdingmybreathonthatonenach
I'm sure of it. I can feel it coming.
And, God forbid, if anyone manages to dredge up this case in a few months time and finds its disposition, if it turns out that the officer was exonerated, I know we'll hear an apology from him.
Magic 8 Ball says 'it is decidedly so.'
Coronotholdingmybreathonthatonenach
Justin Moore
Member
Sounds righteous to me, with the updated info.
outfieldjack
Member
Wondernine....
Wondernine said
Whats going on in this country?!?!? People jumping to conclusions without the entire story and getting all fired up about it....
Are you ready to "jump back" Wondernine?
Wondernine said
Whats going on in this country?!?!? People jumping to conclusions without the entire story and getting all fired up about it....
Are you ready to "jump back" Wondernine?
Hatchett
Member
Reading the second story, I'd say he would have been justified even if he'd brought in some backup to give those two a sound beating.
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
Actually if you will note the second report, it says at least one of the witnesses supporting Tolson's (the sprayee) version of events knows Tolson personally.
If the additional witnesses were friends of Tolson who went to the movies with them, then they don't exactly qualify as uninvolved third parties.
On the other hand, the movie theater usher supports the officer's version of events.
In any case, the officer had my support at "talking on a cellphone during a movie". I'd support the general principle that such people should be pepper sprayed on sight by anyone.
Well, the updated info is the officer's verison of the whole thing. The only way to get to the bottom of it is to look at everything and go through all sides...which will doubtless happen at the defendants' trials and in the inevitable Internal Affairs investigation.
The problem is that when the cops do it right, the exoneraion never makes the paper. But when they goof up it is page one news. So if we never hear of this one again, it probably went down the way the officer claims it did.
Mike
hillbilly...
Yes.
If I carry a firearm, I carry a cell phone, no exceptions. If you get into a situation where you have to pull a firearm to defend yourself, the first thing you should do after it is resolved is call 911. The second is call your lawyer. That is one of the first things I learned in my CCW class.
If I'm going to a theater it's probably downtown, and i'm very likely riding the bus to the theater, so likely the gun (and consequently) the phone is going to go also.
Of couse it's really a moot point, I don't believe cell phone has been made in the last 7-8 years without a silent mode. and that should always be on in a theater/meeting/resturant.
Yes.
If I carry a firearm, I carry a cell phone, no exceptions. If you get into a situation where you have to pull a firearm to defend yourself, the first thing you should do after it is resolved is call 911. The second is call your lawyer. That is one of the first things I learned in my CCW class.
If I'm going to a theater it's probably downtown, and i'm very likely riding the bus to the theater, so likely the gun (and consequently) the phone is going to go also.
Of couse it's really a moot point, I don't believe cell phone has been made in the last 7-8 years without a silent mode. and that should always be on in a theater/meeting/resturant.
Edward429451
member
I'm all for standing up for ones rights but inconsideration for ones fellow man is not a right in my book.
My cellphone has vibrate. I use it where appropriate.
My cellphone has vibrate. I use it where appropriate.
That some of you feel that your $7 entertainment is more important than someone's family being able to reach them in an emergency is absolutely vile. I'm not saying they should hold a conversation there, but if some dad takes a call from his babysitter who is telling him that his kid is on the way to the doctor and you give him grief? I'd support him shoving his phone someplace and using you as a walking speaker phone.
Steve in PA
Member
Oh, gee.......you mean the off-duty LEO working security was attacked before he maced the man and woman??? Hmmmm, how convenient that was left out of the first article.
Pebcac
Member
Damn straight. Hillbilly, you must not have kids. I have two and another on the way, and I'm here to tell you that if my cell phone quietly vibrating in my pocket ruins someone's evening, that's just too bad.
No one indicated that having a cell phone for emergencies required that someone sit and talk during the movie. That's what the lobby is for. Like most people, I'd like an opportunity to dump a Coke on the morons who talk on the phone, pop gum, throw things, and generally make an ass of themselves, but I'm not ready to ban cell phones in theaters. They can be used appropriately.
As far as the pepper spray thing was concerned, I'm sure I'm not the only one surprised by the fact that one of the two original witnesses knew the alleged "victims." Moral of the story, don't threaten to kick folks' butts and smack them with sodas. Act like an adult and get treated like one.
And don't take anything in the press too seriously, especially the first report. Nobody gets it right in the rush to "scoop."
My understanding is that the Catwoman movie is so bad, perhaps they just wanted to be blinded to be spared any more agony?
Lessons learned from this thread.
A. Newspapers suck.
B. We love to jump to predetermined conclusions on the internet.
Lessons learned from this thread.
A. Newspapers suck.
B. We love to jump to predetermined conclusions on the internet.
Now for the REALLY important issue:
Should cell phones be open carried or concealed? Does'nt the First Amendment translate into "Let Freedom Ring, or Play a Catchy Tune"? Vibrate does'nt appear anywhere in the Constitution. Ringing makes you uncomfortable, tough. Lets have a ring-in at Chi-Chi's!!!!!!
For the extremely dense, or terminally humorless - the previous was an attempt at satire. Now back to enjoying my phone vibrating in my pocket.
Should cell phones be open carried or concealed? Does'nt the First Amendment translate into "Let Freedom Ring, or Play a Catchy Tune"? Vibrate does'nt appear anywhere in the Constitution. Ringing makes you uncomfortable, tough. Lets have a ring-in at Chi-Chi's!!!!!!
For the extremely dense, or terminally humorless - the previous was an attempt at satire. Now back to enjoying my phone vibrating in my pocket.
Penforhire
Member
Good spray!
And the correct cell phone answer is set it beep once or vibrate, when you answer it say "hold on," get the heck out of your seat, and take the freaking call in the lobby. Anything else is rude and unnecessary. A sprayable offense...
And the correct cell phone answer is set it beep once or vibrate, when you answer it say "hold on," get the heck out of your seat, and take the freaking call in the lobby. Anything else is rude and unnecessary. A sprayable offense...
Tamara
Senior Member
I can't believe the officer OC'ed somebody just for being rude, obnoxious, and aggressive in a movie theater!
Didn't he have a gun?!?
There are countless disruptive moviegoers who are alive today simply because I was feeling entirely too munificent to pistolwhip them to death like they so richly deserved.
Didn't he have a gun?!?
There are countless disruptive moviegoers who are alive today simply because I was feeling entirely too munificent to pistolwhip them to death like they so richly deserved.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked