General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: The Rude Pundit: Man Who Shot Movie Theater Texter Is Using "Stand Your Ground" Defense ... [View all]cer7711
(502 posts)Last edited Thu Jun 26, 2014, 02:29 AM - Edit history (1)
I went too far the other day in making a point (far too meta and bitterly satirical) so let me try this again. I will write in simple, flat, declarative sentences (for the most part) so that I communicate clearly and cogently. (Leastwise, that is my hope.)
First off: Meegbear: I agree with you that this incident is both ridiculous and tragic, oh-so-American and maddening--because no incident involving texting should ever escalate to murder.
I am for sensible gun control regulation and have posted on this board many times to that effect.
It is tragic that one man is dead, another's life and legacy destroyed, a woman wounded and a three-old left fatherless.
Are we agreed so far?
Good.
Now to your posting. To say that it is an exercise in over-wrought rhetoric and near-hysteria is to undersell the thing.
Subtract the horrific ending to this incident and what do we have? An incident in which a 71-year-old man asks the man in front of him to stop texting during the previews. (Which the movie houses themselves ask their customers to do.) The man refuses to comply. Words are exchanged. The old man gets up, seeks out a manager. Returns to the theater w/o one, sits down, and is confronted by the texter AGAIN: "Did you just complain about me to a manager?" A second argument breaks out. The argument grows more heated until the texter (roughly half the age of the old man and in front of his wife--charming) hurls a bucket of popcorn into the old man's face.
FREEZE-FRAME!
At this point, who is in the greater wrong? Just who is acting self-entitled, boorish and out-of-control? Who is intimidating whom with their aggression? Who has crossed the line of civilized behavior?
Of course, the incident didn't end there, as we all know. The old man over-reacted and in the heat of the moment did a truly awful, criminal and horrific thing: He pulled out a concealed pistol and shot the man dead, leaving his wife wounded in the process.
It is the absolute demonization of this retired police chief that I object to. Had he shot the texter while texting, THAT would be evidence that a man was (as the headlines trumpet): MURDERED FOR TEXTING. Had the old man himself started up the argument again when he re-entered the theater, that would serve as evidence that he intended to MURDER A MAN FOR TEXTING.
In point of fact, what really happened was an incident of acted-out machismo gone too far: "Hey, you talking about me? Did you go complain about me? You think you're the boss of me?!" WHAP! Hurled box of popcorn in the face.
That sentence of yours: "Then you hear that Reeves had already complained to the management about Oulson and then confronted Oulson when the younger man asked him if he had complained" is an absolute masterpiece of twisted tenses, confusing syntax and outright gibberish. What happened and how it happened is very clear.
Writing sentences like: "So, yeah, ha, ha, we'd all like to shoot the dumbasses who text in the dark of the movie theater," and "So what happened is that a psychotic old pussy had a gun and a grudge against the world" are not only in poor taste but read as hyper-excitable juvenilia, an attempt to use sheer emotionalism to sway your audience into believing this old man is a cold-blooded monster of wanna-be vigilantism, a George Zimmerman type.
I don't read the incident that way. And I think that putting undue attention on this particular incident only serves to hurt, not help, the cause of tightening gun control regulations. There are so very many other incidents that are demonstrably, heart-breakingly worse.
Edit history
![](du4img/smicon-reply-new.gif)