Pennsylvania man shot for making noise during movie

Ok, Given that no one was killed during this fiasco...I think this is kinda funny that someone would go this far over some crap like this. Funny and sad to tell the truth.

"The Curious Case of Benjamin Button"

I hear this is a great movie, despite the fact that Brad Pitt is in it.

Police said bail had been set, but they did not know the amount.

This guy gets bail???

Maybe next time this dude should alert theater staff. That way he can see the end of the movie.

Or, instead of purchasing a gun, he could come back later, buy another ticket, watch it again, and still save cash!

Idiots. Idiots are the reason I want strict gun licensing, registration, and tracking. There are just too many idiots out there not to.

Usually when folks don't know who's armed, society is more civil.

This loudmouth forgot the rule. I wonder if he'll modify his self-centered rude behavior in the future.

A perfect example of why guns should be banned. In the case Christmas Day of the man killing eight, including firing a shotgun point blank into an 8 year old girl's face, it's hard to argue against guns because it was premeditated and he would have likely killed using something else. In this case, however, it shows how having access to a gun made the situation FAR more dangerous, despite the victim not being killed. I think every single one of us knows how frustrating it is when some a-holes are being loud during a movie, but since outside of the US probably none of us have guns we don't have the ability to simply shoot someone when we blow a gasket over the noise. Here, plain and simple, the man walked up and shot another person. No gun, the man wouldn't have been shot. Knife? who knows, but in most places knives are also illegal and not that common outside the kitchen (where illegal, I mean). Probably the man would have gotten a fat lip.

The US needs to put far more emphasis on gun control, NOW.

Mr. Smith, we have thousands of laws on the books regardin' your "gun control".

We also have "the death penalty" in all fifty states (though some believe we don't).

It was good the Christmas Day murderer killed himself. I don't care to hear his story.

Mr. Smith, we have thousands of laws on the books regardin' your "gun control".

We sure do! You know why? Because its liberals who don't know the half of it writing up the laws, and the gun advocates just oppose, oppose, oppose, and dumb it down, rather than helping those liberals get it right.

The gun nuts just feel no responsibility whatsoever, and just keep trying to pass the buck. The moonbats are misguided, sure, but they are the only ones with the sense and guts to step up to plate. So we get this vicious cycle of weak misguided half-measures to the problems.

The day the gun nuts get their heads together, get responsible, and come up with ways to ensure only the sensible people have guns, the sooner the day will come you won't have to deal with the moonbats so much on this anymore, and we can erase some of those silly laws.

Mr. Likeitis, I don't think you're familiar with US "gun control laws". At all.

Every time I buy a firearm, I have to go through a criminal background check, be photographed again, and be finger-printed again. I then have a two-week waiting period, some call a "coolin' off period" just in case I want to shoot my neighbor. After this two-week wait and approval period, I then have to take the weapon I want to purchase from the gun dealer's safe, bring it to the police station for them to take down all the descriptive data on the firearm, includin' serial number.

What more would you like? I don't think a cavity search would enhance what they require already.

Something just isn't right here. I mean with the whole story. First off, this was suppose to have happened on Christmas and it's just now making the news? A man gets shot in a Movie theatre and a panic doesn't ensue? The crowd just acts like nothing happened? Heck I know sailwind would have hit the deck and crawled toward the nearest exit.

Second of all this part....Detectives called to the United Artists Riverview Stadium theater in South Philadelphia found Cialella carrying the weapon, a .380-caliber handgun, in his waistband, police said.

A man just got shot and they just sent detectives????? The bloody SWAT team would be more in line with what is supposed to have happened here.

About this..... Police said bail had been set, but they did not know the amount.

How could they not know the amount? Isn't that public knowledge? It is incredible that they wouldn't know the amount.

And I'm floored by this part......Police could not confirm what movie was playing in the theater, but The Philadelphia Inquirer reported that it was “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button.”

They sent DETECTIVES who are so bright they didn't even bother to find out what flick was playing when this happened.

Something just isn't right with the story. There was something else going on between the parties that is much deeper and hasn't got out yet, has to be because of the tepid initial police response and bail being given.

Or if I'm wrong the Philly Police Department has to be one of the most inept ones on the planet. Guy shoots a guy in a movie theatre and they sent detectives.......... How about an AMBULANCE and surrounding the theatre first?

This story as reported so far just doesn't pass the smell test in my opinion as to what really went on here. I hope they do a follow-up on this, I'd be curious as to the whole story.

This is, indeed, the price that is paid for having an armed society. I support the right to bear arms, but it is inevitable that if you give people guns, someone will abuse the privilage.

What more would you like?

I don't want more. I want different. Some of those I knew, some I didn't, but I believe it varies place to place, no? Anyway most of them look like half-measures to me. They did not prevent this shooting did they?

I will explain in a while....

Mister Sailwind, I'm sure there was a lot of initial panic.

Until one knows if there's a crazy on the loose or someone just addressin' poor social behavior directed at one individual only, I'm sure there were feelin's of panic among all of the theater patrons.

If you want to know more, I'll bet you can do "Google News" and find other details.

Mr. Likeitis: "They did not prevent this shooting did they?"

Mr. Likeitis, if you can predict human behavior then you are a god and your talents are wasted here.

Explain "half-measures".

sailwind: "The crowd just acts like nothing happened? Heck I know sailwind would have hit the deck and crawled toward the nearest exit."

If that's the case, which I doubt, then it is a sad statement on your culture to be so desensitized to weapons that can cause massacre at any given minute. I can almost picture, in fact, the guy next to the shot family man saying, "God dammit! Someone's blood got on my popcorn again! Honey, go demand a refill... I don't have my 'theater gun insurance' for nothing. If they don't refill it, give me my Smith 'n Wesson!"

I exaggerate, but you get the point. Oh, and that's just a metaphorical point, not the point of a gun, in case you were worried.

Mr. Smith, I value your friendship so you may want to avoid my nation.

It would be a loss if you were to get shot in a movie theater for puttin' your feet on the back of someone's headrest, or pistol-whipped by a city bus driver for not offerin' your seat to an elderly person.

Two years ago we had a crazy person knife a stranger and movie patron to death in my local theater's men's room in a very upscale community.

I believe America may be way too dangerous for you.

USA

If you want to know more, I'll bet you can do "Google News" and find other details.

I did before I wrote my post and it's pretty much a dearth of details. UPI calls it an 'alleged shooting' as do many other outlets though. I always try to do my research before I post on topics beforehand.

I just don't really trust the media like I use to anymore to give it to me straight and started feeling the way years ago, so I try to crosscheck and get as much background info as I can when I read a story that just seems fishy to me. And this one strikes me as being very fishy so I googled James Joseph Cialella and hit the news button before I wrote my post and what stikes me as strange about the story.

But thanks anyway for the advice, it's good advice but rest assured though I been doing it that way for years now. That is the beauty the living in the information age.

Mister Sailwind, it sounds fishy to me, too.

But who knows... Several years ago we went through this lethal fad where if one felt "dissed" that gave him (or her) "the right" to take another's life. It began in the black sub-culture and was, of course, picked up by whites who wished they'd been born black. Then there was that silly but sometimes lethal "represent" bidness.

As a Honolulu homicide detective once said to me, the phrase that get's one party or the other killed over any other is, "What're you lookin' at?"

Some folks can't be saved from themselves whether it's booze, drugs or anti-social behavior.

Every time I buy a firearm, I have to go through a criminal background check, be photographed again, and be finger-printed again. I then have a two-week waiting period, some call a "coolin' off period" just in case I want to shoot my neighbor.

After the first time, what is the point? Its all half-measures because YOU ALREADY HAVE A GUN.

Criminal backround check is a good idea overall. But what is taking your picture and your fingerprints really going to accomplish? Great for after the fact reporting, nothing for prevention, except for maybe the SECOND time.

I then have to take the weapon I want to purchase from the gun dealer's safe, bring it to the police station for them to take down all the descriptive data on the firearm, includin' serial number.

More after the fact useful information.

Mr. Likeitis, if you can predict human behavior then you are a god and your talents are wasted here.

I can't guarantee anything 100 percent, but unless one makes an effort you won't even get close. Putting info in a file is NOT trying. The only things that came close were the backround check and the two week waiting period, which is pretty good for the first gun, but pretty useless the second time.

Another great half measure was D.C.'s handgun ban. Strangely, (or not) crime went up. It was a half measure because that little dot called D.C. was SURROUNDED by handguns.

More to come.

USARonin: "I believe America may be way too dangerous for you."

Actually, sounds like 'America' is way too dangerous for you, since you end up in these situations every day, and don't know how to react except as through a passive observer of made-up fairy-tales (of every day fantasies). Aside from that, you really should stop putting your feet on people headrests and blaming it on other people.... because someday your neighbour may really put out a handgun and before you even have the words 'Mister' out you'll be toast.

Sailwind: You've got to be kidding me if you consider 'USARonin's' advice to be good. I can understand your doubt regarding media reports in general, but doubting a guy shot someone else in a movie theatre? What did you think actually happened that was newsworthy?

Mister Likeitis, since you asked...

The reason the buyer is photographed and fingerprinted and a criminal background check is done on each purpose is to ensure the identity of the proposed buyer is correct and that this same individual hasn't done anything anywhere else that would take away his Second Amendment right to own a firearm or eleven. There's a whole lot of your "prevention" that you're lookin' for right there.

but doubting a guy shot someone else in a movie theatre? What did you think actually happened that was newsworthy?

Smith,

I have no doubt a guy was shot and he was the one who pulled the trigger. However since he was allowed bail it isn't as cut and dried as one would think and I would like to know the reason why he was granted bail. It would clarify for me at least what really went here between the two parties. Did it become a physical confrontation between the two and then he pulled a gun? Did the other party threaten him in anyway to make him fear for his life and he thought he was doing this in self defense?

Not so simple after all Smith if you don't have all the details is it now?

He's obviously not crazy or he'd still be in jail. The story is just playing to the more sensationlistic aspects of this, understandable sells papers but doesn't do a reader like me any justice when I'd like to know all the details before I form my overall opinion on this case.

sailwind: Here's the simple part, and what should have been the easiest part to understand... but since one need understand 'simple', I'll do that to: 'A man was shot because a gun was allowed'.

Sailwind: I dare you to deny that. No other comments, no poingnant afterthoughts, just tell me tell me how not simple it was.

One last thing I found really odd about the reporting on this.

It was in a Movie theatre lots of folks there, could we least have a quote from a witness that was actually there?

It isn't like that would have been too hard of a stretch for a reporter to get a quote from someone who saw all of this going down? Sure would clarify alot of things.

I have to say this is pretty bad reporting in my opinion.

As far as deaths caused by folks firin' into the air and the subsequent earth-bound projectiles, only 843 were killed in 2007 as opposed to 933 in 2006 and 989 in 2006. Although the numbers for 2008 aren't in yet, the trend is that deaths by fallin' bullets in the US is droppin' dramatically.

Justice doesn't fly at the barrel of a gun; the barrel of a gun is aimed at whoever has a gun. In the US, that goes from mass killers to children, and you are all seeking that no difference be made. I would say you utterly deserve what you get, but sorry I don't like reading stories like a 8-year old shooting himself in the face with an uzi at a gun show, etc. I also think it's a shame you're content with the gun-show apologists. B

USARonin: "Mr. Smith, if you want to ban guns you should contact your Congressman and address the issue with him. Oh, that's right. I forgot for a moment..."

Ah.. that's right... there are not only men in this day and age telling your little a$$ what to do, it's women, too! I believe the term is CongressPERSON! But a sexist/racist like you might have a hard time seeing that.

"Justice doesn't fly at the barrel of a gun..."

Uh, yes, it does at times. There are times that lethal use of a weapon is recognized and defended under my nation's laws.

"...the barrel of a gun is aimed at whoever has a gun."

What?

Mister Smith, as for "gun-show apoligists", I never brought this up and I have no idea what you're talkin' about anyway. We do have laws about 'negligent criminal manslaughter' if that's what you think is missin'. You're all over the place and not makin' sense as with your "barrel of a gun" thing above, but I'll try to accomodate you, my friend.

USARonin: Not yet...haha. Just don't talk loud at your local theater. Oh, and don't defend someone when you see her being chased by some guy. Oh... as a matter of fact, just be scared beyond belief when you see someone coming to your door. Or wait, is it not American to shot someone who walks up to your driveway and who maybe can't understand the cowardly cry of 'freeze' from behind a bolted door with a shotgun? But since this is a Japan thread, do tell us how I am wrong... tell us how a Japanese boy who mistook a Hallowe'en address was happily killed by a guy like you, and for all the right reasons. Had there been no guns, that little boy would still be alive.

"Mr. Smith, if you want to ban guns you should contact your Congressman and address the issue with him. Oh, that's right. I forgot for a moment..."

Clearly, they were only teaching about paper targets and not actual teachers of how society works. It's a shame you think people are paper, but I guess that's one of your problems.

Moderator: Smithinjapan and USARonin, that's enough of this pointless tit-for-tat.

misbehavin' like talkin' in a movin' picture theatre? jigglin' my popcorn too loud or slurpin' on my straw a mite too hard?

The reason the buyer is photographed and fingerprinted...is done on each purpose is to ensure the identity of the proposed buyer is correct

Yeah, I knew that. But its rather over-kill to ID someone by fingerprinting who is not yet a criminal.

a criminal background check is done on each purpose is to ensure ... that this same individual hasn't done anything anywhere else that would take away his Second Amendment right to own a firearm

Its still too late.

Dya think those playahs in DC that you mentioned bother to abide by the same rules as the rest of us 99 percent gun-owners do?

So long as they are easy to bypass, no. And that is the problem with the rules.

By the by, you haven't offered anything constructive to support anything better than what we have now. Also, what's with all the yellin'? I can read ya just fine, Mister Likeitis.

Then you must be impatient. I said "more to come" twice.

Mr. Flag, the next time you're in an American movie theater, and you notice someone glarin' at you for somethin' obnoxious you're completely aware that you're doin', just stare back and say, "What're you lookin' at?" It's a friendly exchange we do here that encourages bondin' between strangers.

When talk of licensing and registration comes up, the American gun owners first wail is that he does not trust the government to do anything but take his gun away. Fine. This should done by a third party, such as a registered militia or the NRA. Do it right and such groups will pop up like car insurance agencies.

These agencies will be charged with 1) ensuring license holders are trained in basics and undergo some form of training regularly. 2) ensuring license holders undergo a psychological evaluation and backround check regularly. 3) registering all guns in their appointed area. 4)revoking the license and reporting any members who appear dangerous or have broken rules and laws 5) maintaining a shooting range 6) storing firearms for those who currently have firearms but cannot get a license for whatever reason, or have lost them. Those people may shoot their firearms at the range at the discretion of the agency.

No information is shared with police or other authorities unless 1) information on a specific person or weapon is requested by the police in the course of an investigation and verified by a judge or 2) the agency, in the interest of safety, decides to release the information on specific individuals or weapons. Penalties shall be made for any authority trying to circumvent those rules and member privacy.

Neither guns nor bullets can be bought without the gun license. All sales must be immediately registered or deregistered at the local agency.

A gun license must shown to a police officer upon request if a firearm is present, as well as that weapon's registration. Penalties for carrying or keeping a firearm without the license and registration shall be severe.

What could any responsible gun owner have against any of that? And it sure would make life difficult for criminals. They are not likely to make the cut at the agency. And without the license, they are already breaking the law, and everyone around them will know it. It will make things dead easy for the police while not giving them any special private knowledge.

It would have been pretty difficult for the thug in the article to get his gun, or even bullets, with such rules, and the odds of it getting taken away before this would have increased significantly I would think. Or, perhaps he would have been put in some anger management courses as part of his membership and this whole thing could have been avoided.

And I have just gotten started...

Mr. Likeitis, criminals aren't goin' to do any of the above of yours anyway so they're not worried about "makin' the cut" at any agency.

Most of what you list is already in effect.

In Hawaii, people are required to take a gun, rifle and archery couse and obtain a certificate that they must present to any gun dealer before sayin', "I want that one". After that, I told you about the long process that has to be completed before anyone walks out with anything.

In most states, people who buy ammo must present ID and the sale is logged.

In most states, people who want to buy a firearm sign a waiver allowing local governments to get into their medical histories as regards pertinent psychiatric treatment.

You're right that we - as a nation - don't trust the Government. And that's the way we were created... "a system of checks and balances" that ensures our three main branches of government keep watch over each other.

Under the Fourth Amendment, other things you've mention regardin' the sharin' of information is already included.

Unless you want to fret over criminals who aren't goin' to comply over one thing you propose, or our state or federal governments have already made into law, it seems we're already on top of your concerns.

And, yes, a number of us - not all - are concerned with "gun grabbers". We've got the Second Amendment which is nearly impossible to change, so the concern is really moot. If there is a coup and a military government takes over then it really doesn't matter... because neither will the current Constitution or amendments.

What we have here is a stupid person with a gun. < :-)

Who the hell brings a gun to a movie?

Mister Dream, have you learned anything from this article?

If I were you in a Philly movie theater, perhaps you should mind your manners or you just might get your ticket punched.

Then again, if you have a firearm, legal or not...

Mister Lib, anyone with a 'concealed carry' permit may.

Of course, criminals don't take the time.

If you knew anything about Philly's demographics, a story like this wouldn't surprise you.

If you knew anything about Philly's demographics, a story like this wouldn't surprise you.

Well I'm a Philly native and survived an upbringin' and enjoyed many a picture show.

This incident makes me think back to the lone joke I ever encountered in mainland Chinese teaching materials (in a dialogue which occurs in a movie theatre):

"Could you please be quiet I can't hear."

"You're not supposed to, this is a private conversation."

Now that type of response could get ya killed in the City of Brotherly Love.

Sailwind,

I don't know where you are getting your information. According to the Philadelphia Inquirer, no bail had been set (which I would find unlikely given the seriousness of the crime and where it occurred). It's a weekend, the court wouldn't be in session anyway. But there was a quote in the story:

"It's truly frightening when you see something like this evolve into such violence," said police spokesman Lt. Frank Vanore, "that something like this leads to a shooting in a movie theater."

Indeed.

I wouldn't worry about it unless you're misbehavin', or white and goin' into a non-white neighborhood where you really have no bidness goin'.

Great, USARonin. Blame the victim. The theatre, incidentally, is in white working class South Philly and the perpetrator's ethnicity is evident from his name (read story).

likeitis FYI:

For years, the gun lobby has defeated new gun control laws partly by arguing that stronger laws do not deter crime. A study prepared by Mayors Against Illegal Guns, a bipartisan group headed by Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York and Mayor Thomas Menino of Boston, should finally put that myth to rest.

The study analyzed trace data for guns used in connection with crimes during 2007. The data reveal a strong correlation between weak state gun laws and higher rates of in-state murders, police slayings and sales of guns used in crimes in other states.

Many states have enacted strong gun laws to supplement inadequate federal ones, including mandatory background checks on gun show sales [a huge loop pole]. States requiring the same background checks at gun shows as those required for store purchases show an export rate for guns used in crimes that’s nearly half the national average....

Weak gun laws also put a state’s own citizens at risk. There were nearly 60 percent more gun murders in the 10 states where exports were highest than in the states with low export rates — and nearly three times as many fatal shootings of law enforcement officers.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/23/opinion/23tue2.html?scp=3&sq=gun%20violence&st=cse

Mr. Likeitis, criminals aren't goin' to do any of the above of yours anyway so they're not worried about "makin' the cut" at any agency.

USARonin, you speak of criminals like they are some sort of demographic. That makes these discussions all screwy. You can make that same crazy argument for any law on the books. The criminals will just ignore it. So why have laws? Basically, its the argumentation style of a quitter. You are not giving up so easy are you?

Most of what you list is already in effect. In Hawaii,

Yup, in Hawaii. Anything bearing any similarity to what I mentioned is in effect as a half-measure, uh, somewhere. What I am talking about is a cohesive, nation-wide consistent system. No more of this "in Hawaii" business. The whole country should operate the same.

But this third party thing seems to be lost on you. I am talking about gun advocates regulating themselves. And I have barely gotten started explaining how they will be doing that. But it is the main deal I am presenting, and no, its not remotely in effect.

The general concept is to form militias (what the agencies will double as) that will be given rights and legal powers and a solid legal structure. Firearms misuse will be able to be reported at their offices. People will be able to store some of their firearms there if they do not want them in their homes (wives will loves this. Gun theives won't). It will be possible for illegally held firearms to be turned in there (mom's of young gangstas will like that). Etc. Use your imagination.

I am even thinking of tacking on priviledges like allowing the agency/milita to keep suppressed and automatic weapons at their offices shootable only at their ranges. Gun nuts will love that.

For years, the gun lobby has defeated new gun control laws partly by arguing that stronger laws do not deter crime.

I agree with the lobby. Smarter laws and stronger penalities will however deter gun crime.

A study prepared by Mayors Against Illegal Guns, a bipartisan group headed by Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York and Mayor Thomas Menino of Boston, should finally put that myth to rest.

It won't work. Gun nuts will cite criminals as a demographic again, and come up with proof that crimes increase despite the fact that we were talking about deaths. As if the two are remotely comparable. Its a favorite smokescreen of theirs. It confuses people. And it works.

The only way to get them to move is to give them something they want in return. That is why I talk of giving them militias. That is why I suggest methods to smooth the gun purchasing requirements (through third party licensing) so they won't need their gun show loophole anymore and won't need the waiting periods either.

Truth be told I would like to see guns disappear. But I am willing to compromise, because what we have now is a mess.

Mr. Likeitis, most of the country does operate like Hawaii, if not in the same way, then in many.

"Criminals" are a demographic group commonly called "sub-cultures" by sociologists.

Mr. Likeitis: "The whole country should operate the same."

Yikes. You really know nothing of my country. We're not like Japan or England where one governing assembly makes the rules of the game for all. We have a little thing called "states rights". The last time someone tried to abuse "states rights" we had a bloody civil war (1860-65).

We already have programs in many states where folks can turn in firearms - no questions asked - and receive all kinds of incentives, includin' cash or toys for kids.

You like to use the phrase "gun nuts".

The Dalai Lama is a gun nut. In Seattle, USA, he told the crowds that if someone is fired upon, he should be able to fire back. That's the Dalai Lama.

Gahdhi was a gun nut. He said, in effect: "Of all the crimes committed by the British Government, the disarming of the people was the worst."

I think victims of public school educations aren't taught stuff like this.

Mister Likeitis, I think you should buy a handgun and see how you feel about the process in your locale. I'd be interested to know.

I think you should buy a handgun and see how you feel about the process in your locale.

This is exactly what I recommended to my mother, a senior citizen resident of the City of Brotherly Love despite the scary demographics and all, who'd been out to a movie this very afternoon, unaware of the danger she was putting herself in. Well, I sure set her straight.

Daughter: For you're own safety, you must be armed the next time you go to the cineplex and be ready to shoot first.

Mother: How can I enjoy the movie if I have to worry about shooting someone?

Daughter: How will you enjoy it if you get shot? You could be laid up for months, that is if you survive, and the movie still might not appear on pay-per-view.

You like to use the phrase "gun nuts".

It comes from being confused for sasquatch one night and fired upon by gun nuts. Then having to come here and try to convince solidly anchored people to move in a positive direction.

You really know nothing of my country...The last time someone tried to abuse "states rights" we had a bloody civil war (1860-65).

You seem to be confused about the American Civil War and who won it.

Not that it matters. I am talking about the right of a citizen to bear arms, not the states. And there is no reason that all control need be taken away from the states, so long as the ground rules are consistent. Its not like car insurance companies operate independently of their states, is it?

And the right to keep and bear arms is, after all, a federally granted one.

We already have programs in many states where folks can turn in firearms - no questions asked - and receive all kinds of incentives, includin' cash or toys for kids.

Ragtag systems that amount to patchwork. I am speaking of a constant consistent system in place everywhere that is also part of a larger system.

Gahdhi was a gun nut. He said, in effect: "Of all the crimes committed by the British Government, the disarming of the people was the worst."

Paraphrasing Gandhi? Not good enough. You quote him, because your paraphrase is off. Guaranteed.

Mister Likeitis, I think you should buy a handgun and see how you feel about the process in your locale. I'd be interested to know.

You have lost the plot. Its not about how I feel about going through the process, its about the value I think the process has. Buying a gun won't tell me anything about the cohesion of the system. It won't put in a group of other gun owners sizing me up, and maybe making the decision that I am too nutty to own a gun.

And there is no reason that all control need be taken away from the states, so long as the ground rules are consistent.

Indeed. The Mayors' report underscored the effects of the trafficking of weapons from states with weak laws to those with more stringent buyer background checks. Four out of five guns used in the commission of a crime in the Big Apple, for example, were purchased south of the Mason-Dixon Line.

We're not like Japan or England where one governing assembly makes the rules of the game for all.

You think the U.S. Federal government is weak? They do make the rules for all! They just don't always have direct control, and they don't make all the rules.

Who is the real victim here? A) The guy who just wanted peace and quiet to watch the movie and took the law into his own hands because no one dares fight for common sense? B) The bad-mannered guy with the noisy family who just couldn't take a hint to shut up during a movie? C) All of us today?

Who is the real victim here? A) The guy who just wanted peace and quiet to watch the movie and took the law into his own hands because no one dares fight for common sense? B) The bad-mannered guy with the noisy family who just couldn't take a hint to shut up during a movie? C) All of us today?

You could add the movie theatre whose business was disrupted. I was once at a theatre where the screening was delayed because the projectionist was in a car accident. For the inconvenience, each viewer was given to free tickets (with no expiration date). How many would be appropriate here?

I'm not sure you should characterize the perpetrator as "taking the law into his own hands." It would be more accurate to say he responded to an annoyance with disproportionate force.

If you knew anything about Philly's demographics, a story like this wouldn't surprise you.

just say it, you think only white people should carry guns

"just say it, you think only white people should carry guns"

I think any law-abidin' American citizen should be allowed firearms ownership if they want. I don't see what color has to do with it.

And if you knew anything about Philly, you'd know a whole lot of us smirk when we refer to it by her official moniker... 'the City of Brotherly Love'. Heh, heh...

so by 'Philly's demographics' you meant....?

must be an American thing

USARonin

You believe a white man shooting someone in a theater because of noise is Black people's fault? What is the rational? I have heard similar rhetoric from Klan leaders. Why is it your comments are biased towards BLACK audiences, it seems you have some personal issues you need dealing with, because Ive been to the movies thousands of times and have seen and heard all kinds of obnoxious people in the theater (white, spanish, and black...). So no its not just black people, shoot you can see that from this article.

The guy made a bigger scene than the person talking. First he made a big scene out of the talking, then he shot the guy which had to be much louder than the guy talking, and he then of course sent everyone else screaming from the theater. So in the end he was a bigger pain in the ass than the guy talking.

“We also have "the death penalty" in all fifty states (though some believe we don't).”

USARonin. Please do your research again. Not all fifty states have the death penalty. Hawaii for one doesn’t have it and there are several others that don’t either. You can check the Death Penalty Information Center for more information. Here, I’ll even provide the webpage for you:

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/death-penalty-policy-state

I used to go to that theater in high school. It's in deep South Philly, near the pier. I was a few blocks away from my school. That area used to be full of mafia. The guy's an ass for carrying in a theater, but if he didn't have it, who's to say he wouldn't have beaten the guy instead? If he was angry enough to shoot him, I think he would've done something anyway even if he didn't have the gun. I agree though that laws should make it more difficult for idiots like this to own guns.

The perp sure looks like a tough South Philly guy. In fact he's going to go for some type of post-traumatic stress disorder defense.

PHILADELPHIA — An Iraq veteran charged in a Christmas night shooting over noisy moviegoers fired in self-defense, his lawyer said.

A judge on Wednesday ordered Cialella held for trial on aggravated assault, reckless endangerment and related charges. The judge tossed out an attempted murder charge over a prosecutor's objections.....

A defense lawyer argued that Cialella was being choked and punched as he tried to break up the fight and fired in self-defense.

"He's a marksman," lawyer Greg Pagano said. "If he wanted to shoot to kill, he would have."

Cialella spent five months in Iraq with the Army before being honorably discharged in September, Pagano said.

Municipal Court Judge Craig M. Washington lowered Cialella's bond from $350,000 to $50,000, but ordered him to remain under house arrest if he is released. It was not immediately clear Thursday whether he had posted bail.

Far from acting recklessly, his lawyer's claiming he demonstrated great restraint since he didn't kill anyone.

Hotbox08, the death penalty exists in all fifty of the American states.

Commit a number of differin' crimes on Federal property in any one of the fifty, and the perpetrator may receive the death penalty.

No need for me to check your link, 'cause you didn't take in to account US law and federal property.

Thanks for the link, Betzee. Throws some light on the situation! :D

Moreover, you never explained what you meant by this:

If you knew anything about Philly's demographics, a story like this wouldn't surprise you.

I'm still laughing over the defense: Far from responding with disproportionate force, he demonstrated great restraint! Bwahahahaha!

Betzee, I never mentioned anyone's ethnicty in relation to this event.

Philly, has a high criminal demograhic, for one.

Philly's official moniker is City of Brotherly Love. Even we Americans smile at that misnomer.

Well, what exactly were you referring to when you brought up demographics?

The implication of your statement is that is you have some knowledge of my hometown which you won't share, instead changing the locale to South Central LA.

Kinda tells me all I need to know about what you don't know....

Moderator: Readers, this is not a chat room. Please focus your comments on the story, not at each other.

Philly's official moniker is City of Brotherly Love.

It's a motto, not a moniker. And one bequeathed by William Penn. Little did he foresee what would become of America (aptly summarized by someone who makes an explicit demographic argument and takes responsibility for it):

America can expect a lot more of this kind of incident over the coming years (decades?). Combine a deep fetishization of military culture with a long and brutal war fought largely by an under-educated economic underclass who are then dumped back into wider society with little or no thought given to the effects their experiences have had on them, and with a legislative structure making the US the only western democracy that allows almost unfettered access to firearms, and this is what you get.

And now you're against America's Second Amendment, too.

Actually I favor tweaking the ratings system which now distinguishes films by the letters G, PG, PG13, R, and NC17.

Clearly, the time has come for a new category: WA (Weapons Allowed). Of course, whole new theatres would have to be constructed out of Kevlar. In addition, other enhancements would be necessary in order to contain the richochets, and deal with the wounded and/or killed, but it would provide a heck of a boost to our ailing economy, and it may make non WA films just that much safer for the rest of us.

-maybe knowin' the local demograhics of the neighborhood theater may improve your chances of survival.

The NC17 should be changed to NC22: no caliber above 22.

Philly's official moniker is City of Brotherly Love.

Little known fact: The full moniker is "The City of Brotherly Love. Non-relatives will be shot on site."

"Commit a number of differin' crimes on Federal property in any one of the fifty, and the perpetrator may receive the death penalty.

No need for me to check your link, 'cause you didn't take in to account US law and federal property."

I have a question USARonin, why do you mention federal property and the death penalty? United Artists Riverview Stadium is not located on federal property. Yes, Pennsylvania has the death penalty, but for argument's sake, if this crime was committed in a movie theater in say North Dakota, he wouldn't be given the death penalty because it doesn't exist in North Dakota, and the theater is not located on federal property. Are you saying that all movie theaters are located on federal property?

Commit a number of differin' crimes on Federal property in any one of the fifty, and the perpetrator may receive the death penalty.

USARonin likes throwing these red herrings when he don't even know what he's talking about. This article is about a man shooting another IN A MOVIE THEATER. Now, USARonin likes to point out that if you commit a crime on FEDERAL PROPERTY, you can receive the death penalty, even if it is in a state that does not support it. So, what USARonin would like all of us to believe is that this Pennsylvanian MOVIE THEATER is located on FEDERAL PROPERTY. How many of you out there actually believe that? Yes, this man could face the death penalty if he had killed someone, but it is because the state of Pennsylvania supports the death penalty, NOT because of Federal Property laws.

No need for me to check your link,

Because you don't like facing the facts. In my original post, I stated that not all fifty states have the death penalty, because according to USARonin, all fifty does. So what that amounts to is that if someone were to shoot and kill someone else in a movie theater, no matter which state they are in, they can receive the death penalty. WRONG! If that happened in say North Dakota, the worst you'll get is life imprisonment. It is why they haven't had any executions, nor prisoners on death row since 1976. Again, do your research, USARonin!