How I almost got arrested at the movies this weekend.

[dascarletm]

I want to post this because I'm still a little upset over the incident, and I think it is a good story with a good moral(s).

The Story
This saturday (Nov. 26th) I went to go see Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them with my wife, her friends, and their husbands/boyfriends/fiances. Everything was fine and dandy, we went out to eat first, I got snacks, a nice row for us to all sit next to one-another, etc. Right before the movie started this family sits right in front of us. Normally not a problem, except the parents were definitely high on something. The mother had to be practically carried by her kids she was so out of it, and the father wasn't much better. Not my problem though, I'll go about my business, they'll go about theirs. The movie starts.

During the movie the guy is muttering something. Something about his seat. I can't really understand what he is saying, and I can't tell if this is directed towards me or his kid next to him. I ignore it and continue watching. A little while later, he looks back and says in an angry way, "Stop kicking my seat." I look to the guy next to me, being that it had to be me or him. We were the only ones with access to his chair. I ask if he did it, he asked if I did it. Neither of us were kicking his chair. I think, perhaps I was accidentally bumping his chair, I have long legs after all. I apologize and continue watching the movie. However, I'm not really watching the film, I'm watching my legs and my friend's legs. I can say both of us had our legs pulled in as much as possible in order to not aggravate this guy.

However, maybe about one quarter of the movie has gone by and this guy is still getting more and more aggravated looking. He turns around and yells at the top of his voice, "Stop kicking my chair!"
I reply, "Dude, nobody is kicking your chair, I haven't touched it." He gets angrier as time goes on, and eventually leaves. His kids and wife are still their so I'm thinking he is going to go to the manager and complain about something he's imagining, the ushers will come in and this will be a poor time for everyone. He however was gone for a very long time. So long in fact that I thought he just left. About halfway through the movie, the movie just pauses.

The movie pauses and the theater lights turn on. I think this is pretty dramatic for someone kicking a chair. That's when two sheriffs walk down the aisle and ask one of my friends to come with them. We are all sitting their wondering what in the heck is going on. The friend and the sheriffs come back and the guy is with them this time. He points at me and says, "That's the guy." The police tell me to come with them, and escort me out. One of them, I'll call him Bad Cop, pushes me along.

Right as we exit the theater, and are in the hallway, he forcefully puts my hands behind my back holding me at his mercy, and asks, "Do you have any weapons on you or illegal items?" I reply, "No sir." Being as polite as I can be. The other officer, Good Cop we'll call him, asks if I got into an altercation with that man. I tell him what happened, wondering if the town I'm in has some movie seat kicking by-laws.

Good Cop says, "Well that man claims that you have been kicking his seat during the movie, and when he asked you to stop you pulled a gun on him and threatened to kill him." I was completely flabbergasted.
Incredulously I reply, "W-w-what? I didn't do that. That's ridiculous"
"Well you don't seem to have a weapon on you, but at this point he is saying one thing, you are saying another, and I have no way to tell who is telling the truth."
"You can ask anyone else sitting near us in the theater, they will corroborate my story."
"Regardless, the manager wants you to leave. I'll be escorting you out of the theater, were you with anyone?"
"I was watching the movie with my wife and her friends."
"They can stay, but you have to go. Do you think they will want to come with you."
"I should hope my wife will want to come with me."
"I'll have my partner go and ask them if they want to leave. I'll be honest with you, I do believe you, but I think someone must have been kicking his seat. Why would he call us otherwise?"
"I can tell you that I was watching, and nobody was touching his seat. I even tried to tell him that. Why would I go to a theater and kick some random guys seat?"
"Either way you have to go."
"Officer, this man gave a false police report or something. Isn't that illegal? I mean..." I noticed that the officer was looking at me like he understood, but didn't want to be called out here for something so silly in the first place. "Ah. Nevermind I'll just go officer." So my wife and friends left the theater, and were given refunds, and free tickets.

As a consolation Good Cop did thank me for being "cool about all this." I guess nowadays just being a normal person is considered irregularly polite.


I just felt like typing this out. Thanks for listening... er, reading.

[veti]

That's... I'm flabbergasted.

I would be absolutely incandescent with rage if that happened to me. I'd be talking about suing the theatre and the police department for screwing up their jobs and my day. I probably wouldn't actually do anything about it, but I'd be talking about it, and that would make me feel marginally better.

[dascarletm]

That's... I'm flabbergasted.

I would be absolutely incandescent with rage if that happened to me. I'd be talking about suing the theatre and the police department for screwing up their jobs and my day. I probably wouldn't actually do anything about it, but I'd be talking about it, and that would make me feel marginally better.

The more I think about it the more I wish I had done something. In the moment my goal was to end the situation as quick as possible with the least fuss as possible. However, I wish I had escalated it. Maybe got the officers badge numbers and names, and then i don't know... see if I could get that guy charged for defamation or giving a false police report.

[Peelee]

I'm kind of amazed at this. What the hell kind of theater was that?

First off, every theater I know of hires off-duty cops to come hang out in-uniform on weekends from 6 to 10. It makes the cops some extra cash for mostly just hanging out with the managers and employees they like, and it also provides the theater with additional security, since not many people will try to start anything when they know police are around, and if anyone does, their compliance skyrockets when the cops walk up with you when trying to fix the situation. Now, I can see some theaters not doing this if they're in areas that aren't really all that populated, but even then, this was Thanksgiving Weekend. Thanksgiving Day is the second busiest day of the year for theaters, and the weekend afterwards is still massive. That alone should have meant that the theater would have cops on hand, instead of waiting an inordinate amount of time for the sheriff's office to come out.

Next, the management understandably freaked out about the report of a dude pulling a gun, and understandably wanted that guy out. Management not being present when the cops pulled out out and listening to what was going on, especially when the dude's story could easily be corroborated by witnesses in the theater? I try to be kind of forgiving on theater managers, since I know the kind of crap they go through, but no, that person was not doing their damn job. It was a Saturday night. I guarantee the General Manager was there that night, and should have been there handling what was going on. That wasn't happening, and the fact that you didn't get arrested, there's no police report to pull up, and you got free passes (which should be documented on why they were given, if it's a big chain theater) should all be at your back. I'd absolutely call corporate about that. Normally, if they refunded you and gave you free passes, I'd say that's realistically the most they can do, and call it a day. But sheriff deputies coming out and slapping cuffs on you? Hell no. GM shoulda been there for that. That's a major event happening in their theater, and unless they had another major incident going down, that should have taken precedence.

As far as the cops themselves, it sounds like they did everything they could. Listened to your side, believed you, but still had to escort you out because you were on private property and the management of said property said you had to go. They may have felt bad about it and known you were in the right, but I don't think they could have done anything differently.

[dascarletm]

I'm kind of amazed at this. What the hell kind of theater was that?

First off, every theater I know of hires off-duty cops to come hang out in-uniform on weekends from 6 to 10. It makes the cops some extra cash for mostly just hanging out with the managers and employees they like, and it also provides the theater with additional security, since not many people will try to start anything when they know police are around, and if anyone does, their compliance skyrockets when the cops walk up with you when trying to fix the situation. Now, I can see some theaters not doing this if they're in areas that aren't really all that populated, but even then, this was Thanksgiving Weekend. Thanksgiving Day is the second busiest day of the year for theaters, and the weekend afterwards is still massive. That alone should have meant that the theater would have cops on hand, instead of waiting an inordinate amount of time for the sheriff's office to come out.

Next, the management understandably freaked out about the report of a dude pulling a gun, and understandably wanted that guy out. Management not being present when the cops pulled out out and listening to what was going on, especially when the dude's story could easily be corroborated by witnesses in the theater? I try to be kind of forgiving on theater managers, since I know the kind of crap they go through, but no, that person was not doing their damn job. It was a Saturday night. I guarantee the General Manager was there that night, and should have been there handling what was going on. That wasn't happening, and the fact that you didn't get arrested, there's no police report to pull up, and you got free passes (which should be documented on why they were given, if it's a big chain theater) should all be at your back. I'd absolutely call corporate about that. Normally, if they refunded you and gave you free passes, I'd say that's realistically the most they can do, and call it a day. But sheriff deputies coming out and slapping cuffs on you? Hell no. GM shoulda been there for that. That's a major event happening in their theater, and unless they had another major incident going down, that should have taken precedence.

As far as the cops themselves, it sounds like they did everything they could. Listened to your side, believed you, but still had to escort you out because you were on private property and the management of said property said you had to go. They may have felt bad about it and known you were in the right, but I don't think they could have done anything differently.
They didn't have any security as far as I could tell. Just the ushers. This was at a theater in the town listed as my location, San Diego, so big city.
The manager was there and listened to the whole thing, but just scowled at me the whole time. He was there when i got the refund and the free passes. He also apologized, but still upset. Probably at the situation. I assume that kicking me out is standard procedure, but I wish they had asked anyone else around us. They were all saying they would back us up that we weren't doing anything.

Ah well. I wonder if anyone who knows the legal code can say if there was anything else I should have done.

[WarKitty]

Realistically, in the U.S., a property owner can ask anyone to leave at any time for any reason that isn't specifically illegal. And legally since it's private property you have to comply or risk being arrested for trespassing. Leaving without too much fuss is the best thing you can do. You can always call corporate later and complain.

[Peelee]

They didn't have any security as far as I could tell. Just the ushers. This was at a theater in the town listed as my location, San Diego, so big city.
The manager was there and listened to the whole thing, but just scowled at me the whole time. He was there when i got the refund and the free passes. He also apologized, but still upset. Probably at the situation. I assume that kicking me out is standard procedure, but I wish they had asked anyone else around us. They were all saying they would back us up that we weren't doing anything.

Ah well. I wonder if anyone who knows the legal code can say if there was anything else I should have done.

Huh. You'd think they'd have enough cops out there to have some wanting some easy extra money, but i dunno.

Anyway, if the manager was there, was told you were waving a gun in his face, and then you got frisked and had no gun? Yeah, legally, he was in the right, but you're damn sure I'd still call corporate and complain. That's craptastic customer service, especially when he was able to see the cops verify that you had no gun and that he was lying. Probably didn't want to deal with the crazy guy, honestly. On the one hand, it's hard to blame him, I wouldn't really want to either. On the other, I'd be pretty damn embarrassed if I went to a movie, some crazy dude lied about me to such an extent they had to stop the show, bring up the lights, have cops escort me out of the auditorium, and kick me out.

[lio45]

Realistically, in the U.S., a property owner can ask anyone to leave at any time for any reason that isn't specifically illegal. And legally since it's private property you have to comply or risk being arrested for trespassing. Leaving without too much fuss is the best thing you can do. You can always call corporate later and complain.

More or less. Generally, they need a valid reason. Pretty sure the case of NV below is typical.


We’ve all seen signs posted in restaurants and shops announcing that management “reserves the right to refuse service.” It’s one of those commonly used legal phrases – like “legal tender” or “pleading the fifth” – that most people have a vague understanding of – without really knowing what it means. How can businesses refuse service? Who can they refuse it to? More importantly, who can’t they refuse to serve?

(...)

Restaurants and stores qualify as “public accommodations” even if they’re a private business. As such, discrimination laws apply just as much on private property and to private businesses as they do in any public place.



In Nevada, you have a legally protected right to evict from your premises, “anyone who acts in a disorderly manner, or who destroys the property of any such owner or keeper, or who causes a public disturbance in or upon such premises.” (Source: Nevada Legislature (http://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-651.html#NRS651Sec020)).

http://www.business2community.com/trends-news/right-refuse-service-businesses-discrimination-0766551#7AZ0KhBGercl7Wpu.97

https://blog.tamnevada.com/2011/01/27/who-can-you-legally-refuse-to-serve-or-ask-to-leave-know-your-rights/

[WarKitty]

More or less. Generally, they need a valid reason. Pretty sure the case of NV below is typical.


Eh, generally discrimination laws only apply to legally protected classes. So you can't be kicked out for your race, sex, religion, or other specifically protected class. Businesses are often advised to have a citeable reason so they avoid being accused of kicking someone out for a protected reason, but it's not legally necessary. But "customer someone else made an accusation against" isn't going to be a protected class unless that accusation was based on a protected class - which it doesn't sound like it was.

As a customer, unless you have good reason to believe you're being kicked out on a protected reason, generally your best move is to leave quietly. Otherwise you really can end up with a trespassing charge.

[Anarion]

Personally, I'd have complied with everything the officers said, but then asked to file my own report afterwards explaining that the other man had made a false police report and detailing how I had been treated by the officers at the theater.

[TechnOkami]

Well, that was a story.

Sorry people were being jerks.

[Peelee]

Personally, I'd have complied with everything the officers said, but then asked to file my own report afterwards explaining that the other man had made a false police report and detailing how I had been treated by the officers at the theater.

Did the man file a false report, though? I have no experience with cops, aside from hanging out with them while I worked at a movie theater, but isn't filing a report a more lengthy process with actual paperwork? I'm certain that's illegal, but is this?

[dascarletm]

Did the man file a false report, though? I have no experience with cops, aside from hanging out with them while I worked at a movie theater, but isn't filing a report a more lengthy process with actual paperwork? I'm certain that's illegal, but is this?

From what I was looking up:

In California for example, calling 911 with the intent to annoy or harass an individual (such as calling 911 claiming a neighbor's house is on fire when it isn't) may lead to fines of up to $1,000, six months in jail, or both. To repeatedly call 911 in California for non-emergency reasons can lead to fines as high as $200 per call.

Also:
Thanks TechnOkami.

[Anarion]

Did the man file a false report, though? I have no experience with cops, aside from hanging out with them while I worked at a movie theater, but isn't filing a report a more lengthy process with actual paperwork? I'm certain that's illegal, but is this?

I dunno. He left the theater, claimed untruthfully that someone who didn't even possess a weapon pulled a gun on him, and came back with police interrupting the movie. Seems pretty bad to me.

[Fiery Diamond]

Did the man file a false report, though? I have no experience with cops, aside from hanging out with them while I worked at a movie theater, but isn't filing a report a more lengthy process with actual paperwork? I'm certain that's illegal, but is this?

Well, he didn't technically file a false report, but he did make a 911 call on intentionally false premises to harass someone, which is also illegal.

I would have complied, then made a report about his defamation, honestly. I'd have been livid.

[Liquor Box]

That's... I'm flabbergasted.

I would be absolutely incandescent with rage if that happened to me. I'd be talking about suing the theatre and the police department for screwing up their jobs and my day. I probably wouldn't actually do anything about it, but I'd be talking about it, and that would make me feel marginally better.

What for?

The Theatre manager has the right to ask you to leave. Even if he knew dascarletm did not have a gun and did not kick the other man's seat (he actually had no way of knowing that) he could ask him to leave. He might be liable for the cost of the movie ticket for repudiating the contract, but nothing more than that.

As for the Police, from the story it doesn't sound that they did anything wrong. They restrained dascarletm (perhaps roughly, but from the story not excessively) but at the time they had reason to believe he had a gun.

Admittedly, this probably occurred in a jurisdiction regarding which I don't have much knowledge, but I doubt there'd be much of a case against the police or the building owner in most jurisdictions.

The villain in the story is the other man, not the police or the movie theater.

[tantric]

my story....this was when i first got out of prison and had a pretty low opinion of myself. so, i managed to find one of the worst human beings possible to date. he was a compulsive liar and an alcoholic - as in he poured a glass of vodka and set it on his nightstand for when he woke up. he was also very sexy and we had great chemistry. and i was in a nihilistic phase.

anyway, said person was a HUGE iron man fan. basically, he thought he could get the suit and be an ******* unlimited. when ironman 2 came out, we went to see it in a theater in decatur georgia that served liquor. *this* decatur....


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGuK1x6THiY

so butthead was drunk, and he wanted to explain the movie to me - meaning chatter constantly. after many nasty looks, a rather upper class black lady sitting in front of us with her huge-ass bf said, politely, 'could you please not talk?'

he called her a n-word c-word. loudly. i came out of that seat like a claymore and hit the ground running. left his sorry ass there, too. i mean, i was flirting with a death wish....but i ain't goin out like that.

[Quild]

If it helps about the kicking thing and you wonder if you somehow had his seat moving... I had a similar situation in a plane (only for the seat thing) where I was annoyed by some drunk guy even if I clearly did nothing.


In 2012, I was flying back from Greece to France with my ex. She had complained that a guy was mixing drugs with beer right before going into the plane and the guy ended... Right behind me.
He started kicking my seat, once, twice, thrice... so I turn to ask if there's anything wrong and... get insulted because I changed the position of my seat and it was bothering him.

Thing is... I did not. I showed him how my seat was perfectly aligned with the two others and how it was in upright position. And proposed to lower the seat so he would see the difference. Didn't change anything and his wife/gf who was embarassed made me sign that I was arguing for nothing.

He continued complaining and my girlfriend shouted at him for being drunk and bother her. She has temper! I wasn't fond of her yelling at the guy right behind me, but he got quiet for the flight.

Once landed, I wanted to confront him because I was ready to have in the airport the scene I wanted to avoid in the plane. But he took his luggages and went away quickly.

[nyjastul69]

I read the OP but none of the responses. This is not a surprise. The presumption of guilt instead of innocence has been going on for years. One does not need to be correct to get action, one just needs to complain.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by dascarletm
I want to post this because I'm still a little upset over the incident….

If you're still upset about this four days later--and you have every right to be--then you should certainly contact the regional office for the theater company. That manager was incompetent and only cared about getting rid of a perceived problem. The theater company needs to hear from their customers about this kind of behavior.

Depending on how far you want to pursue this, you might also complain about this to the Better Business Bureau. I would recommend making your complaint in writing, since phone calls have a way of dripping off the unreceptive mind.


Originally Stated by Cop
"…I have no way to tell who is telling the truth."

This is complete nonsense. If you're accused of pulling a gun on someone, and the police officer determines you don't have a gun, it shouldn't be too hard to know who's lying.

I'm also not sure why the two cops didn't bother to ask anyone else sitting around you whether guns and threats were in evidence. Whether or not it was malfeasance, advanced apathy or simple incompetence, they certainly should have.

Complaints made to police departments usually go nowhere, but complaints made to city representatives about police departments might be listened to. Did you get the names of the officers, or any other information about them? I always get a card from every officer I speak with.


Originally Posted by dascarletm
The more I think about it the more I wish I had done something. In the moment my goal was to end the situation as quick as possible with the least fuss as possible.

From personal experience I know how you feel. But you did the smart thing, which was to cooperate like a reasonable person.

Unfortunately, police often take advantage of this to do as little as possible while impressing on everyone just how in charge they are. They know that people usually want to end the situation just as much as you did, and that gives them leverage they rarely fail to employ.


Originally Posted by nyjastul69
One does not need to be correct to get action, one just needs to complain.

Sadly, in my experience there's never much action, and certainly not directed at the people who actually break the law.

.

[Aedilred]

What for?

The Theatre manager has the right to ask you to leave. Even if he knew dascarletm did not have a gun and did not kick the other man's seat (he actually had no way of knowing that) he could ask him to leave. He might be liable for the cost of the movie ticket for repudiating the contract, but nothing more than that.

As for the Police, from the story it doesn't sound that they did anything wrong. They restrained dascarletm (perhaps roughly, but from the story not excessively) but at the time they had reason to believe he had a gun.

Admittedly, this probably occurred in a jurisdiction regarding which I don't have much knowledge, but I doubt there'd be much of a case against the police or the building owner in most jurisdictions.

The villain in the story is the other man, not the police or the movie theater.

There's always something you can sue someone for in that sort of situation. Defamation, emotional trauma, etc. Whether it's worth doing that is another matter, and giving legal advice is obviously against the rules here.

The police did their jobs. Admittedly they didn't do them very well, but they're not detectives and their real goal here is to resolve the situation one way or another and then as soon as they realise nobody was actually in danger of getting shot to clear off so they can deal with something actually important. I have to say that what I tend to see in films and TV shows - I don't know if it's the reality - of American cops pulling guns on everyone for every suspected crime, holding (or handcuffing) their hands behind their back and frogmarching them around makes my hackles rise on general principle, but if that is indeed the standard then it doesn't sound like they did anything wrong here except perhaps be a little lazier than would be ideal.

The theatre manager is a different matter. They have taken major action - called the police and interrupted a show in response to a customer complaint. That in itself is not all that unreasonable given the complaint in question. But no apology was made to the wronged party, who was humiliated and embarrassed as well as ejected from the show he'd paid money for. And while they had no way of knowing whether or not the guy's seat had been kicked, he had still lied about the gun and got the police called and the show interrupted as a result, which while it doesn't necessarily prove that he's lying about the seat-kicking as well, should be enough to cast serious doubt on the whole of his story, and means he's caused a much bigger problem for the theatre than dascarletm had even if he had been kicking the seat. Whether or not they were within their legal rights to behave in such a way, it is all terrible customer service and a complaint is absolutely in order.

[Liquor Box]

There's always something you can sue someone for in that sort of situation. Defamation, emotional trauma, etc. Whether it's worth doing that is another matter, and giving legal advice is obviously against the rules here.

The police did their jobs. Admittedly they didn't do them very well, but they're not detectives and their real goal here is to resolve the situation one way or another and then as soon as they realise nobody was actually in danger of getting shot to clear off so they can deal with something actually important. I have to say that what I tend to see in films and TV shows - I don't know if it's the reality - of American cops pulling guns on everyone for every suspected crime, holding (or handcuffing) their hands behind their back and frogmarching them around makes my hackles rise on general principle, but if that is indeed the standard then it doesn't sound like they did anything wrong here except perhaps be a little lazier than would be ideal.

The theatre manager is a different matter. They have taken major action - called the police and interrupted a show in response to a customer complaint. That in itself is not all that unreasonable given the complaint in question. But no apology was made to the wronged party, who was humiliated and embarrassed as well as ejected from the show he'd paid money for. And while they had no way of knowing whether or not the guy's seat had been kicked, he had still lied about the gun and got the police called and the show interrupted as a result, which while it doesn't necessarily prove that he's lying about the seat-kicking as well, should be enough to cast serious doubt on the whole of his story, and means he's caused a much bigger problem for the theatre than dascarletm had even if he had been kicking the seat. Whether or not they were within their legal rights to behave in such a way, it is all terrible customer service and a complaint is absolutely in order.

The only possible defamation was from the person in the theatre - he defamed dascarletm by saying he had a gun when he did not. Usually he would have defence if he wrongly reported a crime to the correct authorities (the police), but that would not apply if he knew the allegations were wrong. Neither the theatre manager (unless he knew there was no gun) nor the police defamed anyone.

Emotional harm is not a cause of action (something you can sue on), rather it is a form of damage. Emotional harm may arise from a cause of action and damages can be awarded from it, but it is not itself a cause of action. The problem here is that there does not appear to be a cause of action arising from the actions of the police or the theater.

I'm not from California, and I know USA has an (exagerated) reputation for litigiousness but I am reasonably confident that the above is correct.

I generally agree with you about the police, but I disagree about the theater manager. All he would know is that someone said that dascarletm had pulled a gun, and that dascarletm had said he hadn't. It isn't the theater managers job to investigate further by interviewing others watching the movie - and seeing if any of dascarletm's friends now had the gun (although perhaps the police should have checked that).

Even the police concluded that it was probable that dascarletm was kicking the other person's seat (and I agree that that is the most reasonable inference to take from hearing both sides of the story). As you point out, the manager has already had to disrupt the movie (appropriately given the allegation of a gun threat), and he would be loathe to put the two protagonists together again which may lead to another disruption - it was an entirely appropriate decision to kick a person out. From a pure 'fairness' point of view it may have been better to remove both dascarletm as well as the other person, but the manager was within his rights to take the path of least resistance.

I wonder if you are coming from the perspective of only having heard dascarletm's account of events and from therefore assuming that it is accurate. The manager heard both sides of the story (and the other man's first), and would probably not have known which to believe.

[Peelee]

Dascarletm hasn't specifically stated, but if he was handcuffed immediately, asked if he had a gun, and then let go with the good cop believing in him, I'd bet he was frisked. If he was, then yeah, theater manager was absolutely in the wrong, because it would have already been proven that there was no gun. Meaning the complaining customer was clearly lying, and about something big enough to cause a huge security concern and fully stop a show for, in addition to hassling the innocent party by having him be dragged out of the auditorium by police.

If the cops proved there was no gun, then no, that manager was absolutely in the wrong and there's absolutely zero reason to not contact corporate about it.


I have to say that what I tend to see in films and TV shows - I don't know if it's the reality - of American cops pulling guns on everyone for every suspected crime, holding (or handcuffing) their hands behind their back

I'ma try to play it safe here because this can skirt into the politics ban real easy, but the gun pulling depends heavily. I've never had it done on me, but friends have, and in our experience, it's been a notable experience (though, granted, none of us have had much experience on that side with police to begin with, so take that as you may). But cuffing? If they believe the suspect is dangerous, then absolutely. It's a nonviolent way of ensuring safety. And a lot actions cops take are for their own safety. One of the best tips I ever got hanging out with them once was if you ever do something that makes police come to you, the best thing you can do is make them feel as safe as possible. If it's nonmajor, they're less likely to write you a ticket. If it's major, they're more likely to treat you better (not drawing on you, not being too forceful, etc.). The safer they feel, the happier they are.

[Liquor Box]

Dascarletm hasn't specifically stated, but if he was handcuffed immediately, asked if he had a gun, and then let go with the good cop believing in him, I'd bet he was frisked. If he was, then yeah, theater manager was absolutely in the wrong, because it would have already been proven that there was no gun. Meaning the complaining customer was clearly lying, and about something big enough to cause a huge security concern and fully stop a show for, in addition to hassling the innocent party by having him be dragged out of the auditorium by police.

If the cops proved there was no gun, then no, that manager was absolutely in the wrong and there's absolutely zero reason to not contact corporate about it.



Presumably he was frisked, but I don't think that really determines anything.

He may have hidden the gun under the seat, or handed it to someone else when he saw the cops (the story specifies that they identified another of his friends first).

If you were to draw a gun on someone then they disappear for a time, it is pretty logical to assume they are calling the police, and then a fairly logical response to either hide the gun or to flee. So he may well have hidden the gun (outside the particular theater) while the police were being called.

I think both of those are realistic possibilities. Even if you personally think those possibilities are so farfetched as to be able to discount them, the manager was entitled to reach a different view. I can't blame him if he thought either of those were realistic possibilities. The Theater company would be far more likely to face a law suit if they had allowed descarletm to stay and then there was an incident where he hurt someone - there having already been an allegation that he threatened someone with a gun.

The villain in the story is clearly the other man, not the theater comapny or the police, although I can understand descarletm being annoyed if the police or manager were unnecesarily rude about it.

[Peelee]

I'm not saying the manager was the villain, or even a villain. I'm only saying he did not do his job well.

If it were possible that a gun was passed to another person in his part, then doesn't liability still exist as much as it had before? There is still a report of an armed man waving it around freely. The show was fully stooped. They for do that for almost any othwe r complaint that gets people removed. This was a big freaking deal. It was determined to not be as big a deal as made out to be. Manager didn't care. That's a problem.

[Liquor Box]

I'm not saying the manager was the villain, or even a villain. I'm only saying he did not do his job well.

If it were possible that a gun was passed to another person in his part, then doesn't liability still exist as much as it had before? There is still a report of an armed man waving it around freely. The show was fully stooped. They for do that for almost any othwe r complaint that gets people removed. This was a big freaking deal. It was determined to not be as big a deal as made out to be. Manager didn't care. That's a problem.

I thought you were suggesting he made too big of a deal out of it. You may well be right that he did not make a big enough of a deal out of it - that applies moreso to the police in my opinion.

Where I come from there would have certainly been a big reaction - the show would have been stopped and the theater searched by the police. But I know that guns are less of a big deal in USA, so I'm not sure what a reasonable response would be over there,

Legal liability would only arise if an incident occurred - so if the gun was used (either by descarletm or by another person) there may have been liability if it was determined that the manager's response was insufficient.

[Knaight]

The police did their jobs. Admittedly they didn't do them very well, but they're not detectives and their real goal here is to resolve the situation one way or another and then as soon as they realise nobody was actually in danger of getting shot to clear off so they can deal with something actually important. I have to say that what I tend to see in films and TV shows - I don't know if it's the reality - of American cops pulling guns on everyone for every suspected crime, holding (or handcuffing) their hands behind their back and frogmarching them around makes my hackles rise on general principle, but if that is indeed the standard then it doesn't sound like they did anything wrong here except perhaps be a little lazier than would be ideal.

That's one way to look at it. On the other hand, lets look at the series of events as they see them.

The manager of a movie theater reports that a customer claims another customer pulled a gun on him during a movie. Even if we assume that the manager didn't say anything that suggested this was likely nonsense (and that's a generous assumption) the police have only an unsubstantiated claim to work with here.
The police enter a movie theater full of calm people, none of whom are acting like they just saw a violent confrontation. That little detail also almost certainly tipped off the manager, which is why the assumption that they weren't outright told that they were likely dealing with a false claim is unlikely.
The guy making the false accusation points to someone and says "that's the guy". Presumably the rest of the audience nearby is just looking confused.
The police violently cuff the guy, then shove him along and begin interrogations.
During said interrogations they then act like the guy who made an obviously overblown false accusation is somehow at least partially in the right.

I see two scenarios here. The better of the two involves a staggering display of incompetence. The more likely is that the police knew there was no danger but saw an opportunity to harass a civilian and make a display of their power and went for it, adding just a touch of police brutality and probably hoping for more resistance so they could get really violent.

[dascarletm]

To clarify the police didn't actually cuff me. They held my hands behind my back, and the physicality they gave me was forceful but not harming. I complied with every order they gave me so there was little room for them to escalate the force. In addition everything I said was usually capped with a "sir" or "officer."

[Knaight]

To clarify the police didn't actually cuff me. They held my hands behind my back, and the physicality they gave me was forceful but not harming. I complied with every order they gave me so there was little room for them to escalate the force. In addition everything I said was usually capped with a "sir" or "officer."

So other than the cuffing the timeline fits. I'm sticking with my analysis here (with that obvious exception), including the use of the term violent. If anything their choice not to be more violent in the prescence of witnesses when there is no cover of resistance is more evidence that these police weren't stupid and were looking for an opportunity to go on a power trip by brutalizing a civilian that they didn't get.

[Liquor Box]

That's one way to look at it. On the other hand, lets look at the series of events as they see them.

The manager of a movie theater reports that a customer claims another customer pulled a gun on him during a movie. Even if we assume that the manager didn't say anything that suggested this was likely nonsense (and that's a generous assumption) the police have only an unsubstantiated claim to work with here.
The police enter a movie theater full of calm people, none of whom are acting like they just saw a violent confrontation. That little detail also almost certainly tipped off the manager, which is why the assumption that they weren't outright told that they were likely dealing with a false claim is unlikely.
The guy making the false accusation points to someone and says "that's the guy". Presumably the rest of the audience nearby is just looking confused.
The police violently cuff the guy, then shove him along and begin interrogations.
During said interrogations they then act like the guy who made an obviously overblown false accusation is somehow at least partially in the right.

I see two scenarios here. The better of the two involves a staggering display of incompetence. The more likely is that the police knew there was no danger but saw an opportunity to harass a civilian and make a display of their power and went for it, adding just a touch of police brutality and probably hoping for more resistance so they could get really violent.

If a guy pulled a gun on you at the movies, you may then make an unsubstantiated claim to the police. How would you want the police to react?

We don't know what they guy making the allegation told the police, maybe he said the gun threat was subtle and he was the only one who saw it.

Cuffing someone who has just been accused of wielding a gun strikes me as entirely reasonable (and may well be required by police policy), and all cuffing is violent (which is why it was ok for you to state it was violent without descarletm explicitly saying so). And as for your fifth point that they acted like the accuser was partially in the right - that was their opinion (that the seat was being kicked). Just because you reah a different conclusion (based on one side of the story) does not make their conclusion unreasonable,

Peelee's concern that the police seemed to make to little of a deal out of this is more compelling than your concern thatthey made too big of a deal.

[Knaight]

If a guy pulled a gun on you at the movies, you may then make an unsubstantiated claim to the police. How would you want the police to react?
It's really easy to spin this sort of thing by asking someone to insert themselves into a particular spot - particularly as the situation here presumes that whatever the police do is happening to someone who pulled a gun on me and who I'm thus a bit less sympathetic towards. Meanwhile at the institutional level this sort of predictable overreaction is exactly why swatting (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swatting) works so well.


Cuffing someone who has just been accused of wielding a gun strikes me as entirely reasonable (and may well be required by police policy), and all cuffing is violent (which is why it was ok for you to state it was violent without descarletm explicitly saying so). And as for your fifth point that they acted like the accuser was partially in the right - that was their opinion (that the seat was being kicked). Just because you reah a different conclusion (based on one side of the story) does not make their conclusion unreasonable.
Their opinion was presented as being based on the completely ludicrous reasoning that someone willing to bring down the police on a serious charge for which they were innocent must have had some grievance. Whether that's actually the case or it was just another power play to remind descarletm that they could further harass him with pretext is a different matter.

[Liquor Box]

It's really easy to spin this sort of thing by asking someone to insert themselves into a particular spot - particularly as the situation here presumes that whatever the police do is happening to someone who pulled a gun on me and who I'm thus a bit less sympathetic towards.

Yes, it is easy, and it is also highly relevant. At the moment we are seeing this all from descarletm's perspective, not a neutral perspective and we are assuming that there was no gun. Descarletm's account is probably more or less accurate, but the police did not know that. The (easily spun) scenario above reminds us not to look at the matter from only one perspective.

Meanwhile, you have not said how you would like the police to react if you called them after someone threatened you in a theater. Would you like them to arrive, notice that the rest of the audience seems calm, and then leave without questioning or searching the person who you said pulled a gun on you?


Meanwhile at the institutional level this sort of predictable overreaction is exactly why swatting (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swatting) works so well.

Swatting is entirely the fault of the person making the false call and not the fault of emergency services at all. There may be some harm done to people by police reaction to false allegations of serious offending - but there would be far more harm done if the police uniformally reacted less strongly and therefore did not properly respond to true allegations of serious offending.


Their opinion was presented as being based on the completely ludicrous reasoning that someone willing to bring down the police on a serious charge for which they were innocent must have had some grievance. Whether that's actually the case or it was just another power play to remind descarletm that they could further harass him with pretext is a different matter.

No, that's not true. Nothing is Descarletm's post suggested that the manager must have known that Descarletm had no gun and that the police complaint was therefore false. That is an inference you hve drawn and not a reasonable one. As I pointed out in an earlier post, from the manager's perspective, Descarletm may have hidden the gun outside the theater after he realised the man had disappeared to complain to the police, or inside the theater after police arrived. So their reasoning was not at all ludicrous.

I agree with Peelee's view that the police should have done more to discount this possibility (it is not the manager's responsibility to investigate such crimes), but you seem to think they should have done less. Perhaps the happy medium they drew between your ideal response and the one suggested by myself and Peelee was actually appropriate.

[Aedilred]

Yes, it is easy, and it is also highly relevant. At the moment we are seeing this all from descarletm's perspective, not a neutral perspective and we are assuming that there was no gun. Descarletm's account is probably more or less accurate, but the police did not know that. The (easily spun) scenario above reminds us not to look at the matter from only one perspective.

Meanwhile, you have said how you would like the police to react if you called them after someone threatened you in a theater. Would you like them to arrive, notice that the rest of the audience seems calm, and then leave without questioning or searching the person who you said pulled a gun on you?


Note that the police were also assuming there is no gun. They searched him and determined he didn't have a weapon. Now, as you say, he could have passed it to a friend in the intervening time, but if they were taking the gun threat seriously, they could easily have searched his friends as well: the show was already stopped. Instead they were happy to let the purported gun remain in the theatre in the possession of one of his friends while sending the purported victim back into the room. In fact as far as the police were concerned, they were apparently happy to let him back into the room himself, and it was the manager who wanted him to leave.

So I think it is safe to assume that the opinion of the police was that the incident was fabricated in all its important details (kicking a seat being an unimportant detail, given its scope). Either that or they were staggeringly, incompetently negligent. Which raises the question of why they didn't haul in the antagonist for wasting police time and a talking-to but I imagine that having established they were wasting their time there they decided they'd be better off not bothering with the paperwork and clearing out.

And sure, we're only hearing Descarletm's side of the story, but it is not the case that all stories have two equally balanced sides and the truth must be somewhere in the middle. Even if we assume that Descarletm was kicking the guy's seat enthusiastically, was rude to him and indeed went so far as to pull a gun, but that the way the police and management dealt with the situation is reported broadly accurately, I'd still say that management were incompetent and morally in the wrong even if, through laziness, prejudice or blind luck, they happened to alight on the appropriate response.

Let's also bear in mind here that this isn't a court of law; Descarletm has come to us because he feels aggrieved at how he was treated and unless he'd told us about it we would have no account of this incident, and telling us a largely fictional story out of the blue in order to elicit sympathy seems to me like the action of a sociopath. That in itself is enough for me to give him the benefit of the doubt regarding the overall veracity of the story, even if he's glossed over or punched up some details to make his behaviour look better.


The only possible defamation was from the person in the theatre - he defamed dascarletm by saying he had a gun when he did not. Usually he would have defence if he wrongly reported a crime to the correct authorities (the police), but that would not apply if he knew the allegations were wrong. Neither the theatre manager (unless he knew there was no gun) nor the police defamed anyone.

Emotional harm is not a cause of action (something you can sue on), rather it is a form of damage. Emotional harm may arise from a cause of action and damages can be awarded from it, but it is not itself a cause of action. The problem here is that there does not appear to be a cause of action arising from the actions of the police or the theater.
By ejecting him from the theatre it could be argued that the manager further defamed him on the principle of dissemination: repeating the allegation of the incident. And as I say above it appears it was the view of the police that there was no gun and the incident did not take place: obviously we're not privy to private conversations between the police and the manager but it's hard to see how the police could have reached any other conclusion based on the evidence or the course of action they took. He already has a cause of action in having been ejected and therefore deprived of something he paid money for, and could conceivably bolt on other damages and the like to an existing suit.

Like I say I don't think it would be worth suing, because the actual damages would be tiny and inconsequential compared to court costs, time wasted, and so on. Just that it's almost always an available option if you're sufficiently litigious.

[Liquor Box]

Note that the police were also assuming there is no gun. They searched him and determined he didn't have a weapon. Now, as you say, he could have passed it to a friend in the intervening time, but if they were taking the gun threat seriously, they could easily have searched his friends as well: the show was already stopped. Instead they were happy to let the purported gun remain in the theatre in the possession of one of his friends while sending the purported victim back into the room. In fact as far as the police were concerned, they were apparently happy to let him back into the room himself, and it was the manager who wanted him to leave.

So I think it is safe to assume that the opinion of the police was that the incident was fabricated in all its important details (kicking a seat being an unimportant detail, given its scope). Either that or they were staggeringly, incompetently negligent. Which raises the question of why they didn't haul in the antagonist for wasting police time and a talking-to but I imagine that having established they were wasting their time there they decided they'd be better off not bothering with the paperwork and clearing out.

Sure, they reached that conclusion, but they reached that conclusion after doing most of the things Knaight objects to. Knaight objects to them interrupting the movie despite the calmness of the audience and to them restraining dascarletm - but at those points the police had not yet concluded that there was no gun.

As to arresting the antagonist, I suppose there is a difference betweent he police concluding that there was no gun and being able to prove that there was no gun. But I am sympathetic to the argument that they should have done more, I am not sympathetic to the argument that the did too much.


And sure, we're only hearing Descarletm's side of the story, but it is not the case that all stories have two equally balanced sides and the truth must be somewhere in the middle. Even if we assume that Descarletm was kicking the guy's seat enthusiastically, was rude to him and indeed went so far as to pull a gun, but that the way the police and management dealt with the situation is reported broadly accurately, I'd still say that management were incompetent and morally in the wrong even if, through laziness, prejudice or blind luck, they happened to alight on the appropriate response.

I'm not sure I follow you here.

In my view it was not unreasonable for the manager to suspect that there may have been a gun, although (as you point out above) it appears that was not the conclusion the police reached. But, also as you point out, the manager may have agreed with the police that there was no gun but that dascarletm was kicking th guy's seat, in which case he was also entitled to throw him out.

I note that we don't know that the other guy was not also kicked out once Dascarletm left - which (in my opinion) would also be an entirely reasonable response to the situation.


Let's also bear in mind here that this isn't a court of law; Descarletm has come to us because he feels aggrieved at how he was treated and unless he'd told us about it we would have no account of this incident, and telling us a largely fictional story out of the blue in order to elicit sympathy seems to me like the action of a sociopath. That in itself is enough for me to give him the benefit of the doubt regarding the overall veracity of the story, even if he's glossed over or punched up some details to make his behaviour look better.

I take your point here - I originally was responding to a post suggesting that Dascarletm could sue the theater company or the police.

I agree that he has every right to feel angry, but that anger is best directed the the other man, not the theater company or the police.

I also tend to think that Dascarletm's account was largely true for the reasons you give. But the police and the manager had basically the opposite perspective. From their perspective the compainant "telling a largely fictional story out of the blue in order to elicit [revenge] seems [to them] like the actions of a sociopath" and perhaps that is the reason the manager may have continued to be suspicious.


By ejecting him from the theatre it could be argued that the manager further defamed him on the principle of dissemination: repeating the allegation of the incident. And as I say above it appears it was the view of the police that there was no gun and the incident did not take place: obviously we're not privy to private conversations between the police and the manager but it's hard to see how the police could have reached any other conclusion based on the evidence or the course of action they took. He already has a cause of action in having been ejected and therefore deprived of something he paid money for, and could conceivably bolt on other damages and the like to an existing suit.

Defamation requires publication and dissemination requires re-publication (publication in this context includes making an oral statement to another person). Throwing someone out of a movie theater is not a publication or a re-publication so could not be defamation. It is also difficult to see how dascarletm leaving the theater could carry the meaning that he had been carrying a gun to someone who observed his ejection (for that matter there is no suggestion of an audience) unless the manager shouted "that will teach you to brandish a gun in my theater" or similar. Also, there is a defence where a person makes a defamatory statement in circumstances where he has a duty to do so (in this case a duty to preserve the safety of other movie-goers), which is called qualified privilege in England.

[darkrose50]

Don't they have night-vision security cameras videotaping the audience?

[Knaight]

Sure, they reached that conclusion, but they reached that conclusion after doing most of the things Knaight objects to. Knaight objects to them interrupting the movie despite the calmness of the audience and to them restraining dascarletm - but at those points the police had not yet concluded that there was no gun.

So the part where they roughly shove him around after restraining him was necessary? Physical restraining at all instead of just asking that hands be kept where he can see them was necessary? The accusation during the interrogation was necessary?

I don't buy it.

[Peelee]

In fact as far as the police were concerned, they were apparently happy to let him back into the room himself, and it was the manager who wanted him to leave.

So I think it is safe to assume that the opinion of the police was that the incident was fabricated in all its important details (kicking a seat being an unimportant detail, given its scope). Either that or they were staggeringly, incompetently negligent. Which raises the question of why they didn't haul in the antagonist for wasting police time and a talking-to but I imagine that having established they were wasting their time there they decided they'd be better off not bothering with the paperwork and clearing out.

From my experience, American sheriffs are less likely to pull you in for stuff unless it's relatively serious. They're more concerned with keeping the peace than city cops. Local police are run by the city, Sheriff run by county, state troopers run by the state, and U.S. Marshals run by the fed. You'll never see Marshals unless you really **** up, and the Sheriff's office is odd in that they're elected (no other police are; you just apply, and can be hired and fired as the government sees fit). Sheriff deputies would be damn interested in someone threatening another with a gun. Some crazy ass making up stuff? So long as they don't know him (that is, he doesn't do it commonly), they're more likely to just let it go since there's no danger to anyone.

Dunno if that trend continues into massive metropolises like San Diego, but in Alabama, there's no force that exemplifies "the police are your friend" more than the Sheriffs' offices.



Don't they have night-vision security cameras videotaping the audience?

Absolutely not. The price would be prohibitive for the negligible benefit. Not to mention studios are incredibly strict about anyone capturing imaged of their IP, and would likely never allow camera in the auditoriums - no matter which way they're facing.

There are two ways of seeing what people in an auditorium are doing - looking up from the ground by the entrance at the bottom of the stairs, and looking down from the porthole in the projection booth. And as most theaters have gotten rid of projectionists and have managers running the booth (since it's mostly automated now anyway, thanks to digital. It makes sense, but management more often than no doesn't know how to set things right or troubleshoot, unless they were promoted from dedicated projection). Much more low-tech than you would imagine.

[Knaight]

From my experience, American sheriffs are less likely to pull you in for stuff unless it's relatively serious. They're more concerned with keeping the peace than city cops. Local police are run by the city, Sheriff run by county, state troopers run by the state, and U.S. Marshals run by the fed. You'll never see Marshals unless you really **** up, and the Sheriff's office is odd in that they're elected (no other police are; you just apply, and can be hired and fired as the government sees fit). Sheriff deputies would be damn interested in someone threatening another with a gun. Some crazy ass making up stuff? So long as they don't know him (that is, he doesn't do it commonly), they're more likely to just let it go since there's no danger to anyone.

Dunno if that trend continues into massive metropolises like San Diego, but in Alabama, there's no force that exemplifies "the police are your friend" more than the Sheriffs' offices.


This depends on who did the electing. Sheriffs vary, and while some at least manage to appear to exemplify "the police are your friend" to the right people others are wannabe gulag administrators. Even for the best sheriffs there's plenty of room for corruption, habitual brutality, etc. down the line. For the offices run by said wannabe gulag administrators it's that much worse.

[Peelee]

This depends on who did the electing. Sheriffs vary, and while some at least manage to appear to exemplify "the police are your friend" to the right people others are wannabe gulag administrators. Even for the best sheriffs there's plenty of room for corruption, habitual brutality, etc. down the line. For the offices run by said wannabe gulag administrators it's that much worse.

Oh, absolutely. But all the police forces can have corrupt cops (and again, I'ma leave it at that so as to keep this firmly out of the politics area). And if you're not out in the boonies, they tend to be pretty good.

Again, I've only ever really experiences two counties in Alabama with this, and they're two of the biggest counties in the state, so maybe I've just been lucky.

[danzibr]

I feel sorry for you, OP. That sucks.

I also feel sorry for the kids. Taking their drugged up parents to their seats, sitting through the situation. I wonder if they knew their dad was in the wrong.

[AuthorGirl]

Wow . . . just wow. I don't understand this incident at all.

[Aedilred]

Absolutely not. The price would be prohibitive for the negligible benefit. Not to mention studios are incredibly strict about anyone capturing imaged of their IP, and would likely never allow camera in the auditoriums - no matter which way they're facing.

There are two ways of seeing what people in an auditorium are doing - looking up from the ground by the entrance at the bottom of the stairs, and looking down from the porthole in the projection booth. And as most theaters have gotten rid of projectionists and have managers running the booth (since it's mostly automated now anyway, thanks to digital. It makes sense, but management more often than no doesn't know how to set things right or troubleshoot, unless they were promoted from dedicated projection). Much more low-tech than you would imagine.

I don't know about the US, but filming theatres with low-light/IR/etc. cameras is relatively common here at least at early screenings, precisely for IP protection reasons - to make sure nobody in the theatre is illegally recording. I don't know where this originated but I have got the impression it was the studios who pushed for it.

[Peelee]

I don't know about the US, but filming theatres with low-light/IR/etc. cameras is relatively common here at least at early screenings, precisely for IP protection reasons - to make sure nobody in the theatre is illegally recording. I don't know where this originated but I have got the impression it was the studios who pushed for it.

Huh. That's kinda cool. Though from what I hear, London has cameras everywhere to begin with.

[RazorChain]

Where I live someone calling the cops and telling them someone had pulled a gun on him would have the theater swarming with cops and the S.W.A.T. And then he probably would have received a hefty fine or gone to jail.

[dascarletm]

Where is that?... if you don't mind me asking. (Mostly curious about which country.)

[2D8HP]

Oh, absolutely. But all the police forces can have.... In my work (plumbing repairs for the City and County) I encounter lots of police and deputies.
Some are Paladins.
Some are thugs (some are both at different times).
Most are just putting in time, housing their families and trying to make it to retirement.
But in general they're nice to me (unlike the Firefighters who tend to be mean).

[Liquor Box]

So the part where they roughly shove him around after restraining him was necessary? Physical restraining at all instead of just asking that hands be kept where he can see them was necessary? The accusation during the interrogation was necessary?

I don't buy it.

If you were more confident of your opinion, you would not need to embellish the scenario (as reported by dascarletm) to support it. In a previous post, I pointed out that you added the word "violently" when you said he was handcuffed (it turned out he was not actually handcuffed at all. This time you say "roughly shoved him around after restraining him" when what desacrletm said was one of them "pushes me along" and from the sequence this happens before he was restrained. For all we know by "pushed me along" descarletm might have been meaning that the police officer had one hand on him gently guiding him along. rather than the idea of roughing up a restrained man (which is the image your version presents).

As to your question about what is necessary, I expect that the Police have strict procedural guidelines regarding how to respond to an allegation that a person has pulled a gun. I imagine that physical restraint was prudent. Certainly interrogation (or questioning to use a more neutral word) was necessary to establish whether there was a gun or not. Part of questioning (or interrogation) is to put the accusation to descarletm - they are there to question him about the accusation, not the weather.

If anything, the police under-reacted, not over-reacted.

[Liquor Box]

Where I live someone calling the cops and telling them someone had pulled a gun on him would have the theater swarming with cops and the S.W.A.T. And then he probably would have received a hefty fine or gone to jail.

Same thing where i am from, although admittedly guns are far less prevalent here than in USA (carrying a concealed gun is punishable to imprisonment except in certain limited circumstances). A accusation that someone has threatened you with a gun would lead to an immediate response by the local equivalent of SWAT. I expect that the movie would have been stopped, descarletm would have been restrained t gun point, and the theatre searched thoroughly.

I would like to think that the accuser would have been arrested for knowingly laying a false complaint, but I'm not certain how likely that would have been to occur in practice.

[Knaight]

If you were more confident of your opinion, you would not need to embellish the scenario (as reported by dascarletm) to support it. In a previous post, I pointed out that you added the word "violently" when you said he was handcuffed (it turned out he was not actually handcuffed at all. This time you say "roughly shoved him around after restraining him" when what desacrletm said was one of them "pushes me along" and from the sequence this happens before he was restrained. For all we know by "pushed me along" descarletm might have been meaning that the police officer had one hand on him gently guiding him along. rather than the idea of roughing up a restrained man (which is the image your version presents).

I'm not embellishing; I'm describing it using terminology that wasn't selected to minimize the incident.

[McBish]

I don't know about legal repercussions but I bet if you called the theater to complain you could get a bunch of free movie tickets.

[Peelee]

I don't know about legal repercussions but I bet if you called the theater to complain you could get a bunch of free movie tickets.

He already got two free movie tickets. Also, calling the theater he was kicked out of by the GM likely won't get him anything else.

[OldTrees1]

I'm not embellishing; I'm describing it using terminology that wasn't selected to minimize the incident.

Is your argument relying on the assumption that the Opening Poster, and only witness in this thread, was selecting their words to minimize the incident?

It is okay if you are relying on such an assumption but it might benefit us lurkers to know whether that is the case, or if a misunderstanding is occurring instead.

[Knaight]

Is your argument relying on the assumption that the Opening Poster, and only witness in this thread, was selecting their words to minimize the incident?

It is okay if you are relying on such an assumption but it might benefit us lurkers to know whether that is the case, or if a misunderstanding is occurring instead.

I'd phrase it more as downplaying the severity of the incident due to the extent to which police are venerated by much of society, but yes.

[OldTrees1]

I'd phrase it more as downplaying the severity of the incident due to the extent to which police are venerated by much of society, but yes.

Thank you for the clarification.

[eggynack]

"Well you don't seem to have a weapon on you, but at this point he is saying one thing, you are saying another, and I have no way to tell who is telling the truth."
Honestly, this is the only part that really bothers me. Because it's wrong. The accuser said you have a gun, and whether outside observers are possibly not capable of perfectly accounting for your lack of gun, they can likely identify that you never up and left the theater in a suspicious manner during the showing. Thus, for there to be a gun, said gun would need to be in your possession, or in a friend's possession, or somewhere rather close to you in the theater. If the cops cannot find the gun in one of those three places, then the accuser is almost certainly lying. The cops thus do have a simple, if time consuming, way to determine whether a false police report was filed. I wouldn't expect your theater friends to be purely impartial on the seat kicking thing, so if that were the sole accusation then the, "He said, she said," claim would be a plausible one. But guns are objects in the real world, ones that, to my knowledge, do not have a habit of spontaneously evaporating, and the gun claim is thus disprovable within generally accepted allowances for error.

Also, as has been generally stated, the cops basically said that the accuser could be correct in his accusations, and then acted in a manner perfectly consistent with the accuser being completely wrong. If the cops truly suspected a gun to any degree, then they would have searched for it, but they didn't actually believe the accuser, so they didn't. And then they say the kinda believed him anyway. In essence, the cops, at every step, did the exact thing most convenient for them, without consideration for what would be just here. It would be more convenient to say that the stories are equally true and not search for the gun, even though those two things are mutually exclusive. It's a really terrible thing, that. The accuser was a jerk, granted, but that falls more in what I'd consider expected ridiculousness. He wanted to be a ****, and he was one, I guess. The cops were *****, on what I think is basically this basis alone, outside of acceptable bounds.

[Peelee]

for there to be a gun, said gun would need to be in your possession, or in a friend's possession, or somewhere rather close to you in the theater. If the cops cannot find the gun in one of those three places, then the accuser is almost certainly lying.

Except all auditoriums have exit doors leading outside, and there was a large amount of time between the crazy dude leaving and the show stopping and cops coming in when anyone with a gun could have left the auditorium into the theater in general. It could be anywhere in the auditorium, anywhere in the common areas in the theater, anywhere outside, or even in a car and driven away.

It's actually stupidly hard in this case to prove crazy-dude-who-was-clearly-lying was actually lying. It sounds like the cops knew he was lying, but also knew that proving it was nearly impossible (or at least way too hard).

[eggynack]

Except all auditoriums have exit doors leading outside, and there was a large amount of time between the crazy dude leaving and the show stopping and cops coming in when anyone with a gun could have left the auditorium into the theater in general. It could be anywhere in the auditorium, anywhere in the common areas in the theater, anywhere outside, or even in a car and driven away.

It's actually stupidly hard in this case to prove crazy-dude-who-was-clearly-lying was actually lying. It sounds like the cops knew he was lying, but also knew that proving it was nearly impossible (or at least way too hard).
People would have been capable of witnessing that though, at least. Seat kicking is difficult, even a gun threat is kinda difficult, but a threat followed by leaving to stash the gun is a big thing.

[Peelee]

People would have been capable of witnessing that though, at least. Seat kicking is difficult, even a gun threat is kinda difficult, but a threat followed by leaving to stash the gun is a big thing.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but I am saying it's hard to prove. You're in a big, dark room with very loud speakers and your attention is focused on the screen. Seat kicking is pretty unobtrusive. Crazy dude could have claimed the gun was flashed so only he could see it. Anyone can leave through the normal halls into the theater without anyone else in the auditorium thinking twice about it. Yeah, it should be big and noticeable, and there could be not a chance in hell dude is telling the truth, but there's no way to prove it, and that's what matters if they want to get the guy for filing a false report. As for removing someone from the theater, it's private property. Doesn't matter who the cops believe, if the GM says guy needs to go, guy is the one who's gonna go.

[Keltest]

I'm not saying you're wrong, but I am saying it's hard to prove. You're in a big, dark room with very loud speakers and your attention is focused on the screen. Seat kicking is pretty unobtrusive. Crazy dude could have claimed the gun was flashed so only he could see it. Anyone can leave through the normal halls into the theater without anyone else in the auditorium thinking twice about it. Yeah, it should be big and noticeable, and there could be not a chance in hell dude is telling the truth, but there's no way to prove it, and that's what matters if they want to get the guy for filing a false report. As for removing someone from the theater, it's private property. Doesn't matter who the cops believe, if the GM says guy needs to go, guy is the one who's gonna go.

Realistically, if somebody sitting a couple seats away from me gets up, I am going to notice it. We know Crazy Dude got up, so you can ask if somebody else got up from the same seating area that he was in between when he left and when the theater was shut down. If they wanted to, they could get a reasonable sense for whether or not it was plausible for him to have had and hidden a gun

[Peelee]

Realistically, if somebody sitting a couple seats away from me gets up, I am going to notice it. We know Crazy Dude got up, so you can ask if somebody else got up from the same seating area that he was in between when he left and when the theater was shut down. If they wanted to, they could get a reasonable sense for whether or not it was plausible for him to have had and hidden a gun

Questioning a few in the middle of a crowd of angry people getting antsier by the second? You're a braver man than I.

[eggynack]

I'm not saying you're wrong, but I am saying it's hard to prove. You're in a big, dark room with very loud speakers and your attention is focused on the screen. Seat kicking is pretty unobtrusive. Crazy dude could have claimed the gun was flashed so only he could see it. Anyone can leave through the normal halls into the theater without anyone else in the auditorium thinking twice about it. Yeah, it should be big and noticeable, and there could be not a chance in hell dude is telling the truth, but there's no way to prove it, and that's what matters if they want to get the guy for filing a false report. As for removing someone from the theater, it's private property. Doesn't matter who the cops believe, if the GM says guy needs to go, guy is the one who's gonna go.
My point is just that this wasn't a case where the cops had only the word of these two people to go on. There was possible evidence, and there were possible witnesses, and while neither resource is some gleaming perfection, they're a far shot from claiming it's their word against yours. I mean, for all the problems with eye witnesses, the police apparently consider them reliable enough to act as key evidence in trials, so it'd be weirdly hypocritical to suddenly not consider them reliable here. And, for all the flaws related to a lack of evidence as evidence itself, it's at least a pretty strong indicator. Could the police have determined 100% that the crime wasn't committed? No, but they could have met the evidentiary standard that is broadly used. It seems that the information present was sufficient justification for arresting the accuser on false reporting charges (or doing whatever it is you do about those).

[Peelee]

My point is, this is what was probably the cops' thought process.

[Stan]

I'm sorry this happened. I think it's best left as an anecdote in your past. Trying to sue anyone would cost more that you're going to get out of it. Trying to cause something to happen to the police over a minor matter is going to gain you enemies. It's going to be hard to prove that anyone was seriously out of line.

Trying to bring it back to the crazy guy would
1. Be very hard if the police didn't record his correct name.
or
2. Bring you into close contact with the crazy guy, annoy him greatly, and put him a positional to learn your name and personal info. His priorities and motivations could easily include revenge or further accusations.

[eggynack]

My point is, this is what was probably the cops' thought process.
I don't really buy that. They never sought out any witnesses, to corroborate or deny the OP's story, and they never apparently checked the theater or his friends for the supposed gun. My read is that the cops just wanted to diffuse the situation, which meant getting the OP and accuser separated and getting out of there, and if saying that there's no way to get past the stories of the main actors could get them to that point efficiently, then that's what they were going to do.

[Peelee]

I don't really buy that.

Well, far be it from me to be a pushy salesman.

[Liquor Box]

Honestly, this is the only part that really bothers me. Because it's wrong. The accuser said you have a gun, and whether outside observers are possibly not capable of perfectly accounting for your lack of gun, they can likely identify that you never up and left the theater in a suspicious manner during the showing. Thus, for there to be a gun, said gun would need to be in your possession, or in a friend's possession, or somewhere rather close to you in the theater. If the cops cannot find the gun in one of those three places, then the accuser is almost certainly lying. The cops thus do have a simple, if time consuming, way to determine whether a false police report was filed.

I'm not certain it would be as easy as that. Two police officers responded.

To have any degree of confidence that a gun was not present those two officers would have had to:
- deal with and search descarletm (which they did).
- Search the people seated around descarletm, which they may not be legally entitled to, to establish none of them now had possession of the gun.
- question the people seated around descarletm to establish that none saw a gun, that noen saw him leave his seat, and that none saw him hide a gun.
- Search the theatre sufficiently that they could say with certainty that there was no gun hidden in it, which would definitely require the theater to be vacated.

I'm not sure that it was practical for the two responding officers to do all of that.

Even had they done those things, I'm not sure it would prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was no gun - for example if any other person left the theatre during this timeframe, could the gun have been handed off. It sounds far fetched, but when proving something beyond reasonable doubt even far fetched theories have to be disproven.

But, even if the police could be confident that there was no gun, this would not mean that the accuser laid a false complaint. he could simply have been mistaken - might it have been descarletm's phone or banana (or even fingers) concealed under a jacket and brandished that the accuser thought was gun? Of course this would depend on exactly what the accuser claimed to have seen.

In that context you have some people (see Knaight as an example from this thread) who think the police had already grossly overreacted by interrupting the movie, searching descaeletm and questioning descarletm. How much more of an overreaction would the likes of Knaight have seen it if the movie was stopped completely and the theatre was cleared and it was not just one person who was searched and questioned, but several people.

I am somewhat sympathetic to the view that the police could have done more to establish that there was a gun or was not gun. That's what I think would happen in my country - the equivalent of a swat team would have entered the theatre, several of the audience would have been questioned, and the theatre would have been searched thoroughly - but even had that happened I have no confidence there would have been a conviction.

In USA, where gun carrying is more common, and carries a smaller penalty (if any), I can understand why the police did not do more.

[Knaight]

I'm sorry this happened. I think it's best left as an anecdote in your past. Trying to sue anyone would cost more that you're going to get out of it. Trying to cause something to happen to the police over a minor matter is going to gain you enemies. It's going to be hard to prove that anyone was seriously out of line.
Even with all of that aside (and both of those are valuable points, with gaining enemies being a best case scenario with picking an argument with a police department), this unfortunate event already managed to ruin one day. Might as well cut those losses there instead of sinking more time into it.

[dascarletm]

I've pretty much resolved to let it be a funny anecdote. It's funny I said to everyone with me as we left the theater, "Funny thing is, if he hadn't called in a gun threat on me, we would have watched the movie, went home, gone to bed, and never really remembered the evening. Now though, we'll be retelling the story about this night for a long long time."