I’ll admit — and judge me as you will — that when I first read this link on CNN.com, I applauded. I mean, not literally, I’ve got my computer in my lap and my hands are a bit too busy typing to actually, physically, clap, but mentally? All there. Yay! And hooray!
Cialella told the family sitting in front of him in the theater on Christmas Day to be quiet, police said.
An argument ensued while others at the Riverview Movie Theatre watched “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button,” starring Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett, The Philadelphia Inquirer reported.
Cialella then approached the family from the left side of the aisle and shot the father, who was not identified, as he was standing between Cialella and his family, according to the police report.
Let’s be honest — while there are a lot of people deserving of scorn and hatred, in terms of enjoying a cinematic experience, not many trump the Talker (Didn’t Turn Off Cell Phone is a close runner-up). Okay, maybe shooting him was extreme — I mean, the guy might’ve just been conversing with his son about where the bathroom was, and did he really need to go or could he hold it? — at least he didn’t kill the guy (although that might have more to do with the fact that he had a tiny little gun or couldn’t aim).
Finally: why are theaters open Christmas Day? Why is anything open Christmas Day? Greedy corporations. Send your employees home!
I can’t imagine anyone shooting someone for talking at a Brad Pitt movie. An Indiana Jones movie, James Bond movie, maybe, but not a Brad Pitt movie. The shooter had to have been temporarily insane for even buying a ticket.
Comment by D.R. — December 27, 2008 @ 2:27 pm
Second rule of fight club: shoot movie talkers!
Comment by MalSnay — December 27, 2008 @ 2:30 pm
“Maybe shooting him was extreme”? Really? So you think we should have the inalienable right to shoot somebody for being rude? What this guy Ciallela did was an act of cowardice, stupidity and brutality. First of all, he was carrying a concealed weapon, which is a felony all by itself. The guy probably has a single digit IQ and a raging inferiority complex. Do you like the idea that someone like him was able to buy a gun? The world is full of dopes who talk at movies, take up two parking spaces, cut in line ahead of you, and play their stereo too loud. Shooting them is not an option for an intelligent human being. If you’re that pissed off by a talker at a movie, demand your money back from the theater manager if they don’t do something about the talkers. Now, this moron Ciallela is going to jail for several years because he had no self-control. Is that the kind of person you think should be walking around with a gun in his waistband? If you do, go live in Baghdad.
Comment by JohnRJ08 — December 27, 2008 @ 4:49 pm
““Maybe shooting him was extreme”? Really? So you think we should have the inalienable right to shoot somebody for being rude?”
Hi John, I realize humor doesn’t communicate well over the internet, but that was in fact me being sarcastic. Ciallela should’ve asked the theater manager to evict the talkers, but he’s got no one but himself to blame for spending the next few decades behind bars.
Comment by MalSnay — December 27, 2008 @ 4:56 pm
And this is why morons should not carry guns.
Comment by thomas — December 27, 2008 @ 5:22 pm
Some people are confusing “justice” with “revenge”. Talking in a theater, or any kind of rudeness, does not warrant violence. If it’s a matter of the talker getting what he deserves, shooting is not on the list. We need to understand that our words carry weight. It is not a good idea to say anything which even indirectly implies that what happened in that theater was justifiable. Not even as a joke. I am as aggravated by inconsiderate, self-centered people as much as anyone else on the planet, but it would never even occur to me to physically harm someone for that kind of transgression. Again, go to theater management and demand a refund. Our society has become so rage driven, it becomes more difficult every day to support gun ownership.
Comment by JohnRJ08 — December 27, 2008 @ 6:00 pm
He is my hero! It was bound to happen. He should be fined and released! The alleged victim should be fined for causing mental anguish!
xo
Rants, Thoughts & Merde
http://rantsthoughtsmerde.blogspot.com/2008/12/theater-rage-era.html
Comment by NativeNYker — December 27, 2008 @ 7:05 pm
Say what you will but I hope this story spreads people are talking about this one at work on monday or when they get back from the holidays, as there will be one good outcome, people will shut the hell up when in a theater, because you don’t know whether or not some nutjob is gonna shoot you in the arm.
Lets face it everyone has had that experience in the theater but by letting this one person take the bullet for us, it might just save us all from the aggravation of it ever happening to any us again.
Comment by JamesP — December 27, 2008 @ 7:13 pm
Yeah kill that loud mouth…Theater is a place to watch movie…not for talking!!! That’s a pupblic nuisance.
Comment by biorsel — December 27, 2008 @ 7:35 pm
To this kind of nutjob it isn’t masculine to ask the management to do what he can’t “solve” for himself. He’s the type who thinks of his gun as a genuine extension of his manhood; it’s his “enforcer” when muscle power alone won’t do for any reason. He couldn’t have known he’d encounter this blabbering family in advance, so why would any rational person bring a gun with him when he’s only going out to take in a movie?
He had it with him, because he can’t feel he’s the “big man” he wants to project publicly, without it. It is only necessary on occasion to let others know he has it; it’s the mere “having” of it that gives him boldness when such an attribute seems required. Such a powerful need to put an imagined veneer of “manly power” over his inborn masculinity is usually a strong indication that he suspects what nature gave him was inadequate. And more often than not, he’d be right to do so.
He did have options – among which, he could have started singing “O Solo Mio” at the top of his voice, to draw attention FROM the offenders to the offense THEY were committing. Trouble is, management would probably have come and kicked HIM out. But appealing to management is, to this Rambo-type, a woosey thing to do.
Among gun owners, there are too many such people to count; people who “buck up” their masculinity with a firearm, people who have imprinted on the macho-dude images from our entertainment media, people who see violence as a FIRST response to a problem. We shouldn’t be surprised at all that a culture which foists a ludicrous image of manliness on a public that is in love with guns, results in scenes like this one – and more often, worse. We should either amend our cultural attributes, giving more “manly” credit to brains than brawn, or give up the guns. Our population is THICK with men like this, all with the potential to do things like this.
Using one’s brains is considered unmanly, although the very opposite is usually the truth. Isaac Asimov once said, “Violence is the final refuge of the incompetent.” And it seems to prove true, over and over. This dude doesn’t look like the type who does much cogitating. He’s visceral, through and through, and thinks it makes him a REAL man. It only marks him as a consummate dufus. A blot.
Being stupid isn’t the cause, though. Many people of low intelligence are absolutely wonderful people to know. It’s “attitude” that makes the difference, and even lower intellects can easily have GOOD ones.
Of all the people I’ve ever known, the one I like best of all is one of moderate-to-low intellect. But she’s the most thoroughly GOOD person I’ve ever known, and I respect her profoundly.
Maybe it’s time to take the religion out of “morality” and begin to infuse our culture with genuine HUMAN values and generic moralities. Redefine what is “masculine” and what is not, to tone down the bellicose aspects and turn up the value of using your MIND and basic compassion more. It is basic compassion which not only makes a man manly, but which allows us to be civilized AT ALL. There isn’t nearly enough of it left in our culture.
He, and multitudes of others, are living proof that possession of firearms is more than a right – it is equally a profound obligation. The “right” should only be conferred on people proven worthy of it. When people who are mentally and morally bankrupt can walk in and just buy a gun, something is DEEPLY wrong.
Gun ownership should not be prohibited. It should not be a “right,” either, but a privilege, one which must be earned, and one which can be quickly revoked if abused.
Comment by H. B. — December 27, 2008 @ 8:49 pm
Amerika Rocks. Good job.
Comment by Peter Bolton — December 27, 2008 @ 9:01 pm
This is just a symptom of were we are as a society. No one really cares about life anymore. This could be argued both ways actually. First off shooting anyone for anything than if your life is endangered is stupid. The guy probably didn’t have a permit for the gun in the second place. (This incident should not reflect on responsible gun owners) Criminals in this country are not afraid to be criminals.
Then the fact that some people don’t have manners in theaters, restaurants, malls, or any other public places any more.
Think about other people!
Comment by Paul H — December 27, 2008 @ 9:03 pm
The mere fact that ANYONE here has approved of this shooting is proof of the deep sickness in our culture. I think I’m more deeply offended by those who applaud the shooting than by the shooter himself. We’ve grown in the direction of barbarism.
People who talk too much or make other kinds of disruptions in theaters (like smoking pot) should be kicked out summarily. Managements of theaters should be more diligent in quelling these disruptions BEFORE it becomes necessary for other clients to bring it to their attention. If the talkers know management is ready to kick them out, if a second warning becomes necessary, that will usually do the trick. If not, out they go.
You can talk in a theater – as long as you whisper it to someone. There’s no excuse to talk in a normal voice. A cell phone should be turned off while you’re watching the flick.
So you see, we’ve not only become a culture of rage and violence, but we’ve lost all our sense of basic manners. Both were culpable, though the shooter was FAR more so. I’d have been as ticked off as the shooter was, but I’d give them a warning to quit, or I’d have them expelled by management. And I’d follow through if they kept it up.
Trouble is, so MANY people have given up their manners that theater owners might have few customers left, after kicking out the disruptive ones. Unlss they do, though, they’ll have more disruptors. A sign visible to all who enter that they WILL kick out disruptors would probably help. Soon, they’d have a reputation that they MEAN BUSINESS about it. People would not come if they’re inclined to disrupt – they’d lose a few customers. But they’d also GAIN a few – maybe a LOT – of customers; people who know they can enjoy the movies in PEACE.
It isn’t rocket science.
Comment by H. B. — December 27, 2008 @ 9:05 pm
Finally: why are theaters open Christmas Day? Why is anything open Christmas Day?
Not everyone celebrates Christmas. Why not be open for those for whom it is not a holiday, but just a day off work?
Comment by jmc — December 27, 2008 @ 10:28 pm
Actually what worries me more than some half-cocked guy shooting people in a movie theatre is the commenters on your blog who seem to lack *any* sense of satire, sarcasm, or absurdity. That bothers me so, so much more than the crazy guy who shot someone, because at least he’ll be spending a few decades in jail whereas these folks will remain at large in our population :)
If you have to walk people through something that is obviously sarcasm step-by-step… I don’t know, it just seems as bad as the kind of mental defect that leads someone to shoot noisy talkers in a movie theatre.
At least that was a public service, right?
reading these comments is like overhearing a coworker try to explain a dirty joke to the kid in the mailroom.
Also, I’m very disturbed by the sheer quantity of text in some of the above comments. I get a very palpable sense of “Damn, it’s another one from that guy who writes in the eight page letter to the editor every week about lawn sprinklers…” from some people here. Let it go, guys. there’s over 300 million of us and there will always be crazies and insensitive people and funny sarcastic people (who will make jokes you don’t understand). The fact that we’re not all out killing each other all the time means that we’re probably doing all right, and that things are just fine.
Relax. Go see a movie.
Comment by laughing — December 27, 2008 @ 11:52 pm
That someone would approve of the shooting just indicates a deep rooted inability to deal with rude people in an uncultured society. We SAY he should have went to the theatre manager, but what good would it do, really? Is the manager going to club the guy if he doesn’t shut up? No. In fact there are no consequences for acting like an ass. Like I said, I don’t approve, but I think this is probably the root of the frustrated.
And oh yeah, lets turn this into a gun control argument so next time he’ll stick a rude person in the arm with a steak knife.
Comment by Jennifer — December 28, 2008 @ 12:54 am
GOOD JOB! someone had to do it.
Comment by dannyc — December 28, 2008 @ 1:06 am
I seriously am sickened by any of you that applaud shooting someone for ANYTHING. What if this was your Dad that got shot? Any response here that condones this ridiculous act is nearly as bad as this idiot. Put yourself in the shoes of being shot for anything other than your own self protection. I seriously can’t believe there are so many positive responses here. What has happened to our morals?
Even if someone was running around screaming and even throwing popcorn at everybody in the theater…would that really justify shooting that person?? No way No way No way.
Comment by Jefe — December 28, 2008 @ 1:51 am
Theaters are open for the same reason any business is open: so people can go there to purchase something, in this case a movie. As jmc said not everyone celebrates xmas. In fact we should have the post office open on that day because closing the govt down to celebrate a Christian day is wrong in so many ways. And if the United Sates wasn’t so delusional as to think all citizens are part of a militia, we could go to the movies without getting shot for talking and Toys ‘R Us for buying toys and not fighting stray bullets from morons who shop with loaded guns.
Comment by redplanet — December 28, 2008 @ 5:02 am
Redman: but Christmas isn’t entirely a Christian holiday anymore. I celebrate it, and I’m an atheist.
Comment by MalSnay — December 28, 2008 @ 7:29 am
Finally: why are theaters open Christmas Day? Why is anything open Christmas Day? Greedy corporations. Send your employees home!
Because us Jews need some entertainment after Chinese food.
Comment by Chosen One — December 28, 2008 @ 11:41 am
In all seriousness, though, confronting anyone else in a public place is crossing a boundary that takes some careful thinking through to do it right.
We are essentially all “equal” unless there are those around us hired to be “monitors” of others, whether it is a manager, cop, velvet rope guy, et. al.
First of all, the talking guy wasn’t affecting the entire audience; likely only 15-20 persons around him. Most movies are rather loud, so unless the guy was shouting at the screen, or interacting with the characters, as some groups do, he wasn’t affecting many theatergoers.
With that said, the shooter was therefore multiplying the nuisance by vocalizing his own words, whether to “help” the audience, or not. Since this was a confrontation, it was bound to increase the original nuisance, whereas ignoring the man would have likely led to an eventual ceasing.
To my point, the shooter, by not ignoring the talker, gave the entire audience the very nuisance he desired to quell. He crossed a boundary he was not given social permission to cross; in these situations, an usher or manager was “hired” person to speak to the talker. How many times do we wish there was a “manager” to deal with a situation we cannot directly address ourselves? A long cashier’s line, for example.
If the shooter wanted to help the talker remain quiet, there was probably a “nice” way to do it. His tone, or a whisper, may have been persuasive enough to not have an argument ensue.
But for my money, I would rather the shooter ignore the talker, and wait it out. Instead, the whole thing became a police situation and ruined the movie far beyond what 15-20 people experienced as a little talking.
In fact, I never knew the guy was talking at all. I was sitting twenty rows away, behind some six-footer with a nacho stench that made talking pale in comparison.
Comment by Chosen One — December 28, 2008 @ 12:09 pm
Maybe the movie chains will make a “don’t talk during the movie” commercial with some guy mowing down yakkers, then sitting down and enjoying the flick in peace. No intro needed, no narration…at the end, just flash up on the screen: “SHUT UP”.
I’ll bet that particular family (and anyone else in that theater) keeps their traps shut from now on.
You ask nicely, you hint, you get the manager (who shrugs and does nothing), you move to another seat, but can still hear them yapping.
True, shooting is a bit harsh, but exactly what will it take to make people understand that they are not at home and their admission ticket does not give them the right to ruin anyone else’s cinematic experience?
Comment by Gen Delivery — December 28, 2008 @ 12:55 pm
I don’t know what they were talking about that was so important that it couldn’t wait, and if was that important they should have taken it outside. Whatever happened to common courtesy and respect? I saw 3 or 4 folks at the movies the other day that couldn’t put down their cell phones, texting I would guess. If it was my theater they would have been tossed out right along with the talkers BEFORE somebody shot them.
I agree with John (comment 3), demand your money back from the manager. Btw John, I don’t know the laws in PA. Here in NM anyone who is not a convicted felon can get a permit to carry a concealed weapon.
Comment by Jerry — December 28, 2008 @ 1:08 pm
To “Laughing”:
You need to walk yourself through the logic what you’ve just said– that you’re more worried by people who don’t appreciate the sarcasm here than you are by a guy who shoots someone for talking in a theater. Sounds to me like you’ve seen a few too many movies and haven’t learned anything from real life. There’s nothing funny about someone being shot in a theater for talking to his family. Nothing. Maybe Leno or Letterman could find some humor in it, but they would probably go the other way and make fun of the shooter. Some people here are implying that the talker got what he deserved. A few aren’t even subtle about it. The irony is, these are probably the same kind of people who do most of the talking during a movie. It’s all part of being self-absorbed. You sound like you’re a member of that club.
Comment by JohnRJ08 — December 28, 2008 @ 1:21 pm
I’m pretty sure Ciallela hit the arm on purpose, he just got out of the Army like 3 months ago. Crazy legal guys!
Comment by Lucas — January 1, 2009 @ 12:37 pm