my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Ground Level   » Chicago woman arrested for video recording in a theatre (Page 5)

This topic comprises 6 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6

Author Topic: Chicago woman arrested for video recording in a theatre John Wilson Film God Posts: 5438 From: Sydney, Australia. Registered: Dec 1999 posted 07-07-2010 04:10 PM                     quote: Ed Alvarado that BS she should go to prison just like the MPAA ads say it doesnt matter if it was for personal or just 3 minutes of video footage she broke the rules and it clearly states NO RECORDING rules are rules and now they are gonna let her get away with it? You're joking, right? She was recording a birthday party and got 3 minutes of Twilight in the background...and for that you want her to go to prison? Come on. (I hope she wins too.)  |  IP: Logged Chris Slycord Film God Posts: 2986 From: 청주시, 경북도, South Korea Registered: Mar 2007 posted 07-07-2010 10:15 PM                     Quite a bit of the complaint is dubious. It states that they acted without probably cause... which if true would mean she'd never have been arrested to begin with. You can't be arrested if it was absolutely clear that there was no cause for you to be arrested. And the claim that the actions taken by the managers were malicious specifically due to being motivated to obtain a $500 reward is dubious because the existence of a reward doesn't mean he was only motivated by it. Lets assume for a moment the guy has a huge stick up his ass for following every stupid rule he's been given to the letter. That would (or at least could) result in him taking the same exact actions without them being necessarily malicious. And really, the "intentional infliction of emotional distress" claim is predicated on buying the notion that the people were being inherently malicious. The negligence claim is arguable. It seems fair to ask that they have warned her. The defamation claim is the most dubious of them all. The manager released a statement retelling the events; that she was arrested under suspicion of committing a crime. She is claiming that by retelling the events as they occurred he is implying that she really committed the crime. Also, the claim is made that the manager was lying by saying that he was required to report the incident to law enforcement, since the state law makes no such requirement, which ignores that his statement was also referring to federal law (though it could very well be that the federal law also doesn't require him to do so and he was mistaken). And the claim that she was falsely-accused is likely premised on saying that because her charges were dropped it must be a false accusation, when in reality charges are dropped for lots of reasons. So in short: They'll probably have an easy time showing that the staff were negligent and likely a much harder time on everything else. Though I admit that I am no expert in any way on law. So take what I say with a whole bowl of salt (unless you have hypertension )  |  IP: Logged Chad Souder Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 962 From: Waterloo, IA, USA Registered: Feb 2000 posted 07-08-2010 12:12 AM                     Her suit is a joke, which most civil suits are. She (and her lawyer) is clearly hoping for a settlement to get a pay day. The theatre didn't arrest her. The manager or the employees didn't arrest her. They don't have that power. They were offered the opportunity to press charges as a victim, which they did. Ultimately it's up to law enforcement whether or not to arrest someone. The executive branch enforces the laws and is thus responsible to know the laws. So too must citizens, which this lady did not. They obviously saw grounds to make an arrest. Just because someone tells a police officer to arrest someone, it doesn't mean they get arrested. So her complaint will have to show that her "mental anguish, humiliation, etc." came from how the theatre treated her, not from the arrest. The law doesn't state warnings or "friendly reminders" need to be issued, although it seems pretty clear that in this case they should have been. This woman was mightily embarrassed and inconvenienced and shouldn't have been, but her counter suit is just another greedy person seeking a pay day. It will almost certainly be settled out of court and a she'll go shopping at Nordstrom. The theatre chain will pass the cost of the court case on to their customers like they do all other costs, so the only people who really lose are the other customers. Poor judgment used by management, but nothing that warrants getting sued over.  |  IP: Logged Richard Hamilton Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1341 From: Evansville, Indiana Registered: Jan 2000 posted 07-08-2010 12:22 AM                     Chris, how many times can you say "dubious"?  |  IP: Logged Chad Souder Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 962 From: Waterloo, IA, USA Registered: Feb 2000 posted 07-08-2010 09:39 AM                     Richard!  |  IP: Logged Chris Slycord Film God Posts: 2986 From: 청주시, 경북도, South Korea Registered: Mar 2007 posted 07-08-2010 11:35 AM                     Touché  |  IP: Logged Jack Ondracek Film God Posts: 2348 From: Port Orchard, WA, USA Registered: Oct 2002 posted 07-09-2010 11:25 AM                        quote: Julio Roberto The MPAA recommended the police department destroy the 195 seconds of footage, write up an incident report and release Samantha. However, the theater manager again insisted that a felony had been committed and demanded that the woman be charged. Whether or not you agree with someone being hit that hard over 3 minutes of Twilight, this part seems the most suspicious to me. Around here, the police have nothing to do with actual charges being brought... A theatre employee, even less so. Unless a someone was personally harmed and filed a civil suit, charges would have to come from a county (or city) prosecutor. The police would just respond to the immediate call from the manager, document and neutralize the situation and send the paperwork off to the prosecutor's office, where that department would consider what charges (if any) to bring. In cases where we've called for help, a defendant's lawyer has occasionally asked us to sign a letter stating we no longer wished to bring charges. While that wouldn't automatically cancel a cause against someone, it would indicate to the prosecutor that the people responsible for the charges being brought no longer want to participate. A theatre employee would have no influence over the nature (or level) of charges, and possibly less over whether those charges were actually pushed forward.  |  IP: Logged Louis Bornwasser Film God Posts: 4441 From: prospect ky usa Registered: Mar 2005 posted 07-09-2010 03:56 PM                        Jack, you are right! Further, since the cinema could not show where they were damaged (lost money,) they are not entitled to a civil suit. A civil suit, by definition, must be filed by the party who was hurt. So, if anyone was hurt, (film company???) they would have to file the suit, no one else. Louis  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 07-09-2010 04:06 PM                        The civil suit is being filed by the girl who was put in jail for this.  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 07-09-2010 06:20 PM                     If I was the person who got arrested and thrown in jail over this, I think I would be fine with walking into the lobby on a crowded Saturday night and having the manager arrested in the middle of all of their customers and then throwing him/her in the same jail for the same amount of time. That would be suitable.  |  IP: Logged Eric Robinson Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 538 From: Santa Rosa, CA Registered: Jan 2005 posted 07-14-2010 11:20 AM                     Maybe they could just offer her a free truckers hat...  |  IP: Logged Chad Souder Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 962 From: Waterloo, IA, USA Registered: Feb 2000 posted 07-16-2010 09:06 PM                     I honestly spit up a little of my LO-CARB Monster when I saw that. Thank you, Eric.  |  IP: Logged Edward Havens Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 614 From: Los Angeles, CA Registered: Mar 2008 posted 07-19-2010 01:21 PM                     My question is, what the hell was this woman doing recording any footage from inside the theatre while the movie was on? Maybe she shouldn't have been arrested, but she should have been thrown out for being rude and inconsiderate to the other patrons in the theatre.  |  IP: Logged Tony Bandiera Jr Film God Posts: 3067 From: Moreland Idaho Registered: Apr 2004 posted 07-19-2010 02:20 PM                     Edward, did you read the start of this thread? She was recording a birthday party that was held in the theatre. I think the party itself would be more disruptive and rude that her taping. But since they paid for the party screening, it's none of anyone's business. The MPAA Anti-Piracy policy is a bad joke and totally ineffective.  |  IP: Logged Edward Havens Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 614 From: Los Angeles, CA Registered: Mar 2008 posted 07-20-2010 11:28 PM                     Yes, Tony, I've read the entire thread. I just find it amazing, in this day and age, that personal responsibility does not seem to factor in to the equation. That some people seem to think it's okay to disturb other people because they are having a "party," while others in this very thread seem to condone this activity, because they think the MPAA's policy requests go too far. I've had several instances where I have come across people recording movies. Not just snippets, but the entire actual movie. I know how I have reacted each time, and I know how the parties in question have reacted. Yes, there are better ways to handle the situation than the way this Muvico did, but if the lady had just followed common sense and had some personal responsibility in the matter, she never would have found herself in that situation in the first place.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 6 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.