Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Cell phone idiocy erupts into fight among hundreds of teens

This is topic Cell phone idiocy erupts into fight among hundreds of teens in forum Ground Level at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=5;t=001925

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 09-05-2007, 03:30 PM:

Proof again that many of today's teens are arrogant jerks, and why they shouldn't be allowed into R-rated movies.

Chicago Sun-Times Link to Chicago Sun-Times
Posted: Wednesday, 05 September 2007 9:46AM

Hundreds In Movie Theater Disturbance Sparked By Girls On Cell Phones

HOBART, Ind. (STNG) - A screening of the horror movie "Halloween" transformed into a living nightmare for Hobart police Saturday night. Officers showed up to the Showplace 12, east of Westfield Southlake mall, and found hundreds of youths fighting.

Hobart police Lt. Dave Evans estimates at least 600 teens were caught up in the chaos. Evans said Indiana State Police, Lake County Sheriff's Police, Merrillville and Crown Point police came in for backup.

Problems began after the 9:10 p.m. showing started, Evans said. Multiple people were acting unruly, speaking on cell phones, with two 14-year-olds from Merrillville the main offenders, Evans said.

After being told multiple times by staff and security to quit talking, the two girls were escorted out by Hobart police.

The girls started yelling and refused to leave, Evans said. When police attempted to restrain them, they started swinging their arms, striking officers. The girls were arrested on charges of disorderly conduct, criminal trespass, resisting law enforcement and battery on law enforcement.

The talking continued inside, causing so much disruption that theater staff shut off the movie and told the audience to quiet down.

The talking continued, Evans said. Evans also heard from officers that a few teens started a physical fight inside.

The movie was stopped, and everyone was told to leave, Evans said. Another auditorium full of teens showing "Halloween" either ended abruptly due to the disruption or coincidentally ended about the same time. The teens spilled into the lot, and the situation became worse. When police came, several teens were running around or fighting, Evans said.

Many of the teens scattered across U.S. 30 to Wal-Mart or calmed down and waited for their rides, Evans said.

A 17-year-old from Gary was bitten by a police dog after refusing to present his hands to be cuffed. The teen was trying to attack someone, Evans said. He was arrested for disorderly conduct and resisting law enforcement.

In total, 25 officers responded, Evans said, and six Hobart officers worked security the next day as a precaution.

"Halloween" is rated R by the Motion Picture Association of America, meaning children younger than 17 aren't allowed to see the movie without a parent or guardian. Evans said most of the teens appeared to be between 13 and 15.

Matt Riek, general manager for Westfield Southlake mall, wouldn't comment specifically about the incident.

"Security is our highest priority," he said. "We're working with the police as we always do."

Copyright 2007 STNG Wire, The Chicago Sun-Times. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Posted by Chad M Calpito (Member # 3736) on 09-05-2007, 03:52 PM:

What a bunch of a**hole teens. I agree with you there Mike. They are arrogant jerks.

Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 09-05-2007, 04:53 PM:

Yeah but I bet alot of teens during your generation were jerks and aholes too. And shouldn't the focus be on the theater that allowed many of these teens into the film unescorted by a parent?

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 09-05-2007, 05:15 PM:

Very true, plenty of jerks around in "my day."

But, can't blame the theatre for sure either. A lot of those kids might have been "brought in with permission" and then dropped off by their parents. The same thing happens here by the dozens whenever we have an R-rated movie.

Posted by Phil Blake (Member # 2012) on 09-05-2007, 10:13 PM:

I Agree Mike , the jerks of today leave the the ones in our day for dead .

I see them roll up here , filthy dirty, bare feet, drunk, swearing, no respect for themselves or anyone else, treating their girls like trash (and they seem to love it [Confused]

). I do wonder where it is heading , scary, these guys will be running our country's one day,
[Frown]

Posted by Allison Parsons (Member # 2728) on 09-05-2007, 10:20 PM:

when are they going to invent a cell phone blocking system of sorts? Or is there one already?

Posted by Sam Graham (Member # 2889) on 09-05-2007, 11:03 PM:

"We're working with the police as we always do."

THAT should boost business...

Posted by Wyatt Copeland (Member # 4433) on 09-05-2007, 11:48 PM:

Don't some theatres keep cattle prods in their booths to strike lamps? (hehe [Big Grin]

)
Crowd controll people! Get those prods out [beer]

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 09-06-2007, 12:34 AM:

quote:
The girls started yelling and refused to leave, Evans said. When police attempted to restrain them, they started swinging their arms, striking officers.

(snip)

A 17-year-old from Gary was bitten by a police dog after refusing to present his hands to be cuffed. The teen was trying to attack someone, Evans said. He was arrested for disorderly conduct and resisting law enforcement.

I would dare say the teenagers were different when I grew up ('70s). We actually had fear of the cops, even the ones here who are all nice guys and pretty much know everyone in town. The problem is, these kids never get in "real" trouble for misbehaving at home, and the parents are afraid to punish them for fear of being accused of child abuse, so....this is the result.

I'm glad I'm not a parent, I'd probably be in jail for making my kids behave themselves.

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 09-06-2007, 12:43 AM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
I'm glad I'm not a parent, I'd probably be in jail for making my kids behave themselves.

NOooo! Have some kids! The world needs more from people like you!

Posted by Chad M Calpito (Member # 3736) on 09-06-2007, 09:38 AM:

Kids in the 1980's (teenagers, including myself) were a lot better than today's kids. If I had kids of my own, which I am glad that I don't, I would make sure they would behave. But, since I don't have kids and never plan to have any, I won't have to worry about that.

Posted by Thomas Pitt (Member # 4322) on 09-06-2007, 11:59 AM:

There are cell phone blocking systems already, but I don't think they're legal yet - something to do with the FCC regulations (and high radiation exposure)

In this country, we don't have 'R' rated movies where people younger than 17 have to be accompanied by an adult. We do, however, have '12A' movies - nobody younger than 12 may see a 12A movie without an adult along.
Movies such as 'Halloween' are likely to be rated 15 or 18 though. Nobody younger than that age will be let in to see the movie, regardless of whether they're with an adult or not. Come on BBFC, hurry up and introduce the 21 rating! [Big Grin]

I'm lucky to never have had a major disturbance while watching any movie in a cinema. I have seen and heard people chatting to themselves (usually about a scene in the movie), cell phones going off, and people playing 'shadow puppets' with the projector beam (usually only during the credits). Normally, if a cell phone goes off, the person with the phone will either end the call straight away or go out of the auditorium to take it.

Posted by James Westbrook (Member # 3690) on 09-06-2007, 12:08 PM:

Sometimes one of the megaplexes will become a teen hangout. My sister theatre in Lubbock is one, and they have hell every weekend.

Posted by Mitchell Dvoskin (Member # 751) on 09-06-2007, 12:41 PM:

This company in the UK sells cell phone jammers for every country except the UK. They have models from small personal hand held units to big units that would block an entire auditorium.

Cell Phone Jammers

Just beware, as stated above, these are illegal to use in the USA, so that they could get seized by customs with no refunds to the purchaser. There is also a big fine if you get caught using one here, which is why I never bought one.

Posted by Phil Blake (Member # 2012) on 09-08-2007, 02:06 AM:

These jammers seem like the ideal solution, as there are not any on the market in Australia I did some research into the legality of them.
The following article makes the decision to put one in easy.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/07/11/1057783341342.html

July 11 2003

The Australian Communications Authority says its does not support a call for a ban on mobile phone jammers to be lifted and has recommended to the government that the current ban on the use, possession and supply of the devices stay in place.

The ACA re-examined the issue following a call for the ban to be lifted so that the devices could be used by prisons.

ACA chairman Tony Shaw said the organisation understood the concerns raised by Corrective Services and recognised that use of mobile phones in prisons needed to be addressed.

However, he said the ACA had found that the disadvantages of allowing the use of jammers outweighed the advantages, even in prisons.

In 1999, after public consultation, the ACA declared mobile telephone jammers to be prohibited devices under the Radiocommunications Act 1992 (the Act). The prohibition makes it an offence to operate or supply, or possess for the purpose of operation or supply, such a device.

The principal reasons for the ban were:

* Mobile phone jammers cause deliberate interference to licensed services operated by the mobile carriers, and may cause interference to other services operating in adjacent spectrum bands.
* Jammers transmit signals that interfere with reception from mobile phone base stations. All mobile phones being used within a radius of up to four kilometres from the jamming device could be ‘jammed’.
* Concern that radiation levels of high-powered devices may result in human exposure to levels of electromagnetic radiation that exceed the maximum permitted under Australian health exposure standards. This has implications for public health and safety, especially in confined areas.

Under the Radiocommunications Act, the ACA can prosecute any person operating, supplying, or possessing a jammer with penalties of up to two years’ imprisonment or a fine of up to $165,000.

Mr Shaw said one of the key issues for the ACA was the potential for a jammer to interfere with calls to 000 for police, fire and ambulance services and calls to numbers used by other emergency organisations such as poisons information.

“Jammers cannot be contained to a discrete location and there is a danger of spill-over beyond the area which the device is set up to cover,” he said. "This could create a serious and avoidable risk to life in an emergency by preventing calls being made to 000. During 2002-03, 29 per cent or 1,128,339 of the 3,953,564 genuine calls to the emergency call service originated from mobile phones."

He said the ACA had recommended to the government that alternative solutions to prevent use of mobile phones in prisons be considered by corrective services.

These included improved searching at the point of entry and the use of disabling devices, electronic detectors or micro-cells to monitor all mobile phone calls going into and out of prisons.

........ I guess not.

Posted by Bastiaan Fleerkate (Member # 3826) on 09-08-2007, 03:06 PM:

Make a Faraday cage of your auditorium!

It solves every problem of spill-over...

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 09-09-2007, 03:17 PM:

quote: Bastiaan Fleerkate
Make a Faraday cage of your auditorium!

It solves every problem of spill-over...

And THEN use a jammer. Unless the FCC or whatever regulatory agency is sending out detection squads into your theatre, there is no way they can detect the jammer.

I say the whole idea that somehow there has to be a guarantee of cell service every place on the planet is ludicrous. Most of the basement and first floor of our theatre complex had very poor or no cell reception. What did people do before cell phones? Given how many structures like our theatres naturally attenuate cell signals, it should be very easy to just add a little more signal-blocking material to passively "jam" cell signals. And aren't other mobile devices like walkie-talkie's supposed to be on separate bands? Sounds to me like there is probably a cell carrier company pushing behind this legislation. Can't they write a law that allows low-level active jamming that doesn't ban it but puts in parameters about how far it can radiate and how much it can radiate, just like the FCC has provisions for low level or "carrier current" radio broadcast. It's allowed but it has strict parameters that prevent it from interfering with other types of transmission. Seems like that kind of approach is more appropriate than total ban.

I do like the idea of a "personal" jammer that you can carry around with you -- the minute you hear someone on a cell phone in the theatre with you, you just flip the thing on in you pocket and that's the end of THAT nonsense. And I wouldn't be to worried about being caught by authorities; I mean, it's pretty hard to miss a big FCC truck with a triangulation antenna on top driving into the theatre lobby. Besides, stamping out stupidity and arrogant behavior is everyone's responsibility. [Razz]

quote: Mike Heenan
Yeah but I bet alot of teens during your generation were jerks and aholes too. And shouldn't the focus be on the theater that allowed many of these teens into the film unescorted by a parent?

No, no they were not. Luckly for us, we never had to even think that someone would have a gun in school or that riots would break out in a theatre we were attending. We had our own shortcomings, that's for sure (we believed everything our government told us without question -- or at least some did), but annoying the crap out of everyone at a movie or turning the theatre into a brawling free-for-all -- if that ever did actually happen, I never heard about it.

Posted by Joel N. Weber II (Member # 3530) on 09-09-2007, 06:38 PM:

A very strong signal on a different frequency can prevent a reciever from recieving a weak signal. Some recievers are not terribly good at rejecting signals outside the band they're designed to operate in; and some transcievers have coverage of a rather broad set of frequencies in their recievers as a ``feature'' which has the side effect of making them more vulnerable to interference.

Posted by Louis Bornwasser (Member # 3063) on 09-09-2007, 06:55 PM:

Frank: I LIKE the idea of a farraday shield that limits the range of your 10 KW phone jammer. Louis

Posted by Sam King (Member # 4029) on 09-09-2007, 10:03 PM:

Would the cell phone jammers affect the 2 way radios used by theatre staff and management?

Posted by Joel N. Weber II (Member # 3530) on 09-10-2007, 09:08 AM:

Passive insulation probably would affect two way radios used by the theater.

Assuming that the radios operate without a repeater, if the passive insulation is on the outer walls of the building, and not on the interior walls, it might well make the radios work better within the building, but it might make communicating with someone in the parking lot more difficult.

(With a repeater, you can probably strategically locate repeater antennas in all the right places to work well, but it's hard to imagine that the average multiplex is going to spend thousands of dollars on a repeater system with many voting recievers and multiple transmitters.)

With an active jammer, that depends on how well the radios reject the signal from the jammer, which is a matter of the design of the radios. More expensive radios that also happen to only recieve in one band would likely be the best in ability to operate in spite of an active jammer.

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 09-12-2007, 11:26 AM:

quote: Mike Blakesley
But, can't blame the theatre for sure either. A lot of those kids might have been "brought in with permission" and then dropped off by their parents. The same thing happens here by the dozens whenever we have an R-rated movie.

Except that R means "Under 17 must be accompanied by parent or guardian."

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 09-12-2007, 11:31 AM:

That's up to each location to enforce as they see fit. If the management of that location had any brains, they would enforce that rule to the letter. Of course part of the problem is, it's a multiplex so the kids buy a ticket to Underdog and then sneak over to Halloween. A ticket checker at the door to the Halloween movie is called for.

Here, our kids are pretty well behaved, because they know that I know all their parents! So we allow parents to drop them off to R movies, as long as they come to the boxoffice and tell us it's OK for their kid (not all of the neighborhood kids) to see the movie.

Posted by Jeremy Jorgenson (Member # 2989) on 09-16-2007, 07:33 PM:

There were good kids in the 70s, 80s and 90s ... there are good kids now. There were jerks in the 70s, 80s and 90s, there are jerks now. One article from the Sun Times written about Hobart IN isn't going to convince me that the entire youth of today is bad ... blah blah, anyway my point wasn't going to have anything to do with that, but with this:

quote: Sun Times article
"Halloween" is rated R by the Motion Picture Association of America, meaning children younger than 17 aren't allowed to see the movie without a parent or guardian.

quote: Chris Slycord
R means "Under 17 must be accompanied by parent or guardian."

quote: Mike Blakesley
That's up to each location to enforce as they see fit. If the management of that location had any brains, they would enforce that rule to the letter.

I don't even know if I'd call it a "rule", just a suggestion. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the MPAA does not have any legal status to
a) prohibit certain aged individuals from seeing a film that they (the MPAA) have rated
or
b) penalize a theatre owner or chain for allowing a certain age group into a particularly rated film.

Certain municipalities may have adopted laws which adhere to the MPAA guidelines (particularly in NC-17 cases, but occasionally for R rated films too). But, so far as I know, there is no federal law that prohibits those under 17 to watch an R rated film unless accompanied by an adult.

Posted by Martin Brooks (Member # 1269) on 10-08-2007, 05:48 PM:

IMO, the cell phone issues were irrelevant. This sounds like a bunch of teens who were out for what they perceive was a "good time" and were looking for trouble. If the cell phone didn't set them off, something else would have.

The theater management should have realized that stopping the film would have caused the teens to go nuts. What they should have done, assuming the audience was almost all teens, was to let the show go on after the cell phone abusers were removed, and refund money to anyone who complained about all the talking.

I think what the MPAA could do is not permit theaters who don't abide by the restrictions of the rating system to use the rating system. But it will never happen because neither the MPAA nor the theaters want to reduce admissions.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 10-08-2007, 06:02 PM:

Well guys... Hobart is a kinda rough town... mostly Steelworkers unemployed and not and so on.... not far from Gary/Hammond which is an even rougher area. I used to service the Art Theater in Hobart years ago. Neither are places you drive through with nice shiny new spinning Chrome Wheels on your Escalade and expect them to still be there when you exit the other side of town.

Mark