Recommended Posts

I don't condone the woman's behaviour - if there is one thing I hate more than anything, it is people with lack of consideration for others in public places. If it were me, the urge to punch her would have been pretty hard to resist; nevertheless, it was not his place to confiscate or destroy her private property, and cause a scene which was arguably more disruptive than her use of the phone. The staff of these places need to be more vigilant and throw these social animals and their phones out.

I don't condone the woman's behaviour - if there is one thing I hate more than anything, it is people with lack of consideration for others in public places. If it were me, the urge to punch her would have been pretty hard to resist; nevertheless, it was not his place to confiscate or destroy her private property, and cause a scene which was arguably more disruptive than her use of the phone. The staff of these places need to be more vigilant and throw these social animals and their phones out.

She stormed out and he got to finish watching the play. I'd say his actions resulted in *less* of a disturbance than she was causing, over time. I'm willing to bet he got applause when it happened, as well.

I don't condone the woman's behaviour - if there is one thing I hate more than anything, it is people with lack of consideration for others in public places. If it were me, the urge to punch her would have been pretty hard to resist; nevertheless, it was not his place to confiscate or destroy her private property, and cause a scene which was arguably more disruptive than her use of the phone. The staff of these places need to be more vigilant and throw these social animals and their phones out.

So, you condemn the man for smashing the phone, but then you say you don't know if you could control yourself not to punch her? You're talking about actually applying a physical force to a woman! How could such a thought even cross the mind of a man? It's pathetic.

Then you say he had no right to do it and caused a scene, but you are perfectly fine if the management did precisely the same. So I wonder, on whose authority would the management be acting when destroying their patrons' private property.

...

The man is praised because he acted in the interests of the public, he did a common good. I may not agree with his method either, but it worked. Yes, it was an example of reckless behaviour on this mini-hero's part. He too was motivated by emotions, not reason.

Removing the battery or giving the phone to the management would suffice imho.

It may have been a common good, but he still destroyed private property. Property that was quite probably worth several hundred dollars. Whatever her actions, his were unacceptable and deserves arresting for it.

Criminal damage is criminal damage; provocation is irrelevant. This would also come under theft as well, so if she makes a complaint, this guy is screwed.

  • Like 2

Shouldn't theaters and cinema employ signal suppressants to prevent people using their phones in these places. That would surely solve a lot of problems.

I know our local cinema had them for a while, as soon as you were within confines of the building all you could get out your phone was emergency calls.

If you have a problem with this practice either don't go or step outside to use your phone.

And if it had? Would that have been against some kind of law? Are we that much of a pacifist nation that somebody would have complained if they'd been smacked by a flying cell phone, instead of just handling it between themselves outside the theater?

I think he was probably the only reasonable and sane person there, and some people just don't "get it" unless you get physical with them. He tried to be diplomatic. He approached the resident security team, he tried speaking to her about it, and none of those avenues resolved the problem. It's about like the difference between spanking your kids and giving them a "time out". Some kids just don't get it unless you give them a good spanking once and a while. Apparently this girl didn't get enough of them as a child.

There we go. The first really reasonable reply on here!!

Damn rude people and their cell phones should BOTH be thrown some where!!

Shouldn't theaters and cinema employ signal suppressants to prevent people using their phones in these places. That would surely solve a lot of problems.

I know our local cinema had them for a while,

>

The problem is, what if there is a true emergency inside the theater (medical, shooter, etc.) that requires emergency responders? The liability for delays could well be on the venue for using the jammers, which is probably why most all venues that were using them quit.

It may have been a common good, but he still destroyed private property. Property that was quite probably worth several hundred dollars. Whatever her actions, his were unacceptable and deserves arresting for it.

Criminal damage is criminal damage; provocation is irrelevant. This would also come under theft as well, so if she makes a complaint, this guy is screwed.

Agreed 100%. However, putting things into the perspective, the retail price of her phone is minuscule compared to the total cumulative amount all the visitors had paid to be there and couldn't enjoy the show. He destroyed a phone, but she destroyed the experience of everyone there.

The interests of a group of people always take the upper hand over those of an individual.

I wonder, but if he had grabbed her phone with the intent to do something with it, and she either a) pepper sprayed him, or b) beat the **** out of him, would she get in trouble for it? She didn't know what he was going to do regardless. It surprises me the amount of people on here that condone what he did, but hate the fact that I can do something about someone breaking into my house. I don't get it. If the management of the place decided not to do anything, since they are more or less the 'police' for it, you guys should be perfectly fine with me doing something to someone that the police knew about but ignored.

Honestly, I think she should press charges. Sure she was being a jerk and she should've been kicked the hell out by the staff but he was not only a jerk, he was a physically violent jerk.

oh cry me a river.

It may have been a common good, but he still destroyed private property. Property that was quite probably worth several hundred dollars. Whatever her actions, his were unacceptable and deserves arresting for it.

Criminal damage is criminal damage; provocation is irrelevant. This would also come under theft as well, so if she makes a complaint, this guy is screwed.

This is the guy of person who lets people walk all over him...clearly.

once again people deciding that a criminal act is justified, because they say so, this was theft, criminal damage and assault and he would not have the grapes to do this to a man my size, I would have punched his face in, nice to know this coward can attack women though.

while people like these women **** me off and I would love to do this, he has no right to violate and bully them and be proud about it...other people showing him support are just as pathetic.

  • Like 1

you guys are looking at this all wrong. The solution? Personal Cell phone jammers. I take one with me everywhere I go...~15-20 ft radius and it kills everything...now about my sperm count....

you guys are looking at this all wrong. The solution? Personal Cell phone jammers. I take one with me everywhere I go...~15-20 ft radius and it kills everything...now about my sperm count....

I LIKE THIS. cause i like gadgets... tell me where i can get one! (and more cheap gadgets)

you guys are looking at this all wrong. The solution? Personal Cell phone jammers. I take one with me everywhere I go...~15-20 ft radius and it kills everything...now about my sperm count....

I wouldn't mind having a jammer. :laugh:

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Posts

    • Didn’t Dbrand once complain that Casetify was ripping off their designs a well? seems pretty bad of them to try and get around Valve’s copyright this way with that in mind.
    • Dbrand thought they could get away with this Steam Machine case, Valve disagreed by David Uzondu Image via Dbrand Dbrand has cancelled its highly anticipated Companion Cube enclosure for the Valve Steam Machine, which it teased back in November of last year with a concept render and sign-up page, because it did not ask Valve for permission first before manufacturing the case. According to Dbrand, it took the "backwards approach" of building the product first before asking for permission from the copyright holder. Seven months of work went into the project, requiring over a thousand engineering hours from the design team. Workers developed forty-four sets of injection molding tools, making a unique mold for each sub-component of the crate. When the Companion Cube went live on Monday last week, it, according to Dbrand, quickly became the second-fastest-selling product in the company's fifteen-year history, racking up orders for hundreds of thousands of units. Customers eagerly bought the $129.95 deluxe edition or the bare-bones $99.95 version, which the manufacturer cheekily branded as the "Poverty Cube". It was around this time that the legal eagles at Valve descended on the accessory maker with a formal demand. The developer pointed out that the iconic block design remains protected intellectual property from the game Portal, so unlicensed sales had to stop. Dbrand said that all its pleas to salvage the project with the Valve team, including proposals to run a properly licensed release under official terms "with their blessing", fell on deaf ears, so it had no choice but to obey and remove every trace of the product from the internet. If you bought the enclosure, the company said that banks will process your refund by the end of this week, but if it still hasn't arrived in your account by then, you should not hesitate to contact support. The Steam Machine itself is a high-performance console that Valve designed directly to bring PC gaming into the living room. It was announced on 12th November 2025 (the same day Dbrand announced the Cube) and runs on the Linux-based SteamOS, the same OS that powers the Steam Deck. As for the price, due to the shortage of memory and storage chips, the hardware cost landed much higher than people were expecting, starting at $1,049 for the 512 model (without a controller) or $1,128 with the new gamepad. The premium 2 TB model pushes those prices even higher, selling at $1,349 for the standalone console and hitting $1,428 if you want the bundle.
    • It's listed #399.99 on Amazon, per your link. It's not $299.99.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Rookie
      Almohandis went up a rank
      Rookie
    • Apprentice
      jahara21 went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Reacting Well
      NovaEdgeX earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • Week One Done
      NovaEdgeX earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Year In
      BA the Curmudgeon earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      534
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      263
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      148
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      97
    5. 5
      macoman
      59
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!