-
Well...this is one of those cases that everyone is right...
the offended patrons could have did the noble thing and simply left, so the child could continue to enjoy his movie...
they didn't...instead they decided to complain about a handicapped child spending a moment as if he were not handicapped...a break from his reality...
the parents could have noticed that their son was being disruptive and decided to do the noble thing and leave...
they didn't...and so the matter came to a head...
the movie theatre could have realized that some people are irriatated by the company of certain others ( eg. some people are easily irriatated by the presence of the handicapped, a different race, people who are fat, etc... ), and their mere presence is enough to cause them to complain or consider them a problem. And the theatre could have offered to refund the complainers money and suggest they come back another day...
they didn't...instead they decided to ask the boy to leave...probably as a result of their own prejudices
nobody did the right thing...and that's how it got to where it is. If any one of these had performed ' the better part of valor ' the situation would never have come to a head.
Eg ;)
-
Quote:
Originally posted here by Tedob1
was the child just laughing too loudly which was deemed inappropriat by some selfish creeps or was he screaming and laughing like a banshee all the while he was there not allowing anyone else in the theater to even follow the film.?
other people take there children to the movies to have a good time as well and have a right to the entertainment that they've paid for. that should be defended by management.
to me it all depends on what really happened.
It is true we need the other side of the story, but by now, human resources has told the manager and personnel to not say a thing to anyone. I suppose a PR relations strategy and some spin has been launched by now since money, lawsuits, local news etc.... etc.... has been thrown onto the table.
It's true that a manager is supposed to manage, and in some cases he has to be the judge in his establishment or courtroom if you will.
Scenario:
So tiny Tim is wheeled to the front of the theatre in a designated handicap parking/sitting station. Perhaps they haven't any handicap stations.( the lawyers will have a field day with that)
Children alike are laughing aloud to every little pre-movie commercial. Maybe Tim laughs for a little longer than the other kids, maybe he doesn't really know any better. One thing is for sure, he's having a great time, perchance the best 15 minutes of his life. Maybe the kids near laugh at Tim's laughter. Soon every little thing is hilarious to all the kids, until some ornery jackass feels that his/her kid wont be able to follow the storyline and understand how penguins coexist out in the wild etc.... Booooo hooooooo all the kids are laughing and it's all because of that little bastard down there. Now he feels jipped out of a few bucks. He feels compelled to make a stance with management. Management makes a good move by asking the parents to do what they can. He's satisfying the guy who made a complaint. Management makes a bad move by what they do next, if all the kid was doing was laughing at what he unfeignedly thought was funny. If he let the kid stay, so what, a few parents are pissed and wont come back? Now on the other hand they made the news. If I lived there I wouldn't do business with that chain of cinemas. Oh, yeah they don't let little handicapped children enjoy the movies there. I will go about my citizen somewhere else.
-
Quote:
Originally posted here by Tedob1
so you're both saying you wouldn't mind if someone sat a serverly autistic child in the middle of your handicapped children? you wouldn't mind when he started throughing his arms around in your crippled children's faces and banging his head against their wheel chairs? why they might even enjoy watching him bite himself until he blead.
Hey Hey,
There's a big difference between laughing too loud and causing physical harm by hitting other kids... Exceptions have to be made, but violence is still wrong... I'm pretty sure if there was physical violence involved the parents wouldn't be crying out the way they are... I'm pretty sure things would be flowing differently. I'd expect the parents to control their child enough that he's not hitting my kids.... If that can't be done, then I'd make an effort to move if there was other seating available, or come back to another show.. Especially if I could see that the kid was severely disabled and enjoying himself... There's no need to toss the kid from the theatre.... It's common human decency.
Peace,
HT
-
Try looking past his wheelchair and disabilities. There is probably more to this story than what this one side has told. Yes, the movie was supposed to make you laugh--and yes, it was a matinee. However, if that child was laughing to such a degree that it interrupted, disturbed, or all-together ruined the viewing of several to most of the other patron's experience, then by all means he should have been removed. Refunded--but removed.
When I went and saw The Incredibles there were these 3 middle school punks whom laughed histerically at absolutely everything in the movie. It was so excessively annoying that the people around them began scolding them--but to no avail. An usher picked up on this and had them removed about half-way through the movie.
That is what you call business. As those 3 middle school kids were, this 7-year old child was negetively affecting the customers. It doesn't matter if the kid is handicapped, he's ruining other person's experience for what they paid for--Thus, he should be the one removed. If he weren't so disabled this story would have never even made the news. The scenario isn't what made the headline here. A cute kid in a wheelchair having to face the facts of life is what made this a story. Some people just don't understand that.
-
Quote:
Originally posted here by Evil Moo
Try looking past his wheelchair and disabilities. There is probably more to this story than what this one side has told. Yes, the movie was supposed to make you laugh--and yes, it was a matinee. However, if that child was laughing to such a degree that it interrupted, disturbed, or all-together ruined the viewing of several to most of the other patron's experience, then by all means he should have been removed. Refunded--but removed.
When I went and saw The Incredibles there were these 3 middle school punks whom laughed histerically at absolutely everything in the movie. It was so excessively annoying that the people around them began scolding them--but to no avail. An usher picked up on this and had them removed about half-way through the movie.
That is what you call business. As those 3 middle school kids were, this 7-year old child was negetively affecting the customers. It doesn't matter if the kid is handicapped, he's ruining other person's experience for what they paid for--Thus, he should be the one removed. If he weren't so disabled this story would have never even made the news. The scenario isn't what made the headline here. A cute kid in a wheelchair having to face the facts of life is what made this a story. Some people just don't understand that.
Hey Hey,
Comparing a 7 year old handicapped kid to 3 "middle school punks" is just ridiculous... This isn't about facing the facts of life... The rules are different for handicapped and disabled.... "Differently Challenged" people... So there are no facts of life.... I'm ashamed to be a member of the same forum as you when you make comparisons like that... It makes the human race seem a little more inhumane.
Peace,
HT
-
You're right, it's not about "the facts of life" as I so put it. It's about business. That single person was ruining the service that other people spent money on. It was a business decision made by the manager for the best interests of his job and the customers he serves. One handicapped kid does not have more rights or privileges than a theatre full of paying customers.
Society eases the burden on the disabled, but where does it stop? Apparently it's justifiable for the handicapped to ruin a movie you payed for, but what about something else? What if a handicapped person wrecked the car you bought just 10 minutes ago because of their disablity? Are they still not liable? What if a mentally deficient person came into the resturant you owned and was so unruley and wild that customers that susstained your living were leaving?
The difference between the middle schoolers and the child is that they middle schoolers can be reasonably held accountable for their actions. Do you have to be compitant to ruin something for other people? No. Does this mean they should be allowed to continue creating problems? No. Society makes compromises to ease the burden on troubled lives, not serve them with disregard for everyone else.
-
Quote:
Originally posted here by Evil Moo
You're right, it's not about "the facts of life" as I so put it. It's about business. That single person was ruining the service that other people spent money on. It was a business decision made by the manager for the best interests of his job and the customers he serves. One handicapped kid does not have more rights or privileges than a theatre full of paying customers.
Society eases the burden on the disabled, but where does it stop? Apparently it's justifiable for the handicapped to ruin a movie you payed for, but what about something else? What if a handicapped person wrecked the car you bought just 10 minutes ago because of their disablity? Are they still not liable? What if a mentally deficient person came into the resturant you owned and was so unruley and wild that customers that susstained your living were leaving?
The difference between the middle schoolers and the child is that they middle schoolers can be reasonably held accountable for their actions. Do you have to be compitant to ruin something for other people? No. Does this mean they should be allowed to continue creating problems? No. Society makes compromises to ease the burden on troubled lives, not serve them with disregard for everyone else.
Hey Hey,
Laughing too hard is not ruining a movie... Honestly if a person is so uptight that someone laughing (no matter how much... even if it's non-stop) during a movie that is intended to have funny moments upsets them... then they shouldn't be viewing movies in a theatre... view them in the comfort of your own home where you are in control....
That depends on how they wreck the car... and what their disability is..... As for the restaurant... if the patrons of my restaurant couldn't show a little humanity they wouldn't be the type of people to come to any restaurant that I'd open.
Some of us accept social responsibility and are humane individuals.... others such as yourself are greedy, unsympathetic morons.... It's a shame.. but that is what the world comes down to...
The kid laughed at something that he found funny (something in his head made him laugh)... and you want to punish him because another didn't find the same thing funny??? There were other people like that.... they punished people who didn't share the same beliefs... The Nazis come to mind.... so do the KKK... This is the same idea only on a smaller scale...
I wouldn't have left that theatre... not unless that theatre was willing to lay down a trespassing charge and call the police. If I find it funny.. I will laugh... if some poor disabled kid finds something funny... let him laugh to his hearts content... Movie theatres are usually overly loud.. It'd take a hell of a lot out of one person to drown out the movie to the point where it was really a bother... a group of "punks" (I hate the use of that word to describe 'bad eggs'... that's not at all what it means... but anyways...) who are just being moronic... If they're being loud enough to bother everyone.. by all means remove them... but if they are only bothering a few people.. **** those other people.. the "punks" have just as much right to be there and find something humerous...
People need to learn to show a little compassion and understanding.... To be open and accepting of other people.... Unfortunately that's not really something the US has ever been good at... I guess that's why Canada is a mixing pot and the US is a melting pot.... conformity runs high there and this is another example... conform to the set forth examples... or leave... It's pure BS
Peace,
HT
-
Quote:
Originally posted here by HTRegz
Hey Hey,
Laughing too hard is not ruining a movie... Honestly if a person is so uptight that someone laughing (no matter how much... even if it's non-stop) during a movie that is intended to have funny moments upsets them... then they shouldn't be viewing movies in a theatre... view them in the comfort of your own home where you are in control....
That depends on how they wreck the car... and what their disability is..... As for the restaurant... if the patrons of my restaurant couldn't show a little humanity they wouldn't be the type of people to come to any restaurant that I'd open.
Some of us accept social responsibility and are humane individuals.... others such as yourself are greedy, unsympathetic morons.... It's a shame.. but that is what the world comes down to...
The kid laughed at something that he found funny (something in his head made him laugh)... and you want to punish him because another didn't find the same thing funny??? There were other people like that.... they punished people who didn't share the same beliefs... The Nazis come to mind.... so do the KKK... This is the same idea only on a smaller scale...
I wouldn't have left that theatre... not unless that theatre was willing to lay down a trespassing charge and call the police. If I find it funny.. I will laugh... if some poor disabled kid finds something funny... let him laugh to his hearts content... Movie theatres are usually overly loud.. It'd take a hell of a lot out of one person to drown out the movie to the point where it was really a bother... a group of "punks" (I hate the use of that word to describe 'bad eggs'... that's not at all what it means... but anyways...) who are just being moronic... If they're being loud enough to bother everyone.. by all means remove them... but if they are only bothering a few people.. **** those other people.. the "punks" have just as much right to be there and find something humerous...
People need to learn to show a little compassion and understanding.... To be open and accepting of other people.... Unfortunately that's not really something the US has ever been good at... I guess that's why Canada is a mixing pot and the US is a melting pot.... conformity runs high there and this is another example... conform to the set forth examples... or leave... It's pure BS
Peace,
HT
This story has absolutely nothing in common with Nazis or the KKK, and I find it laughable that such a connection can be made.
This story isn't about a person, this story is about a disability. Now before you quote that and immaturely insult me again, read on. This story would have never even made headlines if this child were not handicapped. He was interrupting the enjoyment and service that the entire theatre had paid for. The manager that is being sued for "poor management" merely being a good manager by serving all of his patrons and honoring the financial agreement made when they bought their ticket--not ignoring them because he is overcome by pity for such a sorrowful creature as you seem to find this 7-year old.
Apparently the kid was causing such a problem with enough of the patrons that it was necessary to remove him. The truth is, it doesn't matter what you think. The customers there at that time found him to be a problem and the manager appropriated responded. If anything, the quality of the other partrons is to be repremanded, not the manager. He treated him as any other human being causing a problem and ruining the service paid for by a large number of other people. He treated him like a person, not a defect to be consumed by pity and bleeding hearts. This person, just happened to have a disability. The situation is no more or less complicated or wrongful than that. But what do I know? I'm just some stupid cowboy Yankee.
-
Quote:
Originally posted here by Evil Moo
This story has absolutely nothing in common with Nazis or the KKK, and I find it laughable that such a connection can be made.
This story isn't about a person, this story is about a disability. Now before you quote that and immaturely insult me again, read on. This story would have never even made headlines if this child were not handicapped. He was interrupting the enjoyment and service that the entire theatre had paid for. The manager that is being sued for "poor management" merely being a good manager by serving all of his patrons and honoring the financial agreement made when they bought their ticket--not ignoring them because he is overcome by pity for such a sorrowful creature as you seem to find this 7-year old.
Apparently the kid was causing such a problem with enough of the patrons that it was necessary to remove him. The truth is, it doesn't matter what you think. The customers there at that time found him to be a problem and the manager appropriated responded. If anything, the quality of the other partrons is to be repremanded, not the manager. He treated him as any other human being causing a problem and ruining the service paid for by a large number of other people. He treated him like a person, not a defect to be consumed by pity and bleeding hearts. This person, just happened to have a disability. The situation is no more or less complicated or wrongful than that. But what do I know? I'm just some stupid cowboy Yankee.
Hey Hey,
Well at least you correctly identified yourself and I never immaturely insulted you, I called it based on your actions... As for the comparsion... it is quite accurate.. you are segregating plain and simple... The fact that he's disabled is the part that you keep overlooking and while you think that it doesn't apply... it really does. Is it common for Americans to believe that disabled people have no extra rights and should get no benefits?? Or is that just your thinking? How do you know it irritated several people and not a single patron, that the management was pushed to do it based on fear of that individual, how do you know that people didn't complain because they were ignorant and afraid their children might "catch" what his young boy had... maybe management was afraid having a disabled person in their theatre... There are lots of things that could have happened... Plain and simple, it shouldn't have happened... If you still believe that what happened was right and that nobody was in the wrong, then I truly feel sorry for you.
Peace,
HT
-
Quote:
Originally posted here by HTRegz
Hey Hey,
How do you know it irritated several people and not a single patron, that the management was pushed to do it based on fear of that individual, how do you know that people didn't complain because they were ignorant and afraid their children might "catch" what his young boy had... maybe management was afraid having a disabled person in their theatre...
Peace,
HT
That's precisely correct. We don't know if it was 2-3 people, or half of the theatre that found it to be a problem. People just read the word handicapped in a scenario that was less than deceptively unrealistically blissful for that individual and assume the worst. There is hardly a single reason beyond the word "handicapped" to believe there was any wrong-doing here, or that the situation wasn't to the degree that needed the manager's attention. It is only pity and an overly emotional response that brings the manager's judgement under fire.
Just because you feel sorry for a kid that dealt with someone who didn't perpetuate the illusion of utopia people feel compelled to mask the handicapped with, doesn't mean anything wrong happened. Remove that word and picture from the article and I garuntee that you'd never even have known about it. Why? Because no person would have found it to be unusual or wrong. The only thing unusal about the situation in the slightlest detail is that the kid was indeed, disabled.
People however, enjoy bad news. When they can't find it, they create it. There is no evil here, no malice or villany. There is only pity and an overly emotional response to a purely common, justified, and simple situation.
