|
|
 
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Couple arrested and charged with a felony for sneaking into a movie
|
Mitchell Dvoskin
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1869
From: West Milford, NJ, USA
Registered: Jan 2001
|
posted 02-28-2013 08:21 AM
The Article
quote: The Smoking Gun
FEBRUARY 26--Meet Lendsey and Delilha Harbin
The married couple went to the movies Saturday night at a multiplex in Portage, Indiana, where they watched “Snitch,” starring Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson. When the action flick ended, the Harbins exited theater #13 and headed into theater #15, where the zombie film “Warm Bodies” was about to start.
The Harbins, however, had not purchased $6.75 tickets to the second movie, which resulted in the duo’s arrest for felony theft, according to a Portage Police Department report.
Two off-duty cops working security at the Portage 16 IMAX were standing outside theater #13 as “Snitch” was letting out. One officer reported alerting to Lendsey Harbin, 49, due to his “very colorful clothing, white vest, white dress pants, and a bright red shirt.” The second cop advised that he thought the Harbins had previously “attempted to sneak into movies without paying for the tickets.”
After the cops could not locate the Harbins in the hallway, they canvassed surrounding theaters and found the couple waiting for “Warm Bodies” to begin. After previews had ended and the movie started, the officers approached the Harbins and requested they exit the theater.
When asked for their ticket stubs, the Harbins came up empty. “I know we done wrong,” said Delilha Harbin, 40. The pair reportedly “advised they had snuck into movies at this movie complex 3 to 4 other times.” The Harbins, who live in nearby Gary, Indiana, also claimed they “were at a funeral all day and just were not thinking correctly.”
The duo was “taken into custody without incident” and transported to the Porter County jail, where they were booked on the felony count and later released on their own recognizance.
Felony charges over $6.75? Wow, you people are tough in Indiana...
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leo Enticknap
Film God
Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000
|
posted 02-28-2013 08:54 AM
That does seem rather extreme.
I'm not for one moment suggesting that they shouldn't have been apprehended and charged (loss of revenue from people sneaking into theatres is a major problem, or at least it was when I worked in them), but a punishment on that scale is surely going to undermine confidence in the law. It reminds me of the incident a few months ago when someone here was fined £2,000 and given a suspended jail sentence for putting non-recyclable items in her recycling bin, and then the following day a thug was given no more than a probation order for kicking a stranger's head in and leaving him needing multiple surgeries on the street one night. The view was expressed in the forum site of my local paper that the police would far rather arrest compliant, soft targets such as the recycling lady than violent criminals, the apprehension of which might put their own safety at risk.
Note of explanation for British readers: The distinction between a misdemeanour and a felony in US law is roughly equivalent to that between a summary (trial by magistrate) and an indictable (by jury) offence here, except that in most US states, a felony conviction has other legal consequences that a criminal record in Britain doesn't, including loss of the right to vote (for life) and to work in certain jobs (e.g. law and medicine).
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Frank Angel
Film God
Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 02-28-2013 10:53 AM
A good lawyer will dispense with this in a heartbeat. And what's this business that they were found "sneaking" into a second theatre? They didn't have to SNEAK in because theatres, at least here in NYC, make no effort whatsoever to stop people from doing just that.
If a theatre were really being finacially hurt by screen hoppers, all they would need to do is put a ticket-taker at each theatre entrance, or they would have traffic designs that would corral patrons into a specific theatre a the point of ticket-taking. Or use smart tickets that would set off an alarm if someone with a ticket for one theatre tried to enter any another.
I once was told by a manager that as far as he was concerned, the longer a patron stays in the theatre, the better. If they "sneak" into a second movie they are likely to buy more concessions. He said the theatre keeps 98% of concession profits and only 20% of the ticket sale. Do the math. His concession per capita goes up the longer the patron stays in that theatre.
I don't even think I have ever seen a sign posted anywhere in a chain theatre saying that screen hopping was not permitted or even illegal. There has always been very visible anti-copyrighting communication from screen trailers to posted 1-sheets, but a decided lack of communicating that screen hopping is illegal. I've seen signage posted in many department stores announcing that shoplifting is illegal and will be prosecuted, but never such postings about screen hopping in theatres. A good defense lawyer could use that laissez-faire stance by the theatres to his client's advantage.
The felony charge of course is bogus; I would think even a misdemeanor would be excessive. Slap a few thousand dollars fine on them should send the message home loud and clear.
The last thought, just from what you want patrons to experience in your theatre, I would never pull someone out of the theatre once the show started for anything except if they were disturbing others. To cause a scene like that is very disturbing to everyone in that room and guarantee it would leave those patrons with a negative impression of thae theare, especially since they have no idea why the cops are dragging them out of their seats.
I would always wait for the show to be over and then do what is necessary as quietly and unobtrusively as possible, probably get them into an office to make the arrest. In this case they were arrested without incident, but supposed they made a scene; suppose the woman started crying or yelling or resisting? You could wind up traumatizing your patrons. Aside from it be disruptive to everyone watching the movie, people find that kind of thing very disturbing when they thought they were just going out for a relazing evening. Sure the couple was apprehended, but you always have to balance it against what cost. What to you gain, what do you loose. And the theatre didn't get their lost ticket sales back by the arrest.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dennis Benjamin
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1445
From: Denton, MD
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 02-28-2013 11:05 AM
That's better than dying in police custody after trying to watch a second movie:
LINK
FREDERICK, Md. (AP/ABC7) - State and Frederick County officials are investigating the death of an intellectually disabled man who had a medical emergency when he was handcuffed by deputies at a movie theater in Frederick.
The Frederick County Sheriff's Office says deputies were called after 26-year-old Robert Saylor of New Market refused to leave the theater on Saturday.
Saylor's mother, Patti Saylor, said her son was with a health aide when he left their home last Saturday night to see the movie "Zero Dark Thirty."
When the movie ended he wanted to see it again and refused to leave. Three sheriff's deputies, working a detail at the theater, were called in to handle the situation.
Authorities say he was handcuffed and was resisting the deputies' attempts to remove him when he had a medical emergency. The office says the deputies removed the handcuffs and took him to a hospital, where he died.
Cpl. Jennifer Bailey, a sheriff's office spokeswoman, tells The Frederick News-Post that Saylor had Down syndrome. She says the office delayed releasing information about his death at his family's request. An autopsy is being conducted.
Patti is fighting to understand how a brush with the law ended in her son's death.
"He just loved unconditionally every body," Saylor said.
Patti said her son had no pre-existing medical conditions, and she can't understand how he died after being taken into police custody.
"He has never had anyone put their hands on him in his life. He would not have been doing anything threatening to anybody," she added.
With a heavy heart, his mother waits for the medical examiner's report.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scott Norwood
Film God
Posts: 8146
From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas)
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 02-28-2013 11:34 AM
Frank--I don't disagree with you on principle, but most multiplex-style tickets do say on the back something to the effect of "valid only for the date, time, title, and auditorium indicated" and "patrons should retain tickets as proof of purchase." That seems like it should be enough to demonstrate that theatres do not want people to move from one screen to another, just as multi-screen drive-ins have policies about not switching screens for the second feature.
The felony thing is insane, though. The manager should have given the customers the choice of paying for a ticket for the second show or leaving. If they refused, he should have then called the cops and had them arrested for trespassing. Getting the customers charged with a felony just makes the industry look bad, and also devalues the legal system generally. In any case, this isn't theft. Nothing was stolen (at least according to the article). Trespassing, yes, but not theft.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
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.
|
Home
Printer-friendly view of this topic