A Philadelphia man faces charges including attempted murder after allegedly shooting another man who was talking during the new Brad Pitt movie.

James Joseph Cialella Jr., 29, allegedly became enraged after two other men talked during a Christmas night screening of “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button,” The Philadelphia Inquirer reported Friday. The victim — who was apparently chatting with his son during the movie — told police Cialella told him to be quiet and threw popcorn at his son at about 9:30 p.m.

The man, whose identity was not reported, said some words were exchanged and Cialella then got out of his seat. The man said he got up to protect his son, and Cialella then shot him in the arm with a .380-calibre gun, the newspaper reported.

As patrons ran from the theater, Cialella reportedly went back to his seat and resumed watching the movie — until police showed up to arrest him on charges of attempted murder, aggravated assault and weapons violations.

Cripes. He didn’t even move to another part of the theatre?




  1. gquaglia says:

    became enraged after two other men talked during a Christmas night screening

    Ahh, that holiday spirit!

  2. Special Ed says:

    I’m not saying I agree, but I understand.

  3. Olo Baggins of Bywater says:

    Kid deserved it.

    Should just slapped him, however.

  4. bac says:

    If the father was packing a gun, this wouldn’t have happened.

  5. Angel H. Wong says:

    Men arguing over a Brad Pitt movie? That’s definitively gay.

  6. OvenMaster says:

    Yet another reason to wait for the DVD release that you can watch in the comfort of your own home instead of potentially pissing off trigger-happy jerks.

  7. ArianeB says:

    “Cripes. He didn’t even move to another part of the theatre?”

    The story said it was a Christmas Night screening, and was probably sold out.

    Two rules everyone should learn: Never go to a restaurant on Valentines, and never go to theater on Christmas.

  8. Ron Larson says:

    Last week in my town a patron was stabbed in the chest by the ticket taker for trying to bring a coffee in to the theater. He survived. The cops found the ticket taker hiding in the upstairs mens room.

    I guess that theater is dead serious when they say “No outside food or beverages”.

  9. bobbo says:

    Nice ironic review but still, I’ll say it directly: more gun violence because of the presence of guns. Yet people will still argue guns make them safe. (( Yes, #4–bac was being sarcastic==and it was a good one as are all the rest.))

    The man here was being a criminal moron. Those that defend the presence of guns in our society are: “Silly Hoomans.”

  10. GetReal says:

    The guy broke laws; but you can’t prevent crimes with laws – any crime – any laws. Laws are for after a crime is committed.

    If he stabbed the parent with a knife would that be ok, or would you try to outlaw knives?

    Knives don’t kill people, people kill people.

    What if he strangled the poor guy?

    Hands don’t kill people, people kill people.

    A fervent anti-gun person who experiences a home invasion or similar crime will be at the gun shop the next day – guaranteed.

    btw – just to prevent the usual name calling – I am a liberal, white, northeasterner

  11. mAlice says:

    #9 – It will make the individual that got the cap popped in him to keep his little crotch fruit under control and to stop throwing popcorn.

  12. bobbo says:

    #10–Get Real==why don’t you?

    ENFORCING LAWS PREVENTS CRIME.

    You have an assailant. Its your choice to give him a gun, a knife, or weaponless.

    Dope.

  13. chris says:

    I saw a guy get knocked out in a movie theater before. He was laughing loudly during a death camp scene. Another guy stood up, punched him in the mouth, and sat back down.

    No one said anything.

  14. Steve says:

    # 10 I concur with bobbo. The proliferation of handguns (legal and illegal) in this country is the cause of this kind of craziness. Without a gun in his hand this guy would have been reduced to yelling at the yappers. When crazy people have the option of shooting someone to vent their rage, they sometimes will.

  15. John Paradox says:

    In further news, Crow T. Robot was found dismantled outside a local theater.

    J/P=?

  16. bac says:

    Fear feeding on fear. Why did the Cialella Jr bring a gun to a movie theater? Is he the lunatic with the gun or the person protecting himself from the lunatic with a gun?

  17. bobbo says:

    #16–bac==he’s the lunatic without the gun. You asking the question convinces me you often carry one yourself.

  18. bobbo says:

    Correcting myself #17: “WITH” the gun===but probably without one as well.

  19. bac says:

    #17 — No gun here. If everyone carries a gun that just means there will be more gun wounds instead of knife wounds.

    I do believe that the military uses the term MADD as an excuse to make more weapons.

    May be a person will feel safer if they know they can destroy the whole city.

  20. #9 – Bobo

    >>Those that defend the presence of guns in our
    >>society are: “Silly Hoomans.”

    Oh. If you’re suggesting that guns be removed from our society, I’m with you all the way.

    If, on the other hand, you’re suggesting a redistribution of guns, so that only the ne’er-do-wells have access to them, that’s a whole ‘nother kettle of fish.

    How exactly do you propose un-inventing the gun?

  21. Eric Phillips says:

    I don’t see anything wrong with this. The NRA says more guns in peoples hands will result in less gun crime, it would also mean less talking in theaters. Too chatty: Shot in the arm. Cell goes off: One between the eyes.

  22. bobbo says:

    #20–Mustard==you ask: “How exactly do you propose un-inventing the gun?” /// In all the ways often mentioned with just the recognition that “it will take time.”

    Guns will go out of fashion when they loose their macho appeal. It probably will never reach 0% guns, but the incidence could be reduced greatly.

  23. Mr. Fusion says:

    Hmmm, a gun argument.

    So would the obnoxious talker been safer armed? Was the offended patron justified in shooting the obnoxious talker? Would the obnoxious talker have been justified shooting the offended patron for throwing popcorn before the offended patron could shoot him? Is it easier to run from a knife wielding madman that a gun carrying crazy?

    Questions, questions, questions. Yet the “Guns prevent violence” crowd will somehow find a way to defend this whole scenario.

  24. #22 – Bobo

    >>In all the ways often mentioned with just the
    >>recognition that “it will take time.”

    I must have missed that memo. What ways are often mentioned? Taking them away from law-abiding citizens? That’s really the only one I’ve heard, and it’s not very good, even you will have to admit.

    Or are you seriously putting forth the proposition that all gun manufacturers worldwide be shut down?

  25. bobbo says:

    #24–Mustard==if the law is you can’t have an unregistered gun, then unregistered gun holders are criminals. Who qualifies to own how many and what kind of guns is up to law.

    Bazooka’s, machine guns, street sweepers etc all should be illegal.

    AGAIN–its when over time guns loose their macho/hollywood appeal that loser fantacists will stop stroking their guns.

    I’m reminded of that sports star in NYC who is going to be prosecuted for having an unlicensed gun. The more that happens, the less macho having a gun will be. The more people arrested for being macho in that way, the more stupid they will appear to be===because they are.

    Eventually, I’d like to see cops not carry guns==relying on computers, technology, radios, armed backup and a supportive citizenry to combat crime because people aren’t afraid of being shot by cop.

    Its difficult Mustard because I agree no plan will be “perfect.” Perfection is however a goal to move towards, rather than run away from.

  26. #25 – Bobo

    The sports star was arrested because he FIRED the gun, right into his own damned leg. There will be idiots as long as there are people.

    >>AGAIN–its when over time guns loose their
    >>macho/hollywood appeal that loser fantacists
    >>will stop stroking their guns.

    Handguns have had their “macho/ hollywood appeal” since the 1300s, when they were invented. Unlikely they’ll lose it anytime soon. Better we should facilitate that loss similar to the way Switzerland does – make EVERYONE join the armed services, and then hold them responsible for their gun afterwards.

    Education and information and safety training, Bobster. That’s the key. Not some misbegotten pie-in-the-sky attempt to ban possession of all firearms.

    That cure is worse than the disease.

  27. deowll says:

    Ya know if people would just have a little consideration and let other people enjoy their movie we could avoid crap like this.

    Movie rage

  28. bobbo says:

    #26–Mustard==I have never advocated a ban on all firearms. I said license/regulate and monitor all firearms.

    Yes, Switzerland has lots of appeal but in the group, its death rate from murder by firearms is low while USA leads the group. Adding more guns to the leader of death by firearms takes a greater leap of faith.

    Heres one: No private sales of guns, no flea market sales, no pawn shop sales or loans on guns. All sales thru federally licensed dealers who do a thorough valid check.

    There is a lot that can be effectually done while still allowing “some” gun ownership. Picking special facts to urge failure of gun control is defective.

    As far as shutting down foreign manufacturers. Yes, that should be done in cooperation with foreign governments whereever possible. No need for AK-47’s to be the only property owned by Africans earning $150/year==or anyone in Compton, LAX either.

    As stated—it would take time. Only a gun fetish prevents a reasonable person from agreeing with the wisdom of this===encourage behavior you desire, dis-encourage behavior you don’t want. Simple, but disagreeable==but still simple. Kinda like Paddy-Ohoh.

  29. #28 – Bobo

    >>I have never advocated a ban on all firearms.
    >>I said license/regulate and monitor all
    >>firearms.

    Other than survivalist kooks who bury rifles and canned tuna in their back yards, I don’t know of anyone who disagrees with licensing and regulation of firearms. In fact (and you may be surprised to find this out) firearms are licensed and regulated at this very moment! They may do a shitty job of it, but the laws are in place.

    >>Only a gun fetish prevents a reasonable
    >>person from agreeing with the wisdom of
    >>this===encourage behavior you desire, dis-
    >>encourage behavior you don’t want.

    A gun fetish or pragmatism, and the knowledge of what yet more gun regulation will do in real life.

    I have bought a number of guns in my day (all legally), some were purchased in New Jersey. After having gone through that wringer, I now know why people just go to the ‘hood and pick up an AK-47 on the DL. Not all states are as bad as NJ, but they certainly do a heck of a job of dis-encouraging legitimate gun ownership. Maybe that’s why their crime rate is so high.

  30. heehee says:

    Bobbo said “Bazooka’s, machine guns, street sweepers etc all should be illegal.”

    Bobbo, they are illegal – have been for decades, at least. Your function on this blog must be to make us all feel superior, because you do it so well.

    As someone said earlier, if you get attacked you’ll be at the gun store the next day. Even you bobbster.


1

Bad Behavior has blocked 6115 access attempts in the last 7 days.