Many struggling cinemas depend on sales of pricey food and drink as ticket revenue mainly goes to film studios. But does banning outside supplies really add up, asks Stuart Heritage
They were responding to a call, which is what they are supposed to do.
What they should do now is have a serious conversation with the cinema chain about wasting police time and fine them. This is not a criminal issue, purely civil.
But we want the police to respond to calls that they receive.
But why 4? Why does the police feel the need to show up in force for two mothers and their gaggle of children? There is “responding” to a call and then there this, sending an implied message of “we are authorized to ruin your life in front of children, so you know you have to cooperate.”
The paper reports that the women agreed to leave the auditorium and continue the discussion in the foyer. Four police officers then entered the cinema lobby, which the woman described as “a bit dramatic”.
The number is dramatic, but the article doesn’t say what the cinema said to get the cops to turn up. Remember this is in NZ, our police don’t carry guns.
This is the really fucked up bit
“My niece asked nicely: ‘If you’re calling the police, are they going to kill my mum?’” one of the women told the newspaper. “And he laughed at that stage. He looks directly in her face and he said: ‘Yeah, maybe we’ll find out.’”
Why the fuck in NZ does a kid think that police go around killing people, thanks media for painting every cop like US cops.
The media wouldn’t be painting every cop like the US cops if the US cops weren’t like the US cops.
Our police apparently can barely wait for an opportunity to act militantly. Refer to the Kim Dot Com raid. That could have been accomplished with four officers.
Our police are (generally) really good. But they shouldn’t be enforcing a civil breach of a business’ terms of service.
If the information supplied to the police was that there were two individuals being beliggerent, with children around as well, they probably wanted strength in numbers.
Because they are so bored they want in on the action rather than patrolling. It’s the same reason you see 8 police cars all parked around a single pulled over vehicle. They are all hopped up on the 'drenny wanting to shoot somebody or sick a dog on them.
Agree. The police can’t evaluate a call out properly until they’re actually there.
I assume that the cinema called them with a slightly exaggerated description of the situation. All it takes is calling the (women) “belligerent” or similar to imply violence. Hence four officers.
My actual beef is that this business is socialising the cost of enforcing their terms of service by calling the police rather than paying for their own security.
Those four cops could have been doing something actually productive for society.
But no, they’re protecting corporate profit margins.
They were responding to a call, which is what they are supposed to do.
What they should do now is have a serious conversation with the cinema chain about wasting police time and fine them. This is not a criminal issue, purely civil.
But we want the police to respond to calls that they receive.
But why 4? Why does the police feel the need to show up in force for two mothers and their gaggle of children? There is “responding” to a call and then there this, sending an implied message of “we are authorized to ruin your life in front of children, so you know you have to cooperate.”
The number is dramatic, but the article doesn’t say what the cinema said to get the cops to turn up. Remember this is in NZ, our police don’t carry guns.
This is the really fucked up bit
Why the fuck in NZ does a kid think that police go around killing people, thanks media for painting every cop like US cops.
The media wouldn’t be painting every cop like the US cops if the US cops weren’t like the US cops.
Our police apparently can barely wait for an opportunity to act militantly. Refer to the Kim Dot Com raid. That could have been accomplished with four officers.
Our police are (generally) really good. But they shouldn’t be enforcing a civil breach of a business’ terms of service.
If the information supplied to the police was that there were two individuals being beliggerent, with children around as well, they probably wanted strength in numbers.
Because they are so bored they want in on the action rather than patrolling. It’s the same reason you see 8 police cars all parked around a single pulled over vehicle. They are all hopped up on the 'drenny wanting to shoot somebody or sick a dog on them.
First, that doesn’t really happen here. Second, it’s incredibly rare for our police to even carry a firearm, let alone use one.
America isn’t the world.
True. I didn’t realize I was in the nz sub. Only speaking from experience in Houston, Texas, USA. Just shows how much I’m broken by our shitty police.
Agree. The police can’t evaluate a call out properly until they’re actually there.
I assume that the cinema called them with a slightly exaggerated description of the situation. All it takes is calling the (women) “belligerent” or similar to imply violence. Hence four officers.
My actual beef is that this business is socialising the cost of enforcing their terms of service by calling the police rather than paying for their own security.
I seriously doubt police respond to every single call. Some are just stupid calls or even crank calls. Plus four cops for this. Really unnecessary.