I think the argument is not that his behavior is stunning etiquette, but it is understandable and his frustration is relatable. Optimally he would've just sat in silence, or driven around to the other entrance, but all things considered, her behavior was more unacceptable. Or to put it another way - this was three minutes out of their respective days. There may be an infinite number of circumstances on either side that we don't see, that would swing our opinion either way. However, if we ignore their emotional states, and just look at the principle, she was dead wrong.

If a restaurant or movie theatre wants to kick you out in the middle of a meal, you can't stay. If a hotel wants to kick you out at 2 am (and lets you pack and take your stuff), you can't stay. That's why they can call the cops to get you out if you refuse to leave - because they have the presumptive right to decide who stays and goes. You have no right to call the cops and ask them to stop the owner from kicking you out, because you have no fundamental right to stay there.

I am not going to say that you're trolling, and your arguments are not unreasonable or dickish, but you're wrong. (In principle) you have a number of potential recourses that you can choose when a proprietor asks you to leave. (in principle) refusing to leave is not one of the options you have any right to exercise.

We can come up with scenarios where it could be argued that you should be allowed to refuse to leave:

1. You're staying at a ski lodge and you will die if you are kicked out into the cold. Then we're no longer talking consumer rights but emergency / health and safety rights.

2. If you leave the premises, you would lose all your other means of recourse, for example if you don't have contact or identifying information for the business you're at. In that case you can ask for that information, and then leave.

In principle, however, sticking around isn't an option, and there's no sane reason why it should be an option. If the business in question doesn't have a valid reason for kicking you out, you get to sue them afterwards.

Uber drivers ARE taxi drivers. By any reasonable definition of the term, there's simply no question of that. They just work for a particularly shit taxi service. There's also a question of whether they are Uber employees, but that's probably another discussion.

How many times do I have to acknowledge that wasn't the case here?

I was responding to the general point that @newtboy made about leaving someone's property if they ask you. It's not that black and white when you're paying for a service. Would you be ok with a hotel knocking on your door at 2am and telling you to get out on the street? Or a movie theatre or a restaurant kicking you out before you finished the movie/meal? They would need a legitimate reason to do so.

Again, I know that is not the case here.

There's a difference between "commandeering a place of business" and expecting a taxi driver to take you to the correct location. It's a pretty unique situation in that you are almost always in an unfamiliar place without transport. It's not the same as staying in a movie theatre.

If I was in a cab and they didn't drop me to where I had asked to go, I would probably get out and refuse to pay. But in an Uber, you've already paid, so staying in the cab is pretty much your only recourse, otherwise, you get dropped on the side of the road somewhere and you can, what... downvote them? Yeah, that's really helpful when you're stuck trying to get somewhere without transport.

That's as a general principle.

In this specific case, I already agreed that she was being an entitled arsehole. She was at the hospital, she should have just gotten out.

My issue isn't that he asked her to leave, my issue is the way he handled it.

You simply don't act like that. Period.

He was borderline violent. That fact that he DIDN'T resort to violence is the only thing keeping him from an assault charge. It's not something to be commended, it's basic civilised behaviour.

He's a taxi driver (Uber = taxi and @Drachen_Jager is right, they should be held to the same standards). His job is dealing with the public. If he can't deal with one annoying person without losing his shit, then maybe this job isn't for him.

OK, you could make that argument about the first amendment, even though the supreme court has ruled “Child pornography, defamation and inciting crimes are just a few examples of speech that has been determined to be illegal under the U.S. Constitution.”, and there's also the "clear and present danger" exception as written in 1919 by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. -“The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic … . The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger.”
The decision says the First Amendment doesn’t protect false speech that is likely to cause immediate harm to others. Because the court is the legal interpreter of the constitution, it's not neglect, it's judicial interpretation. The buck stops at the Supreme Court.

But the second amendment, the topic, STARTS with "A WELL REGULATED militia...", so clearly regulations limiting/regulating firearm ownership and use was exactly what they intended from the start....no?

"[the] world is actually healthier, wealthier, better educated, more tolerant, less violent than it has ever been."

Not in places like Afghanistan, Libya, Jemen, Syria, Iraq, Somalia, Lebanon, downtown Chicago, Detroit or Cleveland. Not in Greece. And I'm not entirely sure it's a better place for the hundreds of millions of Chinese who left their rural areas to become work nomads. Also not sure about the all the millions of people in Africa whose livelihood gets crushed by subsidised produce/corn from the West. Not sure about all the Indian farmers who are driven into suicide by the monopoly powers of seed suppliers. Not sure about India as a whole, now suffering from the third year in a row of a belated monsoon and horrific drought.

"Democracy means you don't everything you want, when you want it, all the time" ... "and occasionally comprise, and stay principled, but recognise that it's a long march towards progress"

He talks the talk, but even for a center-right guy, he doesn't walk the walk. Principles went out the window in Gitmo. Principles went out the window when the drivers behind the illegal war of aggression in Iraq were not prosecuted in accordance with the Nuremberg Principles. Principles went out the window when carpet surveillance pissed all over the Constitution. Principles went out the window when US military forces aid Al-Qaeda affiliates in Syria just because they oppose Assad. Even mentioning principles in the face of the gruesome, drone-driven terror campaigns in at least half a dozen countries makes me want to vomit.

And don't get me started on compromise. If you ban single-payer and drop the public option before negotiations begin, that's not compromise. That's theatre meant to mislead us plebs while you add an additional layer of "market" to an already dysfunctional market, which ends up profiting the insurance companies yet again.

Ummm this isn't "often overlooked"? That's the whole point of a theatre, the size of the screen and impact of the sound.

And no one travels to Paris to see the Mona Lisa, we're already travelling to Paris because it's fucking Paris. Then we see the Mona Lisa while we're there, as something to do, in Paris.

Sorry, this is really contrived.

Gonna wear my brown pants to the theatre to see this!

I've seen it twice now--once on opening night in IMAX with co-workers and the next day with my daughter and wife in 2D at the local theatre. To be honest, I wouldn't have gone to see it again if the local theatre hadn't of gifted me with discounted tickets (around $12 US for me and the wife and $9 for the daughter).

I was deeply disappointed with the film, though I would not go so far as to say it sucks like @kulpims did. If I had to sum it up in two phrases, I'd say "tries too hard to be clever" in homages to the original films and "deeply flawed" in terms of story. It's not a terrible film by any means, but I would say its unevenness makes it good yet far from great.

It's better and worse than the prequels at the same time. Acting and pacing are far better than the prequels (but not nearly as good as the originals as has been pointed out by @ChaosEngine already).

At the same time, say what you want about Lucas's prequels but he at least tried to expand the Star Wars universe and show us new sides and aspects of it--to make it really feel like a galaxy rather than a couple of mostly uninhabited worlds like Tatooine and Hoth that we got to see in the original trilogy. This movie is a step backwards from that and played things waaaaaay too safe (partly because, as I mentioned, they were too busy trying to make themselves look clever with references to the originals and lots of "nod, nod, wink, wink, see what I did there" moments).

But it is JJ Abrams and I shouldn't have really been as shocked as I was to find out how much of the movie was copy/pasted from the originals with twists that I'm sure he thought were clever but which I just found as cringe-worthy.

Still, really loved the new characters. The daughter was definitely enthralled by Rey, but surprisingly likes her better as dune-surfing scavenger than planet-hopping adventurer.

@SDGundamX:

If that's the case then it's sort of a game of chicken. If they don't play Star Wars in a lot of theatres, they'll lose a lot of box office sales.

I wonder how it'll shake out.

Err...peanut galleries weren't meant for just blacks. They were the cheap seats, and peanuts were the least expensive snacks...

Yes, there WERE segregated theatres, but the term wasn't necessarily racial. It was more.. elitist? against the poor.

And Hip Hip Hooray is credited with being dated back to 19th century Britain.. and there's no actual factual proof that it was used during the German hep hep riots.

I just.. can we stop looking for places to find social justice? please? this is just getting silly. There's NOTHING to be offended about, get a better idea for a show and stop skimping on the research that proves your damn idea wrong.

My solution for the people problem is I only go to movies showing on Thursday night at 10:30PM and after the movie has been out for a couple of weeks. My local theatre is called Colossus and has 22 screens including Ultra AVX, Dbox, Imax, and regular, all at different prices.

You may not have words, but the youtube link has PLU-ENTY:

www.snuffpuppets.com

Everybody’s born

Everybody cries

Everybody shits

Everybody dies

Conceived in 2012, Everybody is a giant 26.5m human puppet with articulated, detachable and interactive body parts and organs. Ambitious in scope and subject, it is the largest human puppet on the planet and represents the essential humanness of everybody.

Everybody‘s build is experimental; it’s kind of unimaginable, so big and complex but without high-tech design. Its creation is brute, rough, handmade. Everybody is all genders and multi-racial.

Everybody lies down indoors in theatres, outdoors in parks and in open public spaces. In repose, Everybody sleeps, breaths and stirs. Everybody is not just one puppet but a multitude of independent, roaming human body parts and organs; they are characters in their own epic tale of human existence.

Everybody is an immersive experience. Audiences can walk around, sit on, lie against, get inside, and cuddle up to Everybody and all its beautiful body parts. The giant human puppet is viewed in 360 degrees. Everybody, the experience, is a six-hour interactive art installation, or a 90-minute stage show.

The piece begins with the death of the giant human puppet via a brick thrown at Everybody’s head. The head cracks and its brain oozes out. Everybody watches its life flash before its eyes, from birth through life and ultimately death. Everybody’s now independent body parts and organs perform the journey of its life stages. Everybody is in 4 Acts: Everybody’s Born, Everybody Cries, Everybody Shits, Everybody Dies.

Human performers play audience members or passers-by who find themselves transported into, then flung out of, the brain of Everybody. Everybody is made up of: Mouth, Eye, Poo, Foot, Ear, Nose, Brain, Lungs, Baby, Penis, Vagina, Bum, Skin, Heart, Hand, Guts, Breast and Hair. And with guests, Pig and Brick.

All weapons can be used for assaulting another person. Do you mean semi-automatic rifles similar to AR15s? If so, the NZ example shows you don't need that. They are not the problem.

Many sports require high capacity magazines. In fact the overwhelming amount of bullets fired from firearms everyday is for sport. Why restrict these sports for security theatre? I write security theatre because a magazine change takes less than a second and you're shooting again. It's not going to change the outcome of an active (criminal) shooter who simply pockets multiple magazines. Plus once again the successful story of NZ who passed sensible laws - and didn't restrict semi-automatic rifles or high capacity magazines, yet have crime statistics that are enviable even from an Australian perspective.

I have my doubts as to whether any new laws would change anything in the USA. I don't actually think it's a good solution for them. And constitutionally speaking, more laws are never a good solution (since they restrict liberty).

I think the USA needs a long term societal change, involving fixing many aspects of their society to gradually make things better.