Retired police officer kills fellow movie-goer over texting dispute

[MikeTF]

Former Captain of a police force? Something is fishy here.

 

[webb297]

I don't read this the same as most. I see someone asking a rude individual to behave a bit more respectfully. Then it excalates to a gun fight. N0 details were given about what was said or what was threatened. It is possible that this was legitimate self defense. Too bad we'll never know the disposition of this case. Once the anti-gun shine has worn off, it's not worth reporting.

I guess there will always be the guy out there who believes that asking somebody to behave a bit more respectfully can just escalate in to a gun fight, and you can kill somebody because they were a bit rude.

There were plenty of details given, specifically - no weapon was on the texter. If you have a CCW, you have the responsibility to use it as a last means to protecting your life and those around you. Not to settle a dispute because somebody threw popcorn at you.

I hope, if the facts reported in the story above are true, that he spends the rest of his life in prison.

 

[Alphabrew]

Shoothing someone over texting? They should look into his police background and see if anything looks fishy. Dude is obviously cray-cray.

 

[eruby]

gun·fight noun \-ˌfīt\ : a fight in which people shoot guns at each other

Sounds to me like someone is missing a gun. Never bring an Iphone to a "gun fight".

My brother hass an app on his phone that brings up photos of guns and they make realistic shooting noises. I think you shake the phone to 'reload'.

While I DESPISE texters/talkers in movie theaters, I would never shoot one.

 

[Gryphon]

I don't read this the same as most. I see someone asking a rude individual to behave a bit more respectfully. Then it excalates to a gun fight. N0 details were given about what was said or what was threatened. It is possible that this was legitimate self defense. Too bad we'll never know the disposition of this case. Once the anti-gun shine has worn off, it's not worth reporting.

I agree we need to know more before anyone can make judgment, but let's be honest this wasn't a "gun fight" - there was only one gun. There is no way anything good will come out of this incident for anyone actually involved, but it is more fodder for those that want to interject themselves for their own agendas.

 

[Indiana Jones]

Kind of funny. Law abiding citizen shoots someone in sketchy case= patriot freedom fighter hero 2A crusader badass

Cop/ex cop/bother of cop/cops brothers nephews dogsitter shoots someone in sketchy case= COLD BLOODED MURDER

 

[webb297]

Kind of funny. Law abiding citizen shoots someone in sketchy case= patriot freedom fighter hero 2A crusader badass

Cop/ex cop/bother of cop/cops brothers nephews dogsitter shoots someone in sketchy case= COLD BLOODED MURDER

I can not speak for anybody else, but I do not believe that it had anything to do with him being a police officer. He was just a man, who for some reason lost his mind.

 

[PJDiesel]

Kind of funny. Law abiding citizen shoots someone in sketchy case= patriot freedom fighter hero 2A crusader badass

Cop/ex cop/bother of cop/cops brothers nephews dogsitter shoots someone in sketchy case= COLD BLOODED MURDER

I think it just brings into question the basic character of someone who once possessed a lot of power in the public. If he's this short fused about someone texting, what the hell else has been going on? Shooting out the tires of a fleeing minivan comes to mind.....

 

[webb297]

I think it just brings into question the basic character of someone who once possessed a lot of power in the public. If he's this short fused about someone texting, what the hell else has been going on? Shooting out the tires of a fleeing minivan comes to mind.....

The man was last a police officer over 20 years ago, I don't see how that has any relevance to what happened in that movie theater.

 

[PJDiesel]

The man was last a police officer over 20 years ago, I don't see how that has any relevance to what happened in that movie theater.

When would it have been relevant then? 2 years,... still at 10?

 

[FrankOceanXray]

Ya, the LEO thing is just a headline gotcha. Retired plumber just does not have the wow they are looking for here.

At any rate, had some middle/upper management experience (former head of security for a large amusement park was reported). Definitely lost his cool no matter what job used to pay his bills.

 

[Blaster229]

It shows the power that some LEOs feel they have and when they are not obeyed when they feel they should be then they don't like it. Mind you I said some and not all. Still this is much more excessive than one would ever expect. I wonder if the retired cop has cancer or something and he figured he's got nothing to loose by showing that guy who's in charge.

This is more about a 71 year old curmudgeon than it is about a cop. How more pertinent is what job someone held twenty years ago compared to the last twenty years years of aging and not being held together? Assuming he retired probably in his 50's or before.
So, of this guy were an auto mechanic it probably wouldn't have happened....

 

[webb297]

When would it have been relevant then? 2 years,... still at 10?

IMO, it would be relevant if he was a current police officer, It might be relevant if he was a police officer in the recent past (because then how/why he separated from the police might be important), so I would say a year or two.

I am not sure how something the man did as a career 2 decades ago translates to reflect badly on people in a profession today.

 

[PJDiesel]

I am not sure how something the man did as a career 2 decades ago translates to reflect badly on people in a profession today.

Agreed. I was more interested in the possibility of him being a lifetime member of the loose cannon club.

 

[Rack&Roll]

The retired LEO may say... it was a movie theatre, it was dark, I saw a flash or reflection in his hand that appeared to be a firearm...

All important stuff..

Still, in the law you may not escalate a conflict to deadly force if you initiate the conflict.

If you start something and his fists come out, you are limited to your fists. If he beats you to a pulp, then walks away, then returns to deliver a head kick-- then you have justification to use deadly force.

But you will still be in big trouble-- especially on the civil side-- if you started it.

 

[redhawk_hj]

that is pretty sad

 

[Blaster229]

I don't read this the same as most. I see someone asking a rude individual to behave a bit more respectfully. Then it excalates to a gun fight. N0 details were given about what was said or what was threatened. It is possible that this was legitimate self defense. Too bad we'll never know the disposition of this case. Once the anti-gun shine has worn off, it's not worth reporting.

1 gun does not make a "gunfight". Just sayin'

 

[Straightshooter]

The retired LEO may say... it was a movie theatre, it was dark, I saw a flash or reflection in his hand that appeared to be a firearm...

All important stuff..

Still, in the law you may not escalate a conflict to deadly force if you initiate the conflict.

If you start something and his fists come out, you are limited to your fists. If he beats you to a pulp, then walks away, then returns to deliver a head kick-- then you have justification to use deadly force.

But you will still be in big trouble-- especially on the civil side-- if you started it.

Ummm... no. You don't have to get your ass beat first. That's where the " in fear if great harm" comes into play.
Maybe you all missed the part in the articles that says the wife was wounded because she had placed her hand on her husband's chest in a way that indicates she was trying to restrain him. This could indicate that he was going after the old guy. If a 70 something guy is up against an aggressive 20 something, testosterone laden young man, he may be well within his right to defend himself before being beat to a pulp.
Its time to drop the "killed someone over texting" crap and look at the rest of the details.

 

[fabsroman]

I don't read this the same as most. I see someone asking a rude individual to behave a bit more respectfully. Then it excalates to a gun fight. N0 details were given about what was said or what was threatened. It is possible that this was legitimate self defense. Too bad we'll never know the disposition of this case. Once the anti-gun shine has worn off, it's not worth reporting.

No matter what was said or what was threatened, there is no justification for shooting the guy unless the shooter was actually in danger. The way I read it, the shooter was NOT in danger. The way I read it, none of the witnesses even hint that the shooter was in the right.

Guess we will need to follow this one a little more closely to get as much of the story as we can.

The way I read it, starting an argument over using a smart phone to text during the previews is pathetic in and of itself.

Just glad nobody shot me or my son for taking these pics.

Tolerance, it really is a tough thing nowadays because everybody wants everything their way.

 

[Rack&Roll]

Straightshooter: start a conflict and then use a firearm to end it and you will always end up in jail. Yes, the doctrine of Fear of Great Bodily Harm is flexible because of disproportionate size and strength-- but that Get Out Of Jail card expires when you start a conflict and don't walk away while it is at a verbal level.

The only reason Zimmerman walked is that the reported sucker punch that put him on his back negated his chance to "walk away " from a conflict he started.