A 71 year old ex Captain in the Tampa police department shot dead a 43 year old after a confrontation in the theater. Both were accompanied by their wives. The 43 year old man was texting his 3 year old daughter while sitting in front of the 71 year old.

After an initial fight, the 71 year old stormed out of the theatre, returned a few seconds later, and after another small fight he shot the father. The father's wife had her hand on him right as he was shot, resulting in some injuries.

The 71 year old has been charged with 2nd degree murder after being detained by an off duty sheriff also in the theatre.

For more, see this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-25726591

What are your opinions of this?

Edited January 14, 201412 yr by Iconography
Removed my original silly question.

That's crazy.

 

Like, seriously messed up. You don't shoot a guy because he's texting you report him and have him thrown out.

It's stuff like this that makes me stand very strongly against anyone being allowed guns, and why I'm glad in the UK only tactical armed units carry them. Not standard police.

 

Man who's gonna tell the little girl? :/

Mind you why does a 3 year old have a phone?

 

so many issues lol.

That shooting was definitely not justified, I could understand if the guy had a weapon or the ex cop felt his life was in danger.

 

But shooting an unarmed man.. Over texting during a movie? That is ridiculous, The shooting could have been avoided. Because of this 71 year old's stupidity, a girl has to grow up without a father.

 

this ex cop is a disgrace, i'm thankful that he is no longer on the force. And i'm glad the other officer did the right thing and charged him for murder instead of trying to get him off and claim it was self defense.

That's crazy.

Like, seriously messed up. You don't shoot a guy because he's texting you report him and have him thrown out.

It's stuff like this that makes me stand very strongly against anyone being allowed guns, and why I'm glad in the UK only tactical armed units carry them. Not standard police.

Man who's gonna tell the little girl? :/

Mind you why does a 3 year old have a phone?

so many issues lol.

I assume there was a babysitter at home who was relaying the texts to his daughter, my 3 year old nephew is great with using tablets but there's no way a 3 year old can text at that age.

I also feel the ex-officer committed murder.

Edited January 14, 201412 yr by Iconography

I assume there was a babysitter at home who was relaying the texts to his daughter, my 3 year old nephew is great with using tablets but there's no way a 3 year old can text at that age.

I also feel the officer had no right to shoot the man but I have a feeling he's going to try and use the "stand your ground" law as a defence if he doesn't plead guilty.

Valid point, I didn't even think about the circumstance in which the 3 year old was in lol.

 

I don't know very much about legislation in America, I just know that if this had of happened in the UK he would be locked up regardless and Scotland Yard would put out a massive apology for his actions.

Although personally I don't think any police force should apologise for an ex cop's actions. Why? he retired, he is no longer a cop, he is a normal law abiding citizen like the rest of us and has no right or responsibility to take such actions into his own hands. Leave it to the actual police and management of the cinema.

 

I feel very strongly about guns and the use of weapons, had you noticed? :)

This is far from justified. Why would he shoot him because of a argument? He should had just kept his cool and left the cinema and not come back. Sure he texted, but just tell him to put his phone away, no need to get angry.

 

One question I have, why does it matter if he's a retired police officer? He can still own a gun and I feel like this has nothing to do with the shooting. He had a gun and shot a dad, doesn't matter if he's a retired police officer.

How can a crime be justified? That's not an officer using lethal force, that's a murder.. I wander if the shooter was examined by psychologists before getting a gun permit, or - actually - was the examination fair. I'm afraid that police may try to wrap up this story, they don't like to but cops and ex-cops behind the bars.

Not even close to being justified. You'd think an ex-cop would know better than to shoot a unarmed man who was not even combative, I hope he's charged to the fullest extent of the law. 

Absolutely disgraceful, A little argument over a phone gets a man killed what a joke and by a bloody ex police officer. Flat out murder I highly doubt the stand your ground defense will work against popcorn being thrown at the ex cop by the man... but honestly who knows man how knows.

 

Actually no one even knows if the man threw the popcorn at the bloody ex-cop but he still shot and killed the man anyway!

 

 

 

I'm not sure what "stand your ground" has to do with anything. Despite what was reported in the news, "stand your ground" does not mean "you can shoot whoever you want, and if you say these magic words, you get off scot-free". It just means there is no duty to retreat. You still need to reasonably feel lethal force is necessary to prevent death, grievous bodily harm, or a forcible felony (simple assault is not generally a felony, not when no weapons are involved). If the victim pulled a knife, THAT could be self-defense; if it was shaping up to be a physical fight, the only argument would be "I'm old and frail, and a fight could easily lead to my death".

 

 

Couldn't agree more

Edited January 14, 201412 yr by gameplayvids247

I'm not sure what "stand your ground" has to do with anything. Despite what was reported in the news, "stand your ground" does not mean "you can shoot whoever you want, and if you say these magic words, you get off scot-free". It just means there is no duty to retreat. You still need to reasonably feel lethal force is necessary to prevent death, grievous bodily harm, or a forcible felony (simple assault is not generally a felony, not when no weapons are involved). If the victim pulled a knife, THAT could be self-defense; if it was shaping up to be a physical fight, the only argument would be "I'm old and frail, and a fight could easily lead to my death".

My biggest issue with this story is that they are only charging him with second degree murder. From most of the stories I've read, he went out to his car to retrieve his weapon. That to me is not denoting of second degree murder. At that point in time he would have been able to develop intent and I feel he needs to be charged with first degree murder. He knew exactly what he was doing when he went to his vehicle.

This is just crazy, I read it in the newspaper this morning. Faith in gun-wielding people lost even further. I can't even get a good comment to this event, it's just too fucked up. 

Murder is not justifiable in any case, be it self defense or not.

I think that he known him form some where else and was Agueing right their

about an past time. I think their is still more to this.

 

Sergeanto!

Critical error. FaithInHumanity.bin not found. Rebooting.

 

But seriously, how can you shoot somebody because he was texting on his/her phone? One could think that an ex-cop would know how to handle such situation without violence...

Critical error. FaithInHumanity.bin not found. Rebooting.

 

But seriously, how can you shoot somebody because he was texting on his/her phone? One could think that any functioning member of society would know how to handle such situation without violence...

Fixed that for you.

I should have asked a far better question than "do you think it was justified," as I knew this would would turn into a debate when I posted it so I tried making it into one from the start and didn't go a good job setting it up. Clearly this could never be justified, but the angle I originally was trying to go for was whether or not someone could argue that, if the old man thought his life was in danger, he could try and claim self defense (which I highly disagree with).

I'm appalled by the old man's actions, personally, and I feel it's important to note him being an ex-officer because he should have been better than this.

@Jewish_Banana: Correct, murder in self defense isn't justified. Because it doesn't exist, much as four-sided triangles don't exist. If you kill someone in justified self-defense, it is not murder. It's homicide, yes, but the standard definition is "the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought". If you're saying that killing in self-defense is still immoral, I'd have to strongly disagree: that means that you're essentially saying morality requires one to shut up and die. There are situations where someone's life is being threatened by another, and the only way to stop it is to kill the other; it's the lesser of two evils. Is it perfect? No. Does your morality system require you always make perfect decisions, and never choose the lesser of two evils? Then it's a stupid morality system.

@ineseri: The same thing could have been done with a knife. Guns are used in arguments because they're common; if they aren't available, though, knives can also be used. You could argue the old man was more aggressive because he had a gun (otherwise, his age would make him unlikely to want a physical fight), but to say that this is somehow reflective of most gun-owners is fairly ridiculous.

Icon: If the old man asked the victim to stop texting and the victim responded by hitting him hard, then he might well be justified in using lethal force to end it. It doesn't matter who started an argument; it matters who escalated it to physical force. Elderly people actually do face a much, much higher risk of death in fights than you'd expect; old bones aren't very strong. Throwing popcorn isn't that serious, but punching can be very serious.

Since this was about a gun incident, I mentioned gun-wielding people, since that would be more relevant to the topic at hand. 

I dont even now were to start with this.