A retired policeman shoots someone over texting
 

I have waffled on gun control. But now we have a 71 year old retired Florida captain of the police who goes to the movies with his wife and shoots a man (fatally) and his wife (in her hand) sitting two rows away after having words because he is texting which was presumably extremely annoying.

Clearly there is no one better trained than a captain in the police force on how to and when to use a gun. He had to have been checked for his mental health to be in the police department. In a theatre with people watching a movie, he lost it. Just completely lost it. In a movie theatre, he stumbled over the people in between and took out a 38 and killed the man and inadvertently his wife. What is there to say? If you can't trust a 71 year old retired policeman to be able to responsibly handle a gun, who should be trusted? It is so very disturbing.

If reports are accurate, the feature movie hadn't started----the previews were showing at the time of the shooting. True, even under these circumstances texting is annoying but not to the point of killing someone. Seems similar to "road rage". Very scary!

its just sad very sad

What I find most disturbing is a retired police man...captain no less...who should have the most experience and "patience" with a situation completely lost it with his wife there as well. Can you imagine what would have happened if he hadn't shot straight and started a shoot out in the theatre? If someone of this caliber can be that recklessly dangerous with a gun..where is the standard for responsible ownership? It is so disheartening. If he hadn't had the gun, it would have been such a different situation.

read the story, 43 year old vs 71 year old man.
“This verbal altercation starts getting louder and louder. During this altercation, it goes from a verbal to a physical altercation,” he said.
Then, “the suspect, Curtis Reeves, pulled out a gun,”

Retired cop guns down man for texting at Florida movie: sheriff - U.S. News

The suspect they are referring to in the story is the 71 year old sheriff. The 43 year old that was texting did not pull a weapon and was apparently unarmed.

The facts are pretty straight forward. What it leaves you with is the question, "If you can't trust a retired police captain with a gun, who can you trust?" What happens to the argument that guns don't kill people but people kill people so guns in the right hands are no problem. Who exactly is the "right" person? With all those years of training...he lost it. If he lost it, I have to think I could...especially on the roundabouts during season :)

Looking forward to hearing how the NRA will defend this action.

I know, I read the story, I was pointing out the fact that it turned into a physical altercation before “the suspect, Curtis Reeves, pulled out a gun,”

We really don't know how much training the shooter had. Being a police officer doesn't necessarily mean you've been trained in criminal justice procedures. Many sheriffs are elected officials. They don't necessarily have any police training to get the job. Working up the ranks to police commander doesn't guarantee a lot of training -- it could be political, it could be nepotism, it could be blind luck.

I know in California officers in one town are required to have a Master's in either criminal justice or education. The next town over requires a high school diploma. The difference in the officers of these two towns is amazing. Something tells me most officers in Florida have the type of training the high school graduates have -- they know how to be bullies; they know how to write tickets; they know how to profile; but they don't really know how to protect and serve. Don't assume that police officers have all that much more training than the average person. It really depends on the area.

The reality is that every human has a trigger that can be pulled if pushed too far. So, if that trigger is pulled, things become physical. If you happen to have a weapon when in that state, it becomes very possible to want to use that weapon and, if you're not entirely sane (none of us are), it becomes possible to use that weapon. I am totally of the theory that it is people that kill, not guns. So, limiting who can have a gun makes sense. Florida is too lax in who can carry, as are most states. To me, there should be a viable reason for being allowed to carry a concealed weapon, not just in case something happens and there MIGHT be a need to protect myself. It should be a very viable reason; evidence should be given that a gun is needed because of a threat of grave physical harm. To issue a concealed weapon to someone just because they have no history of violence and have not committed a felony is not sufficient in my mind.

(BTW -- I carry, so don't push my buttons. ;-))

CNN interviewed a retired marine (vietnam) and his son who were sitting in between. He did not mention a physical altercation between the two of them. He said the policeman stumbled over him and his son and shot the man.

It doesn't really matter. He shot the man over being annoyed.

Maybe the NRA will say that due to all of his experience and training, the retired police captain hit his intended target instead of a bystander?

This intentional shooting by a retired law enforcement officer is just one more reason not to carry concealed pistols when just going out for an evening of entertainment. Wesley Chapel is not a high crime area and there was no need to carry a pistol into a theater.

Retires Sheriff (not)
 

The article I read indicated it was a retired Police Captain. Where does Sheriff come in?

The theatre chain where this occured does not allow guns and has signs posted "no guns allowed". At some point, the alleged shooter left the theatre and returned with a gun. This sounds like pre-meditated murder.

The shooter has been charged with second-degree murder. There was no physical altercation between the two men. They were two rows apart, according to news reports. At age 71, whatever sentence he receives will probably be a life sentence.

Yes I put in the wrong title (sheriff) as they were referring to him as a sheriff initially in the news report I was listening to. I then corrected that detail as I wrote the post. In fact, I referred to him later as a police man as well. That said, I fail to see ultimately if it makes a difference whether he was a sheriff, a policeman, or a captain who shot someone over texting in the theatre.