sweet potato Pie and hush my mouth

[jeepinshep]

If it had been me I would have at least double tapped him to the chest and if the second threat had not been there I would have put a third in his head at the very least. But I would have done it during the robbery and WHEN HE WAS STILL A THREAT(?????????)! The one round that was fired at him initially incapacitated him and the threat was over when the shooter calmly walked over and put five more in him at point blank range.

One could argue that the "double-tap" or the "Mozambique" would fall under the same circumstances as what the Pharmacist did. After all, the first "tap" would have neutralized the threat (or "incapacitated him" as you stated). The second "tap" could be considered overkill and would be no worse than the Pharmacist's actions. Putting "a third in his head (at the very least)"????

How can you say that he would've still been a threat with two bullets in his chest, and justify putting another in his head, but in the next breath criminalize the Pharmacist's actions for ultimately doing the same thing?

By your own logic, once the threat is "no longer a threat" all "defensive" action against them must cease, otherwise it is murder. If that be the case, then you should stop shooting after the first tap - because they would no longer be a threat. Of course, we could go as far as to say that the Pharmacist's actions were illegal from the beginning, since the assailant he shot posed no immediate danger to anyone (he was unarmed and wasn't within striking distance to cause physical harm to any innocent person in the room).

The double-standard in your post is ridiculous. It appears that what you're saying is its okay to shoot someone 3 times ("at the very least") within a few seconds, but it would be unlawful and immoral to put the first round in him, then disengage him, then come back and shoot him again. The outcome is the same, so what does it matter if you shoot him until he's dead from across the room, versus shooting him until he's dead from point-blank?

 

[snake dr]

If it had been me I would have at least double tapped him to the chest and if the second threat had not been there I would have put a third in his head at the very least. But I would have done it during the robbery and WHEN HE WAS STILL A THREAT! The one round that was fired at him initially incapacitated him and the threat was over when the shooter calmly walked over and put five more in him at point blank range. If the shooter thought this guy was still dangerous he would not have chased the other one and left the employees alone with the man that was down.

There is a clear difference between killing someone in a defensive situation and deciding that someone should die because they tried to do something in the past. Even if that "past" is just a few moments gone. It really scares me that so many of you think that executing this guy after the fact was justified. I try to avoid name calling, but this thread has really shown that many of you have the mind set of a vigilante.

snake dr, the term vigilante is not necessarily directed at you. It is meant as a general statement.

I agree, but what would keep the thug from coming back for revenge?

A bullet in the brain pan and you don't have to watch out for him any longer.

If someone tries to harm me or my family I will go for the ultimate force. If he gives up that would just make him an easier target.

Have you ever noticed how these thugs are all big and bad until their tail is in a crack, and as soon as it's out they go right back to where they were before? I could hear him now down at the local lockup, I was all up on that cracker till he went to shooting. As soon as I get out I'll be back to settle up with him for shooting at me and my partner. All we was doing was trying to get some money for something to eat.

Brandish a weapon at me, get kilt.

 

[Bear44]

One could argue that the "double-tap" or the "Mozambique" would fall under the same circumstances as what the Pharmacist did. After all, the first "tap" would have neutralized the threat (or "incapacitated him" as you stated). The second "tap" could be considered overkill and would be no worse than the Pharmacist's actions. Putting "a third in his head (at the very least)"????

How can you say that he would've still been a threat with two bullets in his chest, and justify putting another in his head, but in the next breath criminalize the Pharmacist's actions for ultimately doing the same thing?

By your own logic, once the threat is "no longer a threat" all "defensive" action against them must cease, otherwise it is murder. If that be the case, then you should stop shooting after the first tap - because they would no longer be a threat. Of course, we could go as far as to say that the Pharmacist's actions were illegal from the beginning, since the assailant he shot posed no immediate danger to anyone (he was unarmed and wasn't within striking distance to cause physical harm to any innocent person in the room).

The double-standard in your post is ridiculous. It appears that what you're saying is its okay to shoot someone 3 times ("at the very least") within a few seconds, but it would be unlawful and immoral to put the first round in him, then disengage him, then come back and shoot him again. The outcome is the same, so what does it matter if you shoot him until he's dead from across the room, versus shooting him until he's dead from point-blank?

It's not a double standard because it has nothing to do with the number of rounds fired. It is WHEN they were fired. I would shoot the BG multiple times because I would NOT know that the threat was neutralized in the couple of seconds it would take to fire those rounds. ALL self defense instructors encourage multiple hits to insure the threat is over. In this case the shooter only shot him once (bad tactics), but once he chased the other guy down the street, came back in the store, reloaded and walked over to the guy on the floor it was clear the BG was no longer a threat. Again, if the shooter saw some indication that he was a threat, why didn't he shoot him from a distance? The shooter knew he was no longer a threat and shot him for no other reason than he felt he deserved to die.

From what you are saying here it is clear that your motivation in this situation is to kill the bad guy. That's vigilantism. My motivation, the legal and moral one, is to stop the threat and I will use plenty of deadly force without hesitation to do it. However, once the threat is over, IT"S OVER and no more force is legal or moral.

 

[Bear44]

I agree, but what would keep the thug from coming back for revenge?

A bullet in the brain pan and you don't have to watch out for him any longer.

If someone tries to harm me or my family I will go for the ultimate force. If he gives up that would just make him an easier target.

Have you ever noticed how these thugs are all big and bad until their tail is in a crack, and as soon as it's out they go right back to where they were before? I could hear him now down at the local lockup, I was all up on that cracker till he went to shooting. As soon as I get out I'll be back to settle up with him for shooting at me and my partner. All we was doing was trying to get some money for something to eat.

Brandish a weapon at me, get kilt.

So you think it's OK to kill anyone that might, someday come after you? You better make a list of anyone from your past that you pissed off and get them before they get you.

 

[Bear44]

I would be happy to never need to take another human life and if there was any way as effective in stopping a threat as shooting someone several times I would use it. However, there is no better way so I carry a gun. Don't come back at me with stuff about tasers or OC spray or any of that crap. We all know it does not work nearly as well.

 

[Rollin Bonz]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/06/19/national/main20072402.shtml?tag=re1.channel

This is a shame, really. Deserving of it's own thread IMHO...

 

[snake dr]

So you think it's OK to kill anyone that might, someday come after you? You better make a list of anyone from your past that you pissed off and get them before they get you.

I already took care of that.

 

[Bear44]

I already took care of that.

LOL! I REALLY hope you're joking.

 

[Bear44]

This is a shame, really. Deserving of it's own thread IMHO...

Another good example why right to carry is important.

 

[thegiantmidget]

This is touchy. Should an armed aggressor mean me harm in my home or place of business, my preference would be to have them stop doing what they're doing immediately and leave. However, if the situation escalated and became violent, firing until movement ceased would be perfectly acceptable under the circumstances in my book.