I watched the video before i made my post!!!! AND???? We don't know what was going out of camera view. So if he would have died without the the owner shooting him again that would have bee ok???
-
ODT Gun Show & Swap Meet - May 4, 2024! - Click here for info
sweet potato Pie and hush my mouth
- Thread starter GoNoGo
- Start date
- Status
I watched the video before i made my post!!!! AND???? We don't know what was going out of camera view. So if he would have died without the the owner shooting him again that would have bee ok???
TRUE... sorry i got a little carried away in my response and forgot it was the jury.
It would have been perfectly fine. The first time he shot him he was in the commission of a felony and it was self defense. Christ, are we back to this again?! Read the law concerning justifiable homicide. All three elements that are needed for justification existed when he fired on him initially. None of them existed when he walked up and shot him on the floor. I'd give you are clearer example of what I'm talking about, but I can't think of one more obvious than the one we are discussing. This was wrong legally and morally.
As for what was going on out of camera view, it is confirmed that the dead guy did not have a weapon. What was he doing? Threatening him with a Honey Bun he grabbed off the shelf while bleeding out? The pharmacist wasn't worried about the threat enough to stay away from him. He walked right up and shot him point blank.
How did he know he did not have a weapon? He just came in a mask and this guy had a gun pointed in his face...
Further - if this would happen more often I'd guarantee we'd have less armed robberies of pharmacies....but hey....let's empower the criminals.....especially if they belong to a protected class...
Last edited:
well well well...let's see...this appears to be sending mixed signals to citizens as to whether or not&to what extent we should be able to defend ourselves,our property&most importantly our family. I have not heard all of the testimony,researched all of the facts,nor looked into the eyes of this said pharmacist,however,I do conceive the written law,it's purpose&understand perceptive differences. I refuse to make calls on whether or not someone else could,should,or would have known if the threat was down,certainly in a case such as this. If I were there I would not know if the"bad guy"had a weapon hidden or not. The only way that I would have personally known for sure that the threat was down would be to have the on duty officers there or maybe my empty 8shot 12guage& the "bad guys"body in 3or4 pieces from the buck shot on the ground...yes,that's morbid but...there will be a successful appeal. Any preciding honourable judge,jury,or citizen who interprets this as murder or manslaughter& agrees with this conviction is WRONG!!!
Well it appears we no longer need to worry about judges or juries. If anyone can just execute a person on the spot it sure would streamline or judicial system. Of course, you need to make sure you don't piss off the guy next door. He might think you stole his paper and kill you for it.
I'm sure this has been stated somewhere within the last 6 pages BUT... I don't think it was that her OVERSHOT, it was that he came back in and re-engaged the non-threat by putting 5 more in him. IMHO he should have done the stomach, chest, head from the get-go BUT that is easy for me to say sitting in my office not being shot at. This story is an excellent example of why to train every week.
so mote it be.............
Tru Dat.
.
Do you really think that those punks would have hesitated to murder and rob the pharmacists?
Any task worth doing is worth doing right. When I shoot an animal I go for the quick kill (usually head shot).
If the head shot is not available when you start shooting, don't wait but when it becomes available take it no matter how much lead you have already injected, it's the only humane thing to do.
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.
- Status
