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?
Last edited: