Vigilate or murderer???

[DrFaroohk]

Couldn't they also argue that perhaps after the first shot TO THE HEAD, he was therefore dead, and then the other five bullets were irrelevent?

[DesignFox]

Couldn't they also argue that perhaps after the first shot TO THE HEAD, he was therefore dead, and then the other five bullets were irrelevent?

Except that according to the article, the medical examiner says the belly shots are what killed the kid.

I don't think the murder was premeditated at all. Hell, I'd argue that the guy didn't even know whether or not the kid was still alive. He may have thought he was firing into a dead body.

If my adrenaline was up, I think I probably would have reacted in a strange manner, myself. When someone angers me to the point of seeing red, (which is VERY infrequent) I react pretty crazily. If you stacked on top of that the fact that someone was robbing me and had put a gun to me and my co-workers....Can't say I wouldn't shoot him, then come back and check my handiwork.

And that line about "he didn't have to do that to my baby." Fucking bullshit. Cry me a fucking river. Maybe if your "baby" wasn't a robbing piece of shit who came in with a gunman at his side, he wouldn't have gotten himself shot.

I think either way this swings, that poor pharmacy clerk is screwed. If he hadn't killed the kid, he probably would have been sued by the family for medical damages. Since he did kill the kid, half the population is crying murder, the other is heralding him as a hero, and the family will probably still try to sue him for wrongful death- even if he is cleared of charges.

What the fuck?

Seriously.

I don't think the guy is a murderer. If the clerk and his co-workers hadn't felt threatened, that kid would still be alive. That guy probably never would have pulled the trigger in the first place, otherwise.

I'm not worried about the pharmacist.

I'm worried at how criminals can get away with being assholes and then others come along and defend them when they get what's coming to them.

[Nyoibo]

ICold, calculated, premeditated, not in the heat of the moment! Murder 1!

And yet while he was a soldier that's exactly what he would have done.

The pharmacist was indeed trained. The article said he was a Gulf War veteran.

And what do you think that training entailed, if he's unconcious, but could wake up and still be a threat make nice nice to him, or make sure the threat is neutralized.

People are saying he's trained, yes, trained to kill, that's what soldiers do, hell even in my training in martial arts the emphasis is on neutralizing the threat, and that threat is only neutralized when the person is dead or crippled, trained with a bouncer who had stories of people either faking being unconcious and then attacking again and the best one, he knocked a guy out, the guy came to and then stabbed him, unconcious doesn't mean not dangerous.

[RecoveringKinkoid]

I knew a guy who was a cop who, with a bunch of other cops, got beaten up pretty bad by a guy hopped up on Angel Dust who had been shot several times.

The only thing that finally took the guy down was the fact that he lost so much blood he finally collapsed.

The cops had to go through some psychological debriefing. It is pretty freaky when a guy you just shot in the chest a couple times won't go down and proceeds to work your buddies over.

I'm just sayin'.

So the pharmacist "proved" that he was dangerous by reacting with extreme predjudice when attacked. I don't see how that makes him any dangerous than anyone else. It's not like he reacted like that to being called a mean name or to someone cutting him off in traffic. He reacted with deadly force to a guy threatening to kill him and other innocent people. I think most people would probably be able to kill another person if properly provoked.

[Cats]

I'm gonna agree with a few others here...you can't say you're life is in imminent danger (and thus justifying the use of deadly force) of a threat of an unconcious guy if you turn you back on them to go anything other than run away or call 911. Therefore, those extra shots were unecessary. You have more than one person there...your assailant is unconcious on his back, what's wrong with simply detaining him while one of the other calls the authorities? Even if the attacker had a gun on them still, it's of no use if they can't actually REACH it. If one is THAT paranoid, why not take like a baseball bat and break his legs? (not that I'm condoning violence here mind you, but if one truely still feels an unconcious person could wake up and be a threat before he's in cuffs, I'd rather have them break a few bones than shoot bullets. Broken bones heal. Dead people don't.)

Now, had he not been a War Veteran, I'd be more likely to say it wasn't murder (fear and adrenaline rush and all that). But him? He KNEW what he was doing, and has probably seen and been through more frigtening things than a petty robbery from a teenager.

And since it's a place that's prone to robbery, even if he's let off on this charge, where is the assurance he won't do this AGAIN? While I think it was a really bad idea to rob the place, I don't think the kid deserved to lose his life in the process. It would not shock me if the family sues the guy or the company he works for over this. That's why most places have a "don't be a hero" rule when it comes to robberies, they don't want to get their asses sued!

[Boozy]

Just a minor point: Whether or not you believe that the killing was murder or not, it was quite clearly not premeditated. Premeditation would have required the pharmacist to know in advance that robbers were going to enter his store and have his gun at the ready, planning to kill one.

Since it's unlikely that the robbers sent the pharmacist notice of their arrival, premeditation was an impossiblity here.

[BlaqueKatt]

Now, if the pharmacist admits that it was revenge, then he should be charged with a "heat of the moment" murder.

Yup Because I'm sure anyone would admit that when facing life in prison or the death penalty. Which according to the article he is.

These robbers went out and committed a crime. They made a choice to do this and from what I understand no one forced them to commit this crime. [/QUOTE]

"The district attorney said he will seek murder charges against the teenager(gunman), a man accused of being the getaway driver, and another man suspected of helping talk the teens into the crime."

glad you know how they talked them into it-maybe you should call the DA

Come on. He shot some punk trying to rob him. That guy was a piece of crap. He doesn't deserve the same rights as other people.

So making a bad decision makes someone not human-good to know. I'm Sure my friend Anthony who used his time in prison for armed robbery to get his degree in child psychology from the University of Wisconsin would be glad to hear that.

Maybe we should just execute all drug abusers/criminals after all they're all worthless and subhuman-and we all know people can NEVER change their ways....because hey it's not like any prisoner/former gang member has been nominated for the Nobel peace prize-oh wait


The fact that he chased the gunman who was already fleeing-kinda shows he wasn't "terrified for his life"-generally a rational person will not put themselves in further danger-which he did by giving chase- Was he intending to shoot the fleeing suspects in the back-then if you watch the video-he calmly walks back to get the second gun and fires the additional shots. I'm willing to bet he had to get the second gun because he did shoot at the fleeing suspects-which again would show he was not still defending-you cannot shoot at a fleeing suspect-

Again if he was "worried" why not restrain the injured, or maybe if you must shoot again, he's not moving, take another headshot at point blank range-don't empty the clip into an area with no vital organs-remember he shot him in the stomach-all that's there is intestines-all that does is cause pain and suffering-and a slow death.

Since it's unlikely that the robbers sent the pharmacist notice of their arrival, premeditation was an impossiblity here.

Nope it applies to the fact that he got the second gun, and shot someone when they were already down and no longer a threat-he had to think about and make the conscious decision to retrieve the second gun-it would be the same as if he had calmly taken the time to reload before firing the additional shots.

From West's encyclopedia of american law

"First degree murder is a homicide committed with deliberately premeditated malice, or with extreme and wanton malice. "

Malice-desire to inflict injury, harm, or suffering on another, either because of a hostile impulse or out of deep-seated meanness:

I'd say his actions constitute malice-if he didn't want to inflict suffering he would've just delivered another headshot at point blank range-he wanted the kid to suffer-any soldier knows being gutshot is the most painful way to die.

[Slytovhand]

okies.... let's make this really easy... from Wiki's entry on Capital punishment in Oklahoma

First-degree murder[4].
A person commits murder in the first degree when that person unlawfully and with malice aforethought causes the death of another human being. Malice is that deliberate intention unlawfully to take away the life of a human being, which is manifested by external circumstances capable of proof.
A person also commits the crime of murder in the first degree, regardless of malice, when that person or any other person takes the life of a human being during, or if the death of a human being results from, the commission or attempted commission of murder of another person, shooting or discharge of a firearm or crossbow with intent to kill, intentional discharge of a firearm or other deadly weapon into any dwelling or building as provided in Section 1289.17A of this title, forcible rape, robbery with a dangerous weapon, kidnapping, escape from lawful custody, first degree burglary, first degree arson, unlawful distributing or dispensing of controlled dangerous substances, or trafficking in illegal drugs.
A person commits murder in the first degree when the death of a child results from the willful or malicious injuring, torturing, maiming or using of unreasonable force by said person or who shall willfully cause, procure or permit any of said acts to be done upon the child pursuant to Section 7115 of Title 10 of the Oklahoma Statutes. It is sufficient for the crime of murder in the first degree that the person either willfully tortured or used unreasonable force upon the child maliciously injured or maimed the child.
A person commits murder in the first degree when that person unlawfully and with malice aforethought solicits another person or persons to cause the death of a human being in furtherance of unlawfully manufacturing, distributing or dispensing controlled dangerous substances, as defined in the Uniform Controlled Dangerous Substances Act, unlawfully possessing with intent to distribute or dispense controlled dangerous substances, or trafficking in illegal drugs.
A person commits murder in the first degree when that person intentionally causes the death of a law enforcement officer or correctional officer while the officer is in the performance of official duties.

Now, the last 3 points are pretty irrelevant, so we'll ignore them.

Malice is that deliberate intention unlawfully to take away the life of a human being,

Well - he walked out of the store chasing someone else - leaving the kid on the floor with 2 other staff members. Obviously, he didn't feel he was any threat to them at that time. He walks back in and past the kid... again, he doesn't consider the kid a threat. He has his back to him as he goes behind the counter to get the other gun... kid is still obviously not considered a threat. He walks over to the kid to get within kicking distance (so he's not worried about the kid getting up and grappling with him), and then and only then puts another 5 shots into the kids belly. Dunno about anyone else, but I'm certainly thinking that is a nice description of not only malice, but also revenge... there's none of this 'self-defence' rubbish (the first shot to the head was that!), and clearly the kid is no perceived threat to self or others...

Second point -

A person also commits the crime of murder in the first degree, regardless of malice, when that person or any other person takes the life of a human being during, or if the death of a human being results from, the commission or attempted commission of murder of another person, shooting or discharge of a firearm or crossbow with intent to kill...

Well, this guy took another person's life, shooting with the intent to kill.... and apparently, no remorse either.

I think the case is pretty black and white (no pun intended! Cos I'm damn sure that subject will come up at some stage! Especially if he gets off).

So, what was to stop him from keeping an eye on him, with gun in hand, in case said kid regains consciousness and then .. and only then IF he tried to do something that could have been considered threatening (like bleeding over him), THEN shoot him again... while waiting for the police to arrive.

I really don't get why this guy is a 'hero'... ok, he successfully defended his place. Cool - that's not worth calling hero on. For shooting an unconscious kid to death at point blank range??? That's straight out cowardice, no matter how you look at it.

As for

Man, what happened to the good old days when the pharmacist would've gotten a commendation from the city and been lauded as a hero?

I believe humanity got a bit saner, and realised that anarchy is rather detrimental to human society. Laws were introduced so that the poorer people in society did not get trodden on by the powerful... because when it did happen things like revolutions occurred. And, not long after, the governments of the day introduced a judiciary and laws .. and law enforcement officers who were beholden to the citizenry... and thus, the individual citizens were not a 'law unto themselves'.


RK, the pharmacist 'proved' that he is willing to kill a person because he is fed up with getting robbed, and is very willing to take his frustrations out in a way that goes against the laws of the city he is in - he disregarded those laws (which would have included having the robber arrested and sent through the judicial system). So, how many on here really want people carrying guns around, and proving that they are willing to use them with deadly force, with no regard for what the local laws are???


Ah, Nyoibo, no, unconscious does mean 'not dangerous'. 'Conscious and faking it' would be dangerous. 'Becoming conscious' might be dangerous. You did say that

that threat is only neutralized when the person is dead or crippled

. Given that the person was lying on the floor unconscious with a gunshot wound to the head, I presume that what you really meant to say was 'a threat is only neutralise when the person is dead or is dead - there's really no such thing as crippling someone to effectively neutralise a threat. (after all, how do you get much more 'crippled' than unconscious with a bullet in your head???)

Couldn't they also argue that perhaps after the first shot TO THE HEAD, he was therefore dead, and then the other five bullets were irrelevent?

"Hmmm - I'm really angry cos this is the third attempted robbery this month, but I'm glad I got at least one of them. Think I'll go put a few more shots into his corpse to get out a bit of anger and frustration. I wonder if I did kill him with the first shot.. should I check? Nah, stuff it, doesn't really matter if he's still alive or not - I'm still going to do it". At best, you've pulled it down to 2nd degree

I will just reiterate my stance in one part... putting a bullet into the kid's head while trying to defend himself and the others there - fine! No issue.... to 'finish him off'... major problem!

But just a general question - who gets to decide the value of a human life?


eta: oh, Boozy, I found this bit on some Oklahoma law site

A premeditated design under our law need not be entertained for any appreciable length of time. It may be a design formed instantly before committing the act by which it is carried into execution. The time requisite to constitute premeditated design may not be distinguished from the act of killing, although it may be said to precede the act. Premeditation is an intent before the act of killing. It means entertainment by the mind of a design to kill, and is often defined as "thought of beforehand, any length of time, however short." However, the word "premeditatedly" does not mean "thought of" in the sense of "thought over."

(it's about 2/3 the way down the page)

So, the 'premeditated' bit won't help his case.

[BlaqueKatt]

Except that according to the article, the medical examiner says the belly shots are what killed the kid.

and they can tell that-a dead body doesn't bleed as the heart stops pumping blood-the amount of blood in the abdominal cavity would prove his heart was still beating-it will still ooze but not as much, another marker would be if there was fibrin and platelets present in the head wound as those are only activated by a living body.

Hell, I'd argue that the guy didn't even know whether or not the kid was still alive

And he didn't bother to take 2 seconds to check

. He may have thought he was firing into a dead body.

Um WTF? Why would anyone do that? What would be the point-to waste bullets?

But just a general question - who gets to decide the value of a human life?

I'll second this

[DesignFox]

Um WTF? Why would anyone do that? What would be the point-to waste bullets?

Because he was angry, in a state of panic and not really thinking would be my argument.

I still think it's the kids own damn fault he got himself killed. I am not saying this guy should be applauded as a "hero." But I don't believe that what he did was premeditated murder. In my opinion, he defended himself and his co-workers.

That's why most places have a "don't be a hero" rule when it comes to robberies, they don't want to get their asses sued!

Yea. Sucks doesn't it? But honestly, I think it's more for the employee's safety that the company doesn't want them risking themselves. Not so much the being sued part. Or at least, maybe they aren't worried about the criminal sueing them so much as the employee sueing them if they are injured in the process....but that's another argument I suppose.

Anyway-
I think this guy was screwed no matter what he did. And I'm less worried about a war veteran who shot a robber walking the streets than I am about a group of thugs willing to hold up a pharmacy at gun point.

The upside that I see-

This guy sent a message to the local riff-raff that the pharmacy will no longer be an easy target. Maybe the little shits left alive will think twice before committing another crime.

[Nyoibo]

The fact that he chased the gunman who was already fleeing-kinda shows he wasn't "terrified for his life"-generally a rational person will not put themselves in further danger-which he did by giving chase-

Actually being terrified for his life he could have still given chase, it's called "fight or flight" not "hide or flight" and you just pointed it out yourself,a rational person will not put themselves in further danger, which he did by giving chase, therefore you could argue he wasn't rational at the time.

[protege]

Um WTF? Why would anyone do that? What would be the point-to waste bullets?

I was wondering that too. The criminal was already shot in the head--shooting him additional times was simply overkill. No reason for that. Instead, he should have simply picked up a roll of duct tape...and tied the bastard up. Why? The threat was already dealt with.

Some of you know that I have very little tolerance for criminals. I feel, that in many cases, they deserve what they get. For example, you break into someone's home, you get the crap beat out of you. Accept the damn consequences--nobody forced you to do it.

I was always told, that if someone's trying to hurt you...you take their ass out. That is, you do what you have to, to *neutralize* the threat.

[AFPheonix]

And what do you think that training entailed, if he's unconcious, but could wake up and still be a threat make nice nice to him, or make sure the threat is neutralized.

People are saying he's trained, yes, trained to kill, that's what soldiers do, hell even in my training in martial arts the emphasis is on neutralizing the threat, and that threat is only neutralized when the person is dead or crippled, trained with a bouncer who had stories of people either faking being unconcious and then attacking again and the best one, he knocked a guy out, the guy came to and then stabbed him, unconcious doesn't mean not dangerous.

I suspect he's seen enough crap in his life to know when someone is neutralized.
Now if the kid had gotten up and come at him again, then yes, he is at that point entitled to shoot the kid again.
The kid did not. He laid on the ground in his own blood.

Like I said before, if he'd shown restraint, then he would have been lauded as a hero. By letting the situation get the best of him, he lost that hero status.
Losing control of oneself in a stressful situation is not an excuse, it's not a good thing. We get pissed if a driver loses his shit and does stupid crap on the road, why are people shrugging their shoulders when someone loses their shit with a loaded weapon that results in a needless death?

It doesn't matter if the kid was an angel or not. How we serve justice for people who do bad things carries over into how we serve justice for standard Joe Schmoes too. Justice should not be fickle.

[kibbles]

Also, isn't the rule of self defence is that equal force is allowed to be used, not excessive force??

[BlaqueKatt]

Because he was angry, in a state of panic and not really thinking would be my argument.<snip> But I don't believe that what he did was premeditated murder.

to quote my previous post-
"From West's encyclopedia of american law

"First degree murder is a homicide committed with deliberately premeditated malice, or with extreme and wanton malice. "

Malice-desire to inflict injury, harm, or suffering on another, either because of a hostile impulse or out of deep-seated meanness:"

ergo-shooting the body he "thought" was dead out of anger is exactly the definition of premeditated murder-according to the encyclopedia of american law-remember the law has definitions other than what we assume.

also being a desert storm veteran-I doubt he panicked-in a war situation soldiers are trained not to panic-and it's not like that training just goes away-heck mine still hasn't, and I never went into battle, and it's been 10 years.

The upside that I see-

This guy sent a message to the local riff-raff that the pharmacy will no longer be an easy target. Maybe the little shits left alive will think twice before committing another crime.

actually if you read the article they are also being charged with murder-the gunman, the getaway driver and the other person that "talked" them into it-all being charged as well-Slyt's post explains why that is.

Actually being terrified for his life he could have still given chase, it's called "fight or flight" not "hide or flight"

yes it is-but you flee from the danger-and soldiers are trained to ignore it and fight which he did then gave chase, then committed an act of violence on an unarmed, unconscious victim.

and you just pointed it out yourself,a rational person will not put themselves in further danger, which he did by giving chase, therefore you could argue he wasn't rational at the time.

Again the man is a war veteran-soldiers are trained to remain calm in panic situations-in the event of a panic situation I remain eerily calm and assess the situation before I act-due to my training 10 years ago.