Vigilate or murderer???

[ditchdj]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31003987/

------This murder case has stirred a big debate here. Personally if I was the pharmacist I wouldn't have pumped more bullets into the kid laying down unconscious. When I fight someone the only thing that matters to me is that they're no longer a threat.

[RecoveringKinkoid]

Well, me too. However, if the guy isn't dead, he's still a threat.

That's why they tell you are better off killing an intruder than wounding one.

How can they expect that an untrained, frightened civilian would be able to judge when a threat is negated? Sometimes cops and soldiers kill people they probably shouldn't, because in the heat of the moment, they have to make a snap decision. And those guys are trained.

And this pharmacist is looking at life or possibly the death sentance? That's madness. Locking that guy up or killing him is certainly not going to negate any threat from him to our society. He's not a threat. He, like the rest of us, is a man who would rather not be murdered by a thug.

The thug he killed was no loss to our society. He was ready to kill. Good riddance. Pharmacist was not ready to kill...he was put into a situation not of his choosing, and it went bad on him because he's not trained to handle it.

Calling him a murderer is over the top.

[Nyoibo]

This pissed me off

"He didn't have to shoot my baby like that," Parker's mother, Cleta Jennings, told TV station KOCO

No he didn't, if you had've maybe done a better job of parenting then maybe your "baby" wouldn't have been trying to rob someone at gun point and wouldn't have got shot.

[Slytovhand]

I totally disagree with you RK. Well, me too. However, if the guy isn't dead, he's still a threat.....and it went bad on him because he's not trained to handle it.


Rubbish!

Lying unconscious with a bullet in the head - that's pretty non-threatening! If you could even tell whether he was alive or not...

He walked back inside, to behind the counter, pulled out another gun, and then walked over and shot him numerous times.

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

If it had've been multiple shots when it first happened, sure - no problem. But this guy went back over to him with the intent to murder the kid!

Is this pharmacist a threat to society? Damn right he is! This is the sort of person who will explode in the worst possible way. He's the sort who only needs 'justification' to kill someone - cos he's already proven that.

As for - The thug he killed was no loss to our society.
Well, I guess we'll never know now, will we? Cos, he certainly isn't going to grow up, see the error of his ways, and become Oklahoma's best ever mayor - is he?

People change - when they're given enough reason to change. I'd say getting shot in the head during a bungled robbery would be that stimulus.

Now, I'm certainly one to sugguest that people need to take responsibility for their actions - especially their bad ones - those are the ones you learn from. The kid may have learnt that lesson - but we'll never know. But... pharmacist needs to take responsibility for killing a human being (and let's just try to imagine that this person is was one), intentionally, and with malice.

[BlaqueKatt]

I'm gonna have to agree with Slyt on this one....

"Ersland was justified in shooting 16-year-old Antwun Parker once in the head, but not in firing the additional shots into his belly. The prosecutor said the teenager was unconscious, unarmed, lying on his back and posing no threat when Ersland fired what the medical examiner said were the fatal shots."

so he was unconscious-that does not constitute a threat.

"Bergman said those who claim they used deadly force in self-defense have to show they were "in reasonable fear of serious bodily injury."

From an UNARMED UNCONSCIOUS person-WTF?

"Ersland chases the second man outside, then goes back inside, walks behind the counter with his back to Parker, gets a second handgun and opens fire."

So in fear of your safety-you turn your back on the UNCONSCIOUS UNARMED person bleeding on the floor to get a second handgun-and then shoot them in the stomach to "neutralize the threat"-because we all know they may get up from that headshot so best to make sure they bleed to death-especially since they're not moving-it's hard to hit anywhere when your target is not moving-yeah sure :rolleyes:

"The 14-year-old boy accused of wielding the gun in the robbery was arrested Thursday. The district attorney said he will seek murder charges against the teenager, a man accused of being the getaway driver, and another man suspected of helping talk the teens into the crime."

He never had a weapon to begin with-the gunman fled-where is the need to shoot and unconscious UNARMED person FIVE more times, after he's down?

He was probably angry the others got away and took it out on the only one there.


How can they expect that an untrained, frightened civilian would be able to judge when a threat is negated?

I'd say when the person is down and you feel safe enough to turn your back on them


The thug he killed was no loss to our society. He was ready to kill. Good riddance.

he didn't even have a weapon-how is that "ready to kill"-remember the gunman got away

[tabbyblack13]

I read the article a few times though and thought this was important: The pharmacy is in a crime-ridden section of south Oklahoma City and had been robbed before.
If you live in an area that is prone to crime then the reaction is going to be more sever. Especially if you have been robbed before. That's probably why there were two guns behind the counter. The pharmacist also had two people working with him that day and could have been protecting them as well.

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. They had a gun and threatened at least three people with it. If you make these choices there is a chance that you will be shot. Who will shoot you, I don't know. It could have been a cop, passerby, someone from a gang nearby, or the pharmacist. The thing is that these robbers made that choice and this is what happened.

I sorry to hear that the robber was shot but he made the choice. Because of that I can blame no one but him.

[AFPheonix]

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

It also doesn't matter if he'd been robbed before, he doesn't have an excuse for what he did. He should be put away for murder, because that's exactly what it was.
If he'd gone and called 911 instead of getting the second pistol to shoot the kid, then yes, I'd call him a hero and that video would probably be showing up on stupid criminal shows eventually.
But now he's shown himself to be a bit unbalanced, maybe dealing with some PTSD that never got resolved, and frankly is as dangerous to society as those kids who robbed him.

[DrFaroohk]

He definitely took things too far coming back and shooting the guy, but, considering he was just robbed and everything that was going on...possibly he wasn't exactly thinking too clearly? I don't think he deserves to be charged with Murder 1, that's excessive. He was defending himself and got too overzealous, but murder 1? 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.

[tropicsgoddess]

I don't see what the pharmacist did as murder at all. He was defending himself and his livelihood. The teen still would've been a threat even after that one shot, so I don't blame him at all for what he did.

[kibbles]

He is a murderer and should be treated as such.

[linguist]

I don't see what the pharmacist did as murder at all. He was defending himself and his livelihood. The teen still would've been a threat even after that one shot, so I don't blame him at all for what he did.

because an unarmed unconcious child is such a threat to a trained military veteran?

[Sylvia727]

It was murder.

I would have done the same thing.

And I bet a significant portion of the population would react the same way. This guy was working behind the counter at an average job, and suddenly he was in a violent situation. He reacted violently. He thought he was defending his life and his workplace. Going back to get a second gun and shoot the kid five more times was premeditated murder, and with hindsight it was not necessary for self-defense. But he might not have known. Just because the kid's unconscious now doesn't mean he's not going to regain consciousness any second and charge back into the fight. How did the pharmacist know the kid didn't have a gun? He didn't see one, but that doesn't mean one isn't there.

"Put 'em down and make 'em stay down" is a basic rule of any fight. He didn't have any special responsibility to keep the kid alive. The robbers created a "me or them" situation, and the pharmacist chose "them". Good for him. He should not be charged with any crime, unless the prosecuter's office wants to foot the bill for training all citizens how to react with professional detachment in gunfights. An ordinary person in extraordinary circumstances is a recipe for diseaster. Fortunately, diseaster to the true victim was averted. The kid knowingly created and entered a life-or-death situation, and he lost his life. I'm sorry for his family, but it's not fair to blame the robber's victim for the violence.

[kibbles]

I sincerely doubt that someone who is bleeding from a gun shot wound to the head will be getting up and and back into the fight. If it was just the first shot, then I agree he should not be charged; but, with what he did, he definitely should be charged with murder 1.

[DrFaroohk]

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?

[Sylvia727]

I sincerely doubt that someone who is bleeding from a gun shot wound to the head will be getting up and and back into the fight.

Stranger things have happened. I would never take the chance that they could happen to me. That's not a crime; that's still in the realm of self-defense. What this boils down to is; was the pharmacist defending himself from a potential threat, or was he taking revenge? Now, if the pharmacist admits that it was revenge, then he should be charged with a "heat of the moment" murder. Otherwise, it's still the elimination of a potential threat. That threat doesn't need to be very large; the victim just has to think it is.

[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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Williams)


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 (http://www.answers.com/topic/homicide)

"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 OklahomaFirst-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 (http://www.okcca.net/online/oujis/oujisrvr.jsp?oc=OUJI-CR%204-63)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.

[DrFaroohk]

"War veteran" is a misleading term. My ex-father-in-law was a "vietnam war veteran". You know what he did? He joined the military about 2 days before the war was over. Since he was enlisted at the time, he was a "war veteran". Even some of the guys who actually "fought" overseas were simply cooks or doctors or garbagemen or something. I'm not trying to crap on those guys, I'm just saying that War Veteran =/= Master of All Forms of Combat.

Not everyone has the ability to think 100% clearly in these situations. I seriously doubt this pharmacist was. It's easy to look back and say "well, he turned his back on him and did this and that". It was a crazy situation. He was being robbed!

Even if he did everything wrong, even if every move he made was illegal...he should never have been put in that situation to begin with. Who put him in that situation? The punk kid robbers. That's who. They had it coming. Those of you who "know someone" who was in prison and them reformed themselves? That's the exception, not the rule. The world would be a better place if more of these people got shot and killed.

Or, one could argue that maybe this pharmacist will go on to do great things in life, and by putting him in prison for murder, he'll never get those done. How do you know that this punk kid he killed wasn't going on to be the next Hitler? That's at least as valid an argument as "He might have grown up to be president!"

[tabbyblack13]

If the robber was caught and put on trial, he would most likely be tried as an adult. He was 16 and a gun was used. I doubt the he would have become president or had any career that required a background check. The thing is what if the pharmacist or either of the two co-workers were killed. People would be saying "They should have used one the guns behind the counter"

Also if you are in the military you are given basic training no matter what. During Vietnam my dad was a mechanic but he was still expected to be able to fight when he needed to.

[BlaqueKatt]

The punk kid robbers. That's who. They had it coming. Those of you who "know someone" who was in prison and them reformed themselves? That's the exception, not the rule. The world would be a better place if more of these people got shot and killed.


Yeah because killing someone who makes a bad decision teaches them not to make bad decisions :rolleyes:

I imagine you have never committed any kind of crime-no jaywalking, speeding, spitting on the sidewalk, smoking marijuana...etc.

I am an advocate of protecting yourself within the law-this man disregarded the law, as did the suspects-but two wrongs never make a right. He could've been the better person, but he sunk below their level and became a murderer.


Again-no one has answered this:

Who decides the value of a human life?

Most of the people on this thread that support the pharmacist's actions have gone so far as to demonize "those punk kids", do you know them personally? Or are you just assuming from one bad decision that they're worthless.

"For most human beings, it takes an awful lot to allow them to kill another human being," said Anthony Pratkanis, a psychology professor at the University of California, Santa Cruz. "The only way to do it is to justify the killing, to make the enemy look as evil as possible."


No killing is justified and to try to justify it by claiming the criminals life is worth less, also lessens the value of all life including your own-as you have no moral high ground to stand on when someone makes the same judgment against you.

It's a perfect example of cognitive dissonance-you believe murder is wrong but try to justify it by making the other person "less than human"-usually common during times of war.

[Greenday]

Pretty clear case of Murder I to me. He shot the kid in the head and knew he wasn't a threat so he had no problem leaving him behind and turning his back towards him. The kid was unconscious with a bullet in his head for the love of God. About as dangerous as a boxful of kittens at that point.

[DrFaroohk]

Yeah because killing someone who makes a bad decision teaches them not to make bad decisions :rolleyes:


I didn't say it does. It removes them from the equation is what it does.


I imagine you have never committed any kind of crime-no jaywalking, speeding, spitting on the sidewalk, smoking marijuana...etc.


We're not talking about jaywalking, spitting on the sidewalk, or smoking pot. We're talking about someone who threatened another man's life with a gun, and that man took steps to protect himself. Did he go to far? Of course. He still doesn't deserve to be tried as a freakin' murderer though. He just "made a mistake" too. Does he deserve to have his entire life taken away (I'm pretty sure that the murder 1 charge everyone is calling for carries either a death penalty or at least life in prison) just because he made a mistake? Y'all are awfully forgiving of the shitbags who created the incident. Where'd the forgiveness go for the guy who was just minding his own business at work, making a career for himself and just trying to get by in life when someone came in and PULLED A GUN ON HIM?


I am an advocate of protecting yourself within the law-this man disregarded the law, as did the suspects-but two wrongs never make a right. He could've been the better person, but he sunk below their level and became a murderer.


Again, because of a situation someone else created. He didn't ask to be held up.


Again-no one has answered this:

Who decides the value of a human life?



I don't see why it's so complicated. If someone tries to kill me, why is his life still equal to mine? I'm more productive to society than he is, I'm less harmful to society than he is, and I'm not going around threatening anyone. The only laws this pharmacist broke are flawed to begin with.



Sorry in advance if my quoting comes out all messed up, I don't usually bother with it due to laziness.

[Boozy]

Sorry in advance if my quoting comes out all messed up, I don't usually bother with it due to laziness.

If you've got time to apologize for it, you've got time to fix your quote tags. ;)

As it turns out, they were just fine anyway.

[Nyoibo]

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

Necesary force, not equal force, but it's very much a subjective judgement call.

[BlaqueKatt]

We're talking about someone who threatened another man's life with a gun, and that man took steps to protect himself.

Apparently you missed the part where the 16 year-old he shot DID NOT HAVE ANY WEAPON-the 14 year-old gunman was arrested later.




I don't see why it's so complicated. If someone tries to kill me, why is his life still equal to mine?[QUOTE=DrFaroohk;21596]

because he's still human-"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

notice it says nothing about "all men except<insert undesirable trait here>"

When you start putting a value on life-yours becomes just as worthless, after all you may be someone else's "undesirable", or they may consider you a threat for some reason.

[QUOTE=DrFaroohk;21596]I'm more productive to society than he is, I'm less harmful to society than he is, and I'm not going around threatening anyone.


You can't really prove that-maybe the person that ends up threatening your life is a soldier following orders(like during a natural disaster when the national guard is called to enforce curfews), or a police officer and you resemble a suspect. Possibly mentally ill and unable to get treatment-due to how difficult it can be.

or like this Schoolteacher (http://blog.syracuse.com/east/2009/05/ciceronorth_syracuse_math_teac.html)-wife 7 months pregnant, one year old child and in severe debt to a casino amongst other debt-and obviously very desperate to take care of his family, not lose everything-heck he has a a bachelor's degree in early childhood education, and a full time job as a teacher-sounds pretty productive to me. But because he made a mistake to you he's scum right, and his life as a schoolteacher is less productive than yours. Get off your high horse-your life is worth no more or less than anyone else's-genocides begin with that kind of thinking.

[powerboy]

Most of the people on this thread that support the pharmacist's actions have gone so far as to demonize "those punk kids", do you know them personally? Or are you just assuming from one bad decision that they're worthless.



I am sure that you would think that they were sweethearts, if they held a gun to your head and robbed you:rolleyes:. Anyone who is a in gang, robs is worthless. If anyone is trying to kill me, I will do whatever it took to atleast try to stop them.

[BlaqueKatt]

I am sure that you would think that they were sweethearts, if they held a gun to your head and robbed you

I have been robbed at gunpoint-thank you very little-and actually while I was scared at the time I also saw the desperation in the eyes of the human being that was holding a gun on me.


Anyone who is a in gang, robs is worthless.
Even the teenage runaway (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=318_1200510138)/kidnap victim forced into prostitution trying to get money to escape her situation?(read some stories about them here (http://www.barnabainstitute.org/10.html)) Even the person who ends up in debt due to losing their job-and trying to prevent someone they care about from having to starve/turn to selling themselves? Even the kid that's forced to join a gang or be killed-

Jesus I'm autistic and I have more human compassion than that. To quote Dog the bounty hunter-"as long as you wake up on this side of the ground, there's hope"

[Wingates_Hellsing]

Normally, I am in support of defensive shootings.

This however, was a defensive shooting that turned into an execution. He specifically finished the kid off.

If it had been five shots pumped into the kid during the initial altercation, that's all well and good, but he swept right past defending himself and executed the kid.

I can see how he might have been still caught up in the moment when he did it, but that doesn't change the fact that he chose to kill the kid rather than secure the weapon in question and keep him covered while one of the other people called the cops.

Kid definately deserved to die or rot in jail, but it wasn't that guy's place to choose death instead of prison... none of it would have happened if the kid hadn't decided to rob the store though, so it's him that put his life in danger to begin with, while the shooter simply clinched it (by murdering the kid).

Still, murder is murder.

[Nyoibo]

Apparently you missed the part where the 16 year-old he shot DID NOT HAVE ANY WEAPON-

Remind me to post a picture of myself at some stage, then I want you to tell me how many weapons I'm carrying.

[Slytovhand]

Oooh - Wingates..."execution" - good word! :)

Nyoibo, let me put a bullet in your head first, then I can safely take a look. (No, mods, I'm not even remotely serious about that... I'm just comparing situations... the kid was unconscious on the floor - if there was uncertainty about him having a weapon, it could have been determined...prior to the execution-style killing... yep, liking that word! :p)

I'm just curious, since we've touched up 'worth' and 2 things have come to mind (as I type, so it won't come out right :p).

Firstly, I'm willing to guarantee that the kid already has a low sense of self-worth, so calling him worthless would only reinforce that feeling. This is still a human being we're talking about (ok, yeah, was). Everyone is. Everyone changes... Some for the better, some for the worst, and some... well, do bugger all in life, but somehow are considered 'better' than others.

Secondly - we know nothing about this pharmacist. What are the chances karma has come back and bit him in the arse? Perhaps, while out in Iraq (it was Iraq, wasn't it? Or was it Kuwait??), he did the same thing to some other kids? Perhaps he's just copying his previous actions, except this time he's been caught out? (I'm not actually trying to slur his character, I'm just pointing out that I don't see any reason to pass judgement on the pharmacist as being a good guy, while the kid is scum... from one single incident).

[DesignFox]

Remind me to post a picture of myself at some stage, then I want you to tell me how many weapons I'm carrying.

Ooh please do. I'd be interested to see.

Hey. I never said that pumping an extra 5 in him was the "right" thing to do. But, I still don't think the pharmacist is a murderer. I argue that the shooting never would have occurred if the kids didn't confront the pharmacist with a gun. And therefore, I'm not willing to say this guy, who was defending himself, deserves life in prison or the death penalty.

The death penalty, while I'm all in favor, should only be reserved for the most heinous and incurable of criminals. Not a guy who got carried away during an armed robbery.

This "baby" committed a big boy crime. He unfortunately, suffered big boy consequences and paid for it- with his life. We'll never know if he would have survived without taking the extra 5 to the stomach. Maybe he would have. But I'm not too fussed when a criminal gets killed in the act. If some group of dirtbags broke into my home or place of work and threatened me, if I had the means to defend myself, I can't say for certain how I would react.

[Greenday]

Even if he is found guilty of Murder I, I don't any possibility of him getting the death sentence. I'd place my money on him getting life with parole.

[Boozy]

I still don't see how Murder 1 charges could be laid. If they charge him with anything (and I personally think they should), I'd think it would be Murder 2, tops.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

I think the worst he could be reliably charged and convicted of would be manslaughter, if only because I'd be busting out the temp insanity should it be murder.

I'm not saying that I know what I'd do, but there are classes taught by NRA instructers and others that deal with home defense, concealed and open carry etc.

And while I can see the adrenaline fight or flight rush counting as temporary insanity, the guy was if not entirely lacking in the basic knowledge, was very sloppy. If it's true that he shot the kid who didn't have a visible weapon (and as it eventually turned out no hidden one either, after the fact) then there's the fact that he chose the wrong target, he also hit the kid in the head, assuming this guy isn't just a sucky shot or the kid was providing a moving target, then he wasn't aiming for center body mass as he should have been. He should keep his skills sharp if your going to CCL or use a gun for home/buisness defence (you NEED to hit your TARGET and NOTHING else) and if the kid was running... well then, no need to shoot anything other than a warning shot which would also be incorrect as you should only fire your weapon if you intend to harm your target.

I put all of that together and see a guy who either didn't know what he was doing, or screwed up BIG TIME.

Alas, all the info I and the rest of us are working off of must be taken with a grain of salt, so my opinion is just that.

P.S. It's also very common for people to actually become more attentive, quick thinking, and even rational when under enough pressure. In many cases this is true and the person in question is disoriented afterwards when the effect fades and they are left with what could best be described as a cross between adrenaline withdrawal and a kind of hangover. Again, I'm no real expert but this is grounded in fact as far as I can tell.

[Greenday]

Murder II would probably have a high likelihood of conviction in this case. But I still feel like the prosecutor has a good chance at Murder I.

[BlaqueKatt]

I still don't see how Murder 1 charges could be laid.


again slyt quoted from the actual lawbooks from oklahoma as to why and I gave a basic from the american encyclopedia of law.

From West's encyclopedia of american law

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

Wanton-
1. done, shown, used, etc., maliciously or unjustifiably:
2. deliberate and without motive or provocation; uncalled-for
3. without regard for what is right, just, humane, etc.; careless; reckless:

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

so deliberate and unjustified desire to inflict injury or harm.

The suspect was lying on the ground unconscious-shooting someone when they are no longer any kind of threat is wanton malice.

[Gravekeeper]

Argh! The fact this is even being debated infuriates me.

That was murder. Period. I won't bother rehashing the points already posted. But yeah, he came back and executed the other robber. End of story.

In that situation I would not have chased Robber #2. I would have checked #1, restrained him if need be and applied first aid. Yes, first aid.

Don't say "you never know how you'd react" either. I have been held at gunpoint ( to my face at that ) and threatened before because a classmate of mine in high school fell into some serious gang shit I was unaware of. So they pulled up and grabbed me off the street one night when I was walking home from the store. Because they were trying to find him to put a few holes in him. Yeah, lots of god damn fun.

But I stayed completely calm. Thus I am still alive and not in a jail cell.