Never underestimate the danger posed by trip hazards!

Why did he lie to the cops? Given the fact that cops today will tazer a man in front of his pregnant wife and take him to the ground - all for not signing a speeding ticket, would you tell the cops everything?

How do they know the guy was still alive? Was he moving? If so, he could still be a credible threat! Remember, there is nothing more dangerous than a wounded animal.

He may be only guilty of desecrating a corpse...

On the bright side, the piece of sh!t is dead and we should all thank the Pharmacist for doing the rest of us a favor.

You're right, of course. I wish you weren't, but you are.

If the shooter tried to justify the 5 additional shots - I would find him guilty of murder. However, if he said he was frightened out of his mind and didn't know what he was doing - I might find it to be temporary insanity caused by the robber pushing him over the edge and causing him to "snap". If so, I'd find him innocent and the man with the wound to the head ultimately responsible for the 5 additional shots. I couldn't say until I heard the evidence about the owner's state of mind at the time of the 5 additional shots.

Blessings.

I really think some people here are just trying too hard to justify this shooting. the two thugs were thugs and scum. The one shot was self defense, and fine shooting, too.

The dead person was unconscious. UNCONSCIOUS, as in NOT MOVING, which can be seen from the VIDEO. The pharmacist got a second gun and pumped 5 bullets into and UNCONSCIOUS person.

Also from the Fox News story, the one who ran away took the gun with him. So. You have a person who shot an UNCONSCIOUS and UNARMED person.

This you all are choosing to defend? Time for a head check. Seriously.

I suppose it's possible to be shot in the head and not be dead.
If the robber died from the head shot, can the Pharmacist be charged with murder for the 5 subsequent shots to an already dead person?

Gun owners already have a hard enough time just getting government to recognize our right of self-defense, we're not helped when one of us tries to bypass the judiciary and execute criminals directly.

Sorry for the pharmacist, but if that was his intention, he should have emptied his gun when he first shot the robber in the head, and no one would have said anything about it, other than to possibly criticise his grouping.

I am about as pro-gun as you can get and work in law enforcement. To attempt to defend something like this is idiotic and makes us look like what the liberals claim we are. Regardless of dead at that moment or not the scumbag was on the floor not moving and the pharmacist had two weapons.
Did he deserve what he got? Of course but we don't live in that kind of country thanfully.
The moral of the story is, always know where the camera's are ;-)

Do I think what the guy did was right, no. Do I think it was, by any stretch of the imagination, murder, no!

Here is why.

First, there is no way NO WAY, you can tell from a survillance video whether an unmoving person on the floor is dead, or just unconscious.

Second, the fact that the "unconscious" person is "unarmed" is totally irrelevant.

Third, which gunshot wound did the "victim" die from? Has this been determined?

Fourth, was the orignial "headshot" survivable? In other words, if he hadn't been shot 4 or 5 more times, would he have been able to live? Liberals will call plunging forceps into the skull of a have born, live infant a pregnancy termination, but shooting a dying robber, who violently attacked you is murder? Give me a break!

Fifth, presumably and hopefully no one on this board has ever been in a violent life and death struggle to protect their lives and the lives of the ones they love. The adreneline level in such a confrontation is incredible! I would not be surprised if the pharamcist was so "strung out" on an adreneline "rush" that he didn't know what the heck he was doing! To call an such an act, under those conditions "murder" is to cheapen the meaning of the word to where it nearly looses it meaning.

How many shots is an honest and armed citizen allowed at a masked and armed criminal? As many as he or she wants, as far as I'm concerned. I'm a 12-gauge pump guy, #2 shot, with lots of ammmo, so identification could be difficult if the cops are slow in responding. POS deserved to be DRT (dead right there), and he got it. Death absolutely prevents recidivism, and perhaps the acts of like-minded criminals.
Clean-up on Aisle One!
May I buy you a drink or two, Pharmacist Hero? Good grouping with those last five rounds, sir.

Wow. Just, wow.

Ok, first off the levels of certain stress produced hormones in the blood can tell you after death if the person was alive after a wounding incident and died instantly or later. (I think it is a ratio of free histamine/bound, but am not positive.) It is a standard blood test that has been done since the 1970's.

Second, I am starting to worry about the reading comprehension skills of this armed populace responding here. The criminal, unconscious and unmoving, laying inside the pharmacy was not armed.

Third the pharmacist came back in the pharmacy, TURNED HIS BACK on the unmoving, unconscious thug to retrieve a second handgun and then walk up to the criminal and shoot him. This is not a heat of the moment thing. That is planned out.

That is murder.

If I were on the jury, I would not vote to convict.

The rule is don't stop shooting until the suspect is dead. Here he should have carried extra ammo. Too bad. I hope he gets off.

The rule is to shoot to stop the threat, no to shoot to kill.

This pharmacist is very clearly a murderer, and I'm quite saddened to see so many here that are ignorant, arrogant, untrained, and of such low moral character.

Robbing a pharmacy is not for everyone. Side effects may include: Excessive bleeding, ringing of the ears, nausea, blurred vision and unconsciousness.

I think the guy should get charged with manslaughter or depraved indifference.

An OHP would have probably pulled this kid's ambulance over and choked the EMT-leading to his eventual death anyway.

The rule is to shoot to stop the threat, no to shoot to kill.

Firearms self defense classes must have changed since I took mine years ago. We were taught to shoot to kill - double tap. We were assured that if we didn't shoot to kill, our "opponets" would!

Ok, first off the levels of certain stress produced hormones in the blood can tell you after death if the person was alive after a wounding incident and died instantly or later. (I think it is a ratio of free histamine/bound, but am not positive.) It is a standard blood test that has been done since the 1970's.

For some reason, I have the feeling that the pharmacist didn't have that information available at the time. (Just a guess on my part though!)

I think the guy should get charged with manslaughter...

I totally agree. I would not vote convict on anything higher than manslaughter. This may rufffle the feathers of some who believe in black and white justice, but I feel it is time we start sending a message to the punks, and hoods and gangbangers of this world that if they are going to attempt to commit violent crimes against the law abiding populace, they are going to be putting their lives at risk to do so!

Since I'm not on the jury, I'll never get to hear the evidence entered into the record. So instead, I will say that IF the assertions made are backed up by evidence, the pharm is looking at voluntary manslaughter at least.

His attorney might successfully argue "heat of the moment" to remove the premeditation aspect -- and no, leaving and coming back is NOT a prolonged and effective "cooling-off period" after a violent shooting event, despite what some people (and prosecutors) who've never been there might think. You can't always just "switch it off" in real life.

Why get a second gun ? Well, if the first was empty, and the other robber was still at large with a gun, the pharm might have felt safer having gotten another gun. It doesn't have to be nefarious (might be, doesn't have to be).

I really wonder why he fired again. Did the perp move in some what that could be construed as threatening ? Yes, everyone is asserting unconsciousness, might even be true. Or perhaps the perp moved in a way that, while possibly harmless, the pharm saw as a threat. There was at least one gun present at the start of the crime, it would hardly be paranoid for the pharm to think the downed perp might have another. Let's lose the worry over who was armed, per se. That's not relevant once a gun is shown to be present.

What is critical then is whether or not the pharmacist was "reasonably" in fear for his life. If after the first gun was seen the bad guy pulled out a black cellphone that could be reasonably mistaken for a gun, you may have defense of justification.

Am I defending him ? No, not really -- as I stated I will never see the true evidence. But I am not sanguine about castigating a specific circumstance unless I'm highly confident I have all the facts. In this case, I doubt I do.

As for shooting in self-defense, I never taught anyone to "shoot to kill." I taught "fire into the center of mass, as many times as necessary to end the threat." Whether the attacker lives or dies is not important either way -- stopping the threat matters.

Were I on the jury -- and my background would get me excused for cause -- I would not care if it were one shot or thirty, the timing in the context of the threat is all that matters. If you had a reasonable fear for your life and you emptied a 15-round magazine one shot after another without stopping, the number of shots fired is not terribly significant -- I'd assume that you used what you felt was necessary.

Once you have justification for shooting, 1 shot, five shots, or 10 shots is like arguing which brand of car is better -- a matter of opinion that's not highly relevant to me. (It MAY WELL cost you the civil case, but that's another matter).

Manslaughter? Maybe.

I'd have my attorney offer a plea to desecrating a corpse.

The only person guilty of murder is the accomplice who fled.

1charlie2:

A well reasoned and logical assesment. Well said!

I took my small arms self defense training some 30 years ago in the Air Force. At that time we were taught to shoot to kill (as far as I remember) the main thing was, they didn't want anybody trying "wound" their opponet as is so often done by the "good guys" in the movies. That, they said, would get you killed.

Perhaps over the intervening years, shoot to kill, has been found to be unpalatable to the general public who take civilian fire arms classes and has been replaced with aim at the center of the largest mass and stop the threat. Or perhaps over the years I have taken the meaning of that to mean shoot to kill. I don't know.

I've never been in that situation and I pray to God I never will be.

Wasn't there a similar situation a few years ago about an incident in the NY subway or something like that? Where an armed citizen fought off some armed attackers and the shot one again who was on the floor after saying something like, "You don't look too bad, heres another one for you!"?

Anyhow, it doesn't look good for Ersland as the "Race Card" is already being played by the usual suspects... NAACP, ACLU etc.

I wouldn't be surprised to see a "hate crimes" enhancement to the charges before this is all over!

This is justice?

Found it!
Bernhard Goetz - the so-called Subway vigilante!

The wikipedia entry is interesting...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernhard_Goetz

GEJ

Ah, yes, Goetz. This may flip out some, but my first problem with Geotz is that his shots didn't seem to be very well-aimed. He was, IIRC, in a subway car full of people. You really need to aim carefully under that circumstance to avoid bystanders, and as a consequence, most or all of your attackers should be dead. Not because you care either way -- you shouldn't -- but because hits to the heart are often fatal. But he was a civilian, with no evidence he practiced regularly, so it's not surprising.

In reading that case many years ago, I recall not being completely convinced that his fear was 'reasonable.' I was NOT there, so it's not a firm assertion. But as I recall he did NOT have a license to carry. And NYC had a mandatory 1 year sentence for mere unlawful possession of firearms. So in true Monday-morning-quarterback style I thought to myself "Man, if I knew I was going to go to jail for a year or more I'd best be darned sure the threat is imminent." But as I said, I wasn't there.

As for you're being taught "aim to kill" -- I have no doubt the military might have said "shoot to kill.". In that context, one is either in a war or protecting serious weapons systems. So they're not likely to encounter an over-zealous prosecutor, and nuances are not as important as teaching students what to aim it.

But -- I know of no civilian laws that specifically justify "killing" per se. The 'defense of justification' is generally classed as something like "whatever level of force -- up to and including deadly force -- is necessary to stop the threat" (most commonly an imminent threat to an innocent human being). You shoot to stop that imminent threat. You don't aim "to wound" because to do so would decrease stopping effectiveness and increases in imminent threat you're triyng to stop.

Instead, you fire (as do police officers) into the center of mass because that improves your chances of stopping the threat now now NOW!. You shoot as many times as necessary to end the threat. Both these actions will quite possibly but only coincidentally end your attacker's life. But that's only a side-effect of stopping him "effectively and expeditiously."

Outside the military, I'd never want to say "I shot to _kill_." That's a whole can of legal worms to open. And truthfully, I hope killing is not uppermost in a civilian's mind at that point -- you are not some counter-terrorist popping "insurance rounds" into the heads of downed terrorists to make sure they stay down.

As I told my students -- know the law, and afterward stick to the facts under the law: "Such-and-such happened. I was in fear for my life. I fired several times in his/her direction and s/he fell. I then called 911. Now, officer, as you might imagine, this has been quite an experience and I'd like to call my lawyer before making any further statements. Once my lawyer arrives I'd be happy -- with his counsel -- to answer any further questions."

You are telling the absolute truth at that point. (Do NOT lie. Do NOT tamper with any evidence. And, as you did nothing illegal, do not do anything that smacks of "admitting guilt.")

Hopefully, the officers are getting the (correct) idea at that point that you are not some punk copping the 5th. And as you've made it clear that you're not going anywhere, they have no reason to make an "administrative arrest" to secure your custody. Notice nothing was EVER said about "killing."

Oh, and if you do have a firearm for self defense (by which I mean you procured it FOR THAT REASON) and you do NOT have an attorney ON RETAINER with his cell phone in your wallet, you are leaving your marbles at home. Find out immediately what lawyer represents the police in your jurisdiction in the event of a shooting -- s/he will know the applicable statutes well -- and pay that lawyer UP FRONT so that they will come when/if you ever have to call them. The time you need them will NOT generally be during normal business hours, and you do not want to be looking thru the Yellow Pages THEN.

Sorry, I'll hand over my soapbox now :)

Like the Youtube guy says-"Don't talk to the Police".

I'm with you on this one, CY. I feel no sympathy for the dead guy, thug that he was. Still, the shooter crossed the line.

Well,i'm tired.Good luck,impossable is nothing. 杭州搬家公司地在jd中有杭州到青岛机票杭州江干区空调维修老大f中杭州侦探公司民dst风右气力输送夼埯历要碴要错误链接杭州物流杭州特价机票绕线机关键词排名杭州化妆培训杭州到昆明机票温湿度记录仪杭州搬家公司缝纫机维修杭州植物租赁温度记录仪杭州打折机票杭州到成都机票沙盒效应文化衫死链接T恤衫杭州到北京机票杭州到重庆机票杭州店面装修