Should Pharmacist who shot teen armed robber be jailed?

Pliny · June 2, 2009

Two teen-aged armed robbers entered a pharmacy and fired a couple of shots at the clerk who also had a gun. The clerk shot and wounded one youth while the other ran out of the store. The clerk went out the door and came back in. He went over to the wounded teen, shot him five more times killing him and then phoned 911. A couple of customers had run into a back room and were hiding in there.

In a statement made by the clerk he said he was concerned for the customers in the back room and he himself was recovering from spinal surgery so was physically disabled. He was wearing a spinal immobilizer. He said he shot the youth dead because he didn't know what he would do if he got up.

Would it be a lesson to youth, or anyone, that armed robbery would not be tolerated if the clerk were exonerated?

If the clerk were sentenced and jailed for murder would it be a message that encouraged robbers?

The real point of contention here is that the clerk went back and shot the wounded robber with the intent of ensuring he was dead even though the situation appeared to no longer be a matter of self-defense.

The case in Texas where a citizen shot two robbers who had robbed his neighbours home and were now on his property ended with charges being dropped. Should charges be dropped in this case?

DogOnPorch · June 2, 2009

Two teen-aged armed robbers entered a pharmacy and fired a couple of shots at the clerk who also had a gun. The clerk shot and wounded one youth while the other ran out of the store. The clerk went out the door and came back in. He went over to the wounded teen, shot him five more times killing him and then phoned 911. A couple of customers had run into a back room and were hiding in there.
In a statement made by the clerk he said he was concerned for the customers in the back room and he himself was recovering from spinal surgery so was physically disabled. He was wearing a spinal immobilizer. He said he shot the youth dead because he didn't know what he would do if he got up.

Would it be a lesson to youth, or anyone, that armed robbery would not be tolerated if the clerk were exonerated?

If the clerk were sentenced and jailed for murder would it be a message that encouraged robbers?

The real point of contention here is that the clerk went back and shot the wounded robber with the intent of ensuring he was dead even though the situation appeared to no longer be a matter of self-defense.

The case in Texas where a citizen shot two robbers who had robbed his neighbours home and were now on his property ended with charges being dropped. Should charges be dropped in this case?

Yes. The robbers knew the odds.

Sir Bandelot · June 2, 2009

I don't know about the Texas case, but if he went back and shot an injured man to death, that should be grounds for conviction.

DogOnPorch · June 2, 2009

I don't know about the Texas case, but if he went back and shot an injured man to death, that should be grounds for conviction.

Hmmm...robber brings a gun to rob someone and dies in the process.

Big f**kin' deal. Shoot 'em again.

Borg · June 2, 2009

I don't know about the Texas case, but if he went back and shot an injured man to death, that should be grounds for conviction.

A large number of people have been shot or killed by an injured bad guy.

I teach "shoot till he stops moving or you hear click" - then reload.

Borg

DogOnPorch · June 2, 2009

A large number of people have been shot or killed by an injured bad guy.
I teach "shoot till he stops moving or you hear click" - then reload.

Borg

You teach well.

Sir Bandelot · June 2, 2009

Hmmm...robber brings a gun to rob someone and dies in the process.
Big f**kin' deal. Shoot 'em again.

Its not a big deal. Better the robber gets killed than the others. So shooting the guy is correct, an act of self defense. But if the robber is already down, and gven the option to detain them or kill them, I say killing them is wrong. However the store owner should get leniency.

Can't say what I would do in the same circumstances, but thats the law. I would uphold it.

GTL · June 2, 2009

I don't know about the Texas case, but if he went back and shot an injured man to death, that should be grounds for conviction.

Went back and unloaded 5 bullets into the chest of a 16-yo.

I've seen the video, the youth was completely incapacitated. At that point the store owner should have just called the cops and let the kid be.

The fact is that the store owner killed this kid in a manner that goes far, far beyond self-defense.

Smallc · June 2, 2009

I would agree with the above assessment.

noahbody · June 2, 2009

Its not a big deal. Better the robber gets killed than the others. So shooting the guy is correct, an act of self defense. But if the robber is already down, and gven the option to detain them or kill them, I say killing them is wrong. However the store owner should get leniency.
Can't say what I would do in the same circumstances, but thats the law. I would uphold it.

The police felt the need to taser an unarmed Robert Dziekanski when he was down. There were four of them, and he was still considered dangerous.

Smallc · June 2, 2009

Brining up another case where mistakes were made doesn't make this one right.

Pliny · June 2, 2009

There is little question it was beyond self-defense.

Should the robber gain sympathy then when brutality is met with brutality?

I think people need to learn to respect other people's property. If this clerk gets convicted doesn't it send the wrong message to other would be robbers that it is safe to go out and rob? Would it act as a restraint upon others acting to protect the sanctity of person and property if the clerk were convicted of murder?

Don't forget the clerk was physically disabled from spinal surgery and any physical struggle could have left him permanently disabled.

I would more than likely not have done what this clerk did but I wasn't in the situation. When you fear for your life you may wish to eliminate any possibility of threat to it.

In Canada could hate laws be invoked? Should we learn to love armed robbers.

Smallc · June 2, 2009

In Canada could hate laws be invoked? Should we learn to love armed robbers.

Ummmm....no.

If the laws in the state say that he went beyond self defense then he did. We would be sending the wrong message if we didn't follow the laws.

GTL · June 2, 2009

Hmmm...robber brings a gun to rob someone and dies in the process.
Big f**kin' deal. Shoot 'em again.

The kid was still alive when he goes down. He was lying on the floor clearly incapacitated, the store owner proceeds to walk back to the counter of the store slowly and calmly. He then pulls out a gun, walks back to the robber, stands over-top the kid and fires 5 rounds into his abdomen.

This is murder beyond self-defense anyway you look at it. The store owner's insurance would have covered any damages to the store. There was no point in killing the 16-yo. I don't want to sound like I'm playing the part of the bleeding-heart, I'm not. This boy was murdered.

Shady · June 2, 2009

The fact is that the store owner killed this kid in a manner that goes far, far beyond self-defense.

Not if the store owner can make the case that his life was still in danger. That will probably be for an investigation, and then possibly a jury to decide. And I can't see a jury being very harsh in any judgement rendered to the pharmacist.

Smallc · June 2, 2009

Not if the store owner can make the case that his life was still in danger. That will probably be for an investigation, and then possibly a jury to decide. And I can't see a jury being very harsh in any judgement rendered to the pharmacist.

You, on the other hand, are quite happy to defend wrongdoing.

Edited June 2, 2009 by Smallc

Shady · June 2, 2009

This boy was murdered.

After Columbine, I'm a little tired of the boy defense. It's not as if he's a little kid.

DogOnPorch · June 2, 2009

The kid was still alive when he goes down. He was lying on the floor clearly incapacitated, the store owner proceeds to walk back to the counter of the store slowly and calmly. He then pulls out a gun, walks back to the robber, stands over-top the kid and fires 5 rounds into his abdomen.
This is murder beyond self-defense anyway you look at it. The store owner's insurance would have covered any damages to the store. There was no point in killing the 16-yo. I don't want to sound like I'm playing the part of the bleeding-heart, I'm not. This boy was murdered.

Ever had a gun pulled on you?

stevoh · June 2, 2009

Did the pharmacist try and remove the gun? Was the boy unconscious but still within reach of his weapon?

Shoot him again in the leg, remove the weapon, that is the most drastic course of action I could defend.

Unloading 5 rounds into the abdomen of a downed man is not being worried about potential retaliation. It is the intent to murder.

Shady · June 2, 2009

You, on the other hand, are quite happy to defend wrongdoing.

You're incorrect. I don't know if there's any wrongdoing that took place, aside from the teens armed robbery attempt. I wasn't there, I don't know much of any of the facts. I just know, that if the pharmacist has any case in which his life, or other's lives were still threatened, then killing the gunman is not way past self-defense.

GTL · June 2, 2009

After Columbine, I'm a little tired of the boy defense. It's not as if he's a little kid.

The boy defense isn't what I was arguing, just using if for effect. My main point was the fact that he was down and out, a phone call would have sufficed over 5 bullets.

Ever had a gun pulled on you?

Yes, once. I've had a knife pulled on me twice. All three times my wallet was stolen.

Your point?

bush_cheney2004 · June 2, 2009

Not if the store owner can make the case that his life was still in danger. That will probably be for an investigation, and then possibly a jury to decide. And I can't see a jury being very harsh in any judgement rendered to the pharmacist.

Agreed....this guy is looking at a reduced charge if the DA decides to indict and a court binds him over, and perhaps a wrongful death civil lawsuit afterwards, both of which are preferable to being dead. Better to be judged by twelve than carried by six.

The NRA loves this kind of thing...salute!

Smallc · June 2, 2009

You're incorrect. I don't know if there's any wrongdoing that took place,

I would call what he did wrong...even if it's legal.

bush_cheney2004 · June 2, 2009

The boy defense isn't what I was arguing, just using if for effect. My main point was the fact that he was down and out, a phone call would have sufficed over 5 bullets.

Professionally trained police officers are not even required to meet such a standard for "down and out" until the perp is physically secured.