Should Pharmacist who shot teen armed robber be jailed?

[GTL]

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

Are you trying to tell me that untrained civilians are incapable of applying common sense?

There were many, many ways this could have been handled. 5 bullets to the chest should have been a last resort. The perp was incapacitated, all the owner needed to do was disarm and detain him until police arrived. The perp was in no position to harm the store owner, therefore the owner's actions were not in self-defense.

[scorpio]

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

He wasn't a cop.

[bush_cheney2004]

Are you trying to tell me that untrained civilians are incapable of applying common sense?

Has nothing to do with common sense and a lot to do with survival. You know very well that police officers with drawn weapons will shoot a "downed" suspect if given a reason to fear for their own safety or the safety of others. Consideration for the perp's health and longevity are secondary.

So our hero, who doesn't have such training save for that which is required for a gun permit, dealt with the sitch as best he could in the present state of mind.

There were many, many ways this could have been handled. 5 bullets to the chest should have been a last resort. The perp was incapacitated, all the owner needed to do was disarm and detain him until police arrived. The perp was in no position to harm the store owner, therefore the owner's actions were not in self-defense.

At one point is was self defense, so the DA will have to decide when/if our hero crossed the line. One shot...two shots....etc. Then a jury will have to believe that this untrained pharmacist could shift from fearing for his life (and the life of others)...to cold blooded killer....in mere seconds.

Edited June 2, 2009 by bush_cheney2004

[bush_cheney2004]

He wasn't a cop.

Right.....so he didn't have the training to control the scene or perp using something less than lethal force.

[Smallc]

Why was it "wrong"?

I have been involved in enough situations such as that one to know that what he did was wrong. He was not justified in taking someone elses life if the person no longer posed a threat to him.

[GTL]

Has nothing to do with common sense and a lot to do with survival. You know very well that police officers with drawn weapons will shoot a "downed" suspect if given a reason to fear for their own safety or the safety of others. Consideration for the perp's health and longevity are secondary.

So our hero, who doesn't have such training save for that which is required for a gun permit, dealt with the sitch as best he could in the present state of mind.

Survival is inherently part of common sense. Common sense dictates that you do what you have to survive. If you watch the video, you can watch the 'hero' incapacitate the robber by shooting him in the head (he was still alive but unconscious), walk slowly over to the counter, pick up a gun, walk back, and unload 5 bullets. This clearly goes far beyond self-defense, common sense and survival. This steps into the realm of execution-style murder.

Edited June 2, 2009 by GTL

[bush_cheney2004]

I have been involved in enough situations such as that one to know that what he did was wrong. He was not justified in taking someone elses life if the person no longer posed a threat to him.

That's your subjective opinion. In context, this pharmacist, who may have a different foundation in right or wrong, made a decision. If the perp or accomplice presented a perceived threat, then it may not be wrong at all.

[bush_cheney2004]

Survival is inherently part of common sense. Common sense dictates that you do what you have to survive. If you watch the video, you can watch the 'hero' incapacitate the robber by shooting him in the head (he was still alive but unconscious), walk slowly over to the counter, pick up a gun, walk back, and unload 5 bullets. This clearly goes far beyond self-defense, common sense and survival. This steps into the realm of execution-style murder.

Maybe, but the fact that we are discussing it says otherwise....not so cut and dry. The law will afford our hero much leniency because of his state of mind. Wanting someone not merely dead but truly and sincerely dead

is OK under certain circumstances.

[GTL]

Maybe, but the fact that we are discussing it says otherwise....not so cut and dry. The law will afford our hero much leniency because of his state of mind. Wanting someone not merely dead but truly and sincerely dead

is OK under certain circumstances.

@ Bold, that's straight out of the Wizard of Oz.

The store owner had no right to kill the kid as he posed no threat at that point. 1st degree murder.

Leniency is fine if the courts so decide. As long as they still charge him as he is: a murderer. Justice will be served.

That's your subjective opinion. In context, this pharmacist, who may have a different foundation in right or wrong, made a decision. If the perp or accomplice presented a perceived threat, then it may not be wrong at all.

Regardless of a persons 'foundation of right or wrong', the law is the law. The store owner killed someone that posed no threat any longer.

Edited June 2, 2009 by GTL

[Shady]

He was not justified in taking someone elses life if the person no longer posed a threat to him.

How do you know the armed robber no longer posed a threat? You speak as if you know all of the facts, as if you were a witness to the shooting.

[Smallc]

Obviously the police don't think he was justified since they've charged him with murder.

[bush_cheney2004]

@ Bold, that's straight out of the Wizard of Oz.

Yep....I'm really old.

Leniency is fine if the courts so decide. As long as they still charge him as he is: a murderer. Justice will be served.

I don't have a problem with that. Charge him and let a court determine his fate. Remember, Bernard Goetz (Subway Vigilante) was not convicted of aggravated assault....just simple weapons possession. He also fired five times. I'm more of a semi-auto kinda guy with more rounds in the magazine, but revolvers are very reliable.

[bush_cheney2004]

Obviously the police don't think he was justified since they've charged him with murder.

Quite routine in such matters.....much more to follow.

[Smallc]

Whether or not he is guilty of murder will be decided by the court, but whether or not he did the right thing is another matter entirely.

[Shady]

Whether or not he is guilty of murder will be decided by the court, but whether or not he did the right thing is another matter entirely.

Exactly. He may have saved the lives of others, as well as his own.

[Smallc]

Exactly. He may have saved the lives of others, as well as his own.

Or, he may have killed someone without reason. I'm not willing to say he is a murdere yet, but I will enver beleive that he was justified based on the media reports.

[bush_cheney2004]

Whether or not he is guilty of murder will be decided by the court, but whether or not he did the right thing is another matter entirely.

Our hero is still alive....the perp isn't. How many shots are too many?

[Smallc]

Our hero is still alive....the perp isn't. How many shots are too many?

They could probably both be alive.

[bush_cheney2004]

They could probably both be alive.

True, but the bad guy isn't. Why is the entire burden to be calm and cool on our hero?

[Smallc]

True, but the bad guy isn't. Why is the entire burden to be calm and cool on our hero?

The entire burden isn't/ The teenager was doing soemthign very wrong....but based on the information, it seems that he shouldn't have been killed.

[Shady]

The entire burden isn't/ The teenager was doing soemthign very wrong....but based on the information, it seems that he shouldn't have been killed.

Well, that needs to be taken into consideration by any future offenders. If you participate in an armed robbery, there's a chance you may be killed. What a shock.

[bush_cheney2004]

The entire burden isn't/ The teenager was doing soemthign very wrong....but based on the information, it seems that he shouldn't have been killed.

Maybe.....maybe not. Should all cases be adjudicated based on YouTube videos?

[bush_cheney2004]

Well, that needs to be taken into consideration by any future offenders. If you participate in an armed robbery, there's a chance you may be killed. What a shock.

Right.....the law is clearly on the side of lethal force used against a perp such as this.

We don't shoot to wound like in the movies....we shoot to kill.

[Pliny]

Right.....the law is clearly on the side of lethal force used against a perp such as this.

We don't shoot to wound like in the movies....we shoot to kill.

That's in America. Here we cannot use more than reasonable force. In Canada the clerk would have been convicted of murder in the first degree. I am quite certain of that.

In the US it is a different story.

I personally think that the person who initiates force or violence against the sanctity of person or property is the one who should be convicted of a crime. what happens after a crime has been committed or is attempting to be committed should not been given a second consideration.

As I said, I probably would not have done what the clerk did if I were in my right mind but who can guess my reaction in a situation where my life has been threatened for a couple of bucks. I just might go berserk. I don't think anyone should judge what they would do based upon what they think is right and wrong in what amounts to a disengaged intellectual circle jerk. The fact is your life is threatened. The clerk didn't initiate the violence. What happens after that first threat of violence should not in my estimation be what is on trial.

[Sir Bandelot]

Too bad he wasn't a muslim

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/06/02/new.yo...ercy/index.html