GTL Posted June 2, 2009 Report Share Posted June 2, 2009 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scorpio Posted June 2, 2009 Report Share Posted June 2, 2009 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 2, 2009 Report Share Posted June 2, 2009 (edited) 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 2, 2009 Report Share Posted June 2, 2009 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 2, 2009 Report Share Posted June 2, 2009 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GTL Posted June 2, 2009 Report Share Posted June 2, 2009 (edited) 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 2, 2009 Report Share Posted June 2, 2009 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 2, 2009 Report Share Posted June 2, 2009 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GTL Posted June 2, 2009 Report Share Posted June 2, 2009 (edited) 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted June 2, 2009 Report Share Posted June 2, 2009 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 2, 2009 Report Share Posted June 2, 2009 Obviously the police don't think he was justified since they've charged him with murder. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 2, 2009 Report Share Posted June 2, 2009 @ 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 2, 2009 Report Share Posted June 2, 2009 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 2, 2009 Report Share Posted June 2, 2009 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted June 2, 2009 Report Share Posted June 2, 2009 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 2, 2009 Report Share Posted June 2, 2009 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 2, 2009 Report Share Posted June 2, 2009 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 2, 2009 Report Share Posted June 2, 2009 Our hero is still alive....the perp isn't. How many shots are too many? They could probably both be alive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 2, 2009 Report Share Posted June 2, 2009 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 2, 2009 Report Share Posted June 2, 2009 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted June 2, 2009 Report Share Posted June 2, 2009 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 2, 2009 Report Share Posted June 2, 2009 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 2, 2009 Report Share Posted June 2, 2009 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pliny Posted June 3, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 3, 2009 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Bandelot Posted June 3, 2009 Report Share Posted June 3, 2009 Too bad he wasn't a muslim http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/06/02/new.yo...ercy/index.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.