Well if you don't want to run the risk of getting shot, don't draw down and attempt to rob people who may be packing.
That said, the shop owner has the right to kill in self defense but not murder in anger.
Man Charged w/Murder After Being Robbed @Gunpoint and Killing Perp
- Thread starter Bloodshot Scott
- Start date
Well if you don't want to run the risk of getting shot, don't draw down and attempt to rob people who may be packing.
That said, the shop owner has the right to kill in self defense but not murder in anger.
Ace Boobtoucher
Founder and Captain of the Douchepatrol
People have the right to defend themselves or others but not property. If he'd continued firing at the suspect after the initial shot he could claim that he still felt threatened but he went back after chasing the other suspect and shot him five times. It's a tough call but I'd side with the DA's office on that count.
My Dad owned three pharmacies in Des Moines from 77'-91' and one of his pharmacists brought a handgun to work everyday because that store had been knocked over three or four times in a couple years. The pharmacist used the pistol one time when someone tried to rob the store and he was arrested on concealed weapons charges and lost his license to work as a pharmacist.
In the event of a robbery the best course of action is to cooperate with the robber and give them what they want and then after they leave, trigger the alarm or call 911. It's usually safer for everyone involved.
My Dad owned three pharmacies in Des Moines from 77'-91' and one of his pharmacists brought a handgun to work everyday because that store had been knocked over three or four times in a couple years. The pharmacist used the pistol one time when someone tried to rob the store and he was arrested on concealed weapons charges and lost his license to work as a pharmacist.
In the event of a robbery the best course of action is to cooperate with the robber and give them what they want and then after they leave, trigger the alarm or call 911. It's usually safer for everyone involved.
ChefChiTown
The secret ingredient? MY BALLS
I agree. Unless the pharmacist shot all 6 bullets in sequence, as a reflex, you can't really justify the blatant, meditated murder that he committed by killing that teen.
The 2nd amendment simply says that citizens are allowed to own guns (and even that is just an interpretation of it) it doesn't stipulate any of the conditions for how they should be used. In other words, the second amendment doesn't have anything to do with this.
So you're saying that if he wasn't shot six times by the man he would have still died anyway? It seems pretty obvious that getting shot was what killed him, and that robbing a place and/or shooting at someone is not lethal, since the other people that did the same thing didn't die as a result of those actions.
shooting someone that shot at you is not a mechanical reaction. The man could have left the guy alone and chased down and shot the other robbers. He could have shot himself in the head. He could have dialed 911 and waited for the police and emergency crews to arrive. He could have put up a "wet floor" sign over the guys body and went about his normal work routine. There's a near infinite number of other conclusions that may have resulted from that scenario.
Unless the robber possessed mind control ability and took over the other man's body and forced him to shoot, he is the one that is responsible for what he did.
meesterperfect
Hiliary 2020
thats right, you don't need a law degree to figure it out.
i would think being shot in the head had removed any threat he may have posed, unless he was coherent and possibly was still armed.
buttttttt, given the circumstances of being in a life threatening situation which was not at all his fault, i believe they should lower the charge and give him a suspened sentance if convicted.
butttttttt, let them go for murder 1, hopefully he won't get convicted at all, because this is obviously not murder 1.
for you who think the initial shooting was wrong, well if someone points a gun at you , you do have the right to defend yourself by any means. its your fucking life thats in danger.
too bad the clerk didnt have a flamethrower.
So, what makes Time-Warner "liberal"? (And, again, the article was actually from the Associated Press. I really don't know, maybe they're owned by Time-Warner, too? So, if so, back to my question...)
:dunno:
I wasn't implying you're a white supremacist, I was just hoping that wasn't the source for your comment. Still, lots of people who AREN'T white supremacists (myself, for instance) visit white supremacist websites, so even if that HAD been your source, it wouldn't have made you a white supremacist. Many white supremacists are proud of their beliefs, but then some go to great lengths to conceal the true core of their beliefs.
The fact that this guy is a Gulf War vet is irrelevant to the case. (I'll ignore your silly "you probably despise him anyway" b.s.)
He's clearly back in the civilian world now, and must operate on that basis. Being a war veteran doesn't give one the right to break any laws with impunity. After having put the robber out of commission with a bullet to the head - the guy was clearly DOWN in a serious way - he turned his back on him (not typical if you feel you're threatened; I wouldn't expect a trained soldier to do that if he truly felt his life was at risk), got another gun and took the extra trouble to be sure the robber was not only ready to be taken away by the police, but dead, even though having him absolutely dead was not necessary to ensure anyone's safety.
Do you think the prosecuting attorney hates Gulf War vets, too?
my favorite part of the article by far:
from: http://newsok.com/pharmacist-is-glad-he-defended-store/article/3371710
If the teen was still moving, and he might have been, we can't see him in the video (unless there's something I missed in the report [I may have]), then this man was absolutely one hundred percent justified in shooting him till he stopped moving. Was 5 shots too many, probably, but again this is something that 95% of us will never go through, so it's hard to incriminate based on such, one way or the other.
Why is this still a debate. The guy would have been charged if he managed to shoot the other guy outside fleeing. As it stands he went back for the other guy to finish him off.
It's clear for whatever reason this guy planned not only to defend himself but execute whomever threatened him (or worse).
Now the real question is what if any imbalance or disorder may be at the root of his mentality.
The dilemma for this guy now is....if he wants to argue there's nothing wrong with him, he was merely exercising his right to self defense..He should go to jail IMO. On the other hand if he wants to argue he's suffering from PTSD or temp insanity...no more CCW.
It's clear for whatever reason this guy planned not only to defend himself but execute whomever threatened him (or worse).
Now the real question is what if any imbalance or disorder may be at the root of his mentality.
The dilemma for this guy now is....if he wants to argue there's nothing wrong with him, he was merely exercising his right to self defense..He should go to jail IMO. On the other hand if he wants to argue he's suffering from PTSD or temp insanity...no more CCW.
"Fortunately, God made them miss me, except for this minor scratch,” Ersland said.
God: Deflecting projectiles for dudes s/he likes since David and Goliath.
God: Deflecting projectiles for dudes s/he likes since David and Goliath.
He was shot at first, something that was conveniently left out of that uber-lib AOL article. BTW, 70 to 30: percent in favor of the patriot Erlsman on the AOL poll. These aren't rednecks here; they are people with broadband internet.... sophisticated patriots.
Whether he was or not doesn't give him the legal right to then execute someone he's successfully defended himself against.
What if he would have found out where the other guy live then went to kill him? Is that self defense? What's the difference??
Why is it 100% justified?!? :dunno:
The guy is not a patriot, he is a 100% trigger happy loony vet!! :ak47:
For how long? :dunno:
Still, even if he does go to prison, for any reasonable length of time, he is going to be a "cult hero," and he's probably going to make a lot of money in one way or another.
:thefingerI don't know. Obviously mitigating circumstances will be considered but undoubtedly his prima facie act appears to be murder. So whatever the sentencing guidelines are for lesser offense murder are.
Don't break the law unless you're willing to accept it's punishment. In our country we have laws on the books and ignorance of them is no excuse. In other words, it's not an excuse to claim he didn't know where the line of self defense ends and murder begins.
Sadly you are probably right.For how long? :dunno:
Still, even if he does go to prison, for any reasonable length of time, he is going to be a "cult hero," and he's probably going to make a lot of money in one way or another.
Will E Worm
Conspiracy...
He was being robbed by two thugs at gunpoint.
He acted in self-defense.
You know the government isn't going to do anything, and they would have been in and out of prison quickly. If they were even sentenced to prison time.
He acted in self-defense.
You know the government isn't going to do anything, and they would have been in and out of prison quickly. If they were even sentenced to prison time.
Yep, up until the point he decided to execute the robbers.
Will E Worm
Conspiracy...
I see nothing wrong with what he did. If more people would did this crime would drop drastically.