This is a hero?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

That doesn't seem like very good reasoning really.

[Peikko 1,575]

The bottom line is, the pharmacist, who was minding his own business, went home to his family ALIVE. The kid pulling an armed robbery went home to his family DEAD. The more armed robbers that come home DEAD, the less armed robberies there will be...and that is a good thing.

The kid was no hero, and he must have known the potential risks he ran by attempting armed robbery. That said, what on earth makes you suppose that killing armed robbers necessarily means there will be less armed robberies? Clearly, the people who engage in them think that the benefits outweigh the risks and will continue to do so no matter how many of them are killed - there isn't some finite number of armed robbers that we have to kill in order for armed robbery to be extinct, what a bizarre and frankly stupid idea.

Edited August 21, 2010 by Madame Cleo

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I'm sure there's an equation to prove Gary's point.

[nab 74]

The reloading part comes from the dead kid's mother, not the report itself. I'll wait to see it that part is true, or not.

As for getting another weapon, the storekeeper was not smart having a single shot primary, when he evidently had a multiple shot backup. But firing into the body sounds suspiciously like they had some military-type training, as it's standard practice to put two rounds into the body of a prone target/body to "make sure they stay down" (Quote courtesy of the RAF Regiment). Five more is a bit much.

The details here are sketchy at best, so drawing conclusions without all the facts is dangerous.

One thing is clear, though. Antwun Parker is no hero.

i agree, he is NO HERO and his mother must be some type of fruitloop for even believing that!

as for the two to the body, i've never heard that... but maybe thats for the bad shots we always practiced head/heart, that should stop them, if not you stil have ammo for more shots. if blowing off some extra rounds or like when i was married to ex and he was going out on deployment and i would be alone for a few months, i would do kneecaps, crotch, head and heart on the outline then leave the 4x8 board outside during his deployment

we also practice running through the woods and shooting at targets becasue guaranteed if you are in a situation the person isnt going to stand there in place while you take aim and fire off a couple shots at them

up here most are reared in the city and have never used a firearm in their lives. where i grew up, everyone learns when they are small. so, if you are running from someone (even the cops - they are usually BAD shots unless reared in the country) run zig-zagging ... if they cannot hit a target that is moving straight at them (and most cant) they surely are not goign to hit you running away and moving from side to side

Antwun should have run ...

-------------

madame cleo... the reasoning behind this is same as: enforcement of laws on books = more potential criminals are deterred but sadly in this day and age criminals get a slap on hand and sent back into society (unless they confess, then they get the book thrown at them... we have it all backwards here, but that is another thread).

if a criminal knows the shopkeeper is armed that deters crime in that store. so where's the criminal goign to go? to the stores that have the "come on in and rob us" sign, you know the one = gun with the cricle and line thru it....

[Peikko 1,575]

i agree, he is NO HERO and his mother must be some type of fruitloop for even believing that!

as for the two to the body, i've never heard that... but maybe thats for the bad shots we always practiced head/heart, that should stop them, if not you stil have ammo for more shots. if blowing off some extra rounds or like when i was married to ex and he was going out on deployment and i would be alone for a few months, i would do kneecaps, crotch, head and heart on the outline then leave the 4x8 board outside during his deployment

we also practice running through the woods and shooting at targets becasue guaranteed if you are in a situation the person isnt going to stand there in place while you take aim and fire off a couple shots at them

up here most are reared in the city and have never used a firearm in their lives. where i grew up, everyone learns when they are small. so, if you are running from someone (even the cops - they are usually BAD shots unless reared in the country) run zig-zagging ... if they cannot hit a target that is moving straight at them (and most cant) they surely are not goign to hit you running away and moving from side to side

Antwun should have run ...

-------------

madame cleo... the reasoning behind this is same as: enforcement of laws on books = more potential criminals are deterred but sadly in this day and age criminals get a slap on hand and sent back into society (unless they confess, then they get the book thrown at them... we have it all backwards here, but that is another thread).

if a criminal knows the shopkeeper is armed that deters crime in that store. so where's the criminal goign to go? to the stores that have the "come on in and rob us" sign, you know the one = gun with the cricle and line thru it....

Which is why the kid is dead? Your logic is a bit odd.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Perhaps rather than holding up the shopkeeper, the perp will assume he is armed and just shoot him.

[trillium13 84]

As for getting another weapon, the storekeeper was not smart having a single shot primary, when he evidently had a multiple shot backup. But firing into the body sounds suspiciously like they had some military-type training, as it's standard practice to put two rounds into the body of a prone target/body to "make sure they stay down" (Quote courtesy of the RAF Regiment). Five more is a bit much.

Pharmacist is a disabled Air Force veteran. Another article:

http://www.arlingtoncardinal.com/2009/05/29/video-oklahoma-city-pharmacist-shooting-armed-robber-1/

[nab 74]

Which is why the kid is dead? Your logic is a bit odd.

in previous post you said "Clearly, the people who engage in them think that the benefits outweigh the risks and will continue to do so no matter how many of them are killed "

to which i replied "if a criminal knows the shopkeeper is armed that deters crime in that store."

when you make the RISK OUTWEIGH THE BENEFIT that WILL lower crime.

nothing odd about my logic.

Perhaps rather than holding up the shopkeeper, the perp will assume he is armed and just shoot him.

actually they DID shoot at him. luckily for him he was better shot than them

he may have messed up (like i said previously) when he shot more times than necessary... they will paint him as a military commando since he is a vet. especially if he had 3 firearms.

[Peikko 1,575]

in previous post you said "Clearly, the people who engage in them think that the benefits outweigh the risks and will continue to do so no matter how many of them are killed "

to which i replied "if a criminal knows the shopkeeper is armed that deters crime in that store."

when you make the RISK OUTWEIGH THE BENEFIT that WILL lower crime.

nothing odd about my logic.

actually they DID shoot at him. luckily for him he was better shot than them

he may have messed up (like i said previously) when he shot more times than necessary... they will paint him as a military commando since he is a vet. especially if he had 3 firearms.

Demonstrably, knowing a particular store is guarded by armed guards does not deter criminals from attempting to rob these places so your theory that when criminals know or suspect that a store owner has a gun deters them from robbing a place is rubbish - you are also assuming that the criminal in the OP was totally oblivious to the fact that the store owner might have a gun - that is a huge assumption, one that is most likely erroneous - most often criminals have some idea of whether the store they intend to rob has an armed staff or not. The kid is dead at the hands of the store owner, I think it is reasonably safe to assume that the kid was aware that this might be the outcome of his escapade and yet he attempted it anyway. More than that, you are suggesting that the simple solution to the end of armed robbery is to arm all store owners and yet I am sure you can see how that is quite absurd.

[Ban Hammer 13,641]

sometimes it's easier to grab another gun than to try to reload in the middle of an event.

[Pooky 3,844]

sometimes it's easier to grab another gun than to try to reload in the middle of an event.

Watch the video clip posted earlier. Apparently the shopkeeper chased the kid's accomplice out of the store, came back, got the other gun, then put 5 rounds in a prone target.

That seems a bit more than self-defence.

[slim 1,533]

Some will consider it extremely important to determine whether the presumably white pharmacist had hate in his mind when he killed the presumably black criminal.

I haven't heard this being prosecuted as a hate crime.

always have a fully loaded gun and nail them in head and heart. two shots is all necessary. unless of course it's someone you really hate and want to suffer then a couple in the kneecaps before the head and heart is good.

The law is pretty simple in most states on what you can and can't do to defend yourself. In most places, you can shoot until the threat is mitigated. Once the threat is gone - as in, he was unconscious on the floor - your right to shoot in self-defense is gone.

Yes, the suspect had attempted robbery with a firearm and placed the victim in fear of his life. He was fully justified in returning fire. However, once his bullet struck the robbers head and rendered him unconscious, he wasn't legally allowed to shoot him anymore since the threat was gone.

The reloading part comes from the dead kid's mother, not the report itself. I'll wait to see it that part is true, or not.

As for getting another weapon, the storekeeper was not smart having a single shot primary, when he evidently had a multiple shot backup. But firing into the body sounds suspiciously like they had some military-type training, as it's standard practice to put two rounds into the body of a prone target/body to "make sure they stay down" (Quote courtesy of the RAF Regiment). Five more is a bit much.

The details here are sketchy at best, so drawing conclusions without all the facts is dangerous.

One thing is clear, though. Antwun Parker is no hero.

What I saw on that video was no military training being put into action, it was someone who was pissed off and executed their attacker.

No such thing as "shoot and release" The pharmacist did good. Next time though, he ought to use enough gun the first time or something with a larger magazine capacity, no need to bother getting a second one. whatever you do though...make sure they are dead.

He lost the legal right to shoot the suspect once the suspect was down.

Agreed though, a .45 would've been better than a .380 and perhaps he wouldn't have needed to "finish the job" if he would've used the right tool the first time.

The bottom line is, the pharmacist, who was minding his own business, went home to his family ALIVE. The kid pulling an armed robbery went home to his family DEAD. The more armed robbers that come home DEAD, the less armed robberies there will be...and that is a good thing.

The pharmacist didn't go home. He was charged with murder.

It's important for everyone to realize, even in a self-defense case, you're going to trial.

what on earth makes you suppose that killing armed robbers necessarily means there will be less armed robberies?

The statistics don't lie. In heavily armed (legally armed, that is) areas there are typically very low instances of armed robbery.

if a criminal knows the shopkeeper is armed that deters crime in that store. so where's the criminal goign to go? to the stores that have the "come on in and rob us" sign, you know the one = gun with the cricle and line thru it....

Bingo.

[mawilson 2,133]

"That's not a hero. The real hero here is Antwun."

I'm sorry, but Antwun is no hero.

This is what a real hero looks like:

[evli1966 88]

i agree, he is NO HERO and his mother must be some type of fruitloop for even believing that!

Antwun should have run ...

-------------

madame cleo... the reasoning behind this is same as: enforcement of laws on books = more potential criminals are deterred but sadly in this day and age criminals get a slap on hand and sent back into society (unless they confess, then they get the book thrown at them... we have it all backwards here, but that is another thread).

if a criminal knows the shopkeeper is armed that deters crime in that store. so where's the criminal goign to go? to the stores that have the "come on in and rob us" sign, you know the one = gun with the cricle and line thru it....

A mother is a mother and will grief and blame everyone but her son.

Actually your wrong in the deterence of theft.

The proper Deterence is to have low amounts of cash available or valuables to make the risks out weight the crime.

Adding Physical violence although at times needed when your life is in deed threatened decreases the chances of survival in any future robberies.

They will shoot your first then rob you.

Perhaps rather than holding up the shopkeeper, the perp will assume he is armed and just shoot him.

Pharmacist is a disabled Air Force veteran. Another article:

http://www.arlington...armed-robber-1/

This will and could go against him in is knowledge weapon use and the results of that use.

in previous post you said "Clearly, the people who engage in them think that the benefits outweigh the risks and will continue to do so no matter how many of them are killed "

to which i replied "if a criminal knows the shopkeeper is armed that deters crime in that store."

when you make the RISK OUTWEIGH THE BENEFIT that WILL lower crime.

nothing odd about my logic.

actually they DID shoot at him. luckily for him he was better shot than them

he may have messed up (like i said previously) when he shot more times than necessary... they will paint him as a military commando since he is a vet. especially if he had 3 firearms.

Nothing wrong with your logic just not fully correct in the out come of future robberies

sometimes it's easier to grab another gun than to try to reload in the middle of an event.

Watch the video clip posted earlier. Apparently the shopkeeper chased the kid's accomplice out of the store, came back, got the other gun, then put 5 rounds in a prone target.

That seems a bit more than self-defence.

What on earth could be his defense against shooting either a prone injured person with no threat to him at the time of the second shooting or shooting a dead bodyof someone who he killed.

I'm sorry, but Antwun is no hero.

This is what a real hero looks like:

I agree no hero.

[BokkieandGuapo 4]

Hmmmm...

While that is definitely overkill, can't say the kid didn't have it coming...

Lets face it, being a criminal is a dangerous occupation and as a criminal you need to be aware of the fact that someone will try and kill you if you threaten thier life. Dangers of the job. Sorry no sympathy.