This is a hero?

[Martyshk 137]

I'm just curious about ####### happens to the pharmacist now...

On one hand - clear case of self-defense, but on the other.... with this story out, it seems that the spin is being put on it: "oh noes, he gone and shotted my hero non-masked armed robber son ded".

Guess gotta check back to see how it ends.

[The_Dude 1,142]

Yes.

Let's suppose for a minute that they weren't and were just "kids" with guns robbing stores. Why aren't the military and police - with all their training - stopping these kids from robbing places?

Sorry slim, but the police aren't psychic. They do their best to be proactive and prevent crime from happening. However, more often than not, they are reactionary enforcement. You're delusional if you think that criminals are out training in firearms and combat strategies and techniques.

[The_Dude 1,142]

I'm just curious about ####### happens to the pharmacist now...

On one hand - clear case of self-defense, but on the other.... with this story out, it seems that the spin is being put on it: "oh noes, he gone and shotted my hero non-masked armed robber son ded".

Guess gotta check back to see how it ends.

I think it's quite clear that the man went beyond "self-defense". I'm not saying that the victim should be lauded, but to shoot him once, and then go, get another gun and shoot him 5 times is murder.

[Martyshk 137]

I think it's quite clear that the man went beyond "self-defense". I'm not saying that the victim should be lauded, but to shoot him once, and then go, get another gun and shoot him 5 times is murder.

It is and it isn't. If he had used 1! gun to shoot him 5 times it would've just been self-defense, no?

This is a tricky legal argument and I'm just a scientist with very limited knowledge of the criminal law. I can only assume that there's going to be SOME sort of "punishment" for the pharmacist.

[nab 74]

In NJ, you can apply for a permit and then have your application collect dust for months and years until you take the initiative to be a pest. You literally have to dog them to get that stuff moved. You shouldn't have to. I see that as a violation of the right.

how about NY... cant even apply for permit unless your job requires it, then your application will sit until your employer pesters

[The_Dude 1,142]

It is and it isn't. If he had used 1! gun to shoot him 5 times it would've just been self-defense, no?

This is a tricky legal argument and I'm just a scientist with very limited knowledge of the criminal law. I can only assume that there's going to be SOME sort of "punishment" for the pharmacist.

If the man is on the ground, while firing those 5 shots, then it is still beyond self defense. However, if it was all in the heat of the moment and there was no break in action, then at least you could claim "heat of the moment".

[ValerieA 350]

I think it's quite clear that the man went beyond "self-defense". I'm not saying that the victim should be lauded, but to shoot him once, and then go, get another gun and shoot him 5 times is murder.

What if the first shot was fatal? Would the courts then dismiss the guy going and getting the other gun?

[natty bumppo 297]

What if the first shot was fatal? Would the courts then dismiss the guy going and getting the other gun?

meaning ... can you murder an already dead guy?

[The_Dude 1,142]

What if the first shot was fatal? Would the courts then dismiss the guy going and getting the other gun?

If the first shot was fatal and the man then proceeded to go to the back of the room to get another gun, and then shoot the dead body 5 more times, I think the courts would undoubtedly place a mental health hold on the man as that is literally overkill.

[ValerieA 350]

If the first shot was fatal and the man then proceeded to go to the back of the room to get another gun, and then shoot the dead body 5 more times, I think the courts would undoubtedly place a mental health hold on the man as that is literally overkill.

I meant fatal as "he is undoubtedly going to die from it", although he may not have died instantly. Would the courts view his actions differently? Maybe they would say that, since the first shot killed/would have killed the guy, it was self-defense and the others don't matter. On the other hand, could they say that his intent was to kill, even with the first shot, because of his going to get the other gun?

And I do think what he did was overkill, anyway.

[nab 74]

I think it's quite clear that the man went beyond "self-defense". I'm not saying that the victim should be lauded, but to shoot him once, and then go, get another gun and shoot him 5 times is murder.

"technically" you cant kill the guy twice...

it was self-defense when he killed him, possibly "abuse of a corpse" with the 5 shots?

i feel for the guy becasue that's terrible situation to be in. each person handles stress situation in different way... soem of us get very calm and can deal with situation then fall to pieces once all is done and know all is safe to let down guard, soem people freak out during the situation. he was under fire and he didnt stop to check the guy to see if he was dead; we dont know if the downed guy had a gun on him and the pharmacist still felt a threat from him... we just dont know.

[Ban Hammer 13,651]

What if the first shot was fatal? Would the courts then dismiss the guy going and getting the other gun?

that would probably be abuse of a corpse.

[ValerieA 350]

that would probably be abuse of a corpse.

You're not listening to me. Shocker.

[nab 74]

I meant fatal as "he is undoubtedly going to die from it", although he may not have died instantly. Would the courts view his actions differently? Maybe they would say that, since the first shot killed/would have killed the guy, it was self-defense and the others don't matter. On the other hand, could they say that his intent was to kill, even with the first shot, because of his going to get the other gun?

And I do think what he did was overkill, anyway.

court will NEVER say "doesnt matter" and you bring up good points.... i honestly dont ever think they will just assume soemone would have died from their wounds.

if he claims he shot the guy again because he was still alive and he (the pharmacist) felt a threat, definitely i think they could charge him with murder becasue by his own admission downed guy is alive... and like slim said, the law does not allow you to shoot someone who is no longer a threat. now if the guy had a gun, MAYBE they could still argue self-defense (you CAN shoot soemone even when you are shot and down... someone high on speed can definitely be a threat even after shot and these guys were robbing a pharmacy so who knows what they may have been high on).

on other hand, if the downed guy is dead, there is no reason for pharmacist to pepper him and definitely the pharmacist can be charged with abuse of a corpse and IDK what else; slim, you wanna chime in here on this, what the guy coud be charged with?

also, the other poster who mentioned "heat of the moment" is right, that could posisbly even get him off of that charge.

our court system is also very screwed up (luckily for this pharmacist if he is white man) because here in USA, whether people like to admit it or not, the darker your skin the more severe punishment you will get. another big disgusting flaw in our system is if you confess you will get max punishment versus "deny deny deny" and fight it tooth and nail gets minimum. so much for teaching children to always come clean and do right thing... if they ever mess up as an adult and confess they're screwed for life.

so if he's white, he'll probaby get a smack on hand (probation). i didnt notic when watching video what color eveyrone was i would make a crappy eye witness to anything!

Edited August 24, 2010 by nab

[Bobby+Umit 161]

meaning ... can you murder an already dead guy?

This is true, if he was dead from the first shot, you can't be charged with killing someone all ready dead from other shots - some states may charge him with desecration of a body, but that would depend on the laws of the state.

I think that is what is going on now in this case, determining if the first shot was a kill shot or not. The shooter did state that the perp was getting up when he came back, so that would seem to indicate that the perp didn't die from the first shot.

The first shot to the perp was justified, but coming back and unloading more into a prone perp was well past the point of most "self-defense" laws that I know of, and he should be held accountable.

Also, chasing them outside of the store (and shooting) was going beyond what my state allows for self-defense.

I do not agree with what the mother says about her son, if she did a better job of parenting, then her son would not be dead - but it's easier to blame someone else when your child goes bad.