Self Defense or Murder?

[Tikitoi]

Making sure the job is done = murder. Gun laws need reconsidering if they are going to be questioning these situations.

 

[mhsjax]

Let me give you my take on it. I believe that the man was a victim of TV and movie influence. How many times have you seen a person on TV or in the movies shoot down the villain, walk away and then be attacked again by that same villain when his back is turned? I always find myself screaming at the screen, "Finish him off or he'll be back to finish you off!"

I agree, not only that, but there have been cases of the intruder coming back and suing the person that was robbed. I have always been told, if you have to use a gun, be sure and finish the job.

Even if the intruder didn't win a court case, you would still have to go through paying for your defense.

 

[disneyjunkie]

It called fear takes over.

I call it vigilantism

 

[bicker]

It called fear takes over.

Perhaps, though there would be some indication of that in how rapid the five shots from the second gun were. I'm not a gun owner, so I don't know, but it seems to me a rapid fire of five shots, all of which hit the criminal in the stomach, isn't that easy. It takes a lot of concentration, and thought, and consideration.

It seems that no matter how you craft this story, there is going to be at least one gun-shot by the pharmacist that is not defensible.

 

[MickeySP]

Depends was he already dead from the head shot or was the head shot a mortal wound.

You can't kill someone who is already dead.

 

[happygirl]

I call it vigilantism

Once again the victim of the crime is devil . The criminal are looked upon as angels

 

[bicker]

Depends was he already dead from the head shot or was the head shot a mortal wound. You can't kill someone who is already dead.

That's a really good point! The pharmacist can surely be charged with defiling a dead body, but if they can prove that the criminal was dead from the head shot (seems plausible to me) then I can readily see avoiding the murder charge completely.

 

[Tikitoi]

I agree, not only that, but there have been cases of the intruder coming back and suing the person that was robbed. I have always been told, if you have to use a gun, be sure and finish the job.

Even if the intruder didn't win a court case, you would still have to go through paying for your defense.

WOW

 

[mhsjax]

Once again the victim of the crime is devil . The criminal are looked upon as angels

exactly, doesn't make sense does it? The kid made his choice. Sorry but he decided that somehow it was ok, and probably even his right to go in and try and take something that wasn't his. I far as I am concerned he got what he deserved. I don't know why everyone seems to think that the victim is the bad guy, I say good for him. One more future hardened criminal off of the streets.

 

[bicker]

Once again the victim of the crime is devil . The criminal are looked upon as angels

That's a really antagonistic way of looking at the dichotomy. I doubt anyone has any inclination, whatsoever, of presenting the robbers as "angels" and asserting that anyone has or would does nothing other than foster a conflict for which there is no need or constructive purpose.

The reality is that people are responsible for their own actions, and the same person can do good and bad.

 

[disneyjunkie]

Once again the victim of the crime is devil . The criminal are looked upon as angels

Who said the criminal was an angel? I agree with the first shot, but not the others.

 

[Feralpeg]

The problem, as I see it with this case, is that it could set a precedence. If the guy is found not guilty, then where do you draw the line? So, the next time a guy picks someones pocket, is it okay to take out a gun and just keep shooting? What is self-defense? It is really protecting your life or just your belongings? Does the person committing the crime have to have a visible weapon or can the victim just assume there may be a weapon?

Should a shopkeeper be allowed to gun down a shoplifter? It opens a really huge bag of worms. IMHO, it is only self-defense if your life is in immediate jeopardy. In this case, the man's life was no longer in imminent danger, thus self-defense does not apply.

Being upset does not justify a lack of judgement.

 

[bicker]

Being upset does not justify a lack of judgement.

Oooh... that's a very good line. I think I'll be using that one a lot.

 

[disbridemimi]

I would not run out of the building, then return and kill the boy.

QUOTE]

You can never say you know what you would do until something like this happens to you. I had someone climb in my bedroom window at 4am in college, and I FREAKED out. I mean slamming the window on him hitting him with the alarm clock. I can honestly 100% tell you I was not "thinking" at all about what to do or how to do it, I was terrified, and just did it. You are thinking, therefore there is no such thing as "rational" or "makes sense".I didnt even know what I was doing, or what I had done. Its hard to explain.

SO its really not fair to say what you WOULD do unless your in a situation where you are in fear for your life. I never would have that I would have reacted the way I did. If I had been rational, I would have run into another room and locked the door to call the police. Instead it ended with me covered in blood with no idea if it was mine or not. If he had died as a result, I wouldnt have felt bad at all.


I know know that if I ever encounter a situation like that I will have no problem defending myself by whatever means necesssary.


If you rob someone and get killed, thats your fault. I am NOT going to feel sorry for you. Thats the chance you took when you scared someone so bad they thought they might die. One less criminal on the planet. You want to rob people, you might die. Tell all your friends.

 

[Kimberly]

You're assuming facts not in evidence. If what you've said here is true, or can be asserted with sufficient credibility that it could be the case, then indeed, that would be justification for a second gun-shot.

But, Kimberly, how do you account for the third through the sixth gun-shots?

Heat of the moment... if the suspect were still armed, and even groaning or slightly moving, if the pharmacist had genuine belief that their life was in danger... then I could see shooting a few more times.

If I'm assuming wrong... then so be it. I'm not on the jury anyway.

 

[disbridemimi]

It called fear takes over.

I agree 100%

 

[happygirl]

I would not run out of the building, then return and kill the boy.

QUOTE]

You can never say you know what you would do until something like this happens to you. I had someone climb in my bedroom window at 4am in college, and I FREAKED out. I mean slamming the window on him hitting him with the alarm clock. I can honestly 100% tell you I was not "thinking" at all about what to do or how to do it, I was terrified, and just did it. You are thinking, therefore there is no such thing as "rational" or "makes sense".I didnt even know what I was doing, or what I had done. Its hard to explain.

SO its really not fair to say what you WOULD do unless your in a situation where you are in fear for your life. I never would have that I would have reacted the way I did. If I had been rational, I would have run into another room and locked the door to call the police. Instead it ended with me covered in blood with no idea if it was mine or not. If he had died as a result, I wouldnt have felt bad at all.


I know know that if I ever encounter a situation like that I will have no problem defending myself by whatever means necesssary.


If you rob someone and get killed, thats your fault. I am NOT going to feel sorry for you. Thats the chance you took when you scared someone so bad they thought they might die. One less criminal on the planet. You want to rob people, you might die. Tell all your friends.

Excellent post

 

[Kimberly]

I think the proper question to this case would be: Do you believe that the theives deserved what they got? Curious to hear responses to this question.

 

[happygirl]

I think the proper question to this case would be: Do you believe that the theives deserved what they got? Curious to hear responses to this question.

Yes and NO. I will have think how to word this

 

[disneyjunkie]

I would not run out of the building, then return and kill the boy.

QUOTE]

You can never say you know what you would do until something like this happens to you. I had someone climb in my bedroom window at 4am in college, and I FREAKED out. I mean slamming the window on him hitting him with the alarm clock. I can honestly 100% tell you I was not "thinking" at all about what to do or how to do it, I was terrified, and just did it. You are thinking, therefore there is no such thing as "rational" or "makes sense".I didnt even know what I was doing, or what I had done. Its hard to explain.

SO its really not fair to say what you WOULD do unless your in a situation where you are in fear for your life. I never would have that I would have reacted the way I did. If I had been rational, I would have run into another room and locked the door to call the police. Instead it ended with me covered in blood with no idea if it was mine or not. If he had died as a result, I wouldnt have felt bad at all.


I know know that if I ever encounter a situation like that I will have no problem defending myself by whatever means necesssary.


If you rob someone and get killed, thats your fault. I am NOT going to feel sorry for you. Thats the chance you took when you scared someone so bad they thought they might die. One less criminal on the planet. You want to rob people, you might die. Tell all your friends.

I agree with the victim defending himself.

I don't agree with him going back inside, looking for a gun and shooting the boy 5 more times.

If I'm attacked, I'd do what I can to protect myself. Once I'm out of danger, I'm not going to return to the scene to do more damage.