Self Defense or Murder?

[DawnCt1]

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.

I believe the ME said that the body shots were the fatal wounds.

 

[DawnCt1]

WOW


The first shot was self defense, but the rest weren't.

The man appears to be calm when he returns. He didn't run to get the second gun. Heck he didn't he run over to where the boy was. He walks calmly the whole time, bends over and fires. Then calmly walks over to the phone.

Thats how i see it.

 

[happygirl]

In FL, the second person would be charged with murder - if a death occurs during a felony - the people committing the original crime are charged. I wish more states would do the same thing.


Funny about the calls for a change of venue (even on the DIS boards) - usually those are called for when a person has a greater chance of being found guilty.

I think it would be hard to convict for murder - if the law says a shooting would be justified if a person felt in fear for his life - who can say what the pharmacist felt?

I agree that law sounds like a good one

 

[declansdad]

This guy should be convivted of murder. Most likely not pre-meditated but he certainly wasn't in any danger. He needs to be punished for his actions.

 

[declansdad]

I'm letting my closet conservative out:

If you're going to walk into an establishment with the intent to rob it, you'd better be prepared to pay with your life. Period.

If I were on the jury I would not convict the pharmacist. That young man (teenaged or not) entered the pharmacy with, at minimum, an intent to steal and, at maximum, an attempt to shoot, maim or kill the innocent people working in that pharmacy. They didn't invite him in. He just decided to take what wasn't his.

Regardless of whether the pharmacist killed him with the first bullet or the sixth, the profit for robbery with a deadly weapon was (and should be) immediate death if the victim of the robbery has the means to exact it.

The pharacist was justified in doing what he did.

You could make a case for the first shoot to be justified but not the remaining shots. This man deserves to be convicted for what he did. If he felt he was still in danger, why would he re-enter the store?

 

[Serena]

It sounds like murder to me, but I'd have a hard time convicting him.

 

[luvmy3]

self defense. I'd image this poor man was scared out of his mind. My guess is he saw that teen move and was afraid he would get up and come after him. When you are scared for your life you never know how you m ight act

I agree with this, I'm not sure about the teen movie but I bet he was terrified.

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.

Good point

Being upset does not justify a lack of judgement.

Have you ever been robbed? I have at gunpoint, it goes a bit farther than *being upset*.

 

[tonilea]

Once your assailant is no longer a threat it becomes murder.

 

[Gary M]

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.

This is what we hear in "fly over country" and I would think most of our juries would not convict him of a crime. The criminal is the guy who came into the store with a gun to rob it. He shouldn't have shot the crook five more times, but who knows how a person would react to being threatened with a gun.

 

[kaytieeldr]

Temporary insanity.

Verdict determined after reading part of news article (as posted on the first page of this thread) and most posts on that page only; i.e. not influenced by posts on page five and beyond

The thing that no one has mentioned that I think is a huge factor is that many people that rob pharmacies are not doing it for money they are doing it for drugs.

I worked in a pharmacy for about a dozen years. It was held up once, yes, for drugs. Generally, the pharmacy counter - and so, the drugs - are at the back of the store. NOT an easy escape or common-sense location from which to rob. You want to get in and out as quickly as possible.

Disclaimer: most knowledge of crime and procedures based on books, television, movies... except the one time someone broke in and stole my VCR, the remote, and the instruction book hidden in a drawer in another room ; and the other time when I was held up at knifepoint, in a "nice" neighborhood.

You could make a case for the first shoot to be justified but not the remaining shots. This man deserves to be convicted for what he did. If he felt he was still in danger, why would he re-enter the store?

Um, he had two employees still in the store? I don't know - I won't download that program needed to view videos (yes, I do need a new computer ) so I don't know if his coworkers were inside or outside the store at that point. Did he know?

 

[Buckalew11]

I agree with those who say if you don't want to be shot/killed then don't rob the pharmacist. I think it is the risk you take when you rob someone.

I hate it for the boy who may have been able to clean up his life one day and now doesn't have the chance. I hate that a family has lost their. However, the victim's life will also never be the same. Very tragic story.

 

[UConnJack]

Suspended sentence for manlaugther, max. Yes he looked "calm" when he came back in, but unless they have been in that situation themselves, nobody here can say what that man was going through with a mixture of fear, adrenaline, anger, shock, etc. People who are in serious shock may appear calm, but they are hardly in their right state of mind. Since it was not his fault that he was put into this situation and drove him into whatever state of mind he was in, I don't feel he can be held responsible for anything more than manslaughter.

 

[bicker]

Nah, hardly anyone ever gets a suspended sentence for Manslaughter. Maybe a year in jail, or perhaps direct to probation, but definitely some extended consequences.

 

[merekc]

In addition, (I would assume) he will probably lose his license to practice pharmacy. This can result in a huge lifestyle change for his entire family.

 

[TheBigBadWolf]

The pharmacist will never be convicted of murder, no matter where they hold the trial. The kid got what he deserved. He came into the pharmacy threatening death or bodily harm to the people working there. He should have been prepared to die. I feel sorry for the pharmacist, who is a disabled Army veteran of the Gulf War. I think the pharmacist should get a medal for ridding the earth of another scum bag robber. In an interview the day this happened, the pharmacist said a bullet flew right past his head, barely missing him, before he fired the first shot. Too bad he didn't kill both robbers, AND the 31 year old ex con driving the get away car, and also the fourth scum bag adult who talked the kids into committing the crime. No doubt they'll be back to their criminal ways as soon as they are released from prison the NEXT time, just like the last time they got out.

In FL, the second person would be charged with murder - if a death occurs during a felony - the people committing the original crime are charged. I wish more states would do the same thing.


Funny about the calls for a change of venue (even on the DIS boards) - usually those are called for when a person has a greater chance of being found guilty.

I think it would be hard to convict for murder - if the law says a shooting would be justified if a person felt in fear for his life - who can say what the pharmacist felt?

The kid who had the gun AND the two adults involved in the crime have all been charged with murder. The charges accuse all three of sharing responsibility for the shooting death of the teenager.

 

[declansdad]

The pharmacist will never be convicted of murder, no matter where they hold the trial. The kid got what he deserved. He came into the pharmacy threatening death or bodily harm to the people working there. He should have been prepared to die. I feel sorry for the pharmacist, who is a disabled Army veteran of the Gulf War. I think the pharmacist should get a medal for ridding the earth of another scum bag robber. In an interview the day this happened, the pharmacist said a bullet flew right past his head, barely missing him, before he fired the first shot. Too bad he didn't kill both robbers, AND the 31 year old ex con driving the get away car, and also the fourth scum bag adult who talked the kids into committing the crime. No doubt they'll be back to their criminal ways as soon as they are released from prison the NEXT time, just like the last time they got out.

And his shot hit the kid in the head. There was no need to shott him 6 mores times after leaving the store and comng back in.

Two wrongs don't make a right; he deserves to be tried and convicted.

 

[rockydek]

I believe everything that happened prior to the victim leaving the store was justified. What occurred when he returned was not.

I don't think the boy deserved to be killed.

Until it happens to your family...........

 

[EMom]

The pharmacist was probably in a state of shock,having been in fear for his life, then having just shot someone for the first time in his life, and having seen the blood & experienced the robbery etc. There is no way that pharmacist is guilty of murder.

After my break in, I was certain the guy was still coming to get me even hours after it happened. I was not in a normal state of mind. I didnt even feel safe with the police there. However irrational that may seem, in my mind I was CERTAIN he was still coming to get me that night, and I was terrified. I felt that way for months. Im still jumpy, years later.

That sort of fright def puts you into a survival mode. Its 100% unfair to say the pharmacist was "calm and rational" when he went to get that gun and shoot the kid. There is no way he was calm and rational after that. Its ridiculous even to say it. He was still not in his right mind. Im certain the jury will not convict him of murder.

Its so easy for people to judge and say what they would have done. I hope you never have the chance to see for yourself.

This is what it boils down to in my opinion. I can guarantee you that if I had been in this man's shoes and thought there was one chance in a MILLION that the robber could have been playing possum, come to and pulled out another gun and shot at me......I'd have shot 100 bullets into him if I had access to them. Rational? Maybe not. But it's the way I am. If my mind perceives an "It's either me or them" situation, I can promise you, it will be ME that makes it out in one piece if I have anything to say about it. And having access to a gun and bullets means I have something to say about it.

Yes, the odds are that if I've already shot a robber in the head and he's laying there on the floor, he's PROBABLY not a threat to me. But that is not a CERTAINTY. And my chicken, panic-stricken, survivial of the fittest self would go to any lengths to make sure I was certain.....DEAD certain.....he was ZERO threat to me.

I have always said that if someone breaks in our house, I want the gun instead of my DH. He will THINK too long and hard. I'll just shoot them dead. If they break in my house, they are up to no good. So was the "kid" in question in this instance. What we DO know is that the pharmacist lived to tell the tale.

 

[declansdad]

This is what it boils down to in my opinion. I can guarantee you that if I had been in this man's shoes and thought there was one chance in a MILLION that the robber could have been playing possum, come to and pulled out another gun and shot at me......I'd have shot 100 bullets into him if I had access to them. Rational? Maybe not. But it's the way I am. If my mind perceives an "It's either me or them" situation, I can promise you, it will be ME that makes it out in one piece if I have anything to say about it. And having access to a gun and bullets means I have something to say about it.

Yes, the odds are that if I've already shot a robber in the head and he's laying there on the floor, he's PROBABLY not a threat to me. But that is not a CERTAINTY. And my chicken, panic-stricken, survivial of the fittest self would go to any lengths to make sure I was certain.....DEAD certain.....he was ZERO threat to me.

I have always said that if someone breaks in our house, I want the gun instead of my DH. He will THINK too long and hard. I'll just shoot them dead. If they break in my house, they are up to no good. So was the "kid" in question in this instance. What we DO know is that the pharmacist lived to tell the tale.

and if you left the house, returned, got another gun, and shot the robber another six times, you should be tried and convicted as well. If the robber broke in and you shoot him 6 times in a row, that a bit different.

 

[EMom]

and if you left the house, returned, got another gun, and shot the robber another six times, you should be tried and convicted as well. If the robber broke in and you shoot him 6 times in a row, that a bit different.

I'm such a "save myself at all costs" sort that I'd have probably never have gone back in as the pharmacist did. I don't know why he did it. Were there other workers inside? I haven't read all the facts.

But I can safely say that if I was in his place, I would NOT be thinking clearly and so there is no telling what I would do. I have been in a few life or death situations and afterward looked back at my behavior and I will say....It was not always the most logical course I could have taken. Your brain just isn't firing correctly under those circumstances. It's only after you are out of danger and perhaps days have passed that you look back and say, "Why on earth did I do that? That didn't even make sense. What I SHOULD have done was........" But in times of extreeeeeeeeeme stress, we don't always behave as we normally might under the best of circumstances.

That's why my "benefit of the doubt" goes to the victim of the crime.