Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by gjohnson, May 28, 2009.
He won't sit in jail long.
Here is another article about the incident with security camera footage:
After watching the video.... I don't think his story checks out.
Once the one robber fled, the "self-defense" defense goes away - so pursuing the subject with gun in hand doesn't help his case...
Then the other subject that was on the ground with the gun shot in his head... it wouldn't have been too hard to kick the gun away and restrain him until police arrived. Instead, he fired 5 additional rounds into him, killing the subject.
If he fired all 6 shots @ the first encounter I would call that a good shoot. But to shoot, have the subject drop, run after someone else, come back and re-shoot... that doesn't sit well with me...
Just my 2 cents... adjust for inflation...
Edit: Found a good video explaining things: http://feeds.newsok.tv/services/player/bcpid1766638491?bctid=24432794001
The reality of it is, no matter what is said for or against, it boils down to two things.
"No one would have gotten shot if guns were illegal"
"He's racist because he killed a black person."
Welcome to the United States!
America is gone.
Once the "THREAT" has been stopped, you MUST STOP SHOOTING. Or you become a murderer. You don't CHASE someone with a gun who is RUNNING AWAY FROM YOU and no longer a threat and shoot them. And you don't walk up and shoot someone on the ground to finish them off when they no longer a threat to you.
I heard this guy call in on NRANEWS.COM a few days ago.
Aside from sounding a few donuts short of a dozen, :nuts: judging by the video, he was in the wrong for CHASING the gunman who was No longer an immediate threat, and shooting the second gunman on the floor. (I can't tell if the second gunman on the floor still had his gun and was still able to shoot though. But it didn't look like it by the way he strolled up to him and shot him in the head. That's an execution.)
There are very FINE guidelines when you can take someones life to protect your own and others.
You may only legally draw your firearm and shoot someone in self defense with the 3 FACTORS all there.
Sorry to say, this guy made himself a criminal when he continued to shoot after the threats were stopped.
Unfortunately, I don't think it will stop there.
His first shots are clean, but those last 5 into the guy's abdomen while he is on the ground (unconscious possibly) are murder!
Also, check out the sign behind the last guy to talk in the video, interesting its a "no weapons allowed" sign.
I just took another look at the video. He empties his first gun, and then once he comes back into the store, he passes the guy laying on the ground, grabs another gun from under the counter, walks back to the guy on the ground and shoots him several more times.
That was an execution.
Problem is now this will give the Liberals more excuses to take our concealed carry rights away. They will hold this guy up as the poster child of "See what can Happen!"
Well heres how I see it. These guys came in with guns blazing, asking for trouble. The pharmacist was packing, and turned the tables on them. He was justified in shooting the kid in the head.
Now the part in question is was he justified in the additional 5 shots to the chest. I think so.
They determined that the would-be robber was still alive after the gunshot to the head, but was incapacitated. Well, to what degree? Was he still capable of reaching into his pocket and pulling out a pistol to shoot the pharmacist while his back was turned calling the police? Or still capable of using some kind of deadly physical force on the pharmacist? The kid already showed that he was ready to play deadly, what other signs did the pharmacist need to prove that?
Thats all for a jury to decide, but IMO the guy was 100% justified in what he did. I agree it is a very fine line though, for sure. Its hard for any of us to say exactly what we would do in a heart-pumping situation like that.
Justified after the first few seconds or not, at least the owner stood up for himself and his business.
The business owner would have been better defended if he was to finish off the scum bag on the floor before he exited to chase the other scum bag. The second round of shots looked too much like a cold blooded premeditated killing.
Let me say first, I'm 110% PRO GUN, PRO 2ND AMENDMENT! :thumbup:
I have my concealed carry permit for just such a reason!
Gaging by the fact he dropped the first guy, then ran past him to chase the second guy out the door to shoot at him, then came back, walked slowly past the first guy he dropped, then got a second gun, and pumped another 5 rounds into the guy, the owner didn't look too "IN FEAR" of his life from the guy laying on the floor. Even if he was still IN FEAR, the guy on the ground couldn't go far. The Pharmacy owner could have ran away (like he did when he ran out the door after the first bad guy), hid, or at least held him at gun point until the cops got there.
The last 5 rounds WERE NOT JUSTIFIED OR LEGAL. It was an execution clearly.
Even if he had a Vietnam flash back, or his heart was pumping and he made a bad choice out of shock, it's no excuse. He did it. That's why it's SO VERY important to always TRAIN, TRAIN, TRAIN for such an event. Your body will react in the way you train it.
He was CLEARLY in the wrong from what was seen on the video.
You can't Legally "FINISH OFF" anyone who is not an immediate threat to life.
That's called MURDER.
You must have 3 events happen at the same time in order to shoot or continue shooting. Once the threat has been neutralized you must stop firing.
1.Physical or Verbal Intent ("I'm going to shoot your head off") (or weapon)
2.The Means (Weapon or expert Skill)
3.Ability (Able to kill you or cause GREAT bodily injury that could lead to death)
Just a few quick facts that have come out from the DA's office so far...
1. The perp that was shot was apparently not in possession of a firearm at the time he was shot.
2. There is no evidence that any firearm was discharged other rthan the one by the defendant
3. It appears from crime scene evidence that the perp that was killed was unconscious and on his back flat on the ground when the defendant emptied his firearm into his chest
Now try and defend this guy.
I agree that you cannot "finish off" someone who is not an immediate threat to life. But if you believe that someone continues to be a deadly threat after shooting them once, then you are still justified in shooting them again until the threat is gone.
I have responses to each of the facts you have shared.....
1. The perp that was shot was apparently not in possession of a firearm at the time he was shot. Doesnt matter. He entered the business with someone who WAS in posession of a firearm, and was fully a part of the deadly threat.
2. There is no evidence that any firearm was discharged other rthan the one by the defendant. Doesnt matter. If you wait until a scum bag shoots you, before you shoot them, you wont stay alive through an encounter like that. These guys had a firearm, brandished it towards the business owners and employees, that is PLENTY enough justification to drop them in their tracks.
3. It appears from crime scene evidence that the perp that was killed was unconscious and on his back flat on the ground when the defendant emptied his firearm into his chest. What crime scene evidence could show that, other than witness testimony or video tape? I couldnt see that guy in the video, could you? And I thought I remembered that it stated in the article that the guy was trying to get up after being shot, I'll have to go back and re-read it. Point is, these thugs came looking for trouble and they found it. I hate to sound indifferent here, but I dont care how many times that guy was shot, he would still be considered a deadly threat to me until the police arrived and had his wrists in cuffs. Now thats not to say that he couldnt have held his weapon on the guy until the police arrived, but since we werent there, we dont really know the exact circumstances that this man faced.
It does matter because the defendant claimed the perp was returning to his feet with his weapon. This fact makes that a lie.
Once again, it does matter because the defendant claims the perp fired first. This fact makes this part of his story a lie also.
Bullet trajectories, exit patterns, blood stain patterns, and a strew of other evidence can show this quite clearly.
I have no problem with the perp being shot and killed. I have no problem with the fact that he might have not even been armed. I do have a problem with cold blooded, calculated murder. When the defendant stop defending himself and started playing executioner he became as big a piece of trash as any other violent criminal.
I hate to say it, but he was wrong for coming back and killing that kid. If he wanted to kill him he should of done it before he went outside. Im all for defending your life and property but dam, this is just what us responsible gun owners dont need right now. Im already thinking about how long its gonna take before Hillary Clintin gets on her soap box and spins this story around.
That bad thing is that the story does not even need to be spun. It is already a perfect example of the worst type of person using a gun.
While I still disagee with your reasoning here Penguin, it is for a jury to decide. We could get into a long discussion about it and probably get no where. Its really easy to sit back not having lived the experience after the incident and critique this guys actions, but it's a whole different ball game when you are the guy that went through it. And that statement is coming from someone who has been shot point blank in the face by a dirt bag and packed a bullet in the neck 1mm away from C1 for 10 years, and had guns pulled on him before.
I'm not disagreeing that his story might not be clearly matching up with the facts, but from watching the video tape I still think that it was within the realm of reasonable. It will be interesting to see how the story unfolds.
Separate names with a comma.