Man charged with murder for defending his business

[Trlsmn]

Two whole posts to continue the old "if I do not see it it does not exist" game.

How about you actually do some research then post an educated interpretation? As I said before, all the information can be easily found in one spot in the thread running on TFL.

Do I need to ask what the "contributing factors" that you feel could strongly effect the appearance of what is happening on the video tape are again? Should I also ask why the DA would pursue an unpopular case without hard evidence? Should I ask how you feel about the fact that the evidence so far suggests that the shooters story is full of lies?

I question the motive of someone that refuses the to do so much as post a link to support there own argument.

I on the other hand I am always willing to back up my statements.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

Once again, another post only with "challenges" and no real statement. That is called all thunder and no rain where I come from. I am sure everyone else has already read the DA's statements. You seem to be the only one pretending they do not exist.

Care to start sharing more than just bluster?

Let's try just one question this time. One based on your own statement. What are the "contributing factors" that you feel are likely involved in the taped incident?

You seem very happy to attempt to "define reality" through statement but seem unwilling to contribute to it.

 

[Trlsmn]

Two whole posts to continue the old "if I do not see it it does not exist" game.

How about you actually do some research then post an educated interpretation? As I said before, all the information can be easily found in one spot in the thread running on TFL.

Do I need to ask what the "contributing factors" that you feel could strongly effect the appearance of what is happening on the video tape are again? Should I also ask why the DA would pursue an unpopular case without hard evidence? Should I ask how you feel about the fact that the evidence so far suggests that the shooters story is full of lies? Should I ask why you feel so strongly that there is another side to this story than the one pretty clearly visible on the tape?

There are only hypothetical situations that could have caused the victim to fire only the criminal, an "example would be if the criminal was reaching for something, example he reached for something such as a cell phone, not hard to imagine as we all have a built in survival instinct. Since the criminal was off camera we don't know what happened and if you do the research in this thread you will see that has been my point from the beginning not the exoneration or pointing to the victims innocence.

OK I've shown mine, show me the same respect and show the DA's report you use as the basis for your argument.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

There are only hypothetical situations that could have caused the victim to fire only the criminal, an "example would be if the criminal was reaching for something, example he reached for something such as a cell phone, not hard to imagine as we all have a built in survival instinct. Since the criminal was of camera we don't know what happened and if you do the research in this thread you will see that has been my point from the beginning not the exoneration or pointing to the victims innocence.

That is possible, but how would you explain the fact that the shooter never seems to physically react to any actions of the perp? How do you explain the fact that he walks right up to the supposed threatening perp in a slow a methodical manner and stands above him, fires, then calmly walks away? Would human nature be opposite of that reaction?

PS: All this has been discussed in the TFL thread along with links to statements by the DA and the DA's office.

PPS: What you just posted DOES fit the definition of conjecture. There is no evidence to actually support that claim. In fact the evidence seems to contradict that position.

As I said before, and you can read in the TFL thread, I completed supported the shooter and even made possible excuses for his over-reaction until I was presented with evidence I could not ignore which caused me to no longer be able to support a man who not only possibly committed murder but lied about it repeatedly.

 

[Trlsmn]

That is possible, but how would you explain the fact that the shooter never seems to physically react to any actions of the perp?

I don't explain it, other than to say there is no set way to react to such a abnormal situation. Your reaction is a product of many contributing factors.

How do you explain the fact that he walks right up to the supposed threatening perp in a slow a methodical manner and stands above him, fires, then calmly walks away? Would human nature be opposite of that reaction?

PS: All this has been discussed in the TFL thread along with links to statements by the DA and the DA's office.

And this matters why?

PPS: What you just posted DOES fit the definition of conjecture. There is no evidence to actually support that claim.

You don't you just admit you haven't seen, nor can you provide the DA's report, or a link to the DA's report.

BTW I answered exactly what you asked.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

I don't explain it, other than to say there is no set way to react to such a abnormal situation. Your reaction is a product of many contributing factors.

But there are "typical" reactions to threats. What is the typical reaction when someone steps on a bee? Is it to stand firmly and say "something just stung me." or is it to quickly withdraw your foot from the ground?

What circumstances do you feel are likely enough to be present to disregard his apparent lack or reaction? Especially likely enough for you to defend his actions?

You don't you just admit you haven't seen, nor can you provide the DA's report, or a link to the DA's report.

No, I just refused to play your game. Are you going to openly and clearly state here and now that you went to the TFL thread and failed to find links to the statement's made by the DA and the report he issued to the media?

 

[clearconscience]

This is another touchy subject for, and against gun rights.
Was the guy right to shoot them....Yes
Was he right to re-load and empty again....No
Do I think he should sit in jail....No.

He was right to use deadly force, however, it was excessive.

But my father always taught me, if your going to shoot someone make sure you kill them.

This is going to be another case where liberals fight to have guns taken away, and gun owners say this is why we need guns.

Either way there's still going to be guys coming in your store with a gun in your face wanting your money. Gun laws or no gun laws. And were always going to be the bad guys for wanting to protect ourselves.

 

[Trlsmn]

But there are "typical" reactions to threats. What is the typical reaction when someone steps on a bee? Is it to stand firmly and say "something just stung me." or is it to quickly withdraw your foot from the ground?

How is this guys reaction atypical? It was his reaction, I have my doubts that the guy spent his live as a cold blooded contract killer so it was what it was. As for contributing facts to his reaction, he was wearing a brace for some type of disability so he might have been on medication those are examples of factors contributing to his reaction.

What circumstances do you feel are likely enough to be present to disregard his apparent lack or reaction? Especially likely enough for you to defend his actions?

My whole point has been and will be we don't know so we can't make the judgment that his guilt is a "fact" your words.

No, I just refused to play your game. Are you going to openly and clearly state here and now that you went to the TFL thread and failed to find links to the statement's made by the DA and the report he issued to the media?

I'm not a member at TFL but I am a member here where we are having this discussion

I've asked you to post a link and I will do my own research as I always do.


You can twist it any way you like but I will just circle right back around and state that you have presented zero evidence to prove your statements

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

This is another touchy subject for, and against gun rights.
Was the guy right to shoot them....Yes
Was he right to re-load and empty again....No
Do I think he should sit in jail....No.

I agree with you completely right up until the last part. I do believe anyone under these circumstances deserves to go to jail for what he did.

Now I would feel completely different if the perp had broken in and harmed his wife/child before becoming incapacitated or surrendering and then he did the same thing.

 

[Trlsmn]

Hmmm I just read the whole TFL thread and there are no links to the DA's report.

Your credibility has reached a new low!

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

Hmmm I just read the whole thread and there are no links to the DA's report.

Your credibility has reached a new low!

You going to stand by that statement?

Here is a link to the thread just to be sure.
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=359176

You are going to say there are no links to statements by the DA, or quotes from the DA's office, or links to court records indicating exchanges between the DA and the judge?

Links like this...
http://s3.amazonaws.com/content.newsok.com/documents/pharmdoc0001.pdf

or this...
http://www.news9.com/Global/category.asp?C=116601&autoStart=true&topVideoCatNo=default&clipId=3804065

or this...
http://newsok.com/self-defense-allowed-by-law-oklahoma-county-da-says/article/3373148
and multiple others.

 

[Trlsmn]

You going to stand by that statement?

Here is a link to the thread just to be sure.
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=359176

You are going to say there are no links to statements by the DA, or quotes from the DA's office, or links to court records indicating exchanges between the DA and the judge?

Links like this...
http://s3.amazonaws.com/content.newsok.com/documents/pharmdoc0001.pdf

or this...
http://www.news9.com/Global/category.asp?C=116601&autoStart=true&topVideoCatNo=default&clipId=3804065

or this...
http://newsok.com/self-defense-allowed-by-law-oklahoma-county-da-says/article/3373148
and multiple others.

Thanks I knew that statement would get you to post it

 

[Trlsmn]

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 have a pretty good handle on forensic sciences and a mild grasp on crime scenes. It is pretty easy to tell if someone was immobile when being shot in such a fashion...and it is pretty easy to tell from the actions of the shooter and the angle of his body when he fired the last shots that he is shooting at a target still lying on the floor. It does not take a genius, just a non-prejudiced eye.

The Video and this,



This is the meat of the DA's report that you drew you forensic analysis from? Is this what leads your keen crime scene forensic powers to discern the facts?

I hope you are never on a jury, you watch to much CSI.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

This is the meat of the DA's report that you drew you forensic analysis from? Is this what leads your keen crime scene forensic powers to discern the facts?

No, I drew it from direct statements from the DA to the press and on video that crime scene evidence indicates that the perp was lying on his back and unconscious at the time of the second shooting. You cannot simply disregard all other information and try to use one vague piece of information as an excuse for doing so.

 

[Trlsmn]

No, I drew it from direct statements from the DA to the press and on video that crime scene evidence indicates that the perp was lying on his back and unconscious at the time of the second shooting. You cannot simply disregard all other information and try to use one vague piece of information as an excuse for doing so.

That is correct! You cannot, unfortunately this "vague piece of information" was your key evidence in this argument not mine

I opened the door you stepped through it.

 

[Blackfeather7]

I agree with you completely right up until the last part. I do believe anyone under these circumstances deserves to go to jail for what he did.

Now I would feel completely different if the perp had broken in and harmed his wife/child before becoming incapacitated or surrendering and then he did the same thing.

And I have agreed with you completely right up until your last part, Penguin. While you, I and most people would feel justified and probably not be able to resist blowing away someone who had "harmed his wife/child before becoming incapacitated or surrendering" we would be breaking the law just as much as the pharmacist in question. Once someone is incapacitated or has surrendered it is murder to kill them no matter what they have done. Do you want the cops to be able to do that?

Anger clouds the judgement. Rage throws it out the window.

 

[coctailer]

Hard to tell what is going on off-camera.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

And I have agreed with you completely right up until your last part, Penguin. While you, I and most people would feel justified and probably not be able to resist blowing away someone who had "harmed his wife/child before becoming incapacitated or surrendering" we would be breaking the law just as much as the pharmacist in question.

I completely agree...but sometimes emotional states can effect judgement. Sometimes it is more "understandable" and therefore "forgivable" in certain circumstances.

Hard to tell what is going on off-camera.

But it is easy to see what is happening on camera. What is happening on camera does not support his claims of what happened and neither does forensic evidence at the scene according to the DA.

That is correct! You cannot, unfortunately this "vague piece of information" was your key evidence in this argument not mine

Not even remotely true. It is simply a "piece" of the over-all evidence. You clearly chose to disregard all other evidence and tried to manipulate this one piece of information to fit your preconceived idea. Not surprising since your tactics earlier clearly show you are way more interested in being right than you are being correct and will even go as far as to lie and cast false accusations at others instead of taking any actions to learn the truth.

 

[coctailer]

I didn't read all the DA stuff or the stuff from the other website, but do they say in there that the robber was neutralized and un-able to return fire?

Sorry if this has already been discussed, there is waaaay too much reading to get all caught up on the topic.

 

[Trlsmn]

Not even remotely true. It is simply a "piece" of the over-all evidence. You clearly chose to disregard all other evidence and tried to manipulate this one piece of information to fit your preconceived idea. Not surprising since your tactics earlier clearly show you are way more interested in being right than you are being correct and will even go as far as to lie and cast false accusations at others instead of taking any actions to learn the truth.

I am only interested in facts and you have shown none. It took me repeatedly asking for your "evidence" and then having to use a Jedi mind trick to get you to post a link to support your own argument, which in itself makes no sense since this isn't about winning or losing, the truth is all that matters to me.

I haven't made any statements about the guys guilt or innocence so I find it hard to understand where I need to be right, as always I'm interested in facts not internet conjecture and so far what I've heard from you is all conjecture and no substance.