- Messages
- 90
- Reactions
- 2
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
It does matter because the defendant claimed the perp was returning to his feet with his weapon. This fact makes that a lie.Doesnt matter. He entered the business with someone who WAS in posession of a firearm, and was fully a part of the deadly threat.
Once again, it does matter because the defendant claims the perp fired first. This fact makes this part of his story a lie also.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.
Bullet trajectories, exit patterns, blood stain patterns, and a strew of other evidence can show this quite clearly.What crime scene evidence could show that, other than witness testimony or video tape?
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.Im already thinking about how long its gonna take before Hillary Clintin gets on her soap box and spins this story around.