RE: Pharmacist shoots robber - charged with murder

RE: Pharmacist shoots robber - charged with murder (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

JstAnotherSub -> RE: Pharmacist shoots robber - charged with murder (5/31/2009 4:08:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic Passed the Oklahoma bar, have you? There were co-workers in the place he was defending, and there is no way to say he believed the danger to be over to them. Remember, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away. Yes, I truly love NRA propaganda slogans but they are of little use in court as Dirty Harry the pharmacist is about to find out. The laws in Oklahoma are similar to everywhere else, with the noted exception of Oklahoma being one of the handful of states that have extended castle laws to a person's vehicle and place of business. Despite that broad definition he was still arrested. So one has to believe that there were reasonable grounds for the arrest. one reasonable ground (or unreasonable one) is that a riot would have ensued had they not arrested him.

rulemylife -> RE: Pharmacist shoots robber - charged with murder (5/31/2009 4:10:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Would the law not allow him to return and make sure his co-workers were safe ? Which is another thing interesting here that everyone seems to be focusing on. Were his co-workers paralyzed by fear and unable to move? Is there any reason why they needed the protection of the pharmacist when they could have walked out the door just as he did?

JstAnotherSub -> RE: Pharmacist shoots robber - charged with murder (5/31/2009 4:13:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Would the law not allow him to return and make sure his co-workers were safe ? Which is another thing interesting here that everyone seems to be focusing on. Were his co-workers paralyzed by fear and unable to move? Is there any reason why they needed the protection of the pharmacist when they could have walked out the door just as he did? you would hear gunshots in your place or employment and run out there thinking it was safe to walk out the door? id be headin to a good hiding place to shit my pants i think......since i aint allowed to carry a gun to work.

Politesub53 -> RE: Pharmacist shoots robber - charged with murder (5/31/2009 4:15:00 PM)
Exactly RML, but the point is we can only guess. All the facts should come out in court ( Not that thats a given )

Crush -> RE: Pharmacist shoots robber - charged with murder (5/31/2009 4:25:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote: ORIGINAL: Crush Actually, you don't know that he won't be firing back under his arm. You know he is armed. Therefore, shooting him in the back is reasonable and defensible. Source: FBI Citizen's Academy. Well, you provided a source but not a link, but I can tell you without even seeing it that a private citizen does not have the options available to trained law enforcement personnel. Actually, it was at one of these Citizens Academies that I attended that I heard it from an FBI agent who was part of the Academy.. And he stated that we had the same legal rights as law enforcement officers, and in some cases, even more, since we aren't required to identify ourselves or follow a force continuum, like many police and other law enforcement officers are required to follow. There is no link, nor is one needed, since I am the source regarding the Academy that I attended.

rulemylife -> RE: Pharmacist shoots robber - charged with murder (5/31/2009 4:31:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JstAnotherSub you would hear gunshots in your place or employment and run out there thinking it was safe to walk out the door? id be headin to a good hiding place to shit my pants i think......since i aint allowed to carry a gun to work. Well. this is really starting to drift away into a lot of speculation. The only thing it really comes down to is whether the injured robber could reasonably have been thought to be a threat and whether the response was proportional to that threat. Based on the limited facts it would appear to be no to both questions. Especially considering that the state has strong laws in favor of self-defense and the district attorney is fully supporting the police charges against the pharmacist.

Politesub53 -> RE: Pharmacist shoots robber - charged with murder (5/31/2009 4:35:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife Well. this is really starting to drift away into a lot of speculation. The only thing it really comes down to is whether the injured robber could reasonably have been thought to be a threat and whether the response was proportional to that threat. Based on the limited facts it would appear to be no to both questions. How can you be sure, since you admit we have only limited facts ? I may agree with you if we had CCTV showing the guy on the floor wasn`t a danger. Since we don`t, I have to keep an open mind.

rulemylife -> RE: Pharmacist shoots robber - charged with murder (5/31/2009 4:37:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Crush Actually, it was at one of these Citizens Academies that I attended that I heard it from an FBI agent who was part of the Academy.. And he stated that we had the same legal rights as law enforcement officers, and in some cases, even more, since we aren't required to identify ourselves or follow a force continuum, like many police and other law enforcement officers are required to follow. There is no link, nor is one needed, since I am the source regarding the Academy that I attended. He was wrong. You need only look to the pharmacist's arrest as proof of that.

rulemylife -> RE: Pharmacist shoots robber - charged with murder (5/31/2009 4:40:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 How can you be sure, since you admit we have only limited facts ? I may agree with you if we had CCTV showing the guy on the floor wasn`t a danger. Since we don`t, I have to keep an open mind. I can't be, but you edited my comments to leave out the primary sentence in my argument: Especially considering that the state has strong laws in favor of self-defense and the district attorney is fully supporting the police charges against the pharmacist.

Crush -> RE: Pharmacist shoots robber - charged with murder (5/31/2009 4:53:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote: ORIGINAL: Crush Actually, it was at one of these Citizens Academies that I attended that I heard it from an FBI agent who was part of the Academy.. And he stated that we had the same legal rights as law enforcement officers, and in some cases, even more, since we aren't required to identify ourselves or follow a force continuum, like many police and other law enforcement officers are required to follow. There is no link, nor is one needed, since I am the source regarding the Academy that I attended. He was wrong. You need only look to the pharmacist's arrest as proof of that. sigh The FBI agent wasn't wrong. Nor were the other agents and supervisors in the room. Nor the lawyer that was there.. The pharmacist isn't convicted. People who are arrested are, ya know, actually innocent a lot of the time. And they still get arrested. It isn't the cop's call...it is the DA's call to pursue any charges. But then, I remember now to never expect a reasonable discussion with you. Just a rethumping of your own prejudices and fixations. Buh Bye once more. Ed: Note to Mod XI. I promise to not reply to rule anymore ;)

Politesub53 -> RE: Pharmacist shoots robber - charged with murder (5/31/2009 4:53:57 PM)
I realise I edited your comment RML. Would the police and DA be duty bound to let a court decide the case, even if they felt the pharmacist wasnt guilty ?

TheHeretic -> RE: Pharmacist shoots robber - charged with murder (5/31/2009 4:58:17 PM)
Well lemme see here, RML. District Attorneys tend to be elected officials, and this is a high profile case, with heavy racial overtones. I'd say we need to wait and see how the DA actually proceeds with the case, to judge how fully supportive of it he is...

rulemylife -> RE: Pharmacist shoots robber - charged with murder (5/31/2009 5:09:49 PM)
The short answer is no. That is the job of the prosecutor, to determine if there are legal grounds to go to trial. If there aren't he not only wastes taxpayer's money but subjects himself to not only ridicule but legal sanction. Remember the Duke University rape case? But again we are getting back into this whole "feelings" thing. What the police or district attorney feel is not a relevant legal issue. The only relevant issue is whether a law has been broken and if there is reasonable evidence to prove that and take a case to trial.

WyldHrt -> RE: Pharmacist shoots robber - charged with murder (5/31/2009 5:17:40 PM)
quote: He was wrong. You need only look to the pharmacist's arrest as proof of that. Ummm... say what? Since when does an arrest constitute proof of anything? I can tell you that anyone expressing such a sentiment during voir dire for jury selection would be tossed out on their ass for having prejudged the defendant.

OrionTheWolf -> RE: Pharmacist shoots robber - charged with murder (5/31/2009 6:24:10 PM)
I never said not arrested, I said as a defense. Also, it has happened here in Atlanta. I searched for a while and could not find the news story. It occured Aug 15, 1993 in Atlanta, GA. The DA charged the man, he made bail, and was aquitted by a jury. It was determined that he was in fact defending the lives of others, by stopping the fleeing dangerous felon. I will keep looking for the news story in an archive search engine I know of. As I said, the law is not absolute and is interpretable. quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife Shooting a fleeing suspect in the back, no matter what crime he is believed to have committed would not fall under the umbrella of justifiable homicide.

thishereboi -> RE: Pharmacist shoots robber - charged with murder (5/31/2009 6:36:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kazzaslave quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi Maybe he wanted to make sure the kid never robbed someone again and thought if he goes to court he will get off on a light sentence. Greetings thishereboi, That is not for the pharmacist to decide and is not justification for shooting skimaskguy 5 more times in the stomach. This is where vigilante justice comes into play and that's against the law. she wishes you well, kazza edited to fix quote Hey kazza Dont get me wrong, I don't think he was right. I was just speculating on why he might have done it. In fact as I said previously, I have trouble believing he thought he was in such danger that he had to pop 5 more rounds into the kid. As you pointed out in your last post, he didn't look back when he went to get the gun and if he thought the kid was about to jump up, that doesn't make sense. I am also not sure where the other two employees were as I didn't see them in the video. calli

OrionTheWolf -> RE: Pharmacist shoots robber - charged with murder (5/31/2009 6:40:56 PM)
" Justifiable homicide can also involve one person killing another for the purpose of self defense. If a person reasonably believes that s/he is in imminent danger of losing their life or suffering great bodily injury at the hands of another person, any self defense that results in death may be considered justifiable homicide. Usually for self defense to be considered justifiable homicide, there is a general duty to retreat if it is possible to do so (with the exception of the state of Louisiana where there is no duty to retreat). A duty to retreat may not be necessary if the justifiable homicide took place in the defendant's home or place of business. " http://www.criminal-law-lawyer-source.com/terms/justifiable.html " In some cases, before using force that is likely to cause death or serious bodily harm to the aggressor, a person who is under attack should attempt to retreat or escape, but only if an exit is reasonably possible. Courts have held, however, that a person is not required to flee from his own home, the fenced ground surrounding the home, his place of business, or his automobile. " http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/self-defense Also here is a link to oppose your unsupported claim that a private citizen cannot kill a fleeing felon, as at least one state supports it: "Kentucky law holds that a person witnessing a felony must take affirmative steps to prevent it, if possible. (See Gill v. Commonwealth, 235 KY 351 (1930.) Indeed, Kentucky citizens are permitted to kill fleeing felons while making a citizen's arrest (Kentucky Criminal Code § 37; S 43, §44.) " http://www.constitution.org/grossack/arrest.htm If you read the Kentucky law, a private citizen is under obligation of law to stop a felony if they are able to do so.

janiebelle -> RE: Pharmacist shoots robber - charged with murder (5/31/2009 6:42:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic And you are basing that on what exactly, RML? We don't know just how injured he was to begin with. We don't know what caliber gun was being employed (a .45, five shots would likely be overkill, a .25, five might have been just right). We don't know the magazine capacity. The time compression on the tape makes it tricky to tell, but he might have simply emptied the sceond gun as fast as he could pull the trigger. (That would also blow Rule's 'hired killer' hypothesis out of the water, since a professional killer wouldn't waste ammo like that [:D] ) IIRC, the first shot was a .380, which is basically an underpowered 9mm. I wouldn't count on a head shot from anything other than point blank to be a sure show stopper. The second gun, a Taurus Judge revolver, would be a far superior weapon in terms of stopping power. I can therefore see the rationale behind swapping guns. The strategy follows the gunfighter's axiom about using a pistol to get to your primary weapon. Having two guns in no way indicates premeditation. If it did, I would be five times as "premeditating" as this pharmacist with what lies about this house. You cannot choose your battlefield, but you can prepare. I keep a loaded weapon in every room of my house. Yes, every room, they make stainless guns for steamy bathrooms because nude CQB is not a sound tactical decision. j

beargonewild -> RE: Pharmacist shoots robber - charged with murder (5/31/2009 6:45:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Crush quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife ..... Shooting a fleeing suspect in the back, no matter what crime he is believed to have committed would not fall under the umbrella of justifiable homicide. Actually, you don't know that he won't be firing back under his arm. You know he is armed. Therefore, shooting him in the back is reasonable and defensible. Source: FBI Citizen's Academy. One question: Does that apply to the average citizen or only to FBI agents and FBI trainees?

OrionTheWolf -> RE: Pharmacist shoots robber - charged with murder (5/31/2009 6:46:07 PM)
.380 make excellent hold out weapons, and you are correct they should not be the primary, but a .40 cal can ;). I suppose I walked around for almost 7 years premeditating murder and never knew it.

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125