RE: Pharmacist shoots robber - charged with murder

Join Our Community

Collarchat.com

Home Login Search

RE: Pharmacist shoots robber - charged with murder

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Pharmacist shoots robber - charged with murder

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Pharmacist shoots robber - charged with murder - 5/31/2009 7:15:33 AM

Posts: 517
Joined: 11/27/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: cadenas

Exactly. Rights are reserved for murderers, as long as they are also white pharmacists.

(Disclaimer: that assessment is based on the newspaper report - if I was on the jury, other facts may well come out that could change that assessment!)

Which leads to the question, did the robber deserve to be shot ?

Totally unrelated question - but the answer is crystal clear: no. And that's not even a matter of opinion, but a matter of fact.

Self-defense isn't about "deserving" but about preventing harm. Whatever the robbers deserve is for a jury to decide. Says so in the sixth Amendment (and the fifth and eighth).

Somebody who takes it upon himself to decide what they, in his personal opinion, "deserve" is simply a murderer. We aren't talking about the streets of Baghdad or Kabul here, but about America. In this case, it quite probably is indeed a first-degree murder; going back to get the second gun may well be considered premeditation. Whether shooting an unarmed person whom you, yourself, injured is enough of a special circumstance to qualify for the death penalty, I don't know. Again, of course, all that based on the facts as presented in the media.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53
Neither robber gets much sympathy from me.

Why limit it to the robbers? The murderer shouldn't get much sympathy, either. And he should be sentenced to a substantially higher sentence than the robbers, since the pharmacist did take a human life.

I also hope the judge will decide to seize the donations the murderer received and reallocate them so both of them have a good defense team.

The last thing we need is another Eric-Rudolph-type scenario where a serious criminal gets a lot of support from a misguided population.

(in reply to Politesub53)

RE: Pharmacist shoots robber - charged with murder - 5/31/2009 7:18:54 AM

Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline

quote:

I understand the discourse of this thread.

What bothers me is the concept that thieves (, thugs, and scammers) have any rights a at all.

MstrPBK
St Paul, MN USA

Then the Constitution of the United States must bug the living hell outta ya.

(in reply to MstrPBK)

RE: Pharmacist shoots robber - charged with murder - 5/31/2009 7:40:08 AM

Rule

Posts: 10479
Joined: 12/5/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: barelynangel
because they had a gun it is reasonable to believe that they came in with the INTENT to HARM, which is where the self-defense issue comes in

I agree.

quote:

ORIGINAL: barelynangel
He realized he no longer had the ability to do so as he no longer had the other gun or bullets so he went to retrieve another gun,

I disagree. I suspect that he realized that he required his other gun to off the criminal that lay incapacitated on the floor, and therefore went to get it and subsequently emptied that second gun into him with the intent to kill, as he had been trained - and hired? - to do.

quote:

ORIGINAL: barelynangel

You can't decipher from the article whether it was justice or fear self-defense or temporary insanity due to the incident wherein he seriously felt in fear for himself and others and it would be a concept of self-defense.

It has not been proven that he knows what fear is. I suspect that he does not.

quote:

ORIGINAL: barelynangel

He had a gun pulled on him IN A PLACE WHEREIN IT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN (i.e., its a different situation than military).

He had two guns lying ready, presumably not in order to clean his nails, but with the intent to use them in case of a robbery. That does indicate to me a premeditated combat situation.

< Message edited by Rule -- 5/31/2009 7:41:03 AM >

(in reply to barelynangel)

RE: Pharmacist shoots robber - charged with murder - 5/31/2009 7:41:08 AM

Posts: 42360
Joined: 9/7/2007
From: Quietville
Status: offline

quote:

Which leads to the question, did the robber deserve to be shot ?

yes.

He attempted an armed robbery and was a direct threat to three other people.

_____________________________

PICKED UPON
TECHNO-DOLT
MEMBER OF THE SUBBIE MAFIA
GRACEFULLY CHALLENGED :::::splat:::::
BOOT WHORE
VAA/S FAN

GIVES GOOD HEART (Lushy)

CREATOR OF MAYHEM (practice)

(in reply to Politesub53)

RE: Pharmacist shoots robber - charged with murder - 5/31/2009 7:48:28 AM

Posts: 19100
Joined: 3/25/2007
From: California, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

In recent years we've had a situation where the US has denied what many see as basic judicial rights in Gitmo. In this story we see a strand of thought that suggests shooting an unconscious robber may be justified. i genuinely do see a parallel.

Phil, I am not sharing your assumption that the robber who was killed was unconscious when the second gun was used on him. That has been reported, but it has also been reported that he was trying to get up. The video does not show, either way. Absent any direct evidence, I am giving the benefit of the doubt to the druggist.

_____________________________

If you lose one sense, your other senses are enhanced.
That's why people with no sense of humor have such an inflated sense of self-importance.

(in reply to philosophy)

RE: Pharmacist shoots robber - charged with murder - 5/31/2009 8:04:52 AM

Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline

quote:

Absent any direct evidence, I am giving the benefit of the doubt to the druggist.

This is, after all, a popular American pastime--assigning guilt or blame in cases without seeing the evidence ourselves.

Unfortunately, from there, we all too often agree/disagree with the jury/judge/court decision (still w/o the evidence ourselves) and then base our political/social views and ideologies on this series of shaky quick takes, fervently debating others.

It's amazing our society survives. Or perhaps I'm simply speaking too soon.

The druggist will go to a court that will presume innocence, in accord with centuries of English jurisprudence (on which our legal system is founded). The prosecutor will present the evidence against him, in accord with not only jurisprudence but also simple logic (the burden of proof belongs to the party making the claim). The defense will present the evidence for acquittal. A jury of the druggist's peers, guided by the judge in legal matters, will decide against a very high standard, as this is a criminal case--is there any reasonable doubt, meaning they can be pretty sure he's guilty, but if not completely sure, will acquit.

Then the people who decided the case months ago with no evidence will complain about injustice.

And talk radio will have months of material. That's how it works in these United States.

Meanwhile, the robbers, given the apparent overwhelming evidence of guilt, will be tried and face the appropriate penalties. I'm not seeing any problem or injustice with them, or any special rights they're being given (as some have asserted) beyond what every citizen has. And armed robbery is, after all, by definition, a risky endeavor.

As for the pharmacist, even if convicted, he can appeal--something the prosecutor can NOT do (double jeopardy).

< Message edited by Musicmystery -- 5/31/2009 8:52:12 AM >

(in reply to TheHeretic)

RE: Pharmacist shoots robber - charged with murder - 5/31/2009 8:26:32 AM

Posts: 14614
Joined: 8/23/2004
Status: offline

This really isn't as complicated as is being argued, this is black-letter law, which I posted earlier.

It doesn't matter what his "mindset" was, what he may have felt, or what he may have thought.

It doesn't matter if the robber was conscious, trying to get up, or trying to do anything else that wasn't a direct threat.

The only thing that matters is whether the shooter was acting in self-defense in response to a direct threat.

And apparently the authorities believe that wasn't the case.

(in reply to TheHeretic)

RE: Pharmacist shoots robber - charged with murder - 5/31/2009 8:32:10 AM

Zevar

Posts: 801
Status: offline

FR:

So goes procedure in accordance with the Law hopefully; Innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

In conjunction or some form thereof; Amendment VI: Speedy trial, witnesses and accusations

" In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."

Then comes the opinion of the people who in the end deem a conviction or an aquittal hopefully based on irrefutable facts without prejudice or bias.

In closing: I would not want to be in the position of this man who had to make a spilt second decision for his welfare and life. All to now await the outcome of his actions to be judged by a jury of peers eventually unless of course the ole plea bargain is placed on the table.

It's all supposition, the "system" that is, unfortunately. It is what it is, I know. Time to "lawyer up" for sure.

I wish you well,
~ Zevar ~

< Message edited by Zevar -- 5/31/2009 8:34:56 AM >

(in reply to TheHeretic)

RE: Pharmacist shoots robber - charged with murder - 5/31/2009 8:38:08 AM

Posts: 42360
Joined: 9/7/2007
From: Quietville
Status: offline

quote:

It doesn't matter if the robber was conscious, trying to get up, or trying to do anything else that wasn't a direct threat.

If he was conscious, trying to get up, etc. the pharmacist should assume he did not have a gun in his pocket and also assume he had no desire to use it?

The pharmacist should also assume he and his co-workers had a safe harbor until the police arrived? We do not know the layout of the store, but that is moot really. No area is safe if the robber did get up and did have a gun.

< Message edited by sirsholly -- 5/31/2009 9:33:48 AM >

_____________________________

PICKED UPON
TECHNO-DOLT
MEMBER OF THE SUBBIE MAFIA
GRACEFULLY CHALLENGED :::::splat:::::
BOOT WHORE
VAA/S FAN

GIVES GOOD HEART (Lushy)

CREATOR OF MAYHEM (practice)

(in reply to rulemylife)

RE: Pharmacist shoots robber - charged with murder - 5/31/2009 8:46:40 AM

Posts: 5284
Joined: 2/15/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic
Phil, I am not sharing your assumption that the robber who was killed was unconscious when the second gun was used on him. That has been reported, but it has also been reported that he was trying to get up. The video does not show, either way. Absent any direct evidence, I am giving the benefit of the doubt to the druggist.

...well, i was going on the first report of the story you linked to, so i wasn't assuming anything as much as going with the data presented. i think we can all agree that if the robber was unconscious then the druggist was not performing an act of self defence. If the, at this time unarmed, robber was trying to get up then a case can be made for an act of perceived self defence.
The devil is in the details.

There have been a couple of posters in this thread that seems not to care about the distinction i've presented above. Unconscious or not, it seems that some feel the robber should have been killed anyway. My comparison with Gitmo was more to do with that part of the thread. Once some rights are officialy denied, it's a small step to others.......Law (or justice) is a bit of an all or nothing thing. It's a bit like free speech, which means nothing unless it also applies to those we disagree with. Law also applies to the perp........all of it, including the right to be tried by a jury of peers and the right not to be subject to summary execution.

(in reply to TheHeretic)

RE: Pharmacist shoots robber - charged with murder - 5/31/2009 8:48:06 AM

Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline

quote:

Innocent until proven guilty

Just to prevent a semantic struggle later--

Presumption of innocence by the courts is not "innocent until proven guilty." If you did it, you're guilty. Hell, you even get to plead guilty right at the start. The court, however, acts (or should act) by presuming innocence pending evidence to the contrary.

(in reply to Zevar)

RE: Pharmacist shoots robber - charged with murder - 5/31/2009 8:50:22 AM

Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline

quote:

Law also applies to the perp........all of it, including the right to be tried by a jury of peers and the right not to be subject to summary execution.

Laws, in fact, codified early on in the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

(in reply to philosophy)

RE: Pharmacist shoots robber - charged with murder - 5/31/2009 9:01:53 AM

Posts: 6233
Status: offline

quote:

He had two guns lying ready, presumably not in order to clean his nails, but with the intent to use them in case of a robbery. That does indicate to me a premeditated combat situation.

Rule, based on your responses you are ASSUMING an awful lot based on no information. BY LAW he was allowed to have TWO guns loaded and are you assuming it was in case of a robbery or in case of a situation like this?

As i said, until his mentality is know and motivation -- which NO ONE HAS because the actual events are kind of sketchy, we don't have a clue what this guy saw or his mindset. He just ran a guy with a gun visible out of the store, it doesn't say what happened to his first gun, so he went and got the second.

Sorry but your dissention to this whole thing is based more so on assumption than fact. When more information arises then i am sure people will be able to make a more direct observation.

Just because this guy was a trained military hired to work AND PROTECT the store doesn't mean he was wrong IF he felt threatened or the lives of others still were threatened. You are speaking as if he should have NOT been hired with his training. WHy not? He was hired as a employee who could serve two purposes -- knows how to protect and will choose to protect, versus someone who didn't who very well could have ended up dead or harmed in such a situation.

Sorry, i just think you are drawing a lot of assumptions. I don't agree if this guy decided to do the second shooting out of a concept of justice or revenge or vigilanty, i do however, think it was great he knew and was capable of protecting in such a situation.

angel

_____________________________

What lies behind us and what lies before us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us.
R.W. Emerson

(in reply to Musicmystery)

RE: Pharmacist shoots robber - charged with murder - 5/31/2009 9:02:17 AM

Posts: 14614
Joined: 8/23/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: sirsholly

quote:

It doesn't matter if the robber was conscious, trying to get up, or trying to do anything else that wasn't a direct threat.

If he was conscious, trying to get up, etc. the pharmacist should assume he did not have a gun in his pocket and also assume he had no desire to use it?

The pharmacist should also assume he and his co-workers had a safe harbor until the police arrived? We do not know the layout of the store, but that is moot really. No area is safe is the robber did get up and did have a gun.

That's just not relevant under the law, plain and simple.

Will arguments like that be used by his attorney? Of course, and that may sway a jury to a lesser punishment but does not alter the fact there was no direct threat and no justification for self-defense.

Castle laws, which under Oklahoma statutes extend to a person's place of business, allow for a broad definition of self-defense, but they don't provide legal grounds for many things that happened here.

First, he had no legal right to chase the other suspect after he had fled the store.

Second, he was safely away from the second suspect but chose to re-enter the situation. While castle doctrines remove the duty to flee they are intended for self-defense, not to authorize anyone to take on the role of law enforcement.

(in reply to sirsholly)

RE: Pharmacist shoots robber - charged with murder - 5/31/2009 9:24:42 AM

Posts: 42360
Joined: 9/7/2007
From: Quietville
Status: offline

quote:

Second, he was safely away from the second suspect but chose to re-enter the situation. While castle doctrines remove the duty to flee they are intended for self-defense, not to authorize anyone to take on the role of law enforcement.

*playing devils advocate*

He shot the robber in the head. Perhaps he assumed he killed him and could safely re-enter the store?
Also...he had two female co-workers that were inside. Protecting them will no doubt be brought up by his defense attorneys.

_____________________________

PICKED UPON
TECHNO-DOLT
MEMBER OF THE SUBBIE MAFIA
GRACEFULLY CHALLENGED :::::splat:::::
BOOT WHORE
VAA/S FAN

GIVES GOOD HEART (Lushy)

CREATOR OF MAYHEM (practice)

(in reply to rulemylife)

RE: Pharmacist shoots robber - charged with murder - 5/31/2009 9:31:25 AM

Posts: 2004
Joined: 3/17/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
Then the Constitution of the United States must bug the living hell outta ya.

What bugs me most about the Constitution is that I have above average reading skills and I cannot locate the article that grants all these rights to armed robbers.

(in reply to Musicmystery)

RE: Pharmacist shoots robber - charged with murder - 5/31/2009 9:37:00 AM

Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline

See the Fifth Amendment, quoted above.

quote:

nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

Among other things, this helps us distinguish between justice and vengeance--along with troubling to check the evidence first. And when that evidence exists, we proceed. Problem solved--except for those who prefer immediate vengeance.

< Message edited by Musicmystery -- 5/31/2009 9:44:06 AM >

(in reply to DomImus)

RE: Pharmacist shoots robber - charged with murder - 5/31/2009 9:37:05 AM

Rule

Posts: 10479
Joined: 12/5/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: barelynangel
You are speaking as if he should have NOT been hired with his training. WHy not? He was hired as a employee who could serve two purposes -- knows how to protect and will choose to protect, versus someone who didn't who very well could have ended up dead or harmed in such a situation.

Oh, if I had been the owner, I would have hired him most definitely for his training and aptitude. I would have told him: "I do hope that you kill the bastards - but only in self-defence, within the law."

(in reply to barelynangel)

RE: Pharmacist shoots robber - charged with murder - 5/31/2009 9:45:12 AM

Posts: 42360
Joined: 9/7/2007
From: Quietville
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule

quote:

ORIGINAL: barelynangel
You are speaking as if he should have NOT been hired with his training. WHy not? He was hired as a employee who could serve two purposes -- knows how to protect and will choose to protect, versus someone who didn't who very well could have ended up dead or harmed in such a situation.

Oh, if I had been the owner, I would have hired him most definitely for his training and aptitude. I would have told him: "I do hope that you kill the bastards - but only in self-defence, within the law."

Rule...i have no idea if you are kidding, but i assume you are.

If his military background was one of the reasons he was hired, don't you think you might have told him "I do hope you protect yourself and your co-workers?"

I honestly hope self protection was the reason for the two guns. There is nothing material in that store that was worth a loss of life.

_____________________________

PICKED UPON
TECHNO-DOLT
MEMBER OF THE SUBBIE MAFIA
GRACEFULLY CHALLENGED :::::splat:::::
BOOT WHORE
VAA/S FAN

GIVES GOOD HEART (Lushy)

CREATOR OF MAYHEM (practice)

(in reply to Rule)

RE: Pharmacist shoots robber - charged with murder - 5/31/2009 9:49:41 AM

Crush

Posts: 1031
Status: offline

Two guns doesn't mean you premeditated anything....it means you are prepared.

He could have one in one place and another in another place, in case he couldn't get to the first gun.

Heck, at my home we've four handguns in places about the house. You don't get to choose where you confront a bad guy usually....

Sometimes, if we're going a consult somewhere, I'll carry one in my pocket and another in an ankle holster. The quickest "reload" is a second firearm.

_____________________________

"In religion and politics, people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second hand, and without examination." -- Mark Twain

(in reply to Rule)

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Pharmacist shoots robber - charged with murder

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Jump to:

New Messages	No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages	Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages	Locked w/o New Messages

Post New Thread

Reply to Message

Post New Poll

Submit Vote

Delete My Own Post

Delete My Own Thread

Rate Posts

Collarchat.com © 2024

Terms of Service

0.109