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

OrionTheWolf -> RE: Pharmacist shoots robber - charged with murder (5/31/2009 10:05:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife 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. "DEFENSE, SELF-DEFENSE - A defense to certain criminal charges involving force (e.g. murder). Use of force is justified when a person reasonably believes that it is necessary for the defense of oneself or another against the immediate use of unlawful force. However, a person must use no more force than appears reasonably necessary in the circumstances. Force likely to cause death or great bodily harm is justified in self-defense only if a person reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm. " http://www.lectlaw.com/def/d030.htm

rulemylife -> RE: Pharmacist shoots robber - charged with murder (5/31/2009 10:09:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sirsholly 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. Again though, what he assumed is not a valid self-defense argument. He was out of personal danger and from a legal standpoint he should have called the police and not gone back into the store. I have no doubt that defending his co-workers will come up, but there are numerous flaws to that argument. The primary one being that to subdue an already injured suspect doesn't require any shots fired, much less five.

TheHeretic -> RE: Pharmacist shoots robber - charged with murder (5/31/2009 10:27:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife to subdue an already injured suspect doesn't require any shots fired, much less five. 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] ) BTW, I am with Phil on one thing. If it is established that the criminal was unconscious and immobile when the second set of shots were fired, then the clerk should be facing charges. Not premeditated murder, but certainly a voluntary manslaughter sort of charge.

Rule -> RE: Pharmacist shoots robber - charged with murder (5/31/2009 10:31:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic (That would also blow Rule's 'hired killer' hypothesis out of the water, since a professional killer wouldn't waste ammo like that [:D] ) Dutch military do.

rulemylife -> RE: Pharmacist shoots robber - charged with murder (5/31/2009 10:36:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic And you are basing that on what exactly, RML? The law. Let's remove the debate about whether the suspect was armed, whether he was conscious or not, or what it took to subdue him. The fact remains the pharmacist was out of danger and intentionally walked back into the store, and that's the issue this case is going to be about.

Politesub53 -> RE: Pharmacist shoots robber - charged with murder (5/31/2009 10:52:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife The law. Let's remove the debate about whether the suspect was armed, whether he was conscious or not, or what it took to subdue him. The fact remains the pharmacist was out of danger and intentionally walked back into the store, and that's the issue this case is going to be about. Would the law not allow him to return and make sure his co-workers were safe ?

TheHeretic -> RE: Pharmacist shoots robber - charged with murder (5/31/2009 10:56:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic And you are basing that on what exactly, RML? The law. Let's remove the debate about whether the suspect was armed, whether he was conscious or not, or what it took to subdue him. The fact remains the pharmacist was out of danger and intentionally walked back into the store, and that's the issue this case is going to be about. 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.

Politesub53 -> RE: Pharmacist shoots robber - charged with murder (5/31/2009 11:08:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cadenas 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. That should be obvious to you. The pharmacist wasnt the instigator of this event, no matter how wrong his actions allegedly were afterwards. quote: 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. If you mean the Olympic Park bomber, are you real ? Are you comparing a guy who killed someone to a man who set out to commit mass murder, really ? Judging by your "serious criminal" remark, you have found the guy guilty before his trial. If I have misunderstood you, then I am sorry.

OrionTheWolf -> RE: Pharmacist shoots robber - charged with murder (5/31/2009 12:11:08 PM)
The law is not absolute, otherwise it would not require interpretation. Did he feel that the assailant still posed an immediate and grave threat to those left in the store? Would that be the "normal" thought (based upon a jury of his peers and evidence provided)? If the answer to both of these are yes, then it is Justifiable Homocide by reason of Self Defence, which can be used in defence of another that is in danger. Sitting in front of a liquor store, Joe Citizen, who has a CCW and several courses in firearms use and safety, sees a masked individual shoot three people and flee. Joe Citizen exits the vehicle, commands the fleeing felon to stop, but the felon does not, so Joe Citizen shoots them in the back, and the wound kills them. Depending upon the state, most would rule this as Justifiable Homicide. All of the elements are present for that defense. Now the queestion should be are those elements present in the case we are discussing. We do not have all the evidence, so our opinions should leave open certain possibilities. It will hinge upon whether it is reasonable for a person to believe, given the evidence, that the assailant on the floor could still pose a grave danger to those still in the store. quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic And you are basing that on what exactly, RML? The law. Let's remove the debate about whether the suspect was armed, whether he was conscious or not, or what it took to subdue him. The fact remains the pharmacist was out of danger and intentionally walked back into the store, and that's the issue this case is going to be about.

Jack45 -> RE: Pharmacist shoots robber - charged with murder (5/31/2009 1:13:54 PM)
Hope they start a legal defense fund for this poor guy. Ever watch TRU-TV? The shopkeepers face these scum day in and day out. GunBanObama.com

sirsholly -> RE: Pharmacist shoots robber - charged with murder (5/31/2009 1:18:56 PM)
quote: If it is established that the criminal was unconscious and immobile when the second set of shots were fired, then the clerk should be facing charges. Not premeditated murder, but certainly a voluntary manslaughter sort of charge. It seems clear on the tape that the pharmacist stopped and looked at the robber before getting the gun and shooting him a second time. To me that might work in his favor. He assessed and realized the guy was still alive and a threat.

Rule -> RE: Pharmacist shoots robber - charged with murder (5/31/2009 2:03:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sirsholly He assessed and realized the guy was still alive and a threat. lol

TheHeretic -> RE: Pharmacist shoots robber - charged with murder (5/31/2009 2:56:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rule quote: ORIGINAL: sirsholly He assessed and realized the guy was still alive and a threat. lol Maybe. But if that is the story they are sticking to, the rest of the circumstances buy them the benefit of the doubt.

rulemylife -> RE: Pharmacist shoots robber - charged with murder (5/31/2009 3:31:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf The law is not absolute, otherwise it would not require interpretation. Did he feel that the assailant still posed an immediate and grave threat to those left in the store? Would that be the "normal" thought (based upon a jury of his peers and evidence provided)? If the answer to both of these are yes, then it is Justifiable Homocide by reason of Self Defence, which can be used in defence of another that is in danger. Sitting in front of a liquor store, Joe Citizen, who has a CCW and several courses in firearms use and safety, sees a masked individual shoot three people and flee. Joe Citizen exits the vehicle, commands the fleeing felon to stop, but the felon does not, so Joe Citizen shoots them in the back, and the wound kills them. Depending upon the state, most would rule this as Justifiable Homicide. All of the elements are present for that defense. Sorry, but no, there is no state in which Joe would not be arrested. Whether he would find a sympathetic jury to exonerate him is a different matter, but concealed carry permits are not intended to create a pseudo police force of armed citizens to take it upon themselves to enforce the law. There are exceptions to that of course. The primary one being if Joe was in the liquor store and feared for his life. Another being if Joe was preventing, or had reason to believe he was preventing, the suspect from harming someone else. 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. Justifiable homicide - Criminal Law Lawyer Source Justifiable homicide is the killing of one person by another that is committed without malice or criminal intent. When a person commits a justifiable homicide they are not guilty of a criminal offense. Homicide can be considered justifiable homicide if it is committed in self defense, the defense of others, while trying to prevent of serious crime, and in the line of duty.

kazzaslave -> RE: Pharmacist shoots robber - charged with murder (5/31/2009 3:41:24 PM)
Greetings bita, That's true,there were others to think of but was it necessary to shoot the man 5 times in the abdomen or would shooting him in the leg (given the man was already wounded) have done the job? The report said that the man who was shot was unarmed, surely the 5 shots weren't necessary. It just seems to kazza that shooting that man 5 times was more than what was strictly necessary to subdue the man until the police could get there. What kazza does find telling is that the man had no problem turning his back on the man in order to get the gun, surely if that skimask guy were trying to get up he would have at least glanced back to see if skimask guy had gotten up? All this is moot however, all we can do is speculate. There is to much which is unknown. We can't see what shape the man on the floor was in and we haven't heard the 911 call. Hindsight is after all 20/20. she wishes you well, kazza

Crush -> RE: Pharmacist shoots robber - charged with murder (5/31/2009 3:44:08 PM)
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.

rulemylife -> RE: Pharmacist shoots robber - charged with murder (5/31/2009 3:48:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sirsholly It seems clear on the tape that the pharmacist stopped and looked at the robber before getting the gun and shooting him a second time. To me that might work in his favor. He assessed and realized the guy was still alive and a threat. Then the primary question becomes if deadly force was necessary to quell that threat and it seems pretty obvious that there were plenty of options short of that.

kazzaslave -> RE: Pharmacist shoots robber - charged with murder (5/31/2009 3:51:49 PM)
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

rulemylife -> RE: Pharmacist shoots robber - charged with murder (5/31/2009 3:53:58 PM)
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.

rulemylife -> RE: Pharmacist shoots robber - charged with murder (5/31/2009 4:03:00 PM)
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.

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2024

Terms of Service

0.09375