LadyEllen
Posts: 10931
Joined: 6/30/2006 From: Stourport-England Status: offline
|
The news report specifically says one robber had a gun and he was the one arrested some time later - which means that the one shot didnt have a gun - thus the pharmacist is on shaky ground even at this point to argue self defence as the reason for shooting him, but no jury would ever dispute self defence to this point. However it would be extremely difficult to argue that an unarmed man, shot in the head and lying on the ground was in any state to threaten anyone still less able to mount an attack, thus at that point, removing any possibility that shooting him might be justified in any way by self defence. Still, assuming the jury is permitted to make its own decision and isnt directed (as in the UK) to find one way or another, one would strongly suspect that sympathies should lie with the pharmacist even though he committed what was an execution for whatever reason and should certainly face conviction for (by UK description) "manslaughter on the grounds of dimished responsibility" (due to the nature of the incident). There are great dangers in this case however, which any jury and judge must take into account quite outside the present circumstances. Dependent on the verdict and sentence (if any) reached, raiders may choose to shoot first in future, store keepers may choose not to shoot at all or to shoot first in future. I for one hope that the race element that some will undoubtedly wish to colour the case with, shall not be permitted to affect the case or indeed incite passions on either side. The skin tone of those involved should be a totally irrelevant matter in the treatment of all concerned. E
_____________________________
In a test against the leading brand, 9 out of 10 participants couldnt tell the difference. Dumbasses.
|