Guy shoots store robber - Get's life.

dlofnep

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCUbv2-JUR8

Back-story: 2 guys enter a store, one with a gun with intent of robbing it and threatens the staff. The store owner shoots one of them in the head (a 16 year old), and the other robber flees. He gives a small chase to the guy who flees, only to come back into the store about 45 seconds later.

Up to this point - I don't think anyone would dispute that what the owner did was justified. He shot an armed robber to protect himself. What happened next however is where the dispute arises.

The first thief who was shot in the head was laying on the ground, possibly dying. The store owner walks calmly to the back of the shop, fetches a second gun and unloads 5 bullets on the 16 year old who is obviously no longer a threat to him.

In the court case that followed, it was ruled that the store owner had murdered the 16 year old, and got life for it. So emotions aside - Was what he did justified, or was it wrong? It might be comparable to the McNally case we had a few years back.

dlofnep

Other - Please specify.

Er, that should be "life sentence" - not "life was sentence". Brain-fart.

blaze1

Robber deserved what he got. Life was sentence is inappropiate.

If he was shot in the head and still alive was he shot with a spud gun?

Saila

how many ninja's were in the store, this is important to know

Sykk

Robber deserved what he got. Life was sentence is inappropiate.

The first bullet was fair enough and as you said, totally justified. But he had time to think about getting a second gun and killing someone else in cold blood.

Correct judgement IMO.

NTMK

Robber deserved what he got. Life was sentence is inappropiate.

Life sentence is perfectly justified
Shopkeeper had every right to defend himself but unloading 5 rounds into someone who has already been shot in the head is not self defence

MagicMarker

Robber deserved what he got. Life was sentence is inappropiate.

If I had just shot someone in the head I'd probably curl up in a ball and cry myself to sleep, anyone who can casually do that probably should be in prison tbh.

alchemist33

Other - Please specify.

He definitely should have stopped after the first shot. It was murder, but there were circumstances you can't ignore. I say a sentence less than life (although once the verdict is murder, I suspect there may have been no leeway for the judge).

dinorebel

Just goes to show the importance of learning to shoot properly in the 1st place.

dlofnep

Other - Please specify.

I see it as the first shot was out of self defense, and the second was most likely out of shock and anger. It's possible the robber was dying. I think the store owner should have got at least some time, perhaps 5-10 years - because as Ana points out, he's not a threat to society and was responding to a very extraordinary situation which is difficult to predict how one might react. I don't believe it was pre-meditated, he probably just went black and unloaded out of anger and shock. That's my view anyway. But it was absolutely wrong and warrants at least some punishment.

iMax

First bullet - Self Defence
Subsequent bullets - Murder

What makes it murder is the fact he waited before continuing (an excessive number of) shots. He should have shot him, two or three times & then called the cops

Mark200

Robber deserved what he got. Life was sentence is inappropiate.

dlofnep wrote: »

I see it as the first shot was out of self defense, and the second was most likely out of shock and anger. It's possible the robber was dying. I think the store owner should have got at least some time, perhaps 5-10 years - because as Ana points out, he's not a threat to society and was responding to a very extraordinary situation which is difficult to predict how one might react. I don't believe it was pre-meditated, he probably just went black and unloaded out of anger and shock. That's my view anyway. But it was absolutely wrong and warrants at least some punishment.

Anyone whose immediate reaction to shock and anger is to unload 5 bullets into a dying person should be locked up for life in my opinion,

Morrisseeee

It certainly would make criminals think twice about stealing tho, wouldn't it !!! and that's a good thing, but does the kid deserve to be shot dead, like he was, mmmm.......probably not.
So.....6 of 1 and half-a-dozen of the other

_feedback_

Robber deserved what he got. Life was sentence is inappropiate.

Regardless of what the dead guys intentions were when coming in to the shop. He wasn't any threat when he was lying with a bullet in his head. That has to be murder.

He probably would have killed the other guy if he had caught him too.

dlofnep

Other - Please specify.

Mark200 wrote: »

Anyone whose immediate reaction to shock and anger is to unload 5 bullets into a dying person should be locked up for life in my opinion,

Perhaps. I'm not saying my opinion is the most valid. Just giving my view. I don't think the man in question would shoot someone under normal circumstances - so I don't feel he's necessarily a danger to society.

What he did was wrong - don't get me wrong. Which is why I agree that some time at least, is warranted.

arybvtcw0eolkf

He should have stopped after the first shot. Should have gotten a sentence, but not life.

As much as most of us would like to shoot the scumbag little bastard again, and again - you simply can't & expect to get away with it.

Unfortunately its the correct sentence.

Something along the lines of hollow point bullets would have done the job right the first time round - or bullets like little incendiary devices would be really cool.

Duggy747

These robberies can be usually callous and end awful but the owner got the thief, probably left him a vegetable at that point with the bullet to the head.

He didn't need to kill him after that, he was probably going to die anyways.

Wolfe Tone

Sure didn't Nally do something similar?

bonerm

dlofnep wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCUbv2-JUR8

Liberal bastards. I'd love for a couple of punks to wave guns in their faces and then see how well they deal with the situation.

hatrickpatrick

Killing a human being against their will is always wrong.

Pyr0

Robber deserved what he got. Life was sentence is inappropiate.

First shot was justified. The next 5 deserved life.

prinz

Other - Please specify.

The first shot off in anger fair enough. Defending himself and/or staff etc.

dlofnep wrote: »

The first thief who was shot in the head was laying on the ground, possibly dying. The store owner walks calmly to the back of the shop, fetches a second gun and unloads 5 bullets on the 16 year old who is obviously no longer a threat to him..

This is where it gets more interesting. Couple of points on this (not able to watch the video so apologies if they've been covered)..

1. You'd need to know the extent of the headwound to the first thief, was he "possibly dying" or was he still concious/able to move somewhat?

2. Which thief had the gun that they brought. Did the thief who ran take the gun with him, or did the thief who was on the ground injured have the gun?

3. Walking calmly back to the shop.. was he actually calm or was he thinking that the first thief was going to come back, with ot without friends

4. Did the shopkeeper fetch and load a second gun because he was thinking thief 1 was going to come back or did he do it only to finish off thief 2.

5. What exactly happened between the time of reloading second gun and shooting thief 2 again. Could it be that thief 2 was still capable of moving/reaching for his gun (if he had one)

6. The age of the thief is more or less irrelevant. A 16 year old with a gun and the know how and will to use it is no different from a 26 or 26 year old IMO.

The answers to the above could greatly change my opinion on things, but at first reading, he shot one, gave chase, returned and finished off the injured one even though he was posing no danger (i.e. away from weapons/incapacitated/being restrained by bystanders of staff) then a life sentence with the option of parole after so many years is justified. Not really comparable to the Nally case at all.

Just because the first shot was to the head doesn't guarantee that the thief was permanently incapacitated..dying etc..

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/26604942/ns/today-today_people/t/clerk-survives-execution-style-gunshot-head/

http://www.kgw.com/news/local/Man-shot-in-head-SE-Portland-101387624.html

It could be that the shot thief came around, after the shopkeeper had reloaded out of fear, and then the shopkeeper shot him a few more times, in which case fair enough.

arybvtcw0eolkf

He should have stopped after the first shot. Should have gotten a sentence, but not life.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Killing a human being against their will is always wrong.

Only "always wrong" for the victim.

Opinicus

IIRC he shot him in the stomach with the second salvo. ****ing painful way to go.

Definitely murder.

rasper

Robber deserved what he got. Life was sentence is inappropiate.

pure vile and evil murder, it didnt look like heat of the moment, this man certainly looks like he has no inhibitions and is capable of anything

Bottle_of_Smoke

First bullet was was fine. An armed robber can be defended against with any means neccesary.

He then came back and murdered him. There was no need for it. I don't agree with the assertion he is no threat to society. If someone's willing to kill for little reason out of anger they should be out of society

GavRedKing

Other - Please specify.

I've no problem with the self defense part, but theother events are just cold blooded, had he rang the cops and reported what happened and not killed the guy with the second gun their is no way he would have got a life sentence.

Fluorescence

Other - Please specify.

If he had stopped after the first shot, the life sentence would have been totally wrong. However, unloading 5 more shots into an already incapacitated thief is overkill, and most definitely murder. There's no way the thief could still have been a threat after being shot once in the head. Therefore the life sentence is justified.

Riskymove

blaze1 wrote: »

If he was shot in the head and still alive was he shot with a spud gun?

lots of people survive shots to the head...look at that US Congresswoman recently etc

KungPao

Robber deserved what he got. Life was sentence is inappropiate.

Live by the sword die by the sword, as the old saying goes.

But yeah, to unload into someone who is no longer a threat and probably dying is a bit sick.

bonerm

Riskymove wrote: »

lots of people survive shots to the head...look at that US Congresswoman recently etc

In fact a lot of suicides aren't completed because the individual doesn't shoot themself in the right part of the head. They think just put the gun to the head, pop and it's all over. Not so.

Check that kid who shot himself after believing Judas Priest LPs were sending him secret messages if you want to see some real horror-show results.

AudreyHepburn

Robber deserved what he got. Life was sentence is inappropiate.

While I am all for being able to defend yourself and your property by any means pumping 5 bullets into an already critically injured ( and so no longer a threat) man is overkill.

Correct judgement imo.

prinz

Other - Please specify.

fluorescence wrote: »

There's no way the thief could still have been a threat after being shot once in the head..

Yes, there are ways.

Duggy747

If he thought the guy he shot would be still a threat he should've just stood over him while waiting for the cops.

seamus

First shot was defence, the rest were revenge.

So of course he has to be jailed.

AudreyHepburn

Robber deserved what he got. Life was sentence is inappropiate.

prinz wrote: »

Yes, there are ways.

Such as?

A bullet to the head doesn't strike me as conducive to being a threat.

az2wp0sye65487

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Killing a human being against their will is always wrong.

What if that human being is trying to kill you?

biko

He should have stopped after the first shot. Should have gotten a sentence, but not life.

If you step into a shop with a gun to rob it, don't expect to get out alive.

Yes, it was homicide as the kid was on the ground but I don't think life imprisonment would be right. 8 years or so imo.

az2wp0sye65487

How do we know that he was still alive after the first shot?

Say the first shot killed him - which is unfortunate, but I'm sure most will agree that as it was one shot in self defense, the thief with the gun took that risk by trying to rob a shop.

So if the first shot killed him outright, he's dead.... He can't be any more dead. Does this make a difference in the eyes of the law to the subsequent shots?

prinz

Other - Please specify.

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Such as?
A bullet to the head doesn't strike me as conducive to being a threat.

People have survived being shot in the head. Saying 'shot in the head' doesn't guarantee incapacitation or near death. All depends on the actual wound itself.

prinz

Other - Please specify.

Alden Few Chrome wrote: »

So if the first shot killed him outright, he's dead.... He can't be any more dead. Does this make a difference in the eyes of the law to the subsequent shots?

That depends on how certain you could be that the first shot did kill him 100%. But then I'd imagine you'd be up for other offences, interfering with a corpse or some such.

--Kaiser--

He should have stopped after the first shot. Should have gotten a sentence, but not life.

biko wrote: »

If you step into a shop with a gun to rob it, don't expect to get out alive.

Yes, it was homicide as the kid was on the ground but I don't think life imprisonment would be right. 8 years or so imo.

+1
Live by the sword, die by the sword

seamus

Alden Few Chrome wrote: »

How do we know that he was still alive after the first shot?

I'm not watching the youtube video in work, but I'm presuming that they relied on medical or eyewitness testimony as to the robber's state. Even if the guy is on the verge of death, you'd likely see twitching and breathing.

Say the first shot killed him - which is unfortunate, but I'm sure most will agree that as it was one shot in self defense, the thief with the gun took that risk by trying to rob a shop.

So if the first shot killed him outright, he's dead.... He can't be any more dead. Does this make a difference in the eyes of the law to the subsequent shots?

Only if it can be conclusively proven that the guy was dead. If I rock up to a morque and start offloading shots into a random cadaver, I could probably be done for some kind of odd civil law, but I couldn't be done for murder.

I imagine in the shopkeeper scenario, the onus would be on the shopkeeper to prove that he was certain the guy was legally dead before he fired more shots, rather than on the prosecution to prove that he was alive.

In the case of murder it would always be assumed that the victim was "alive" before the act of killing him took place (sounds ridiculous, but think about it ). Obviously, having been shot in the head a minute or two before complicates the matter, but the obvious thing is that even if the shopkeeper concluded that the boy was dead, he had a responsibility to alert a doctor and have that confirmed.

So in this case, it would be legally assumed that the boy was alive before the shopkeeper shot him again, in the absence of any evidence to show otherwise.

bonerm

Out of interest what would the ruling have been if the robber had already been dead when he shot him again?

mikemac

He should have stopped after the first shot. Should have gotten a sentence, but not life.

The case might go political

His Republican congressman is lobbying for him

A quick wikipedia check tells me the mayor of Oklahoma City is a republican and so are the governor and lieutenant governor of the state

With some lobbying he may be out in a few years.

Sure Bill Clinton gave pardons for some of his buddies

Son Of A Vidic

Robber deserved what he got. Life was sentence is inappropiate.

Sykk wrote: »

The first bullet was fair enough and as you said, totally justified. But he had time to think about getting a second gun and killing someone else in cold blood.

Correct judgement IMO.

I agree with you on that, once he shot him again it was a clear case of using unnecessary force and premeditation. So he lost his whole defence in doing that, correct decision.

krudler

If he'd have shot him once and left it that then he would have walked away scot free, what more of a threat is a guy who's been shot in the head?

AudreyHepburn

Robber deserved what he got. Life was sentence is inappropiate.

prinz wrote: »

People have survived being shot in the head. Saying 'shot in the head' doesn't guarantee incapacitation or near death. All depends on the actual wound itself.

Fair enough.

But you cannot deny that to go back and pump 5 more bullets into an already hurt and possibly incapacitated man was overkill.

prinz

Other - Please specify.

krudler wrote: »

If he'd have shot him once and left it that then he would have walked away scot free, what more of a threat is a guy who's been shot in the head?

It depends on the seriousness of the wound. This dude drove himself to hospital http://www.kswo.com/story/14536524/update-cotton-co-man-shot-in-head-drives-self-to-hospital

This dude shot himself in the head and was concious when help arrived http://www.svherald.com/content/news/2010/08/13/man-survives-after-bullet-shot-through-his-head

Say this was the thief with the gun, he gets shot, goes down, comes round still with his gun close at hand and tries to grab it, I wouldn't think twice about shooting him agan.

stovelid

He should have know that shooting a non-traveler dead in cold blood was not socially acceptable.

Show Time

He should have stopped after the first shot. Should have gotten a sentence, but not life.

dlofnep wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCUbv2-JUR8

Back-story: 2 guys enter a store, one with a gun with intent of robbing it and threatens the staff. The store owner shoots one of them in the head (a 16 year old), and the other robber flees. He gives a small chase to the guy who flees, only to come back into the store about 45 seconds later.

Up to this point - I don't think anyone would dispute that what the owner did was justified. He shot an armed robber to protect himself. What happened next however is where the dispute arises.

The first thief who was shot in the head was laying on the ground, possibly dying. The store owner walks calmly to the back of the shop, fetches a second gun and unloads 5 bullets on the 16 year old who is obviously no longer a threat to him.

In the court case that followed, it was ruled that the store owner had murdered the 16 year old, and got life for it. So emotions aside - Was what he did justified, or was it wrong? It might be comparable to the McNally case we had a few years back.

I would have done the same and not thought twice about it as you could see the 16 year old coming back with more of his buddies a few months down the road.