Guy shoots store robber - Get's life.

MagicSean

Other - Please specify.

There was a case like this recently in Ireland. I can't find it though. From what I remember, two lads tried to rob a securicor van at a shopping center and then fled. One of them was chased and caught by bystanders. Then a local friendly scumbag came up and stabbed him while he was being held there.

DarkJager

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

I'd do exactly the same thing if it was someone trying to rob my house. I don't own a gun, but if I did I'd defo go back and put an extra clip in to the ****er.

Rookster

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

"Live by the sword, die by the sword". It is hard to have sympathy for the scumbag that came in armed to rob the shop. The owner should not have got life. Maybe 5 years or so.

Show Time

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

DarkJager wrote: »

I'd do exactly the same thing if it was someone trying to rob my house. I don't own a gun, but if I did I'd defo go back and put an extra clip in to the ****er.

It is common sense to make certain that when you put a piece of vermin down that they stay down and cannot come back to cause hassle for you or your business.

seamus

Alden Few Chrome wrote: »

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

Sorry, quoting this again because I've been googling for better sources than youtube.

The Pharmacist's (Jerome Ersland) primary point of defence was that the original guy was still moving when he returned to the shop, hence he still felt threatened. Hmm.

It's probably relevant that the pharmacist is a retired Air force lt. col.

This actually introduces two possible views:

1. He saw the kids as "enemy combatants" and thought nothing of dispatching the kid he hadn't killed for his own protection and whatever other reasons.

2. As an experienced miltary person, his emotional control with a weapon should have been superior to that of a civilian and he should have known better.

rasper

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

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

There was a case like this recently in Ireland. I can't find it though. From what I remember, two lads tried to rob a securicor van at a shopping center and then fled. One of them was chased and caught by bystanders. Then a local friendly scumbag came up and stabbed him while he was being held there.

think this is what you were looking for


http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/1014/howep.html

PCPhoto

in fairness if someone is scummy enough to try to rob something from someone else they deserve whatever they get (if they get beaten up, killed or loose a limb they deserve it)

Scum who rob people - and do not behave in a civil manner - so should not be given civil rights ...... people should be allowed to use whatever force necessary against these types of people and should not face prosecution for defending their property.

Penn

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

seamus wrote: »

Sorry, quoting this again because I've been googling for better sources than youtube.

The Pharmacist's (Jerome Ersland) primary point of defence was that the original guy was still moving when he returned to the shop, hence he still felt threatened. Hmm.

It's probably relevant that the pharmacist is a retired Air force lt. col.

This actually introduces two possible views:

1. He saw the kids as "enemy combatants" and thought nothing of dispatching the kid he hadn't killed for his own protection and whatever other reasons.

2. As an experienced miltary person, his emotional control with a weapon should have been superior to that of a civilian and he should have known better.

My problem with this is (I mean the situation, not your post), he had enough time to walk to the back of the shop and get another gun. Why didn't he take the gun off the guy he shot (if he was lying on the ground), to remove the threat?

It says that he walked to the back of the store, got another gun, walked to the guy and shot him 5 times. Which obviously means that the robber hadn't moved or had barely moved in that time. He couldn't have been a threat.

I agree with the first shot as it's self defense. The following 5 shots are murder, and downright disgusting.

CJhaughey

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

If the armed robber had not entered the store with a firearm intent on robbing it then he would not have got shot.
IMO once you produce any form of weaponry and attempt to use it to gain money/goods etc you forfeit all rights.
Don't like being finished off? Don't bring the gun.
This is typical of courts now siding with the alleged victim rather than the poor guy who has just had to use deadly force to protect himself/his staff.
The mistake the shopowner made was using too small a calibre to finish the job in one go.
12g and the hole would have been big enough that the criminal would have been dead on the spot.

prinz

Other - Please specify.

Barrington wrote: »

My problem with this is (I mean the situation, not your post), he had enough time to walk to the back of the shop and get another gun. Why didn't he take the gun off the guy he shot (if he was lying on the ground), to remove the threat? ...

Perhaps he was more concerned with re-arming himself in case the other thief decided to turn around and come back and simply ignored the guy on the ground. Could easily happen in the situation. The shopkeeper might well have believed him to be dead at that stage and focused on the thief still at large outside the store.

Barrington wrote: »

It says that he walked to the back of the store, got another gun, walked to the guy and shot him 5 times. Which obviously means that the robber hadn't moved or had barely moved in that time. He couldn't have been a threat..

Depends, the guy could have been knocked out cold and then regained consciousness for example.

Marguerite Tonery

I'm sure there will be a re-trial. They will find new evidence or a new approach to the case. With the level of petitions in the home town, probably some influential people will get involved and the life sentence will be reduced. It also emphasises yet again that American gun laws are too liberal. Too many people have free access to guns.

Penn

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

prinz wrote: »

Perhaps he was more concerned with re-arming himself in case the other thief decided to turn around and come back and simply ignored the guy on the ground. Could easily happen in the situation. The shopkeeper might well have believed him to be dead at that stage and focused on the thief still at large outside the store.



Depends, the guy could have been knocked out cold and then regained consciousness for example.

But in both cases, if he took the gun from the guy on the floor, then went to the back to arm himself in case the other guy came back, or the first guy woke up, at that point there is still no need to shoot the guy 5 times while he's lying on the floor. The guy who has been shot no longer has a gun, and has been shot in the head. And the pharmacist is now armed to deal with a situation where the other guy might come back.

seamus

CJhaughey wrote: »

If the armed robber had not entered the store with a firearm intent on robbing it then he would not have got shot.

The video shows fairly conclusively that the kid he shot didn't have a gun, or at the very least wasn't carrying it in his hand or pointing it at the time. Whoops. Yes, he was aware that his mate had a gun, but it badly damages the pharmacist's assertion that he was afraid of the kid.

It's fairly damning tbh. If he actually feared that the thief was going to get up and attack him again, then he wouldn't have wandered off and got another gun, giving the thief time to get up and attack him, instead he would have just shot him immediately when he walked back into the store.

prinz

Other - Please specify.

Barrington wrote: »

But in both cases, if he took the gun from the guy on the floor, then went to the back to arm himself in case the other guy came back, or the first guy woke up, at that point there is still no need to shoot the guy 5 times while he's lying on the floor. The guy who has been shot no longer has a gun, and has been shot in the head. And the pharmacist is now armed to deal with a situation where the other guy might come back.

That would be the logical thing to do. I don't know how clear and logical your thinking would be if you had a couple of dirtbag pull a gun on you out of the blue though. If I was in that position I can understand the thinking of ensuring you are armed first, before going to check if someone is still alive or not.

Anyway like I said at first, going on the facts laid out on the OP a fairly long prison sentence sounds right.

CJhaughey

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

seamus wrote: »

The video shows fairly conclusively

I can't see the video. Firewall.

MagicSean

Other - Please specify.

rasper wrote: »

think this is what you were looking for


http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/1014/howep.html

Yes that's the one.

seamus

CJhaughey wrote: »

I can't see the video. Firewall.

Well I'm not going to say it's 100% obvious because it's a black-and-white video of a fast-moving situation. But basically the kids walk in, and one guy starts pointing the gun at the register, while the other struggles to put a mask over his face. At best, he could have a pistol in his hand while he puts the mask on, but he's using both hands and it doesn't look like he does. As he's struggling to fit the mask, he gets shot and goes down (you can't really see the pharmacist at this point cos he's hiding at the back) and the other guy with the gun runs.

The shopkeeper then walks swiftly out of the shop, before coming back about 15 seconds later. He walks past the guy lying on the ground (as he has to, to get around the counter), barely glances at him, disappears for another ten seconds before walking up to the kid, stopping, pointing and unloading, then walking over to the phone to ring the police.

There is no apparent panic or urgency in any of the pharmacist's movements. Though I'll admit I watched it with the sound off.

Ficheall

First shot everyone seems to be agreed upon.

If the second shot had killed the criminal, could the pharmacist have claimed he was putting him out of his misery, as it were? If I, hypothetically, shot a dog that had been trying to attack me, and it was lying there dying on the ground, I would kill it and put it out of its misery. Probably moreso out of guilt and compassion than anger, granted, because a dog's a dog and probably doesn't know any better.
Would people then still say that the second shot was murder?

Also, I'd disagree with people saying it was "cold-blooded" and "pre-meditated" - there was less than a minute between the shootings. The blood and adrenaline would still be coursing.
The guy is perfectly entitled to be angry and scared ****less after two guys come in and threaten him and his staff with a gun.

Every horror/etc film I've watched where the good guy hits the bad guy and then runs away or hides has prompted me to think - "why is the good guy so stupid? If I'm ever in that situation, I will make damned sure that the assailant is dead - even if it means offloading an entire chamber into their head or smashing their skull to a pulp with the iron or whatever the "weapon" I happen to have is".

the_syco

Other - Please specify.

Marguerite Tonery wrote: »

It also emphasises yet again that American gun laws are too liberal. Too many people have free access to guns.

Since when to criminals care if their gun is illegal?

=-=

I think the only thing the shop owner did wrong was that he shot once. If he had shot more than once, and then given chase, the person in the store would've been dead.

Finally, as he's ex-Air Force, will he be going to a civilian prison or a military prison?

AudreyHepburn

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

Ficheall wrote: »

First shot everyone seems to be agreed upon.

Indeed it is. It was self defence no question.

If the second shot had killed the criminal, could the pharmacist have claimed he was putting him out of his misery, as it were? If I, hypothetically, shot a dog that had been trying to attack me, and it was lying there dying on the ground, I would kill it and put it out of its misery. Probably moreso out of guilt and compassion than anger, granted, because a dog's a dog and probably doesn't know any better.
Would people then still say that the second shot was murder?

Two entirely different scenarios imo. Dogs tend to attack people out of a need to defend themselves because they feel threatened (not always mind, but usually). These two thugs threatned this man for no reason but to rob him.

Also, I'd disagree with people saying it was "cold-blooded" and "pre-meditated" - there was less than a minute between the shootings. The blood and adrenaline would still be coursing.
The guy is perfectly entitled to be angry and scared ****less after two guys come in and threaten him and his staff with a gun.

Every horror/etc film I've watched where the good guy hits the bad guy and then runs away or hides has prompted me to think - "why is the good guy so stupid? If I'm ever in that situation, I will make damned sure that the assailant is dead - even if it means offloading an entire chamber into their head or smashing their skull to a pulp with the iron or whatever the "weapon" I happen to have is".

I agree it would not be what I'd call cold-blooded. Obviously the pharmacist was up to 90 but it was certainly overkill.

Manic Moran

As an experienced miltary person, his emotional control with a weapon should have been superior to that of a civilian

Air Force?! <snigger>

Not suggesting that it's common, but here's an example of a soldier shot square in the face and didn't even notice.

http://www.snopes.com/photos/military/teeth.asp

As far as the video is concerned, I note that it doesn't seem to show what the robber was doing. Merely looking at the video cannot determine whether there was a threat.

Finally, as he's ex-Air Force, will he be going to a civilian prison or a military prison?

Civilian.

It also emphasises yet again that American gun laws are too liberal. Too many people have free access to guns

If we can agree that the initial shooting was legal and morally justified (most will), and that criminals tend to have access to illegal firearms anyway (witness Ireland), how would the pharmacist have defended himself if he had not access to a firearm?

NTM

Ficheall

Actually - had the pharmacist shot and killed the second robber who had run away - what would the general consensus be then? He would have been in no further danger, supposedly. I know it has little bearing, but just out of curiosity...

seamus

Ficheall wrote: »

If the second shot had killed the criminal, could the pharmacist have claimed he was putting him out of his misery, as it were? If I, hypothetically, shot a dog that had been trying to attack me, and it was lying there dying on the ground, I would kill it and put it out of its misery. Probably moreso out of guilt and compassion than anger, granted, because a dog's a dog and probably doesn't know any better.
Would people then still say that the second shot was murder?

Society in general has different standards when it comes to animal suffering and human suffering (not that I necessarily agree with it). We don't attach the same value to animal life as we do to human life.

We do everything we can to save/preserve human life, it one of the things which underpins a functional society.

Thus it's never considered appropriate to put someone out of their misery unless medical intervention is not possible and the person has specifically requested that the suffering stops. In this case, I wouldn't accept the "out of his misery" argument because you could equally say that if the guy wasn't dead, the pharmacist's first duty was to get medical help.

Every horror/etc film I've watched where the good guy hits the bad guy and then runs away or hides has prompted me to think - "why is the good guy so stupid? If I'm ever in that situation, I will make damned sure that the assailant is dead - even if it means offloading an entire chamber into their head or smashing their skull to a pulp with the iron or whatever the "weapon" I happen to have is".

Except that this isn't a horror movie or a thriller with a seemingly unstoppable killer. Gun or no gun, if someone is lying on the floor with a gunshot wound to the head, they're going to be very easy to subdue.

Ficheall

seamus wrote: »

Gun or no gun, if someone is lying on the floor with a gunshot wound to the head, they're going to be very easy to subdue.

That's what the generic movie heroine who had hit the masked intruder in the head with a baseball bat thought as she went to phone the police too.

Degsy

Eneter somebody's premises with a view to commit a crime and you should get shot.

Simples.

Mike 1972

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

First shot was self defence.

Second shot was clearly murder and despite the circumstances taking the law into ones own hands in this manner needs to be severely delt with by the courts with as an absolute minimum a fine of two and sixpence.

Degsy

Mike 1972 wrote: »

First shot was self defence.

Second shot was clearly murder .

Second shot was called "making sure"..wounded animals can be dangerous.

dsmythy

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

Degsy wrote: »

Second shot was called "making sure"..wounded animals can be dangerous.

What about the third, fourth and fifth shot he fired?

Degsy

dsmythy wrote: »

What about the third, fourth and fifth shot he fired?

Also called "making sure"..if a job's worth doing its worth doing well.

mikemac

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

In 2011 with technology and mass storage, that's one terrible quality video. I've seen worse on Crimeline too.
Often the banks have worse videos then shops.

There's a market there for someone to sell better systems

Sorry, offtopic but still surprised at these barely viewable videos

AudreyHepburn

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

Degsy wrote: »

Second shot was called "making sure"..wounded animals can be dangerous.

Degsy wrote: »

Also called "making sure"..if a job's worth doing its worth doing well.

The first shot was self defense.

The next 4 were overkill and murder plain and simple. The robber was already incapacitated, shooting even one more time was unecessary.

Ficheall

He should have tended to the kid - he's in a pharmacy after all.
Then the kid would have felt really guilty, if he were left with the capacity for thought, and he would have turned into a good kid and not come back and trashed the pharmacist's store and terrorised his family. And they all would have lived happily ever after.

PrincessLola

Why didn't he just shoot him once in the leg or arm? That would probably incapacitate him without killing him, shooting him in the head seems excessive imo.
Also the fact that he was 16 shouldn't come into it, a 16 year old with a gun is just as dangerous as an 18 year old with a gun.

Ficheall

PrincessLola wrote: »

Why didn't he just shoot him once in the leg or arm? That would probably incapacitate him without killing him, shooting him in the head seems excessive imo.

http://www.scara-mouche.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/monty_python_2__limbless_black_knight.jpg

How does one post images in this place anyway?

Freddie59

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

MagicMarker wrote: »

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.

I don't know. If the scumbags had shot the shopkeeper he would have been another statistic. And the offenders would have had a 'troubled upbringing' blah blah etc.

You can't say you wouldn't do it. If my family's life was being threatened and it was us or some toerag I wouldn't even think about it. It's fcuking ridiculous. Someone is threatened with a gun (probably not for the first time) and HE goes to jail? FFS.:mad:

Manic Moran

Degsy wrote: »

Second shot was called "making sure"..wounded animals can be dangerous.

[Aussie Accent]There's nothing more dangerous than a wounded mosquito[/Aussie Accent]

NTM

AudreyHepburn

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

Freddie59 wrote: »

I don't know. If the scumbags had shot the shopkeeper he would have been another statistic. And the offenders would have had a 'troubled upbringing' blah blah etc.

You can't say you wouldn't do it. If my family's life was being threatened and it was us or some toerag I wouldn't even think about it. It's fcuking ridiculous. Someone is threatened with a gun (probably not for the first time) and HE goes to jail? FFS.:mad:

He's going to jail because he shot the robber an unnecessary amount of times.

I'm all for being able to defend yourself but one shot was more than enough, there was no need to pump 4 more shots into an already injured man.

Degsy

Manic Moran wrote: »

[Aussie Accent]There's nothing more dangerous than a wounded mosquito[/Aussie Accent]

NTM

{Ausie Accent}

Blimey a stingray..What a beautifull fish..lets hope this lil fella doesnt stab me through the aaaargh!

{Ausie Accent}

Calibos

I am as likely as anyone to utter the phrase, "Live by the sword....", "Scumbag deserved it", "Don't gimme the usual troubled deprived childhood crap....". However, that would be if this was someone shot and even killed in a self defence shootout.

However, to shoot first, go straight for the headshot, chase someone down the street and then walk back into the shop, calmly step over the person you just shot in the head, glance over your shoulder as you step over him, calmly walk to the back of the shop to get another gun, calmly and nonchalantly walk back up the shop again, stand right over the person you just shot in the head, calmly pump 5 more shots into his stomach and then calmly and nonchalantly walk back behind the counter to ring the police....

How anyone can say that wasn't a psychopath and/or racist EXECUTING "the N$%$£R", I don't know.

enfant terrible

PrincessLola wrote: »

Why didn't he just shoot him once in the leg or arm? That would probably incapacitate him without killing him, shooting him in the head seems excessive imo.
Also the fact that he was 16 shouldn't come into it, a 16 year old with a gun is just as dangerous as an 18 year old with a gun.

Ya he could have asked the robber to stay still while he was aiming.

Freddie59

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

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

He's going to jail because he shot the robber an unnecessary amount of times.

I'm all for being able to defend yourself but one shot was more than enough, there was no need to pump 4 more shots into an already injured man.

I really don't care TBH. Perhaps if a few more of these thugs were treated similarly they'd think twice. Only last week I was reading about that misfortunate pensioner who was tortured to death by savages.

PrincessLola

enfant terrible wrote: »

Ya he could have asked the robber to stay still while he was aiming.

well he could just try and not aim at his fcking head.

General General

So taxpayer must pay for this guy's jail term rather than pay for guy who was shot in the head's rehab' costs & disability payments.

Anyone got any figures on this so we can do a cost comparison?

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

Was it a mercy killing?
The guy was shot in the head? I mean his prognosis is poor and likely to be a vegetable.

Just throwin that angle out there

PrincessLola

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

PrincessLola wrote: »

well he could just try and not aim at his fcking head.

in fairness the guy was armed with a gun and if you go and shoot a guy with a gun to wound then your likely to receive return fire.

I dont think the man defending himself should be in jail for the rest of his life because some scummer went into his shop with a gun.
I`d say killing someone is a big deal and who knows what was going through the mans head, it happened all in less than a minute. He may not have been thinking clearly.

NTMK

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

Deleted User wrote: »

Was it a mercy killing?
The guy was shot in the head? I mean his prognosis is poor and likely to be a vegetable.

Just throwin that angle out there

unloading 5 rounds and shooting someone in the stomach is not a mercy killing

NTMK

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

NTMK wrote: »

unloading 5 rounds and shooting someone in the stomach is not a mercy killing

well he was already shot in the head and that didnt work, he probably just aimed at the body area

Its one less dangerous criminal who was willing to wave guns at people. I dont see the problem

The Left Hand Of God

The guy didn't get up that morning looking to murder someone.

He was put in circumstances that cannot be fathomed.

As much as the first shot is somewhat justified and the rest not who knows what the mental process was that made him pump more bullets into the robber.

To be honest I would have to see the case the defence presented to make a full decision. If the guy came across as "Fuk him your honour I gave him the justice he deserved" I think that would be bad and would put the guy in a bad light.

Rather than the "it was all blur your honour, I'd never do that, I don't know what happened." etc etc

walshb

dlofnep wrote: »

because as Ana points out, he's not a threat to society and was responding to a very extraordinary situation which is difficult .

Not a threat to society?

I would argue against that. Ok, what he initially did could be explained, but after this it seems completely bonkers, disproportionate and scary.

Put it this way, I wouldn't like to cross him, even "innocently."

Hey, maybe the guy has a clean record and never has harmed anyone, but that doesn't
mean he is not a threat to society. Maybe some serious issues were simmering, and this
made him crack; but crack a little too much.

NTMK

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

Deleted User wrote: »

well he was already shot in the head and that didnt work, he probably just aimed at the body area

Its one less dangerous criminal who was willing to wave guns at people. I dont see the problem

Yep and another trigger happy murderer locked up