Guy shoots store robber - Get's life.

Show Time

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

NTMK wrote: »

Yep and another trigger happy murderer locked up

He was defending his business and staff and sent a message out to any other little scuts who would bust in waving a gun around looking to rob the place.
I would not call that being a trigger happy murderer just a man looking out for what he owns.

The Left Hand Of God

Show Time wrote: »

He was defending his business and staff and sent a message out to any other little scuts who would bust in waving a gun around looking to rob the place.
I would not call that being a trigger happy murderer just a man looking out for what he owns.

Defending is not pumping bullets into a downed target

NTMK

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

Show Time wrote: »

He was defending his business and staff and sent a message out to any other little scuts who would bust in waving a gun around looking to rob the place.
I would not call that being a trigger happy murderer just a man looking out for what he owns.

1st shot was defence

the other five shot were when the robber wasn't moving wasn't it was murder

Show Time

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

The Left Hand Of God wrote: »

Defending is not pumping bullets into a downed target

Downed target would have been running with a gang and best to send a message that they would understand. Besides he started it when he attempted to rob the pharmacy so it's not like he did not know the risk.


If in the same position myself i would not think twice about doing the same thing myself if i was defending my business and staff.

Manic Moran

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

Very unlikely that that's what he was aiming at. Indeed, it's just as likely he was aiming for the guy with the gun. Shootouts at ten paces between people in the open often result in lots of rounds not hitting anything at all.

NTM

Degsy

Manic Moran wrote: »

Very unlikely that that's what he was aiming at. Indeed, it's just as likely he was aiming for the guy with the gun. Shootouts at ten paces between people in the open often result in lots of rounds not hitting anything at all.

NTM

In fact they usually result in both parties discharging their weapons while running away from the person they're firing at.

It wasn't me!

Calibos wrote: »

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.

Eh, where the fúck is the presumption of racial motivation coming from? Seriously, that's a pretty serious presumption.

The first shot may or may not have been fatal, and if the guy died then, fair enough. Firing again when you're in a position to ascertain that the guy is no longer a threat is not acceptable. It's extremely unlikely that he actually aimed at any particular part of the guy. Chances are the gun came up and the finger started going through the trigger on autopilot. People who make comments about where the guy should have aimed should be forced to fire pistols under stressed circumstances to illustrate how difficult it is. He hit the guy and may have saved the lives of himself and those around him, it's better than a lot of people do in that situation. Still, following up afterwards was not acceptable and was definitely murder.

mikemac

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

He got life but he won't serve it, exceptions can be made and he'll be released quietly in a few years I reckon

His congressman backs him and in same party as the Governor.
Possibly one day, his congressmen might be the Governor of Oklahoma

PrincessLola, this aim for the leg/arm often comes up in these threads. Well a shot to the leg can still mean you bleed to death and quite quickly.
And even then with a shot to the leg/arm that kid can still get a shot off from his gun.

dubtom

Agree with option 1, though didn't vote that way:o I misread it.

Ficheall

walshb wrote: »

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.

I have a clean record, and have never harmed anyone.
I possibly have issues simmering - who knows?
If anyone threatened my family or home, I would have no qualms about killing them if I could.
Am I a threat to society?

the_syco

Other - Please specify.

The Left Hand Of God wrote: »

Defending is not pumping bullets into a downed target

I wonder, in sue happy America, how much compo the scumbag would get if he survived?

=-=

There is a lesson to be learned here: if shooting someone, make sure they're dead by shooting them at least once more within a short time-frame of the first shot; double-tap if you're able to do so.

the_syco

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

the_syco wrote: »

I wonder, in sue happy America, how much compo the scumbag would get if he survived?

=-=

There is a lesson to be learned here: if shooting someone, make sure they're dead by shooting them at least once more within a short time-frame of the first shot; double-tap if you're able to do so.

Thats it, he would probably be free if he had of pumped them both with an automatic weapon in one go

blackdog2

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

To me, the second a person threatens you with a gun, all law is out the window. The man was probably an emotional wreck, and when the robbers arm themselves, it is clear that they aren't stopping off to buy a pint of milk, they mean business.

Without ever being in this situation, its impossible for me to guess how I would react, but I think the sentence is harsh.

seamus

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.

That's not really how it works. This comes up all the time, but every police force in the world is taught to aim for the centre of the body. Shooting someone in the arm or leg or shooting a weapon out of their hand is what snipers do. Everyone else just points and fires. It was probably pure luck that he hit the kid at all, never mind hit him in the head.

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

Mercy killings have no status in law because nobody has a clue whether or not someone will survive their injuries. If the person you've killed hasn't asked for your assistance in dying, then it's murder.

az2wp0sye65487

I think there seems to be a lot of people here siding with the criminal from what they're saying. Or maybe that's just my reading of it...

The aul' fella was going about his daily business, just trying to earn a living. He never asked for 2 scummers to come flying through the door, armed, and threatening to rob/injure/kill him.

Nobody deserves to be put in that situation.

Take a step back and consider the following:

How many times had this happened to him before?

He didn't (the pharmacist) plan to murder anybody; so how this could be called premeditated murder?

The adrenaline was probably still pumping after what had just happened. Even the second round of shots were probably in the heat of the moment.

After the first criminal was shot (in the head supposedly) the pharmacist went and got a second gun and shot him again. How can anybody here know what was going through his mind. Maybe he'd simply had enough, emotions were running high - and he just lost it.

I can't say what I'd do in that situation, nor can anyone predict how they might act if that happened to them; but I can say that anyone who was in a stressful 'emergency' situation in the past will have done some silly/stupid/uncharacteristic things in the heat of the moment. Things that they otherwise wouldn't otherwise even think themselves capable of.

Also, think how he (the pharmacist) might have felt afterwards. He gets up one morning to go to work and have a normal day. Then a situation he never asked for arises, and his whole life is turned upside down.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

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

dlofnep wrote: »

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.

The point is that he unloaded 5 bullets into the body of a man who did not pose a threat to anybody at that time.

Shock and anger doesn't come into play. He should be in control of his emotions. It's mentioned in the op that he gets a second gun?

It's murder. He wanted that guy dead.

dlofnep

Other - Please specify.

Bronson Pitiful Gem wrote: »

It's murder. He wanted that guy dead.

I already agreed that it was murder.

az2wp0sye65487

Bronson Pitiful Gem wrote: »

The point is that he unloaded 5 bullets into the body of a man who did not pose a threat to anybody at that time.

Shock and anger doesn't come into play. He should be in control of his emotions. It's mentioned in the op that he gets a second gun?

It's murder. He wanted that guy dead.

Seriously? Someone tries to rob you at gunpoint and shock & anger doesn't come into play? Who are you, Jason Bourne?!?! :rolleyes:

AudreyHepburn

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

Alden Few Chrome wrote: »

I think there seems to be a lot of people here siding with the criminal from what they're saying. Or maybe that's just my reading of it...

The aul' fella was going about his daily business, just trying to earn a living. He never asked for 2 scummers to come flying through the door, armed, and threatening to rob/injure/kill him.

Nobody deserves to be put in that situation.

Take a step back and consider the following:

How many times had this happened to him before?

He didn't (the pharmacist) plan to murder anybody; so how this could be called premeditated murder?

The adrenaline was probably still pumping after what had just happened. Even the second round of shots were probably in the heat of the moment.

After the first criminal was shot (in the head supposedly) the pharmacist went and got a second gun and shot him again. How can anybody here know what was going through his mind. Maybe he'd simply had enough, emotions were running high - and he just lost it.

I can't say what I'd do in that situation, nor can anyone predict how they might act if that happened to them; but I can say that anyone who was in a stressful 'emergency' situation in the past will have done some silly/stupid/uncharacteristic things in the heat of the moment. Things that they otherwise wouldn't otherwise even think themselves capable of.

Also, think how he (the pharmacist) might have felt afterwards. He gets up one morning to go to work and have a normal day. Then a situation he never asked for arises, and his whole life is turned upside down.

No-one is 'siding' with the criminal. We all agree with Pharmacist was well within his rights to defend himself.

But he should have stopped after the first bullet. There absolutly no reason on this earth for him to fetch a second gun and pump 5 more bullets into an already injured and incapacitated man.

Liam Byrne

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

dubtom wrote: »

Agree with option 1, though didn't vote that way:o I misread it.

Misread it? I've read the options 5 times and can't make sense of them - I'm assuming the word "was" shouldn't be in the first two options?

Anyway - if a prick chooses to break in then they've decided that the law doesn't apply to them, so anything goes.....prick not where he not meant to be prick not get shot : simples!

So if the poll is re the sentencing of the guy who shou the prick, then I'd vote "shouldn't be sentenced" (assuming I could find that option)

az2wp0sye65487

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

No-one is 'siding' with the criminal. We all agree with Pharmacist was well within his rights to defend himself.

But he should have stopped after the first bullet. There absolutly no reason on this earth for him to fetch a second gun and pump 5 more bullets into an already injured and incapacitated man.

Thats exactly the point - you're looking at the situation from afar, looking at it calmly & logically, with the benefit of time to reflect on all the options available to the pharmacist.

Unfortunately, he was more than likely in a state of shock, and not thinking clearly due to just having his life threatened...

AudreyHepburn

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

Alden Few Chrome wrote: »

Thats exactly the point - you're looking at the situation from afar, looking at it calmly & logically, with the benefit of time to reflect on all the options available to the pharmacist.

Unfortunately, he was more than likely in a state of shock, and not thinking clearly due to just having his life threatened...

He was thinking clearly enough to leave the shop floor, fetch a second gun, return, bend down close to the injured robber and empty into him.

Being in a state of shock is one thing, but what the pharmacist did was go overboard. The robber was down, there was no need to hit him any further.

seamus

Alden Few Chrome wrote: »

Thats exactly the point - you're looking at the situation from afar, looking at it calmly & logically, with the benefit of time to reflect on all the options available to the pharmacist.

Unfortunately, he was more than likely in a state of shock, and not thinking clearly due to just having his life threatened...

That might explain why he went back and did it, but it doesn't excuse it. Crimes of passion are still crimes and have to be punished.

az2wp0sye65487

seamus wrote: »

That might explain why he went back and did it, but it doesn't excuse it. Crimes of passion are still crimes and have to be punished.

I do agree with you, to a certain extent. I do think that some consideration should be taken into account for the fact that he didn't bring any of this on himself. He was minding his own business, and then had his life threatened.

Raekwon

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.

Racist! ;)

walshb

Ficheall wrote: »

I have a clean record, and have never harmed anyone.
I possibly have issues simmering - who knows?
If anyone threatened my family or home, I would have no qualms about killing them if I could.
Am I a threat to society?

I would do same for my loved ones, but in this case, he went far beyond
reasonable defence. He had already defused the danger, well at least he seemed to. The pumping of 4-5 bullets into a dying human being on the ground is IMO way too much to simply declare self defence. That tells me that this guy could very well be A threat to society, IF someone happened to cross him, even innocently.

We can dress it Up many ways, but what he did was really OTT. And it should raise alarm bells.

Ficheall

walshb wrote: »

I would do same for my loved ones, but in this case, he went far beyond reasonable defence.
He had already defused the danger, well at least he seemed to. The pumping of 4-5 bullets into a dying human being on the ground is IMO way too much to simply declare self defence.

I'm not trying to claim it would be self defence. If the choice were between killing someone or disarming and incapacitating them with no risk of injury to them, I'm not sure that I wouldn't kill them.
I think it would be a fairer result than them getting a suspended sentence or a few months, and leaving me scared ****less for the rest of my life.

The only qualms I'd have about it would be that I might get caught, and disposing of a body is a difficult and messy job.

Manic Moran

The point is that he unloaded 5 bullets into the body of a man who did not pose a threat to anybody at that time.

The video in the OP does not show this that I can see, though apparently it is what the jury concluded.

My question is 'under what basis is such a statement made?'

NTM

Bosco boy

First shot self defence, rest were cold blooded murder, you wouldn't do it to a dog! "go ahead make my day" comes to mind. No sympathy here.

AudreyHepburn

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

The Left Hand Of God wrote: »

Defending is not pumping bullets into a downed target

I don't understand why people can't or won't accept this very simple point.

Saila

in soviet russia the store owners shoot you

Knex*

Other - Please specify.

To keep shooting him after the first shot is fairly sickening IMO. The only thing that made me think maybe a life sentence is harsh is the fact that he was in the heat of a moment, hard to say how we would react ourselves giving the scale of the situation.

That said I would seriously hope the getting of the second gone etc wold never cross my mind.

Manic Moran

I don't understand why people can't or won't accept this very simple point.

Being wounded on the ground does not preclude being a threat. I have not seen the evidence presented to the jury, and the video posted in the OP does not seem to show the guy on the ground at all or what he was doing. I will not personally conclude that the shooting was unjustified.

NTM

AudreyHepburn

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

Manic Moran wrote: »

Being wounded on the ground does not preclude being a threat. I have not seen the evidence presented to the jury, and the video posted in the OP does not seem to show the guy on the ground at all or what he was doing. I will not personally conclude that the shooting was unjustified.

NTM

The theif had been shot in the head. He may well have been awake but I would not imagine he was in any condition to pose threat.

Johnny D. Mudd

This particular scenario is very emotive but the law definitely needs to be clear-headed and logical about this. There are grounds to excuse the shooting of a robber who may or may not pose a threat to you and those around you, as has happened in this case to the shopkeeper. However, this story gets murky after this event. The shopkeeper had already given chase to the other chap and the first chap was already maimed enough not to pose any threat to the shopkeeper or those who may have been in the store. The shopkeeper obviously had enough time to compose himself and take stock of the situation.

The question no doubt lies behind the motives leading up to the second shooting. While the first shooting was self-defence, the second was nothing less than cold-blooded. I guess in this case, after the original attack took place, we must question the mindset of the shopkeeper who would have been both shocked and angry about having his livelihood and possibly his life threatened so callously. Angry enough evidently to kill someone who was defenceless. While I could understand his behaviour in the immediate aftermath of a traumatic incident, the killing itself was cold, calculated and sadistic.

For me, all sympathy for this man has been lost with such a callous and chillingly cold-blooded execution, because to my mind, that's exactly what it was.

Starscream25

if this happened more often, roberry theft crimes would be reduced most definetly,would that be a bad thing? if he had shot the robber once more he could of used the argument that he was putting him out of his pain but 5 bullets..........
Humanity is just evil, lots of good things happening in the world too, but its almost overwhelming the 'bad' stories that come out.

Johnny D. Mudd

Starscream25 wrote: »

if this happened more often, roberry theft crimes would be reduced most definetly,would that be a bad thing? if he had shot the robber once more he could of used the argument that he was putting him out of his pain but 5 bullets..........
Humanity is just evil, lots of good things happening in the world too, but its almost overwhelming the 'bad' stories that come out.

Unfortunately for us, good news doesn't tend to make for exciting news, at least as far as journalists and reporters are concerned, so they must seek out the worst and therefore the most exciting news to make things interesting.

Sad but true.

Manic Moran

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

The theif had been shot in the head. He may well have been awake but I would not imagine he was in any condition to pose threat.

I refer you to the link I posted earler in which a gentleman was shot frontally in the face with a pistol (bullet entry just below the right nostril) who not only was in sufficient condition to capture the individual who had just shot him, but didn't even notice the fact that there was a 9mm round lodged in his head until he went to the hospital because he was feeling a little light-headed.

But to save you searching, here's the Snopes.
http://www.snopes.com/photos/military/teeth.asp

Bottom-line. You can't make definitive assumptions about what you can't see. Even the unlikely is quite possible.

NTM

progarden

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

Theres likely alot more to this than just what we heard.
Perhaps he's been robbed before.
Sheer frustration and anger had caused him to loose his judgement.
The simple simple fact is he did the world a favour to kill someone who does armed robbery.
Saved a burden on the state housing a criminal like that in the first place.

frozenfrozen

Other - Please specify.

It is wrong that he came back and killed him after the first shot, but I tried to put myself in that situation in my head for a moment and I probably would have done the same. The guy came in with the intention of taking my money by potentially lethal force. If I didn't shoot him a second time I definitely wouldn't be putting a pillow under his head - to put it lightly.

Born to Die

Progarden It's a pity you weren't around last year with those words of wisdom for the judge.

Yakult

Life is very harsh imo. It probably all happened very fast and he wasn't thinking rationally. After all, it could easily have been him or someone else working there that got killed, so why not the bad guy?

holystungun9

The only thing that I can be sure of is that America needs more guns and bullets.

deandean

If shop owner was thinking correctly he would've turned off the CCTV camera first.

Bruthal

blaze1 wrote: »

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

Not everyone shot in the head dies from that.

Pottler

hmm. Threatening person emerges from shop brandishing stick. US Policeman shoots him, probably killing/fatally wounding him, then unloads a further ten/twelve rounds into his prone body. Obviously justified... Shopkeeper does similar but to armed man - murder. In this case, I think the shopkeeper should definitly be jailed -for selecting the wrong career path. Obviously, he should have become a cop, and deserves to suffer for his poor career choice.