http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/43235405#43235405 Frankly, given the circumstances I'm fine with the extra 5 shots. I would have either found him not guilty or maybe manslaughter.
Just goes to show how far left this country has gone, fucking criminals have more rights than the average citizen. I do believe that the come back and shoot the kid five times was teetering on the brink, but for the average guy, pump up on adrenalin, it would be pretty easy to do . I might see an argument for man slaughter, but friggen life in prison is flat out a joke
if the guy was clearly incapacitated, and the guy calmly pumped 5 extra rounds into him, hes a fucking maniac. the first shot was self defense, he stops there and hes a hero.
Honestly, I think it was murder. I'm a big believer in "anything worth shooting is worth shooting twice in the chest and once in the head". If he would've done that initially, then I have no problem with it. Don't attempt armed robbery. But what bothers me is that he didn't disarm the kid...he didn't call the police and say he had shot a guy who attempted armed robbery...he got another gun and pumped 5 more shots into him. If you didn't do it initially, it's murder when you go back for Round Two.
yeah..but the robber was out of camera. The video is rather damning, but hey, was the kid trying to aim his gun? Did he act in a manor the may have been interpreted as threatening? you know if this had been a cop 1) he would have shot more than once to begin with, 2) He would have been able to go the self defense route. Most of us do not know how to posture the scene and situation to help ourselves in a matter like this.
He was first shot in the head and went down. Fine so far. Then, as he was off camera, the man testified the kid was moving to the point he still posed a threat. This is a high adrenalin situation where it's hard to think straight. So he finishes the robber off. Too bad for the armed robber. He was clearly willing to take their lives (as must be supposed when a robber is armed) and instead he lost his. Too bad, huh. I hope he's pardoned by the Governor. I think he deserves it. Let me put it this way... if an armed intruder enters my house I'm flat out killing him any way I possibly can and I don't care if I disarm him (or her if he gets the Sam Adams transgender surgery with out tax dollars plan) or not. I don;t want to injure them and have them come back on me in some drug induced rage at a later time. By the mere fact they are armed robbers, once they enter your premises or dwelling they forfeit their right to live unless the situation is completely defused. Several years ago in Portland a man saw a kid breaking into his car. He grabbed a gun, left his house, trapped the kid in an alley and then killed him. The grand jury called it self defense. Now, I will disagree with that, but not this.
so you would kill an unarmed woman that posed no immediate threat to you? hmmmm kinda crazy bro, too much war games for you
No, silly, I said "armed" intruder- male or female. Of course, if it's a female and if she's kinda cute we might be able to negotiate the point.
If I actually knew the intruder was unarmed I still might waste them. It depends on whether or not I feel they are a direct threat to me.
Oh. Quite right. Well, see my last two posts and maybe i clarified it a bit. With over 7,500 posts, I can't get them all right, ya know.
You watched the video, right? You saw that the pharmacist left the store, chased the other thief, came back into the store, walked right past the first thief that he had shot, went back to the back of the store to get another gun, then walked back to the thief and shot him. If he'd had any concerns about this thief still being a threat, he'd have sought to disarm him when he had a chance. He didn't. Instead, he sought to be further armed himself, and sought to kill. I'm all for self-defense, but this isn't it. I agree with the verdict on this one.
My point is that if you willingly ignore an unimpeded opportunity to disarm your potential assailant, you forsake any future claim to self defense against said assailant. "Self-defense" means that the primary goal was self-preservation. His primary goal was clearly not just to avoid injury; he wanted to kill. If your primary goal is to kill, then that's not self-defense; that's murder.
I will disagree, but I do see your point. I will stand by what he stated, that the assailant still posed a threat and he acted on that threat. That is either self defense or manslaughter.
What video evidence? We can't see the dude on the floor. How do we know he doesn't still pose a threat? If so, I don't care if he unloads a few clips into his carcass/corpse. Now, if the guy was killed by the first shot, how cares if he pumps a few more caps in him for good measure? Not me.
