Pharmacist charged with murder (*with actual video*)

Originally posted by Dr Love
Are you guys kidding me with the "unarmed" one? Was the old man supposed to freeze time so he could walk over to the one not brandishing a weapon and pat him down to make sure he wasn't carrying? It's an intense situation where split second decisions are made.

Peace

Im not saying the shooting was not justified but the facts are he shot an unarmed kid in the head. I can get the idea of making a split second decision with a gun pointed at you but, i think what got him the charge was shooting an unarmed kid 4 more times in the gut while he was already down "trying to get up" (which is not on tape) while the man with the weapon is already gone.
Now keep in mind he got this murder charge in a state it where a man carries a pistol in his pocket and it is not considered odd.

[edit on 28-5-2009 by The Mack]

Originally posted by Dr Love
It's an intense situation where split second decisions are made.

watch the video, it was fairly cooly done.

the first shot, fair enough, but the cool premeditated way he fired the five shots is disturbing. it was no split second decision.

Originally posted by MysterEHe did not get back up, the pharmacist went outside and came back in, and after however long that took, the robber was still TRYING to get up. That doesn't sound like a threat deserving of 5 shots in the stomach. a shot in each arm and leg may have been deserving, or even knocking him over the head with something. But the pharmacist went too far.
-E-

Do you have magical powers which allow you to see things on that video that we DO NOT see?

How do you know the guy didn't just start to get up there at the end? How do YOU know the guy wasn't reaching inside of his pants. How on earth do you know what the camera did not catch?

And again, the "shooting in the leg" or "knocking them in the head" idea is just silly.

1: You never draw a weapon unless you intend to use it
2: A lethal threat is not subdued until that threat is eliminated
3: Guns don't kill people, this thug-life criminal killed himself by-proxy

maybe we should consider what drove this poor 16 yr old to do this...err wait....who the ****cares. Give Jerome Ersland the key to the city.

Remember the second amendment was written Explicitly for hunting rights. puhleeze

Originally posted by Sonya610

How do you know the guy didn't just start to get up there at the end? How do YOU know the guy wasn't reaching inside of his pants. How on earth do you know what the camera did not catch?

by that logic, how do you know he tried to get up at all? how do you know he wasn't pleading for his life with his hands outstretched?

[edit on 28/5/09 by pieman]

reply to post by pieman


The article even states the boy tried to get up.

It will be simple defending the pharmacist. This was self defense, and then turned into him shooting him more out of fear that the robber will get up and do something again and also in the heat of passion.

Originally posted by pieman
how do you know he tried to get up?

Because the ONE live witness said so (the pharmacist).

The pharmacist clearly stated the kid started to lift his head. That is good enough for me! The bullestic experts can argue about powder residue and whether the kids head was raised during the first gut shot.

We have NO DOUBT the thug broke in and was in the process of committing an armed robbery (whether he was armed or not). We have NO DOUBT the pharmacist was busy working, minding his own business and that the pharmacist did NOT start this situation.

That is good enough for me. I will believe the honest hard working citizen and not side with the dangerous thug, but perhaps that is where we differ.

How can you people sit there and say that the robber was no longer a threat after getting hit once? Have you ever cornered an injured animal? They will f*#k you up. You're going by what the DA says. If you weren't there at the time it happened, you have no idea what it's like to be "in the moment". The kid had a backpack, just in case you missed that, and it's hard to tell what he may have had in his pants. If the kid was getting up, or trying to get up, then there's no way for the pharmacist to know that the kid might still have a gun, in his pants or in the backpack. He fumbled to get the mask on, so there's no reason not to think he would do the same with a weapon. In the heat of the moment, anyone would have done what the pharmacist did. He's protecting himself and his employees who DID nothing to instigate this incident. Unless you're a complete moron, you're not going to let someone who just robbed you get up so that you can ask them if they're allright. Good kid in the wrong crowd or not, he made his choice.

Originally posted by eNumbra
reply to post by pieman

 

The article even states the boy tried to get up.

Shock would do that to a person. But I hesitate to believe that because it comes from the man being charged with the murder. And he of course would have nothing to gain by saying this, right?

[edit on 28-5-2009 by ImzadiDax]

Originally posted by ImzadiDax
Shock would do that to a person. But I hesitate to believe that because it comes from the man being charged with the murder. And he of course would have nothing to gain by saying this, right?

[edit on 28-5-2009 by ImzadiDax]

And maybe it was true, maybe it wasn't. We might never know.

I'm inclined however, to believe him

I'm certainly not going to accuse him of being in the wrong. His life was threatened, theirs were forfeit.

[edit on 5/28/2009 by eNumbra]

there are other video angles on the shooting out. When it is self defence the law will let you get away with it, this was not self defence. The kid was clearly unarmed, his hands were infront of his face.
The pharmacist shoots the kid in the head runs over to the door to chase the other one, he goes back to the counter, does something to his gun and walks right over to the kid stands over him and shoots him 4 more times, then he goes over to the phone.
Looks like he just wanted to shoot the kid a few more times. In order to make a case for self defence you have to show what you were defending against, if you feel a retarded teenager on the ground suffering from a bad case of headshot is a threat to your life you should not own a gun.

reply to post by The Mack


What I'm trying to say is that you can't say the kid was "unarmed", you don't know.

Regardless, any defense lawyer worth his salt will argue this case down to a minimum punishment or a "not guilty" verdict IMO.

Peace

Originally posted by The Mack
The kid was clearly unarmed, his hands were infront of his face.

The kid was still screwing around trying to put his MASK ON!

If he walks in without his mask, and fumbles with it for 10 seconds, why on earth would you assume he won't start fumbling for a gun next? Because I would!

What I find amusing is that so many on this thread are blaming hte pharmacist for "not thinking clearly, over reacting etc...". The pharmacist was minding his own business, how come so many seem to blame him and not the idiot thugs that decided to rob him?

Originally posted by The Mack
there are other video angles on the shooting out. When it is self defence the law will let you get away with it, this was not self defence. The kid was clearly unarmed, his hands were infront of his face.

He was putting on a ski mask.

Looks like he just wanted to shoot the kid a few more times. In order to make a case for self defence you have to show what you were defending against, if you feel a retarded teenager on the ground suffering from a bad case of headshot is a threat to your life you should not own a gun.

I have to wonder what the media's definition of a head shot is. Anything to the face isn't a normally instant lethal hit, and grazing the skull is still a gun shot wound to the head.

I'd like to see a report of exactly where the first shot went.

[edit on 5/28/2009 by eNumbra]

Sorry, but I really don't give a # about how many times these punks were shot. They came in, threatened the life of the pharmacist and his employees, and got outgunned. They deserved every bit of what they got, you go looking for trouble, sometimes you bite off more than you can chew.

God Bless this man for standing up and protecting the lives of the people he works with. Too bad this wasn't the outcome of every robbery in the World, as there would be no more crime. These predators seek to take advantage of others by the use of force. But when confronted with similar means they run like the cowards they are.

[edit on 28-5-2009 by eightonefive]

Originally posted by Sonya610

The kid was still screwing around trying to put his MASK ON!

If he walks in without his mask, and fumbles with it for 10 seconds, why on earth would you assume he won't start fumbling for a gun next? Because I would!

What I find amusing is that so many on this thread are blaming hte pharmacist for "not thinking clearly, over reacting etc...". The pharmacist was minding his own business, how come so many seem to blame him and not the idiot thugs that decided to rob him?

Because half of the people on this forum have never been in the same situation. I have, and I have to tell you, you are not thinking about laws when this situation arises, you are thinking about survival. Adrenaline rushes so hard you feel like you are going to explode; and you aren't using your full brain, only the base reptilian core of it which is screaming kill or be killed.

As far as I'm concerned if it was me I would have shot and killed them both.

They were the ones that decided to rob the place,
They were the ones that came in dawning masks,
They were the ones that threatened someones life,

If you don't want to die then don't be stupid.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander is all it comes down too. You lose all rights including your right to life when you threaten someone else life.

If you threaten death you better be willing to die.

[edit on 28-5-2009 by Darthorious]

reply to post by Dr Love


I do not think that this guy commited murder but it is considered manslaughter. But this is what i think will happen
The bond will be at least a million dollars and this case will take at least one year to go to trial if he says not guilty. If he pleads guilty he would probably get 6 years and do 3.5 years.
I think the first head shot was tottaly justified but shooting a person once while a gun is pointed at you is different than shooting a person 4 times when he is trying to get up and MAY be armed is different. That is what the case is going to be 1 shot fired when in clear danger and shooting 4 more times just to be sure the guy was dead.

Originally posted by Sonya610
Do you have magical powers which allow you to see things on that video that we DO NOT see?

How do you know the guy didn't just start to get up there at the end? How do YOU know the guy wasn't reaching inside of his pants. How on earth do you know what the camera did not catch?

And again, the "shooting in the leg" or "knocking them in the head" idea is just silly.

When the phamracist comes back inside, he looks down and almost casually strolls by the injured robber. He casually (seriously, see video) walks up to him and puts 5 shots into him. If the robber posed a threat at that point, why would the pharmacist walk by without reacting, or any sense of urgency?

Look, If it had been a police office doing this, we would be discussing how he used excessive force right now.

-E-