Self Defense? or Overkill? Pharmacist Charged.

[Texas_Bryan]

Probably overkill, but his life and his employees lives were on the line.  And you know what they say, 'if its worth doing, its worth over doing.'  I think a reasonable jury would conclude that his actions were excessive, but not criminal.

[TAB]

excessive force= crimal.

[tt11758]

The state of mind that he described in the O'Reilly video might cause at least one juror to give him the "reasonable man" benefit of the doubt.  And one is all it takes.

[Tyler Durden]

I just wanted to say thanks to PegLeg for giving up the URL for this thread here.  I started a thread with a link to the Fox news video.  The mods have closed it down.  Thanks!  You guys are quick!  

I guess I should have done a search first.  

I am over on the Sig forum where there is a thread on it also.  I probably come off quite opinionated there.

If this case does really go to trial, well, I think the DA is a douchebagg, but I am hoping for "jury nullification" ... that he is found NOT guilty.

I say the world is a better place with one less gangbanger thug NOT in it.  It's a shame the pharmacist didn't also "neutralize" the 14 year old with the gun.

[TAB]

I say the world is a better place with one less gangbanger thug NOT in it.  It's a shame the pharmacist didn't also "neutralize" the 14 year old with the gun.

so what gave this guy the right to be the judge and jury of this kid?  every thing I have heard about this case has said he shot a unarmed person  on the ground 4 times.  Now I'm not sure what happend, but if that is what happen, they need to make this a capitol case.

[Sponsor]

[tt11758]

so what gave this guy the right to be the judge and jury of this kid?  every thing I have heard about this case has said he shot a unarmed person  on the ground 4 times.  Now I'm not sure what happend, but if that is what happen, they need to make this a capitol case.

The same thing that gives you the right to be the judge and jury of the pharmacist, perhaps?

[TAB]

how is me saying they should make it a capitol case ( if it happen a certin way, which none of us no for sure)  and him shooting some one 4 times while they were un armed and on the ground the same?

you completly missed the point of my question.  so I'll ask it diffrently.

what gives some one the right to kill some one when they are no longer/never were a threat to them/ others?

[Texas_Bryan]

how is me saying they should make it a capitol case ( if it happen a certin way, which none of us no for sure)  and him shooting some one 4 times while they were un armed and on the ground the same?

you completly missed the point of my question.  so I'll ask it diffrently.

what gives some one the right to kill some one when they are no longer/never were a threat to them/ others?

I think the real question then maybe, did the pharmacist know this?  Was he sure, sure enough to place his and his employees lives in serious risk?  Is it reasonable expect that he could have known?  Is it reasonable to think that this is murder, while a soldier in Iraq shoots a suspected insurgent, who is wounded and slumped over in the corner, for merely twitching.  In both cases I say its justified.  Cause if you rob someone at gun point, they're probably not in the mood to play possum.

[TAB]

I think the real question then maybe, did the pharmacist know this?  Was he sure, sure enough to place his and his employees lives in serious risk?  Is it reasonable expect that he could have known?  Is it reasonable to think that this is murder, while a soldier in Iraq shoots a suspected insurgent, who is wounded and slumped over in the corner, for merely twitching.  In both cases I say its justified.  Cause if you rob someone at gun point, they're probably not in the mood to play possum.

From what I've heard, the kid never had a gun, was on the ground bleeding after being shot in the head.( may or may not be true)

based on that, would you shoot him 4 more times?

[tt11758]

how is me saying they should make it a capitol case ( if it happen a certin way, which none of us no for sure)  and him shooting some one 4 times while they were un armed and on the ground the same?

you completly missed the point of my question.  so I'll ask it diffrently.

what gives some one the right to kill some one when they are no longer/never were a threat to them/ others?

You, and the rest of us here, as well as the DA, are looking at this situation with the benefit of hindsight.  I believe they used to call it Monday Morning Quarterbacking.  Now I'm not saying the pharmacist was right, but based upon the state of mind that he described in the O'Reilly interview, I can't say that he was wrong, either.  I simply can't say one way or the other......I wasn't there.  And therein lies the pertinent question:  What would a "reasonable man" perceive as a threat in that situation?  Not after reviewing the tape countless times, but at that moment in time.

I suspect that one's perspective might be a tad bit different without the benefit of hindsight.

And like I said before, he only has to convince ONE juror that he was acting as a "reasonable man" would act "under the same circumstances".