How's this for a verdict?

Remove all ads!

I actually believe this is on the decline. There has always been a voice in this, but the support has been waning.

 

Right, and the part that lawyers DON'T tend to forget is that the concept of "justice" is defined differently from one person to the next. Break into a liquor store and get shot in the head -- I would call that justice, personally. Mr. pharmacist apparently defines justice by shooting someone in the head, and then filling them full of lead once they are subdued. Someone else might even need to execute the boy's entire family to feel that justice has really been served. Laws mean to serve justice in a way that is fair, consistent and measurable (not that they always work, of course).

Or in other words, let's steer clear of anarchy, thank you very much, because that's the road you're headed down!

 

in the UK you can still be convicted of murder, if you displayed the intent to willfully kill someone you believe to be alive.

 

More difficult than that. If he used for instance a weapon that would still be only attempted manslaughter or murder, because he intended the killing, albeit on an unsuitable object, a dead body.

If, on the other hand, you intended to kill your neighbour by you eating strawberries (you believing it would have that effect), you have the intent, but the action itself would be ridiculously unsuited to achieve the intended result. No crime there.

 

The courts make allowances for circumstances all the time. When this phharmacists woke up this morning, he had no plans to do anything illegal. He was forced into a lousy situation by criminal pieces of <snip> and in the heat of the moment, overreacted. He should get some slack.

I'm not denying he shouldn't have plugged the little bastard those extra times, but dammit, a person has the right to defend himself and his livelihood. And the criminals had no right at all to be doing what they were doing. I'm not advocating anarchy here, just the acknowledgement that people have the right to defend themselves against evil. The idea that we should all just roll over and let criminals do whatever the hell they want to us is ridiculous.

 

I agree with dmc, if the first shot wasn't fatal then it was murder.

 

LKD, this wasnt self defence, it is tantamount to how we train special forces to take down terrorists, they train to empty an entire weapons capacity into a terrorist, even when down they can still push a button.

Once this kid had been shot initially, he was no threat, the fact that this guy could calmly walk away to further arm himself shows that, and so the kid could have been dealt with by law enforcment, but this guy made sure the kid was dead.

 

What everyone here needs to realize is that LKD (and I think Snook) are of the opinion that shoplifters should be subject to the death penalty. (Although in their defense, they think said penalty should only apply if the shoplifter used curse words when they were caught.)

 

I must have missed the post when LKD said that (or where I implied it). Was the use of the emoticon supposed to imply that this was an attempt at humor?

 

I may be new here but even I know that splunge's attempts at humor often fail .

 

Fails? You must be new here.... Er, welcome, btw.

 

Not really. In my opinion the pharmacist was a complete idiot the moment he pulled out his gun. The smart thing to do when getting robbed is to give them what they want and collect the insurance money and let the police and the courts do their work. That's the common procedure around here since most store owners are not armed.

I'm not really sure what made the pharmacist shoot the kid but I can imagine he panicked and have some understanding for that. Still what he did was overkill and certainly deserves a sentence. First degree murder seems awfully harsh though and I don't think the guy would be a particular safety risk for society anyhow. Hopefully he won't sit some twenty years for this since that would just be incredible waste.

 

Fat chance: The insurance companies will find some weaseley reason not to pay, the police will probably tell you to file something online and the courts will get to it sometime in 2020. Welcome to the US.

 

Not to mention the fact that there's a very good chance you'll be killed. Pointing a gun at someone = imminent threat to life = justified self defense. That's easy.

 

Shouldn't you despise the pharmacist, too, then? Murder is a crime, so the pharmacist is a criminal.

 

When someone points a gun at you, you really are taking the long odds of not getting hurt in believing that you'll pull out your gun faster and successfully hit before the other guy gets a shot. Also when someone robs you they probably don't want a murder case since it warrants a lot more police attention. Not that petty criminals are usually known for their sense of rationality especially when drugs have messed up their head.

Otherwise I do technically agree that it's justified self defence but if that's always the smart thing to do is a different matter.

 

Exactly, the people you'd be encountering each and every day in that role.

 

I love it when people start holding forth on this stuff ...

Who says it is automatically a 'quick-draw' situation, or any other kind of situation that you might think is more easily quantifiable? Regardless, you're actually at a disadvantage if you're the one trying to respond to an action, not vice-versa. That's why it's so dangerous to attempt to 'clear' areas where dangerous persons may be hiding (like when the police search warehouses, homes or whatever where people are holed up). If an attacker points a gun at you but doesn't shoot, he becomes the one responding to your actions if you attempt to draw and fire. The advantage is actually with you at that point, assuming you have the basic competency to draw and fire in the first place.

Case in point for all the above: 1. the pharmacist didn't draw a gun, he already had one in had when he confronted the robber; 2. the pharmacist somehow got the drop on the robber and shot him before the robber could fire, even though the robber initiated the confrontation and had everyone covered. How? Who knows entirely, but quite possibly because the robber was unable to react to the pharmacist in time, since he had assumed the role of responder at that point.

I take it you either live in a very safe and friendly country/city or that you've never been out of the suburbs. On the contrary, what you say is unlikely to happen happens all the time. Anyone who relies on odds that someone accosting you will play nice is entirely defaulting on the determination of their own fate. With the mentality of criminals these days, that's a deathwish.

 

Discussing the theoretical circumstances of the shooting is in my opinion pointless since we simply don't know. I'll still stand by what I said though that having a standoff against someone else with a gun puts you in mortal danger as well with little margin of error.

As for your last comment then yes I live in a relatively safe city I suppose but I fail to see the relevance. I'm sure in the slums of Rio robberies end in deaths quite often but it's not the case here. In case of robbery I maintain that the criminal is usually after money or valuables and not your life and if you cooperate the odds are that you'll end unhurt. Obviously if the situation escalates resistance could be necessary.

Stores that are open at night sometimes give to their employees guidelines regarding robberies (which happen occasionally even here) and that's to cooperate and give them what they want and then call the police.