Pharmacist Charged With First-Degree Murder For Gunning Down Wounded Robber

[Mitchell]

Due to the fact that the kid was lying on the ground, already injured in such a serious manner, it isnt likely he would have been able to do much to the pharmarcist. That having been said, the pharmarcist was already in a potentially life threatening situation, because the robbers were armed, and there's no telling what they would have done. Sometimes, a person who is being robbed complies and gives up the money, and gets killed anyway, because the criminal is just derranged.

I wouldnt charge the pharmarcist with first degree murder, simply because these kids robbed and threatened him, and might well have killed him. They were committing crimimal acts with deadly weapons, and placing people's lives in danger. I would give the pharmarcist second degree murder, and a jail sentence of maybe several years, with a lot of time off for good behavior. With first degree, the pharmarcist might get sent up the river for life, or even get the death penalty, not proper punishment for what he did.

Mitch

 

[MrMacphisto]

I'm sorry, but people who think like you do scare the living shit out of me.

Some Americans (like myself) do have a bit of a cowboy mentality on justice. It's something we share with a lot of countries outside of the First World. It's part of why we have the death penalty.

In a way, I can see how that would be disturbing to many people. Still, there is something to be said about being fiercely independent.

It's not always a positive trait, but in many situations, it's necessary and practical.

 

[Sanhael]

I'm repulsed at the self-defense claim. Not only was the slain robber unarmed and unconscious at the time, with a bullet in his head, but the pharmacist grabbed a second handgun to finish the job. That wasn't "in the heat of the moment" or "blood-racing survival initiative," that was cool and calculated. Nobody seems to be questioning the initial shooting, but that did its job; a pharmacist's job in the USA does not include the subsequent service as judge, jury and executioner.

This is an older, educated man with a history of military service, not some young hothead who ought to be claiming that he was lost in an adrenaline rush.

At the very least, I would press manslaughter charges. I do have some doubts as to whether or not 1st degree murder will--or should--stick.

 

[MrMacphisto]

I'm repulsed at the self-defense claim. Not only was the slain robber unarmed and unconscious at the time, with a bullet in his head, but the pharmacist grabbed a second handgun to finish the job. That wasn't "in the heat of the moment" or "blood-racing survival initiative," that was cool and calculated. Nobody seems to be questioning the initial shooting, but that did its job; a pharmacist's job in the USA does not include the subsequent service as judge, jury and executioner.

This is an older, educated man with a history of military service, not some young hothead who ought to be claiming that he was lost in an adrenaline rush.

At the very least, I would press manslaughter charges. I do have some doubts as to whether or not 1st degree murder will--or should--stick.

In all seriousness, I doubt any charge will stick unless the race card is played.

 

[BlackestLily]

I wonder if the race card will be played

I think perhaps the moment the media mentions a race, it's noted to be worth mentioning. So I'm going to guess a strong probably.

 

[Redmage]

my take in this is that the pharmacist should not get charged with anything the crook deserved what he got i hve no simpathy for him the pharmacist was just defending him self

Defending himself against what? The wounded, unarmed man laying unconscious on the ground?

Premeditation generally supposes a conspiracy to murder. In other words, he would have had to plot out a course to kill someone.

"Plotting" can happen mighty fast and still qualify for first degree. Actually this provides a useful breakdown of the "degree" system. It varies state to state, and I'm not sure what system applies there.

However, if state law makes allowance for premeditation, then it doesn't generally require sitting down and working out a plan. It's simply the difference between deliberate murder (pulling a gun and shooting someone) and considered murder (walking away, getting a gun, coming back and shooting someone).

The second is what this pharmacist did.

 

[McNoodle]

I think the pharmacist could of been trying to send a message to anyone else who would consider trying to rob the store. I feel what he did was wrong but at the same time I wish he had of pumped the first perp full of lead and then chased the second.

 

[MrMacphisto]

"Plotting" can happen mighty fast and still qualify for first degree. Actually this provides a useful breakdown of the "degree" system. It varies state to state, and I'm not sure what system applies there.

However, if state law makes allowance for premeditation, then it doesn't generally require sitting down and working out a plan. It's simply the difference between deliberate murder (pulling a gun and shooting someone) and considered murder (walking away, getting a gun, coming back and shooting someone).

The second is what this pharmacist did.

Well, if the defense can prove that the guy died from the first shot, then premeditation is out of the question.

 

[Mister Scruff]

I'd say second degree murder at the very least. And the fact that he went and got another gun, then deliberately killed the boy, sure looks like premeditation to me.

If there's stone-cold proof that the kid was alive when this bloke returned, went behind the counter, took out a second gun and then fired at him five times, then it's not going to be difficult to prove premeditation to any reasonable person. There's also an element of revenge too, which never goes down well in court. You'd need to have evidence that the kid was still alive, though.

Also, a crime doesn't require a vast project log or expression of intent much in advance of the actual act to be premeditated. The fact he went and got a second gun is probably enough to prove it. If they can't prove the kid was alive though, it's premeditated shooting of a dead body, which isn't premeditated murder.

 

[slacker2114]

The guy was not defending himself. What he was doing was making a statement. It said the store was in a crime ridden section, had been robbed before and all that. I'm guessing he had more of the mentality of "let this be a warning to anyone else who's considering robbing us". I think he made his point.

 

[Evil Dave]

I'm sorry, but opinions like that one scare the living shit out of me.

Hopefully they scare the living shit out of some criminals too.

Technically the pharmacist shouldn't have returned and shot the little shitbag again but I really can't lose any sleep over the fact that a robber got killed whilst trying to commit a crime. If I was on the jury I'd seriously consider letting him off.

Lets face it, whether the pharmacist goes to prison or not, the world is a marginally better place with the other guy in a hole in the ground.

 

[Flatfoot]

It really sucks that the pharmacist was put into this scenario. Many people do not know the actual legal guidelines for self-defense. Working in a job where I carry a firearm and could get robbed at any moment, I had to learn what I could and couldn't do in such circumstances. Here's a few key points to remember, not verbatim out of a lawbook:

-You cannot legally shoot somebody to defend property. You can only shoot somebody if they provide a definite, and immediate threat to your life, or the life of someone else.

-If you DO shoot somebody, you only shoot enough to end the threat, which is kind of a judgment call. In this case, I think the guy went above and beyond what was necessary. If he really felt the kid was still a threat with a head wound, he could've removed the kid's gun from reach and search him for other weapons.

-Don't shoot someone in the back, because they clearly were not a threat to you. If somebody steals your wallet and runs off, you cannot legally shoot at them. However, I'm pretty sure the law about shooting them in the back doesn't apply if said person is a threat to someone else's life.

-Real life is not Halo. Head-shots can get you in trouble with a prosecuting lawyer, because the head is very mobile and harder to hit. It tends to look well-aimed and intentional. If you have to defend yourself in court for defending your life, you'll be asked your intent. Your intent should be to have shot to end the threat, not shot to kill, or wound. You simply shot to stop them from shooting you or someone else. Don't intentionally aim (or admit to it!) at any particular body part, because then you're guilty of assault with a deadly weapon with intent to harm/kill.

These are just what I could remember off the top of my head. Many people think this guy's a hero. I think a lot of that has to do with the fact that many are on hard-times in this tough economy, and are angry with things in general. The anger makes people want to be in this guy's shoes in such circumstances. They want to take out their frustrations of working hard and honestly for their measly pay while someone else who's desperate tries to take a shortcut like this, with no regard for others. I can relate. There are days when I feel confrontational and I WANT someone to try robbing me. God forbid it actually happen!

 

[Mephistopheles]

If there's stone-cold proof that the kid was alive when this bloke returned, went behind the counter, took out a second gun and then fired at him five times, then it's not going to be difficult to prove premeditation to any reasonable person. There's also an element of revenge too, which never goes down well in court. You'd need to have evidence that the kid was still alive, though.

Also, a crime doesn't require a vast project log or expression of intent much in advance of the actual act to be premeditated. The fact he went and got a second gun is probably enough to prove it. If they can't prove the kid was alive though, it's premeditated shooting of a dead body, which isn't premeditated murder.

If there's a good coroner it is probable that that will be determined.

 

[JimmyBoy]

You cannot legally shoot somebody to defend property. You can only shoot somebody if they provide a definite, and immediate threat to your life, or the life of someone else.

So an example of this would be shoplifters, right?

Store owners/employees have no legal right to gun down shoplifters in order to protect their stolen merchandise?

 

[asutickler]

So an example of this would be shoplifters, right?

Store owners/employees have no legal right to gun down shoplifters in order to protect their stolen merchandise?

Yep. That's why Wal-Marts don't have snipers.

I'm sure they're lobbying to get that changed. 😀

 

[Flatfoot]

Yep. That's why Wal-Marts don't have snipers.

I'm sure they're lobbying to get that changed. 😀

Sign me up! 😀

j/k

Yes, shoplifters cannot be shot. However, store clerks at gunpoint are another issue, and leads to justifiable self-defense. Some would argue that if a store clerk just let the robber have what they wanted, there wouldn't be an issue, and nobody would get hurt. I'm of the opinion that you cannot appease evil, and if you give someone what they want under duress, you're giving them power over you to do what they want. They could just kill you anyway, or continue to take advantage of you in the future. I'd rather not take that chance if it were my life. As the old saying goes, I'd rather be tried by twelve than carried by six. Under those circumstances, I'm thinking that those could be the last moments of my life, and I'm gonna do everything I can to make sure it's ME that goes home at the end of the day and not the other guy. I feel that if he elected to point a gun at me, and is prepared to take away my most precious gift of existence unprovoked, his life is forfeit.

 

[kis123]

I wonder if the race card will be played

I certainly hope not-stupid has no color boundaries! And for the mother who said he didn't have to kill her baby like that--if she would've raised her baby right in the first place, he'd still be here! These sperm receptacles mistaken for mothers make me sick!!

It's not about race, it's about choice and all parties involved made a bad one. The robbers chose to steal as opposed to work for money and the pharmacist chose overkill instead of letting the one shot be enough. It would've been different if the kid moved leaving him to believe that his life was still threatened, but I don't think that's the case. He made a bad choice to come back and shoot again.

He'll probably get away without doing time, but I don't think he should go without any punishment.

 

[Cosmo_ac]

So an example of this would be shoplifters, right?

Store owners/employees have no legal right to gun down shoplifters in order to protect their stolen merchandise?

I'd argue that is what insurance is for.

 

[kis123]

In all seriousness, I doubt any charge will stick unless the race card is played.

Ok, a little devil's advocate here-and it's not just for Mac; it includes all of you who have even mentioned the "race card" question.

What if the pharmacist was black and the robbers were white? Do you think the media would've even mentioned race at all? Would so many of you then wonder if the race card would even be an issue to consider?

First we're told to "get over it" when it comes to race, then the media throws the race card even before Sharpton/Jackson do?

Interesting........very interesting.

 

[MrMacphisto]

It really sucks that the pharmacist was put into this scenario. Many people do not know the actual legal guidelines for self-defense. Working in a job where I carry a firearm and could get robbed at any moment, I had to learn what I could and couldn't do in such circumstances. Here's a few key points to remember, not verbatim out of a lawbook:

-You cannot legally shoot somebody to defend property. You can only shoot somebody if they provide a definite, and immediate threat to your life, or the life of someone else.

-If you DO shoot somebody, you only shoot enough to end the threat, which is kind of a judgment call. In this case, I think the guy went above and beyond what was necessary. If he really felt the kid was still a threat with a head wound, he could've removed the kid's gun from reach and search him for other weapons.

-Don't shoot someone in the back, because they clearly were not a threat to you. If somebody steals your wallet and runs off, you cannot legally shoot at them. However, I'm pretty sure the law about shooting them in the back doesn't apply if said person is a threat to someone else's life.

-Real life is not Halo. Head-shots can get you in trouble with a prosecuting lawyer, because the head is very mobile and harder to hit. It tends to look well-aimed and intentional. If you have to defend yourself in court for defending your life, you'll be asked your intent. Your intent should be to have shot to end the threat, not shot to kill, or wound. You simply shot to stop them from shooting you or someone else. Don't intentionally aim (or admit to it!) at any particular body part, because then you're guilty of assault with a deadly weapon with intent to harm/kill.

These are just what I could remember off the top of my head. Many people think this guy's a hero. I think a lot of that has to do with the fact that many are on hard-times in this tough economy, and are angry with things in general. The anger makes people want to be in this guy's shoes in such circumstances. They want to take out their frustrations of working hard and honestly for their measly pay while someone else who's desperate tries to take a shortcut like this, with no regard for others. I can relate. There are days when I feel confrontational and I WANT someone to try robbing me. God forbid it actually happen!

Very good points. I suppose this pharmacist may end up in jail afterall.

In order to prevent future cases of people like this guy going to jail, I say we change the laws to favor shopkeepers more.

The way the laws SHOULD be should favor headshots. If it were more legally sound to kill robbers, we'd have fewer robberies.

 

[MrMacphisto]

Ok, a little devil's advocate here-and it's not just for Mac; it includes all of you who have even mentioned the "race card" question.

What if the pharmacist was black and the robbers were white? Do you think the media would've even mentioned race at all? Would so many of you then wonder if the race card would even be an issue to consider?

First we're told to "get over it" when it comes to race, then the media throws the race card even before Sharpton/Jackson do?

Interesting........very interesting.

Very true. The media loves to manipulate people.

 

[kis123]

Very true. The media loves to manipulate people.

You know what? It would be sweet if the media just did its job. Report the news, don't give a personal opinion or a headline grabbing spin on it. Just do your f-ing job for crying out loud!! Then maybe....just maybe, the public can actually formulate their own opinions on the matter.

I know....novel concept only found in utopia

 

[KrazieDog]

***Warning***: While the video I posted below is not "graphic" in a gory sense, you will see a 16 year old get shot and killed. If you don't like that sort of thing, please do not watch it. I'm posting it specifically so anyone choosing to, can see exactly how it went down*

Well after actually seeing the video of the shooting, I stand even more firmly in my original opinion. The first 80% of the video shows a justified shooting. When he calmly walked right by the downed guy, grabbed a second weapon, walked back over and shot him 5 times, when he was not presenting a threat, he murdered him. I saw the interview with the man also, and he didn't make any claims of the guy trying to get up, or attack or anything with the second shooting.

What's done can not be undone, and he'll have to answer for what he's done. On another note, 3 more people that put the two teenagers up to the crime have been also charged with murder in connection to the event.

 

[General Zod]

You know what? It would be sweet if the media just did its job. Report the news, don't give a personal opinion or a headline grabbing spin on it. Just do your f-ing job for crying out loud!! Then maybe....just maybe, the public can actually formulate their own opinions on the matter.

I know....novel concept only found in utopia

That....................that is Un American 😱

 

[Redmage]

Well, if the defense can prove that the guy died from the first shot, then premeditation is out of the question.

I don't think so. Going and getting the second gun demonstrates intent to kill (as does the headshot). It suggests very strongly that he made a considered decision to kill this man, and wanted to make sure he had. If the man was already dead when he "made sure," that doesn't undo the fact that that's clearly what he was trying to do.

Store owners/employees have no legal right to gun down shoplifters in order to protect their stolen merchandise?

That is correct. In most cases, lethal force is justified only to protect life, not property. Basically, the only thing worth taking a life for is another life.