It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Pharmacist charged with murder (*with actual video*)

page: 13
15
<< 10  11  12    14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by KilluminatisRex
Oh man you are racsist as #, and I can see it in all of your comments.


Yes sweetie, I know that. You state the obvious, and so do I!




posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 10:29 AM
link   
oh and to the guy who says police are trained and all that. well I rewcall numerous instances of them going to wrong address and shooting the inhabitant, and they are not even fired. then they shoot people all the time unjustifiably, also have you wateched that "jail show" I saw it once and they had this guy handcuffed and they were tasering him cuz he mouythed off. tasers are not used on a allrready handcuffed person the idjits.



posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sonya610
The Pharmacist hero (also a veteran with a permanent disability do to his service) that defended his life and that of two other employees during a vicious armed robbery is being charged with murder.

This is shameful, when armed intruders threaten your LIFE with guns, and actually shoot at you, it is murder to shoot them back? I think not.

The police would have done exactly the same thing. He shot the kid once in the head (a kid that supposedly was carrying a gun) and left him but when the kid started to get up he shot him 5 more times. That is proper procedure, if the kid was armed he was still posing a threat to the Pharmacist and the lives of the other employees. Doesn't matter if the kid was on his back, the kid raised his head and attempted to get up (either to flee or to carry on the armed assault) which made him a THREAT to be taken down.

The fatal shots are not only sensible, but quite reasonable. Perhaps if the thug (or is the term "teenager"? that sounds sooo much less threatening)had not tried to rob innocent people he would still be alive today!

I sincerely hope the Jury (or Judge) has enough sense to let this man GO FREE. He did the right thing! Besides the perpetrator was out of camera shot so it is reasonable to assume he may have been raising his weapon again to shoot.

** See article for actual video of the shooting **

www.kfor.com
(visit the link for the full news article)


[edit on 28-5-2009 by Sonya610]


I don't accept the need to shoot the kid five more times while lying on the ground after being shot in the head. The gun could have been kicked or taken away. The pharmacist shooting once to incapacitate is very logical. Every one has the right to defend themselves and others, it's just commen sense. But five more times your trying to kill, not incapacitate.

With the "tunnel vision" one gets in combat and other very high stress situations, you can have any restraint thrown out the window. I support the right to keep and bare arms, to a point. Since among other things individuals are more likely to shoot themselves or others by accident, we need some rational ideas in this area. Remember the kid who killed 30plus people at Virginia Tech not to long ago?, he had an unmistakable psychological illness. Yet he drove across state lines and could buy as many guns and ammo as he could afford.
Thats just plain nuts. With all rights you have responsibilities.

I think we need to add a psychological componant to any background check. Let the people with legitamite reasons, such as dangerous environments have the right to pack. But there must be some degree of evaluation of those who want to hall around a gun. May I suggest a Taser? It hurts but is not likely to kill you.



posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by arbiture
I think we need to add a psychological componant to any background check. Let the people with legitamite reasons, such as dangerous environments have the right to pack. But there must be some degree of evaluation of those who want to hall around a gun. May I suggest a Taser? It hurts but is not likely to kill you.



LOL. Yeah lets do that. The VAST majority of gun related homicides are commited by CRIMINALS that do not have permits.

But lets not worry about that, lets worry about the tiny minority that DOES have a permit and got one because they have NO violent criminal history or recent mental health incarcerations.

Great plan that. Lets focus on the tiny tiny minority and pretend we don't notice the elephant in the room!

And tasers are only marginally effective. If someone is trying to kill you, you do NOT want to rely on a taser (remember the two cops that were shot after they tasered the guy? not a sure thing at ALL).



posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by arbiture

With the "tunnel vision" one gets in combat and other very high stress situations, you can have any restraint thrown out the window. I support the right to keep and bare arms, to a point. Since among other things individuals are more likely to shoot themselves or others by accident, we need some rational ideas in this area.


What? More likely to shoot myself??? Have you been listening to someone named Brady that doesnt throw a football again?

What we need to do is educate people and enforce the laws that are already in place. Thats the end. Period.

I think it would be highly beneficial to have the NRA and the Brady Campaign engage in a televised debate where they can present FACTS to argue their opinion. Oh yeah...Brady relies on scare tactics and doctored info and the NRA reports actual law enforcement documentation




posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 05:09 PM
link   
the man did what he felt was proper action at the time to ensure the safety of himself & his workers. if the man is found guilty it will send the message that if someone's threating you're life with a gun pointed at you, you're actions could land you with a murder charge & on top of that the media turns you into the monster & the thug into the poor victim.



posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 11:03 PM
link   
[iour "troopps" have not given us freedom.they are cannon fodder for the machinations of the werld bank elite banking sheets.all wars have been manuevered by them*at least since french revolutuion)vietnam was not a threat top me as far as i could tell. nor was korea. nor was germany6 in either war, remeber england declared war on germany.spanish american war was a disgraceand we kept philipines in a subserevient class just like our iraqui frens, soon to be afghanistani frens where we started the heroin productiobn back up. who you think profits off it? same people who profited on the opium trade with china same peole s di it still *think english royals). they are allready preparing to use armed military against us.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 08:24 AM
link   
lol didn't realize this was from 2009?


edit on 1-6-2011 by jonibelle because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 08:38 AM
link   
If anyone should be charged with murder, it should be the "victim"s armed friend. They threatened people with a gun. The pharmacist had every right to eliminate this threat. Were the five extra shots "overkill"? Possibly, but even then, these people threatened his life with a lethal weapon. I doubt this man is going to be any threat to society (maybe to those in society who would gladly destroy life for a small, temporary monetary gain), and I see no logical reason this man should be removed from society, and punished harshly, for defending his, and his fellow employee's lives.
edit on 1-6-2011 by Syyth007 because: Holy thread necro! Didn't notice the edit above 'till it was too late!



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 02:30 PM
link   
I was just about to start a new thread on this as I just watched the video on MSN. Didn't realize it had been since 2009. Good thing I used the search function. Anyways thought I would add my two cents to this after watching the video. I don't know the entire details but two kids armed threatened the lives of store employees. The Pharmacist had every right to defend himself in which he did. What got him in trouble is what we can't see in the video. He fired 5 more rounds into the victim ending his life. I have to disagree with verdict of Murder on this. Murder is usually defined as a planned intent on killing someone. I thought if anything he should have gotten involuntary man-slaughter. Just an outrage that this guy could prevented himself & his employees from being victims but yet is still the victim with a possibility to rot in jail. None of this would have happened had the kids made the right choice...in the end justice is not being served.

www.msnbc.msn.com...



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 02:49 PM
link   
Well I definitely have some mixed feelings about this all.

The guy was a Vet, right? Well that explains his over reaction a bit. He may have been triggered by the gunshot, and went off on the kids. I understand that part, my uncle has PTSD from the Vietnam War, and I've dealt with him when he was in the thick of one of his violent flashbacks. Not to say this was right in anyway, however, I have some sympathy because I would have done the same thing. Think about it, two guys come into a store, one of them has shoots at you, they're obviously together, you can't tell whether or not that other one has one.

The fact that he was a former military man explains why he was so calm and collected, it's instinct, and second nature to anyone who had served. And honestly, them being 16 doesn't affect me at all. They were the ones who decided to rob a place at gunpoint, and unless the store wasn't owned by him personally (franchise or otherwise), there aren't really any laws prohibiting one from keeping a form of protection in the store incase things go awry.

However, it was excessive in the way he shot him, even for someone going through a flashback, however, I can't speak entirely from experience, only from what I've seen in my own family members. I have my own from when I served, but I can't imagine they're nearly as bad as what my grandfather and uncle have to go through.

Of course, these are just my opinions.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 06:17 PM
link   
LOL... How can you call this murder? Just because one of the robber was shot in the stomach 5 times? Have you ever been in his situation where you get violated at your own house or your business? Your adreniline flows like a mofo and you don't think clearly, you just react. Also, how can this be first degree? Isn't first degree, premeditated? So this man knew he was going to kill someone that day?



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 01:42 PM
link   
Glad to see the law still works in some cases.

It was self defence right until he casually walked into the back room to grab another gun, and then stood over the shot victim before EXECUTING him.

This is exactly why gun ownership is an issue. It's not that people shouldn't own guns, but it's blatantly obvious that a lot of people owning guns don't really know what is right or wrong. By law, self defence is allowed...this clearly wasn't self defence, it was an execution.

I hope that guy drops the soap in jail...



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 07:37 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


I hope one day you get robbed at gun point and for them to shoot you several times and leave you paralyzed. Or have armed robbers invade your home and shoot you couple times, kill your loved ones, and see if you keep the same beliefs.
edit on 2-6-2011 by blackrain17 because: Your views won't change unless if it happens to you...



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 10:37 PM
link   
I can kind of see the whole 5 shots being a little excessive, but first degree murder probably isn't the proper charge here. Voluntary manslaughter or something similar should be the charge and I suspect that we'll see a plea agreement reflecting that. I don't think a jury (especially in a more conservative state) would go for locking this dude up for life (or even 25 to life).



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 12:01 AM
link   
I agree that this was not an act of self defense.
Why shoot him that many times, he wounded him all he had to do was take his gun away.
However, adrenaline probably kicked in but still... 5 times!?



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 01:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by blackrain17
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


I hope one day you get robbed at gun point and for them to shoot you several times and leave you paralyzed. Or have armed robbers invade your home and shoot you couple times, kill your loved ones, and see if you keep the same beliefs.
edit on 2-6-2011 by blackrain17 because: Your views won't change unless if it happens to you...


So if you are ever forced to shoot someone, and that guy is bleeding on the floor...you slowly and calmly walk into the back room, grab another gun, and then stand over that guy and shoot him 5 (!!!) times...and then call it "self defence"?? Really?

Thanks for proving my point that some people shouldn't be allowed to own guns, because they obviously have no clue about laws. You might wanna look up the definition of self defence, because you obviously have no clue about it. Shooting someone 5 times when he's already down isn't self defence, and "adrenalin flowing" isn't an excuse. If you can't handle the pressure of owning a gun, and correctly using it, you shouldn't own one in the first place.



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 06:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by blackrain17
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


I hope one day you get robbed at gun point and for them to shoot you several times and leave you paralyzed. Or have armed robbers invade your home and shoot you couple times, kill your loved ones, and see if you keep the same beliefs.
edit on 2-6-2011 by blackrain17 because: Your views won't change unless if it happens to you...


So if you are ever forced to shoot someone, and that guy is bleeding on the floor...you slowly and calmly walk into the back room, grab another gun, and then stand over that guy and shoot him 5 (!!!) times...and then call it "self defence"?? Really?

Thanks for proving my point that some people shouldn't be allowed to own guns, because they obviously have no clue about laws. You might wanna look up the definition of self defence, because you obviously have no clue about it. Shooting someone 5 times when he's already down isn't self defence, and "adrenalin flowing" isn't an excuse. If you can't handle the pressure of owning a gun, and correctly using it, you shouldn't own one in the first place.



Have you ever been robbed at gun point or been violated with someone with a gun? If not, hopefully, you or your loved ones get to experience it soon.



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 06:37 PM
link   
reply to post by blackrain17
 


So your response is to wish harm on me??? Just because I don't consider shooting someone who's bleeding on the floor 5 times (!!!) self defence??

Dude, you might wanna read up on the law if you consider what he did lawful. And while you're at it, how about some anger management, it seems like you really need it


And just fyi, I've been attacked with knives twice. The first time I kicked the dude and ran, the second time I tried the same but ended up in a real fight. I've been Thai boxing for a few years now, so once I eventually got rid of his damn knife, the fight didn't last long...but not once did I consider kicking him in the head once he was down, or breaking his neck, even if it would have been super easy. Why??? Because that wouldn't be self defence, and ergo I'd deserve a jail sentence.

Your posts show that you clearly have not the slightest clue about laws. But thanks for proving my point, people like you, people who obviously can't act correctly under pressure, shouldn't be allowed to own guns.
edit on 3-6-2011 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 07:14 PM
link   
he shouldn't face legal recourse cause doing # like that is basically asking for it. but the way he took his time and casually strolled over to execute the kid makes it clear that guy is nuts.



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 10  11  12    14 >>

log in

join