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: 7
15
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 29 2009 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by mr-lizard


People who don't own guns are wondering why you're all murdering each other, especially over replacable insured material items.





Exactly my thoughts.

I think in a few hundred years from now people will look back at us in disbelief. We are blinded by materialism, lack of respect for human life and living with fear and hate.

Never owned and will enver own a gun, I will not fall into the circle of violence and death.




posted on May, 29 2009 @ 11:03 AM
link   
Personally, I'm getting sick and tired of scumbag thugs holding up and robbing people who are just trying to make a living. IMO, the only tragedy is that the other robber is still alive.

A bit extreme, yes. But I wouldn't feel bad for a minute if every thug who committed armed robbery, home invasion, or straight up mugging simply dropped dead. It's getting that bad.

And that goes double for the ones in suits and ties.



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by mr-lizard
They are not starving, but put it this way. If you are brought up in an environment were dad is in jail, mum is on medication, you're dumped in front of an xbox and brought up on violent games, sick movies, soap operas dealing with rape, incest, murder.... Music that promotes gang warfare and drugs. You live in an area with drug dealers living above you, gangs of youths with nowhere to go.... nothing to do (lack of family values) and then boredom creeps in..... Newspapers glorifying hatred and war.
Your local area is either off limits, a no-go area or a toxic wastegrounds (again a result of greedy bastards that existed long before the kids were born).

DON'T YOU SEE?

We have all done this to ourselves. The kids may be ignorant, but ultimately our selfish actions of yesteryear have shaped us all into what we are now. Shooting people is just ten steps backwards.

Unless you've had it any different, then common sense will dictate that the thugs we speak of, will know of only one way of life.


In a roundabout way I agree with a lot of what you are saying- we have fostered a society where such sink estates will be more likely to produce people with moral poverty- just as an aside was reading an article on Alex Ferguson last week talkin about his upbringing, he mentioned that they were crammed into these tenanments in Glasgow with absoloutely NO "entertainment" other than entertainment they made themselves and that it is no rose tinted lie that you could leave your door open- you literally could.

There was ACTUAL poverty back then and staggeringly low crime- with our increasing wealth in society we have regressed in terms of morals and crime (hence the moral poverty)- this will only be addressed when families are encouraged and where men do not run off and leave their offspring and where women do not produce offspring knowing full well the state is their "carer"




And yes, you're right... welfare systems may have started it. But ultimately our leaders could have changed this mess. Class division was massive, people were made to feel inferior or superior.... The Uk is nannied and oppressed with dreadful buerocracy, contradictory laws and a twisted legal systems.


On your last sentence I agree totally




And then some people are suggesting ARMING the citizens.


I firmly believe legally held weaponry in a country without widespread moral poverty is a good thing- so maybe, to adjust my view slightly, I would begin with an absoloute overhaul of the welfare state and giving it a few years before relaxing gun laws for non criminals



That's crazy. How about we retrace our steps, step up and modernise the education system (I remember seeing a shocking video of the results of kids playing on a railway line - let's put it this way, i never played on the railway line)..... How about we make our children feel welcome and give them a good life?


I had a good education and a decent upbringing, but I do recall playing on a railway line in the 80s





Give them something to respect. Something to live for. Or are we just avoiding the tougher but more rewarding of the few options?


ultimately it stems, I believe from a society with some sense of awareness of the traditions and norms and with stable families- obviously bad things can come from "traditional" families, and good people can and do emerge from single parents (not wishing to demonise them), just saying what is best overall for society




Of course it's true. Don't deny it. So you're telling me nobody has tried to rob a bank with an automatic rifle? What about a trigger release bomb?


In relation to banks possibly, but that is because of the possibilty of greater numbers of armed opponents and stringent security/defence measures- in terms of a homeowner it isn't really the same




I've never disramed a mob. Never said that. I disarmed a guy with a knife at a house party, he was threatening a girl with it. I was quicker than him and pinned him to a table and grabbed the knife from his hands. I may not have been that lucky. I could have ended up dead. I didn't think about it. The only mob incident you speak of, was getting jumped by six lads on a bus. It hurt. I may not have been so lucky....


only a gentle joke I was making- kudos to your responses





Nope, my question was relevant. Yours was childish.


I don't think so as I don't think I have ever indicated wanting to see a child's brain splattered over the street, on a list of things I ever wish to see, that would never make it



That's my point exactly. Nobody trust anybody. Yet i've taken ALL your SENSIBLE replies into consideration. I trust your opinion to educate me or at least challenge me. Whereas you seem to be unwilling to change your mind on any matter.

Regards, Mr L




hopefully you can see some level of discussion above




[edit on 29-5-2009 by mr-lizard]



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 11:44 AM
link   
When you pick up a gun and willingly chose to rob a store you should be willing to deal with the consequences of your own actions. Had the police been outside the store they would have been the ones to shoot these armed robbers.

The United States has it's rough areas but nobody is forced to rob a store. Go out get a job, you can purchase a weapon but you can't buy food? There are several individuals who are struggling but don't put other lives in danger for a little easy money. If one of those armed robbers had killed one of the innocent people working in the pharmacy we would be singing to a different tune right now.



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 11:55 AM
link   
Crap, I am always late in a thread....7 pages already? Jeez...


Well, anyway, not sure if anyone posted this or not, so just ignore if so:



Although you are legally entitled to defend yourself against bodily harm in New York, there are limits to the extent of this right. Since the sole purpose of defense is to provide protection, you are not permitted to continue to assault an attacker once the perceived threat is gone. In other words, once you have wounded the attacker to allow you to escape, you should do so. Causing additional harm once the attacker is no longer in a position to cause harm to you is not permitted under the law.


www.ehow.com...

Once a person is down, and injured, it is YOUR responsibility to get away to safety, and not to do more harm. Don't worry about the things in the store, it should be covered by insurance anyway.

Whether or not I agree with this is irrelevant. This is the law....at least in NY. Depending on the circumstances, I would tend to agree that you should try to get away after it appears the intruder/mugger/robber whatever is incapacitated. After shooting someone in the head, I would say that person is pretty incapacitated, even if they are concious enough to try to stand up. The store owner had the option of running out of the store to safety and calling the cops/paramedics, but instead, he stood around and shot him in the body 5 more times. Kinda sick, if you ask me....



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 11:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Styki
 


The one that the store owner shot was not armed. The armed gunman fled the scene like the little coward he was. Now his friend is dead, that
left his friend to die like the yellow bellied coward he is. I hope he remembers that when he puts a photo of his friend being all gangsta on a white t shirt as a memorial.

IMO the unarmed robber deserved the first shot but not the repeated shots after he was down. The store owner left the store, came back a few seconds latter, went to the back got another gun and unloaded it on the unarmed and injured robber.

I hope the gunman's friends see this video and see what a coward the gunman is. I hope the unarmed robbers mother sees this video, and turns in her dead sons rat snake lily livered cohort to the cops. I hope he lives every day of his life knowing that his decision and his actions and his cowardice cost the life of his friend.



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 12:24 PM
link   
How do you know the head shot was first? All the autopsy said was he was still alive after the headshot. The Pharm. could have shot center mass first then went to the head when the perp would keep moving.
I know I am playing what if but so is everyone cause not everything is on the tape. It comes down to his word vs the perps word and one can't talk.
If he had shot the head then he probably would have been sued to take care of the idiot for the rest of his life. Soooo dead people can't sue.



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by pieman

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.


The way the civil courts are these days, had the kid lived, he could have sued the pharmacist for all he had plus some. It was self-defense. The kid had no civil right to rob someone.



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 12:31 PM
link   
reply to post by TheOracle
 


It's not about shooting someone to keep your stuff. The problem is that once the robbers get the money or drugs, they may shoot you anyway.

When a robber is armed with a gun and you are behind the cash register, you're in deep do do. You might get shot regardless of what you do.



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 12:39 PM
link   
That was murder plain and simple. The killer should go to jail for the rest of his pathetic life. He probably forgot there was a camera filming him. And if he has children they should be taken away to a secure state run facility so they can be re-educated to not be like their murdering psycopathic father.



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by hanyak69
How do you know the head shot was first? All the autopsy said was he was still alive after the headshot. The Pharm. could have shot center mass first then went to the head when the perp would keep moving.


Nope. Two different weapons were used. The head shot ws from a smaller carry piece, after the pharmacist went outside, he came back in and got the second larger Taurus out of the drawer and delivered the 5 gut shots.

So there is no question.


Originally posted by Wildbob77
It's not about shooting someone to keep your stuff. The problem is that once the robbers get the money or drugs, they may shoot you anyway.


Yeah that is what the anti-gunners fail to understand. It has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE STUFF from the victims perspective, they are threatening your LIFE first and foremost! If someone is threatening to KILL YOU who cares why? The "reason" is inconsequential.

[edit on 29-5-2009 by Sonya610]



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by MysterE
Don't get me wrong, the robber deserved to be shot. But after he was shot in the head, and obviously no longer a threat did he deserve to be shot 5 more times? The answer is no. The pharmacist defended himself, and after he subdued the robber, he shot him 5 more times, killing him, or one might say murdering him.

-E-

[edit on 28-5-2009 by MysterE]


What do you think the robber was trying to steal??? Money, I think not. Most likely trying to get more narcotics. If the kid was on PCP, a bullet to the head would do nothing but stun him. I've seen guys shot 20 or 30 times on PCP and still charge and cause harm.

Once a situation is deemed hostile and weapons are fired, police are trained to fire until the perp is no longer a threat. If they continue towards thier weapon, they are trained to continue firing.



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bearack
What do you think the robber was trying to steal??? Money, I think not. Most likely trying to get more narcotics. If the kid was on PCP, a bullet to the head would do nothing but stun him. I've seen guys shot 20 or 30 times on PCP and still charge and cause harm.

Once a situation is deemed hostile and weapons are fired, police are trained to fire until the perp is no longer a threat. If they continue towards thier weapon, they are trained to continue firing.


Have you read the entire thread, or just reply to a post on the opening page? The DA stated in a press conference yesterday that he was unconsious on the ground, not freaking out on PCP. The Pharmacist casually strolls past the guy on the ground, then unlocks his drawer, draws a second gun, casually strolls back over to the guy, gets within a foot of the unconsious guy and blasts him 5 in the chest! Read thread for further reasoning.

-E-

[edit on 29-5-2009 by MysterE]



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 02:13 PM
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.




Criminal law allows for the use of necessary and proportionate, non-deadly force in self-defense anytime the victim "reasonably" believes that unlawful force is about to be used on him.


The critical language under this standard is ‘reasonable belief’, ‘unlawful’, ‘about to’ and ‘necessary and proportionate’.In viewing the video The people in the store was not in any danger after the one assailant fled the store.The owner had time to calmly walk in the back of the store and return and shoot the guy on the floor. Once for attacker cease to attack you,the law says that you are not defending yourself if you continue to attack him.

The owner would be in the same amount of trouble if he shot the suspect that was fleeing.There has been confusion about what is permitted under the law when an individual is acting in self-defense. Some have even suggested(in previous post in this thread) that the law gives more protection to criminals than to honest citizens acting to protect themselves,and in some cases I will concede that is true.

However, although not enshrined in statute, the law in this country is very clear, an individual is entitled to protect themselves or others;they may even inflict violence and/or use weapons to do so but as long as the amount of force used is not excessive.

www.lectlaw.com...



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheOracle

Never owned and will never own a gun, I will not fall into the circle of violence and death.



"Those who do not own swords may still die upon them."

The wisdom of the ancients is obviously lost on you.

However, rest assured that should I ever see you being raped and strangled, I would not use one of my firearms to save you, I wouldn't want to offend your morals.



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 02:42 PM
link   
When once asked by a liberal reporter if he believed that violence begets violence, Jeff Cooper famously responded by saying "I certainly hope so".

If you are willing to stick a gun in someone's face and threaten to take their life for personal gain, someone who is just trying to go about their lawful business and make an honest living, then you deserve to die, not to get shot, but to die. Ditto for anyone who forcibly enters your home.

When you get soft on crime, you end up with the UK, when you give up on crime, you get Somalia - neither are appealing options to anyone other than people who constantly need a hug or live in California, wait, I think that's the same thing.

If the world was all peace, love and understanding then we wouldn't need armies and policemen.

Believing that guns make the world more dangerous is the exact opposite of the truth, because an armed society is a polite society.



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 02:45 PM
link   
If two people rush into my place of business, or my home, and a gun is pointed at me, I will kill both of them if given half a chance. Whether this kid was actually armed or not, in my opinion, is irrelevant. The FACT is it was an attempt at an ARMED robbery. If one robber has a gun, I will assume he means to kill me. If he has an accomplice, I assume his accomplice means to kill me as well. If I shoot, and they get up, or even twitch, I am going to feel just as threatened as I did before I shot, and I'm going to shoot again, and make sure he's not going to get up.

It is my opinion, that if a person is killed during the commission of a violent crime, it should not be possible for charges to be brought against the person who killed the perpetrator. The minute you choose to disregard the law, you forfeit the protection the law offers. The minute you threaten a persons right to live, you forfeit your own.

I'm a bit confused as to the grounds for prosecution, as OK does indeed have a castle law.

Let's look at the law itself, since many castle laws differ significantly:


B. A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:

1. The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against the will of that person from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and

2. The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.


Now, according to the letter of the law, this was a justified shooting:


J. As used in this section:

1. "Dwelling" means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people;

2. "Residence" means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest; and

3. "Vehicle" means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.


Using their own definition, the pharmacy meets the criteria for a "Dwelling". After all, it's got a roof over it, and is designed to be occupied by people.

Any attorney worth the air they breathe should be able to make fools of the prosecution.



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Unit541
If two people rush into my place of business, or my home, and a gun is pointed at me, I will kill both of them if given half a chance. Whether this kid was actually armed or not, in my opinion, is irrelevant. The FACT is it was an attempt at an ARMED robbery. If one robber has a gun, I will assume he means to kill me. If he has an accomplice, I assume his accomplice means to kill me as well. If I shoot, and they get up, or even twitch, I am going to feel just as threatened as I did before I shot, and I'm going to shoot again, and make sure he's not going to get up.



Rest assured that this paragraph will be the defence for the prosecutor. The people in the store was in no "immediate" danger.If the guy on the floor was a treat why didn't he make an effort to shoot the owner? The owner could have taken the gun from him because he was injured and if he had to shoot he could have shot him in the arm or leg. Instead;he stood over him and fired multiple shots.


DEFENSE, SELF-DEFENSE - A defense to certain criminal charges involving force (e.g. murder).

Use of force is justified when a person reasonably believes that it is necessary for the defense of oneself or another against the immediate use of unlawful force. However, a person must use no more force than appears reasonably necessary in the circumstances.

This owner did commit murder when his action is held up against this piece of law

BTW,you do know he killed an unarmed man.

[edit on 29-5-2009 by Eight]



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 04:05 AM
link   
I do not think he will be convicted of murder, and I hope that he doesn't.

Criminals needs to fear going into a shop to rob people



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 04:14 AM
link   
Let me just sum this up simply. That kid would still be alive if he didn't rob the store.

He died as a direct result of his own actions, the fact that the man shot him once or five times is irrelevant. The kids own actions determined his fate. If he wanted to live so badly, why didn't he just stay at home and read a book.

Criminals act without discord for other peoples lives, why are we so aghast when their violent actions result in their own deaths. You get what you deserve in this world, by the very choices and actions you chose.

I feel sorry for the pharmacist because if the kid never robbed his store, he would never be guilty of murder. It's the kids actions that caused the whole mess in the first place, he should never have done what he did. Period.



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join