Self Defense or Murder? Pharmacy Shooting...

Originally posted by MysterE

Spoiler Alert... It was murder, the robber was shot 5 times point blank after he lay unconsious on the floor from the first head shot.

Here we go. The bad guy is the friggin hero.

I'm sure the pharmacist was just making sure the kid was dead. If he had lived he might have sued the pharmacy. He did well to finish the job. One less scumbag roaming the streets.

[edit on 30-5-2009 by In nothing we trust]

This man emptying the clip into some thug that pointed a gun at him is no argument for taking away guns unless you want to take them from the police and military as well. There have been occasions where both have emptied the clip after the perp/ enemy was already defenseless. If the guy had a bat he probably would have beat the thief to death. Adrenalin and self preservation, God gave you both for a reason.

When those thieves came into that mans place of business and robbed him at gunpoint they crossed the line, not the pharmacist. If your nine year old child had been there and they had pointed the gun at your child, would you feel differently? How about if your child was called to testify as a witness against these thieves who clearly have no respect for the law. The police can't and won't protect your family, and with the economy getting worse there's only going to be more armed thugs robbing and killing innocent people.

reply to post by In nothing we trust


This has been argued back and forth on the origional thread, but here it is again... Pretty much everyone thinks the robber got what he deserved, but unfortunatly according to the law, he was only entitled to shot the robber if he was a threat. After he put 1 in his head and laid unconsious on the floor, he was no longer a threat, hence the 5 additional shots at point blank were "excessive force", which is unfortunatly against the law. See origional thread before you respond to this, bc I am sure it has already been covered.

-E-

The pharmacist adrenaline was running in a high stress situation. It is easy to understand his actions and hard to disagree with them.

Saying that, he should be tried for murder. If convicted, he should serve his time or, if public attention goes away, quietly plea bargain the charges down to a lesser charge.

When acts of vigilantism becomes public, they must be prosecuted. If our society starts believing that vigilantes will be handled differently than other people who commit violent acts, we will see more and more acts such as this. This means that innocent people will die through confusion or maliciousness. Sure the perp may still be accused of murder in a trial, it doesn't change the fact that someone is dead.