Pharmacist charged with murder (*with actual video*)

Originally posted by Sonya610

People that don't own guns just never get that part.

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

I'm saddened by many of the replies here and I guess this English soul can never understand why shooting someone is an instinctive response to any kind of threat.

The first shot was definitely self defense.

I can't tell from the video, if he was trying to get up, was still armed or whatever for the second series of shots.

My opinion, self defense. The kids appeared to have weapons. One got shot. Then the pharmacist shot him a bunch more.

Big picture... Don't rob stores with guns unless you're willing to have people shot you.

If it goes to trial, I bet he gets off. All he has to say was he was in fear for his life.

Originally posted by The Mackas a side note, why in the hell did the guy have two guns in his pharmacy?

Another article said that pharmacy had been robbed before and the employees were pistol whipped, so they were concerned about it. That is why the women ran into the back room right away and locked themselves in.

Originally posted by Sonya610


The pharmacist clearly stated the kid started to lift his head. That is good enough for me! The bullestic experts can argue about powder residue and whether the kids head was raised during the first gut shot.

Think you meant "Ballistics Expert"! .....Maybe you were refering to yourself? "Bullistics Expert" sonya. LOL

Here's another spelling mistake for you. PharmaCYST. The man's an unstable old thug and a murderer.

Why not stay outside the premises and call the emergency services? Like any concerned and well adjusted adult would?

Originally posted by maya27
Think you meant "Ballistics Expert"! .....Maybe you were refering to yourself? "Bullistics Expert" sonya. LOL

Here's another spelling mistake for you. PharmaCYST. The man's an unstable old thug and a murderer.

Yes I realized I was mispelling ballistics but was too lazy to look it up.

Don't know where your "pharmacyst" comment is coming from.

I didn't actually expect someone to point out a minor spelling error. But I guess someone who would call a disabled veteran who works hard for a living instead of living off the system, or instead of robbing people for cash/drugs "an unstable old thug" would jump at the chance to be rude regardling spelling too!



[edit on 28-5-2009 by Sonya610]

I believe that there are two types of people when it comes to responding to threats. The first type is very passive, and will not respond even after they have been physically attacked or threatened. It's like in Fight Club, the members had a very hard time getting into a fight with people on the street because they were this passive type. Maybe this is a result of living in a society that mostly insulates us from any real evil, and so our instincts have been dulled. Try pushing someone on the street, and many will wonder what they did to deserve it, rather than fight back.

The second type of person is aggressive, and will smash your face in before you get a chance to raise your fist. This guy probably falls into this category, and who knows, perhaps he saved a few lives that day. Or maybe he didn't, we'll never know. One thing is certain, though, he had a right to defend himself.

Originally posted by Sonya610

Originally posted by maya27
Think you meant "Ballistics Expert"! .....Maybe you were refering to yourself? "Bullistics Expert" sonya. LOL

Here's another spelling mistake for you. PharmaCYST. The man's an unstable old thug and a murderer.

Yes I realized I was mispelling ballistics but was too lazy to look it up.

Don't know where your "pharmacyst" comment is coming from.

I didn't actually expect someone to point out a minor spelling error. But I guess someone who would call a disabled veteran who works hard for a living instead of living off the system, or instead of robbing people for cash/drugs "an unstable old thug" would jump at the chance to be rude regardling spelling too!



[edit on 28-5-2009 by Sonya610]

IRONY!!! Not surprised you didn't get it. Too busy being bloodthirsty and self-righteous, no doubt. I hope the darkness you live in lifts soon. Have a nice day.

This is very difficult.

I would say the first shot that hit was self defense. It's hard to tell but i thin after that the guy was down and didn't need 5 more pumped into him. On the other hand i can se one thing very clearly, i'm not sure that in this situation, with the adrenaline pumping and fearing for my life that i also wouldn't pump 5 more rounds into this pathetic piece of humanity. For all the people who take this as an easy situation and say they wouldn't have done the same, i would suggest you have not been in a similar situation. You maybe haven't had adrenaline pump through you and feared for your life. If you haven't had that then well, you have a very limited view on the whole thing.

All i can say is the guy went in to a place knowing the risks and the world isn't worse off without him.

[edit on 28-5-2009 by ImaginaryReality1984]

If you ever have to shoot in self defense, EMPTY YOUR CLIP into the perp. The head is a good place to empty it into. Also, don't go for the center of the head! If you do strike center, you are just performing an extremely sloppy and unnecessary epilepsy surgery.

Believe me, this makes a LOAD of difference in the self defense argument. Any less than full emptying of the clip and it is usually considered as a less than self defense urgency.

Someone scared for their life will usually not stop firing until the clip / drum is empty.

Not saying this applies here, but that logic might be incorporated into deliberation.

The same case if it had happened in Texas or Nevada would have never had charges against the pharmacist.

The laws in these two states are that if a group of robbers try to comment a robbery and one is armed all are deemed to be armed and anyone that is being robbed by them can shoot any or all of them.

If i own a business and have two robbers try to rob me both will get shot even if i see only one holding a gun. Because i would not know if there was a third robber ready to fire on me to keep my attention while the second robber went for his gun.
Better safe then dead.

reply to post by Atlantican

If you ever have to shoot in self defense, EMPTY YOUR CLIP into the perp.

Finally...

If you have to draw your gun, it is a deterent. If you feel you may have to fire, your finger goes from the slide to the trigger.

Once you feel that you must fire in defence, that is the moment that lethal force becomes involved. At that moment it is a lethal action. If I am ever in that situation and I feel that I must fire I will start with a doubletap in the chest. There is no requirement for someone using lethal force in self defence that they must try to "wing" the attacker. If I have to fire the only way you live is if you can withstand to bullets and you stay down. In that case I will immediatly make sure you are unarmed and call for an ambulance.

One thing I wanted to point out was that this is exactly what the cops will do. In this situation every cop on the scene would have emptied their clip into the robbers. And they would be praised for acting so swiftly and without hesitation.

I admit this guy may have seemed to cross the line back to the other side of self defence in the video, but it must be looked at from the point of view that he was in. The adrenalin of the robbery combined with shooting a human puts you in another place and stopping to pause and think if you really have to fire again just does not exist. I firmly believe that more lives have been saved because of this automatic and involutary fear adrenalene responce in humans. Again, countless police shootings have demonstrated this effect over and over.

My unchanging opinion is that here, in America, if you have chosen to commit an armed robbery against a business, home, or person. You have made a conscious decision to risk your life to attempt that robbery. You have chosen to play the odds in a game that truly is life and death.

You would think it would be the greatest deterent and the reason it's not is because a criminal is hoping that the people they are robbing will not be armed or will be afraid to use lethal force.

If you have to shot you fire till the perp goes down or you run out of ammo.

And if he tries to get up you fire again till the perp goes down or you run out of ammo.

Don't believe me just look at cops shooting suspects.

Many times 2 or 3 cops will empty there guns and reload before getting near a suspect that has aimed a gun at them.

Hey, didn't the government just pass a law saying that corporations could essentially be deputized to "fight crime" to their business? If I were the pharmacist, I'd go with that angle.

I've taken care of more than a few people who have been shot in the head and they could still be considered a threat even without a gun.

We had one belligerent drunk come in the E.R. complaining of a headache. Headaches are not a priority so he had to go sit and wait while we took care of more serious people. He got tired of waiting and started threatening people and throwing his weight around being quite threatening when one of the nurses noticed he had blood on the back of his head. Stupid drunk didn't even know he'd BEEN shot! (.25 caliber)

We had another guy get shot point blank range in the temple with a .38 and had the presence of mind to call 911, sit in a chair until the paramedics arrived, transfer himself to the gurney before passing out. He lived. Couldn't comprehend cartoons after basically getting a lead lobotomy but he lived and was ambulatory. He didn't have a gun when he got shot but I would have considered him a threat for not falling over dead as expected when shot in the head.

I posted a little while back about an unarmed guy on PCP that got shot in the head and heart and still managed to disarm a cop and kill him before his body finally gave out.

I so hope I get called for jury duty on this one.

Gotta figure when you're robbing people that they might not like it.

reply to post by whitewave


You have a point, we don't see the second robber and what he is doing on the floor.

The guy with the gun ran out of the store the second the owner drew his gun. (I bet he fired a shot, there is no audio apparently) The second (apparently) unarmed robber froze in fear and the owner got a shot off on him.

Now the kid is down and probably in a lot of pain not dead but in shock.

The store owner goes back into an office and retrieves a second gun. (remember he places the first gun on the counter) Maybe he fired off most of the rounds at the first robber outside. Comes in to find the second robber moving, goes to the back, grabs the second gun and unloads it on the second robber in frustration for not getting the gunman.

LOL, wuky. That's hardly the point I was making but thanks for lightening the news. You always make me laugh.

What I've gathered from reading the posts calling the pharmacist a murderer, it is obvious to me that none of you have ever had a gun pointed at you before. When a situation like this happens, adrenaline, fear and everything else takes over. Some people prefer to be pistol whipped and hope that they won't die if they do as they're told, while others who would rather not take that chance, will fight back. The man was not only protecting himself, but also his employees, he was on pure adrenaline. It's very cute that all of you seem to think that you can have a clear, logical mindset in this kind of situation. I think what he did was the right thing, and for those of you trying to demonize him need to quite being stupid and to get a life. Very easy to judge a situation you've never been in, weren't part of, and have no idea what you would do in that kind of situation of it happened to you.

Yeah, I am also of the opinion that the first shot was clearly enough to incapacitate the perp. The additional shots were over board.

reply to post by whitewave


Its no joke, someone died here. Yes he was up to no good. Probably deserved the first shot in my opinion. The question is now did someone deserve to die?



But in the video the following happens.

First off we got two employees and the owner in the frame, Business as usual.

Next, the gunman comes in with mask wearing a red T shirt faded blue jeans and dark colored shoes. Measuring proximately 5'10" in height and weighing about I'd say 165 lbs. African American, Age undetermined, but by the style of clothing worn, I would say 16-25 years of age.

The second the gunman brandished the weapon the store owner went to his office (probably to retrieve the gun) two clerks hid near the far end caps. (at this point the robber is stating his demands. (he wants the cash) then the store owner came out of his office to the row of merchandise, shoots the accomplice, hesitates (presumably to see if his employees are alright) then chases after the gunman out the door.

At this point we see a standard back brace being worn by the store owner. This may signify a mobility issue. I am unclear what the white rectangle attached to the owner is.

He runs out of the store, The employees are either still behind the end cap or moved to the office where the owner retrieved the gun used.

Several seconds go by without any noticeable input from the surveillance camera. The store owner comes back into the business (gun now empty from firing it at the gunman) goes behind the counter, retrieves the second gun, comes out, pumps more rounds into the accomplice and then calls (assuming) 911

This is what happens in the video, we have no testimony, we have no eye witness accounts off the street, We have a singular video. All the evidence we have to go on.

The second Robber is wearing darker pants and a white t shirt, same mask He goes down nearly as soon as the owner comes into the scene. We don't know if he even shot him at that point. (its presumed) In fact he may have not fired a shot at all until he left the store.



[edit on 5/29/2009 by whatukno]

This is crazy! It is obviously a case of self defense. Does anybody here have any idea how long a person can be in a state of shock after being involved in a situation like this? If I was being robbed at gunpoint and one shot to the head didn't do the job and I felt my life might be threatened I would shoot a few more rounds the next time.

Also, if you look at the positions of the of everybody the armed robber with a gun out seems to be moving around quite a bit. It looks like the pharmacist only had a clear shot at that one robber at the time. That explains why he shot that one and not the other.

Charging the pharmacist with murder is outrageous. It's strange how people watch the video and attempt to assess what the pharmacist should have done after the fact.

As hand-gun pro as I am - this pharmacist screwed up - IMO.

The first shot - justified.
The only mistake he made was not emptying his clip into the kid.

LEAVING the store - to come back in - and begin shooting again?
Murder...

It’s not self defense when you:
1. Stop the threat.
2. Leave the area.
3. Re-turn to the area - bring yourself back into harms way.

Sure, anyone can argue he was going back in to be a *hero* and make sure his co-workers are ok, only to see the kid move and begin shooting again - I hope that’s what will get him off the hook for murder.

I don’t want to see him go to jail over this kids idiocy.

But, IMO - he went way to far the second time and not far enough the first time.