• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Pharmacist shot at two would-be robbers, one dead

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: Ns1
yeah I still don't feel bad. Robber deserved every single bullet.


can't he plead temporary insanity like everybody else lol
Click to expand...

friend of mine served 10 years for exactly the same thing. he stopped a rapist from mounting his girlfriend, rapist pulled a gun so he shot him in the chest. guy dropped and quivered so he emptied the gun into him. if he had stopped at the first one that dropped him he wouldnt have been charged at all. he was in a rage at the time with his gf bloodied up and half nekkid. kid shouldnt have tried to rob the store, clerk shouldnt have come BACK and shot the corpse.
 
when i first heard this on the news i thought damn tahts fucked up. putting a guy in jail for defending his property and life? WTF kind of shit is that!?

then read that he went got a 2nd gun and shot the guy 5 more times.... yeah thats beyond what he should have done. i have no problems with the charges.
 
What good does putting the shooter in jail do?

Common purposes of criminal prosecution and incarceration include prevention of future similar crimes/warehousing, dissuasion, and punishment.

Prevention of him doing this again/warehousing: If someone's just dangerous, getting them off the streets can be good for society at large. I doubt this guy is a danger to society at large. A danger to dudes who try to rob him, sure, but I'm not about to incarcerate someone for that.

Dissuasion: Put someone in a life-threatening situation, so much so that shooting someone fatally is allowed under the law, get their adrenaline going, and I don't believe they'll pause and think about the possible legal consequences of their next move. I do not believe that making this sort of thing illegal will provide much by way of dissuasion.

Punishment: We see his actions as wrong and worthy of punishment. I put the blame on the robber in this case (or probably - I still haven't read the article). Set a crazy monkey off with criminal actions, and suffer the consequences. So I don't believe punishment is warranted.

Feel free to disagree with me, but at least do it intelligently. Some posters (*cough* FDF12389 *cough*) are playing age-old argumentative games.
 
Originally posted by: hanoverphist
Originally posted by: Ns1
yeah I still don't feel bad. Robber deserved every single bullet.


can't he plead temporary insanity like everybody else lol
Click to expand...

friend of mine served 10 years for exactly the same thing. he stopped a rapist from mounting his girlfriend, rapist pulled a gun so he shot him in the chest. guy dropped and quivered so he emptied the gun into him. if he had stopped at the first one that dropped him he wouldnt have been charged at all. he was in a rage at the time with his gf bloodied up and half nekkid. kid shouldnt have tried to rob the store, clerk shouldnt have come BACK and shot the corpse.
Click to expand...

If you're expecting me to feel bad, I don't.


Note to self: 1 shot, 1 kill. Must practice my COD4 skillz
 
Originally posted by: torpid
I see no problem here. The additional shots were barbaric.
Click to expand...

yet cops can get away with the same thing, unloading rounds into a person they suspect may be harmful to them.
 
Originally posted by: mwmorph
Originally posted by: Dirigible
Originally posted by: NFS4
Originally posted by: Dirigible
Originally posted by: DainBramaged
I just don't get why he did this. Everything was fine. Then he puts five more slugs in him? Was it out of anger? If so, yeah, he deserves to be charged.

This story is just crazy.
Click to expand...

Get in a life threatening situation and people don't do rational things. For example, if you are one of those dipshits trying to get away from the cops in a high-speed car chase, expect to get your ass beat once they catch you. It's time for the courts to recognize normal human behavior, even if such behavior isn't rational.

I haven't clicked on the link so have no idea if this is applicable here, but if you try to rob someone and put them in danger, you put into play a lot of human behavior like this. The robber is the source of this, not the person who goes batshit on the robber.

(And I consider myself a left-wing tree-hugging anti-gun liberal. Hah!)
Click to expand...
But in this case, he already shot the guy, and he was down. Then he WENT BACK and got ANOTHER gun and shot him five more times -- while he was already incapacitated. That's just fucked up no matter how you look at it.
Click to expand...

Fucked up, yes. I'd like to think I wouldn't do that, but by no means am I sure I wouldn't do something similar in a similar situation. Get the adrenaline pumping and even after the threat is removed it takes a while for normal people to act rationally. It's hard for me to blame the non-instigator in such a case.

In conclusion, people are crazy monkeys. The law does not acknowledge this.

Edit: Most people don't acknowledge this either.
Click to expand...

That is because it is not the law's job to acknowledge this. To an extent, the law can try to come around to you, for example in some states you can be charged with a crime of passion, but it does not excuse what you did.

If I got drunk and decided to light someone's house on fire, i would not be in the right state of mind, but it would still not be excusable in the eyes of the law.
Click to expand...

True, but the whole situation would be of your own causation. YOU got drunk.

In this case, the robber caused the situation and suffered the consequences.
 
Originally posted by: Venix
So maybe read the article and related links to find out?

Oklahoma County District Attorney David Prater said that Ersland was justified in shooting Antwun Parker once in the head. But Prater said Ersland went too far when he shot Parker five more times in the abdomen while Parker lay unconscious on the floor.

Had Ersland's first shot been fatal, he would not face charges under Oklahoma's Stand Your Ground Law, Prater said.

However, Prater said security video shows that Ersland chased the second man outside before returning then walked past Parker to get a second gun before going back to fire the fatal five rounds into Parker's abdomen.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Hope the pharmacist enjoys prison rape, because that security video means he's going to FPMITA prison.

:laugh:
 
Originally posted by: waggy
when i first heard this on the news i thought damn tahts fucked up. putting a guy in jail for defending his property and life? WTF kind of shit is that!?

then read that he went got a 2nd gun and shot the guy 5 more times.... yeah thats beyond what he should have done. i have no problems with the charges.
Click to expand...

After chasing the other guy out of the store (again, turning his back to the 'threat' on the floor) the Pharmacist had ample opportunities to get away from the situation & call cops, but yet returned to the store...putting himself in danger.

Then, TURNING HIS BACK to this 'threat' on the ground.

got keys from his pocket unlocked the drawer and then shot him 5 times.

Very hard to say this is self-defense.



 
Originally posted by: Modelworks
Originally posted by: Matthiasa
Wait, so they are saying the shots to the abdomen killed the kid and not the headshot? something?s not quit right with that.
Unless it was a large caliber the abdomen shots probably would have been more then survivable, assuming some amount of help was called in, that and if major veins and arteries weren?t hit.
Either way the headshot should have killed the person instantly.
Click to expand...


Head shots do not always kill, lots of people recover from head shots. Firing squads target the heart for a reason. It is the one place you can shoot people and they will always die.
Click to expand...

Well yeah if the person cant aim worth anything... there is a rather large area that can be hit there that will kill a person instantly. Its the odd time they live.

Oh, and shot placement for firing squads could shot almost anywhere to kill them if they wanted. Some places shoot the chest, or the head, or the neck... It really does depend.
 
a good lawyer will prove the kid was dead from the headshot and that his client was only guilty of shooting a dead body.
 
Originally posted by: Matthiasa
Originally posted by: Modelworks
Originally posted by: Matthiasa
Wait, so they are saying the shots to the abdomen killed the kid and not the headshot? something?s not quit right with that.
Unless it was a large caliber the abdomen shots probably would have been more then survivable, assuming some amount of help was called in, that and if major veins and arteries weren?t hit.
Either way the headshot should have killed the person instantly.
Click to expand...


Head shots do not always kill, lots of people recover from head shots. Firing squads target the heart for a reason. It is the one place you can shoot people and they will always die.
Click to expand...

Well yeah if the person cant aim worth anything... there is a rather large area that can be hit there that will kill a person instantly. Its the odd time they live.

Oh, and shot placement for firing squads could shot almost anywhere to kill them if they wanted. Some places shoot the chest, or the head, or the neck... It really does depend.
Click to expand...


Every firing squad I have ever heard of always pins a target over the heart and that is where they shoot. It is said to be more humane than lethal injection and may be coming back as the preferred method for the death penalty because it works so quickly and so well.

Professional snipers are trained to shoot for the heart as well. Or ask anyone who has been in the military. You always aim for center mass because getting a killing head shot is difficult and uncertain.

Or go hunting sometime. When hunting deer we never aim for the head, always for the heart because death is certain.


 
Originally posted by: Modelworks
Originally posted by: Matthiasa
Originally posted by: Modelworks
Originally posted by: Matthiasa
Wait, so they are saying the shots to the abdomen killed the kid and not the headshot? something?s not quit right with that.
Unless it was a large caliber the abdomen shots probably would have been more then survivable, assuming some amount of help was called in, that and if major veins and arteries weren?t hit.
Either way the headshot should have killed the person instantly.
Click to expand...


Head shots do not always kill, lots of people recover from head shots. Firing squads target the heart for a reason. It is the one place you can shoot people and they will always die.
Click to expand...

Well yeah if the person cant aim worth anything... there is a rather large area that can be hit there that will kill a person instantly. Its the odd time they live.

Oh, and shot placement for firing squads could shot almost anywhere to kill them if they wanted. Some places shoot the chest, or the head, or the neck... It really does depend.
Click to expand...


Every firing squad I have ever heard of always pins a target over the heart and that is where they shoot. It is said to be more humane than lethal injection and may be coming back as the preferred method for the death penalty because it works so quickly and so well.

Professional snipers are trained to shoot for the heart as well. Or ask anyone who has been in the military. You always aim for center mass because getting a killing head shot is difficult and uncertain.

Or go hunting sometime. When hunting deer we never aim for the head, always for the heart because death is certain.
Click to expand...

yeap. when i took a hunting course and they repeat a ton of times the shot you should take and to avoid head shots.

the best is a side shot where you can get both lungs and the heart.
 
Yep, the shop owner is hosed.

I wouldn't call it "murder" as much as manslaughter. There is an arguable case of extreme emotional distress here.

I would bet money this gets pled down to manslaughter unless he's foolish enough to stand his ground and go to trial.
 
Originally posted by: Modelworks
Originally posted by: Matthiasa
Wait, so they are saying the shots to the abdomen killed the kid and not the headshot? something?s not quit right with that.
Unless it was a large caliber the abdomen shots probably would have been more then survivable, assuming some amount of help was called in, that and if major veins and arteries weren?t hit.
Either way the headshot should have killed the person instantly.
Click to expand...


Head shots do not always kill, lots of people recover from head shots. Firing squads target the heart for a reason. It is the one place you can shoot people and they will always die.
Click to expand...

And I thought they just wanted to leave a prettier corpse.

Ya, messed up. No issue with murder charges. If he killed him with the first shot, that would have been fine.
 
IMO, the guy went beyond what would be considered "defense" in this.

I have no issue with the "BOOM! HEADSHOT!" part of this, but going back, getting another pistol and shooting the guy 5 more times...I hope he has fun in PMITA prison...especially when "BUBBA" finds out what he did to a brutha...
 
IMO the surviving accomplice and getaway driver should be charged with 1st degree murder and the pharmacist should be let go or charged with manslaughter (and acquitted).
 
Originally posted by: JS80
IMO the surviving accomplice and getaway driver should be charged with 1st degree murder and the pharmacist should be let go or charged with manslaughter (and acquitted).
Click to expand...

I believe most states have a law on the book that if anyone is killed during a commission of a felony you participated in, you can be charged with their death, even if you didn't kill them.

Correct me if I'm wrong here...
 
Originally posted by: JS80
IMO the surviving accomplice and getaway driver should be charged with 1st degree murder and the pharmacist should be let go or charged with manslaughter (and acquitted).
Click to expand...

personally i hope he goes to jail. I don't have a issue with him shooting the guy the first time. i do have issue with him getting a 2nd gun and shooting him while he was unconscious.

this was not a case of "oh i thought he was going to get up and i was scared" he left the building and came back in and got in a drawer and got the 2nd gun. he had plenty of time to call the cops and move to protection.

 
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: JS80
IMO the surviving accomplice and getaway driver should be charged with 1st degree murder and the pharmacist should be let go or charged with manslaughter (and acquitted).
Click to expand...

I believe most states have a law on the book that if anyone is killed during a commission of a felony you participated in, you can be charged with their death, even if you didn't kill them.

Correct me if I'm wrong here...
Click to expand...

You're correct.

I also agree with manslaughter for the shooter (if anything) and murder for the accomplice.
 
Originally posted by: Dirigible
What good does putting the shooter in jail do?

Common purposes of criminal prosecution and incarceration include prevention of future similar crimes/warehousing, dissuasion, and punishment.

Prevention of him doing this again/warehousing: If someone's just dangerous, getting them off the streets can be good for society at large. I doubt this guy is a danger to society at large. A danger to dudes who try to rob him, sure, but I'm not about to incarcerate someone for that.

Dissuasion: Put someone in a life-threatening situation, so much so that shooting someone fatally is allowed under the law, get their adrenaline going, and I don't believe they'll pause and think about the possible legal consequences of their next move. I do not believe that making this sort of thing illegal will provide much by way of dissuasion.

Punishment: We see his actions as wrong and worthy of punishment. I put the blame on the robber in this case (or probably - I still haven't read the article). Set a crazy monkey off with criminal actions, and suffer the consequences. So I don't believe punishment is warranted.

Feel free to disagree with me, but at least do it intelligently. Some posters (*cough* FDF12389 *cough*) are playing age-old argumentative games.
Click to expand...

You are wrong. Fortunately the law agrees with me and not you. How much time should be allowed for someone to act like a complete maniac? Five minutes? Ten? Thirty?

The pharmacist had ample opportunity to leave the scene and get help. He CHOSE to go back to the scene, get another gun, walk over to the incapacitated person on the floor, and kill him for no reason (and no, being a "crazy monkey" is not a valid defense in the eyes of the law).

 
This man is not a cop. He is not trained for stressful situations. He was presented with a life threatening situation and he responded. To charge him with murder is foolish and ridiculous. Everyone knows this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top