Pharmacist who killed robber guilty of murder

[Ns1]

People should stop robbing pharmacies if they don't want to get killed.

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

Some of you guys need to watch the video

- Retrieved his revolver
- Shot the first robber
- Ran outside of his store and chased after the second fleeing robber
- Came back to the store, calmly reloaded his revolver and walked over and finished off the first robber

That's playing judge jury and executioner thats murder

i don't see any problem here.
don't want to get shot and killed? don't rob anyone.

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

Let me say I HATE fucking thieves, but you shouldn't be using deadly force if you are not threatened. The problem with the people advocating the murder, is that you are going on emotion. Yeah it pisses me off to no end when someone steals, but in the end it is just material goods. What do most people say when someone gets into a car wreck? 'We can get another car as long as you are ok' People are more important than 'stuff'. Put it another way, would you be comfortable with judges handing out death sentences for burglary? Emotionally, I am on the pharmacists side, but by the laws we have to live by in a society you can't do what he did.

really? i mean, really?
comparing premeditated robbery with a car accident.
i mean, really???

 

[BudAshes]

meh, I don't see the problem. What use is an idiot with a bullet in his head anyway? Just finish him off and let the world move on. Maybe i'm just feeling harsh right now...

 

[SphinxnihpS]

ok, i finally read the article fully. and yes, i agree going back to shoot maybe a bit excessive. I got worked up about reading the first couple of sentences that someone defending themselves from armed intruders is probably gonna end up in jail for a very long time...

Well I am glad you have come to your senses. I am a gun advocate and think anyone has the right to protect themselves, but this guy clearly and coldly executed someone long after the threat had disappeared. I think that if what was said is true about the store being repeatedly robbed, then that should have some mitigating influence on the sentencing, but in looking at the video, I think it's clear the police, DA, and the jury made the correct call here.

 

[SphinxnihpS]

People should stop robbing pharmacies if they don't want to get killed.

Watch the video and come back and tell me with a straight face you are OK with this guy...:'(

 

[JS80]

Nope, I worked at a liquor store and was robbed at gun point, as the robber was fleeing I grabbed our pistol, just in case he came back. When the police showed and saw the pistol I told them what I did. They said it's good I didn't shoot him as he was leaving because I probably would have ended up in prison since I was no longer in danger. his life was no longer in danger so it's 1st degree murder, the extra shots just seal the deal.

It's not that hard to get away with shooting a robber in the back. Just claim he turned his head and you thought he was going to shoot you while he was running away.

 

[alkemyst]

I am very glad that a number of you do not write the laws and thankful that jury instructions are available for criminal trials.

There is some horrificly bad legal analysis in this thread and some very weak moral rationalizations as well.

First of all, someone said that they didn't enter the store with the intent to kill. Ever heard of felony murder? If not, read up.

Next, in every state that I am aware of, lethal force is only available to meet the same. Once you are no longer in jeapordy and you use lethal force, your are criminally liable for your actions. Also, lethal force /= any force (lesser force is so much easier to justify). And finally, in many states you have a duty to retreat if at all possible. This guy used lethal force on an unarmed kid, which probably would have been fine because his accomplice was armed, but the kid ceased being a threat the minute he went down. And, the armed kid ran, thereby REMOVING ALL THREATS OF LETHAL FORCE. Then the pharmacist went for a vengence kill. It's that simple.

I suspect that the pharmacist's lawyer argued that his actions were a continuation of the heat of the moment but lost because the threat had abated and 5 damn shots with another gun. If he had spazzed out and immediately pumped 6 rounds into the Parker kid, without stopping, he probably could have pled it down to 2nd degree. Manslaughter does not apply here. He used lethal force with specifc intent.

And from a moral standpoint, that is some cold blooded shit. I have quite a temper myself when my family/friends are threatened, but landing a likely lethal shot on another man and then having even a few seconds to think about it would probably floor me. It doesnt matter how depraved the indivdual is (and this was a dumb kid)... a decent person's anger would be overcome by the horror of what happened and the desire to see to everyone else's safety. A decent person would have called the cops, even if he felt the need to keep a gun trained on a young kid who was bleeding out on the floor from a probably fatal head shot.

Finally, it is good that the two guys who put the kids up to this were convicted as well. The mom calling her son a hero is a bit much. Being a hero would have been standing up to the two dickwads who put him up to it. If he had died or been hurt resisting their compulsion, "hero" would have been justified.

There is way too much bloodlust on this thread. I suspect it is from a bunch of people who have never seen death or much violence either. It is a horrible, horrible thing. Only the most depraved are not scarred by it. To so gleefully and enthusiastically applaud the pharmacist in this situation is disturbing, to say the least. I think most of it is internet bravado and some repressed anger.

brandishing a gun is never a defensive move. It's always offensive. With any gun shot wound the potential is death.

Go back in play in your sandbox.

 

[alkemyst]

It's not that hard to get away with shooting a robber in the back. Just claim he turned his head and you thought he was going to shoot you while he was running away.

doesn't work that easy.

You can jump at the last minute too if you are falling off a building and just walk away.

 

[Bird222]

I would guess that most car wrecks are not deliberate. Robbery is deliberate and society needs fewer of these people.

The point was people are more valuable than 'stuff' whether accidentally or deliberately lost.

 

[Raduque]

Antwun Parker's Mom Says Son's A 'Hero'

Apparently getting shot in the face when trying to rob someone by gunpoint makes you a hero 🙄

Maybe she meant to say "an Hero*?

The jury exhibited an emotional reaction to the secondary shots fired by the victim. This will be appealed and I hope the victim is found not guilty.

The laws in most places are fairly clear on this. Shooting somebody FIVE MORE TIMES while they're already incapacitated is very clearly "Excessive Force" and it transitions from "Self Defense" to "Murder", especially if you LEAVE AND COME BACK LATER to fire those shots. It'd be entirely different I'm sure if the guy had popped off 5 to the kids chest before he even fell. Of course, his biggest failing was not destroying the security camera tapes if he really wanted to get away with it.

*NOT SAFE FOR WORK AT ALL

 

[Lithium381]

People should stop robbing pharmacies if they don't want to get killed.

This. In our society we are making excuses for everyone....somehow it's not the kids responsibility for making bad decisions...? He's a hero? When brandishing a gun in a threatening manner, you are asking for it. The first rule of gun ownership is "never point the gun at something you don't intend to destroy". If that gun was pointed at someone, the Rx had every reason to belieive they would use it. I say the first shot was justified.....after that he did indeed go overboard. 1st degree? I don't know....

Reminds me about that story maybe 5 years ago the two teenagers tried to hold up a man as he was about to enter his house....they put a gun to his chest and said "give me your money" he said "sure hold on" and instead of pulling his wallet, he pulled his gun and shot them. The community was "outraged" saying it wasn't neccessary to kill them, he should have just given them his wallet and the two young boys lives wouldn't have been wasted....
I hate to say it, but they had it coming.

 

[Binarycow]

Like I said a few posts earlier, I don't really give a flying turd about the legality of the whole thing. All I know is that now when I and other law-abiders venture to that part of town, statistically, it is a tiny bit safer because of what that pharmacist did. Kill enough of them and that just might get the message through their lazy-stupid heads.

Just about 2-3 weeks ago within a couple of miles of that place two different pieces of shit ambushed an off-duty cop who worked as a security and shot his eye out just to rob him of his money deposit bag.

http://newsok.com/suspect-in-deputy...article/3570596?custom_click=headlines_widget

Think of me however you will, pieces of shit like this deserve to die (however that gets carried out) in my book.

 

[LumbergTech]

I am very glad that a number of you do not write the laws and thankful that jury instructions are available for criminal trials.

There is some horrificly bad legal analysis in this thread and some very weak moral rationalizations as well.

First of all, someone said that they didn't enter the store with the intent to kill. Ever heard of felony murder? If not, read up.

Next, in every state that I am aware of, lethal force is only available to meet the same. Once you are no longer in jeapordy and you use lethal force, your are criminally liable for your actions. Also, lethal force /= any force (lesser force is so much easier to justify). And finally, in many states you have a duty to retreat if at all possible. This guy used lethal force on an unarmed kid, which probably would have been fine because his accomplice was armed, but the kid ceased being a threat the minute he went down. And, the armed kid ran, thereby REMOVING ALL THREATS OF LETHAL FORCE. Then the pharmacist went for a vengence kill. It's that simple.

I suspect that the pharmacist's lawyer argued that his actions were a continuation of the heat of the moment but lost because the threat had abated and 5 damn shots with another gun. If he had spazzed out and immediately pumped 6 rounds into the Parker kid, without stopping, he probably could have pled it down to 2nd degree. Manslaughter does not apply here. He used lethal force with specifc intent.

And from a moral standpoint, that is some cold blooded shit. I have quite a temper myself when my family/friends are threatened, but landing a likely lethal shot on another man and then having even a few seconds to think about it would probably floor me. It doesnt matter how depraved the indivdual is (and this was a dumb kid)... a decent person's anger would be overcome by the horror of what happened and the desire to see to everyone else's safety. A decent person would have called the cops, even if he felt the need to keep a gun trained on a young kid who was bleeding out on the floor from a probably fatal head shot.

Finally, it is good that the two guys who put the kids up to this were convicted as well. The mom calling her son a hero is a bit much. Being a hero would have been standing up to the two dickwads who put him up to it. If he had died or been hurt resisting their compulsion, "hero" would have been justified.

There is way too much bloodlust on this thread. I suspect it is from a bunch of people who have never seen death or much violence either. It is a horrible, horrible thing. Only the most depraved are not scarred by it. To so gleefully and enthusiastically applaud the pharmacist in this situation is disturbing, to say the least. I think most of it is internet bravado and some repressed anger.

its quite simple..if you threaten me with a gun..i hope you die

 

[Lithium381]

The point was people are more valuable than 'stuff' whether accidentally or deliberately lost.

IMO the Rx didn't make that decision, the kids did when they entered the pharmacy with a gun. They calculated the risk vs payoff value to be positive.
Risk our lives by trying to rob people with a gun vs $300

They made the decision.

 

[drebo]

I don't care. That was excessive use of force. There was no threat.

If you can't control yourself, maybe you shouldn't have a gun.

Fucking hoodlums shouldn't break into stores, waving guns if they don't want to get shot. Period.

The pharmacist should be given a fucking medal.

 

[Bird222]

Think of me however you will, pieces of shit like this deserve to die (however that gets carried out) in my book.

So you would be fine then with judges handing out death sentences for theft. However, I think most of society would think that was cruel and unusual punishment and be unconstitutional.

 

[Binarycow]

So you would be fine then with judges handing out death sentences for theft. However, I think most of society would think that was cruel and unusual punishment and be unconstitutional.

theft or robbery with intent to kill? I hope you know the difference between the two.

 

[LumbergTech]

So you would be fine then with judges handing out death sentences for theft. However, I think most of society would think that was cruel and unusual punishment and be unconstitutional.

that really isn't equivalent to this situation at all...the criminals did not just wave a gun in a a judge's face a few minutes before the trial

 

[alkemyst]

Like I said a few posts earlier, I don't really give a flying turd about the legality of the whole thing. All I know is that now when I and other law-abiders venture to that part of town, statistically, it is a tiny bit safer because of what that pharmacist did. Kill enough of them and that just might get the message through their lazy-stupid heads.

Just about 2-3 weeks ago within a couple of miles of that place two different pieces of shit ambushed an off-duty cop who worked as a security and shot his eye out just to rob him of his money deposit bag.

http://newsok.com/suspect-in-deputy...article/3570596?custom_click=headlines_widget

Think of me however you will, pieces of shit like this deserve to die (however that gets carried out) in my book.

We have had 'bump and robs' here where a crook rear ends someone and when they get out to check damages they shoot and rob the person. They caught 5 people doing this in the last two weeks. IMHO your best bet today is to kill whoever is pulling a gun on you.

 

[LumbergTech]

I do feel bad that the kid died, but he made an incredibly stupid mistake to threaten someone's life for at most a few hundred dollars. If I threaten someone's life for money then I would expect that they might try to kill me. I don't really see it as abnormal at all.

 

[soulcougher73]

Yeah he went a bit overboard. Throw the book at him. And im for self defense and guns.

 

[alkemyst]

I can see if this was two neighbors in a dispute and one pulled a gun and the other overcame him.

Being this was a totally violent crime from the start, I don't have much sympathy in creating an even playing field for the criminals.

The only way I can see someone doing that is 1) they are a bleeding heart and feel criminals are forced into their situations or 2) they see themselves in those shoes one day and want the law on their side when they decide to rip someone off.

Already most violent crime ends in a suspended sentence and probation/house arrest.

If they bring a gun out they know most places have 10-20-life type laws in place so it's best just to merk the target.

 

[Ns1]

Watch the video and come back and tell me with a straight face you are OK with this guy...:'(

if you want me to feel bad for the other guy I'm not going to.

 

[LumbergTech]

I can see if this was two neighbors in a dispute and one pulled a gun and the other overcame him.

Being this was a totally violent crime from the start, I don't have much sympathy in creating an even playing field for the criminals.

The only way I can see someone doing that is 1) they are a bleeding heart and feel criminals are forced into their situations or 2) they see themselves in those shoes one day and want the law on their side when they decide to rip someone off.

Already most violent crime ends in a suspended sentence and probation/house arrest.

If they bring a gun out they know most places have 10-20-life type laws in place so it's best just to merk the target.

I am somewhat of a bleeding heart, but I don't think that the pharmacist should have to worry about why someone is threatening him with a gun before he deals with it.