Pharmacist shot at two would-be robbers, one dead

[FDF12389]

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.

Oh the irony.............

So basically, what your saying is, we aren't responsible for our actions under extreme circumstances? I disagree, he's a highly educated adult and needs to control himself and make rational decisions even under those circumstances. If he cannot then lock him up.

 

[Ns1]

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: slsmnaz
a good lawyer will prove the kid was dead from the headshot and that his client was only guilty of shooting a dead body.

An autopsy would determine whether the kid was dead before or after the shots to the abdomen. Though he may have been alive, he may have been dying. I'm not sure if that would make a difference in the eyes of the law, but I'm sure a medical expert could tell you if the head wound would have been fatal.

regardless...it's intent.

I don't understand why people feel the need to defend those in clear violation of the laws.

This is why our guns are being taken away

You mean like the punk that decided to rob the guy in the first place?

(btw, I get your point, I'm just sayin)

 

[Dirigible]

Originally posted by: FDF12389

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.

Oh the irony.............

So basically, what your saying is, we aren't responsible for our actions under extreme circumstances? I disagree, he's a highly educated adult and needs to control himself and make rational decisions even under those circumstances. If he cannot then lock him up.

Hehe, you're doing it again. Putting words in my mouth I didn't say, and arguing against yourself.

 

[OCGuy]

One less thug. Give that man a key to the city.

 

[shiner]

Originally posted by: Phokus

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).

Ah yes, the idiot republican position.

You really need to get a new act.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: shiner

Originally posted by: Phokus

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).

Ah yes, the idiot republican position.

You really need to get a new act.

well its better then his new republican.txt he been doing.

 

[shiner]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: shiner

Originally posted by: Phokus

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).

Ah yes, the idiot republican position.

You really need to get a new act.

well its better then his new republican.txt he been doing.

Maybe, but he really has become the Bizarro Texmaster

 

[FDF12389]

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.

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!)

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.

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.

Originally posted by: Dirigible

Originally posted by: FDF12389

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.

Oh the irony.............

So basically, what your saying is, we aren't responsible for our actions under extreme circumstances? I disagree, he's a highly educated adult and needs to control himself and make rational decisions even under those circumstances. If he cannot then lock him up.

Hehe, you're doing it again. Putting words in my mouth I didn't say, and arguing against yourself.

Read both your posts, first the one that says:

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.

Then read:

I put the blame on the robber in this case

So I don't believe punishment is warranted.

I'll repeat:

So basically, what your saying is, we aren't responsible for our actions under extreme circumstances? I disagree, he's a highly educated adult and needs to control himself and make rational decisions even under those circumstances. If he cannot then lock him up.

 

[Mide]

Although it may've been a tad bit overkill...I don't think he should be charged with actual murder...perhaps a fine or something. It's not like he deserves to be sitting in jail because some asshole decided to break the law.

 

[Matthiasa]

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: Matthiasa
However, if the head and more importantly the brain is hit, the result is almost always death.

plus that booming voice in the background saying "HEADSHOT!" is a plus.

You might want to get that checked out, hearing voices is bad.:Q

But seriously, I'm just saying that he was most likely dead before the other shots were fired, in which case it was little more than a waste of ammo.
Though shooting some kids like that was probably obsessive, since I don?t recall the article stating they had weapons.

 

[BoomerD]

It sounds like the guy was frustrated that he didn't catch the OTHER robber, so went back and pumped a few more rounds into the one he did catch.

"Take that you fucking bastard!"

 

[SirStev0]

I have a buddy in Med School who's cousin got put away on similar circumstances. By that I mean, he shot and killed a mugger in self defense. The Judge just didn't like the fact that he emptied a clip and then reloaded and fired off a few more rounds.

I have no problem with his first shot. I personally think a responsible gun owner wouldn't have made those extra shots. One to the head and the guy is down. No need to keep firing.

 

[PepePeru]

Originally posted by: Matthiasa

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: Matthiasa
However, if the head and more importantly the brain is hit, the result is almost always death.

plus that booming voice in the background saying "HEADSHOT!" is a plus.

You might want to get that checked out, hearing voices is bad.:Q

But seriously, I'm just saying that he was most likely dead before the other shots were fired, in which case it was little more than a waste of ammo.
Though shooting some kids like that was probably obsessive, since I don?t recall the article stating they had weapons.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news...527_298_0_OKLAHO764741

the one that ran had a pistol

"Jacobson said the suspect who ran away from the pharmacy was armed, but no gun was found near Parker."

"He said an autopsy determined that Parker had been shot in the head, but was still alive when he was shot in the stomach area and died from those injuries."

 

[randalee]

I am all for concealed carry and defending yourself. The threat was stopped -- he should be tried? You bet. Let a jury hear the case. I don't know his state of mind, but from what I watched, he went WAY TOO FAR.

Was the guy getting up and coming at him again? If so, I would think it would be justified. It didn't appear he was, so pharmacist needs to own up to his actions. Whether under duress or not, he still needs to own up.

 

[Matthiasa]

Ah I should have read more then just the begining of it then, but still only takes a shot or two to take somoene down.

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: torpid
I see no problem here. The additional shots were barbaric.

Yeah wtf,
one round to the head is sufficient.

 

[videogames101]

Originally posted by: FDF12389

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.

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!)

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.

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.

Originally posted by: Dirigible

Originally posted by: FDF12389

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.

Oh the irony.............

So basically, what your saying is, we aren't responsible for our actions under extreme circumstances? I disagree, he's a highly educated adult and needs to control himself and make rational decisions even under those circumstances. If he cannot then lock him up.

Hehe, you're doing it again. Putting words in my mouth I didn't say, and arguing against yourself.

Read both your posts, first the one that says:

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.

Then read:

I put the blame on the robber in this case

So I don't believe punishment is warranted.

I'll repeat:

So basically, what your saying is, we aren't responsible for our actions under extreme circumstances? I disagree, he's a highly educated adult and needs to control himself and make rational decisions even under those circumstances. If he cannot then lock him up.

No, the robber would probably have died anyways, and it was humane to shoot him. I don't' think the extra shots are a crime, whether the guy was rational or not.

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: theflyingpig
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.

WAT?

How is grabbing a second gun and shooting an UNCONSCIOUS person in any way justifiable? You're a nutjob...

The argument that "he would've died anyway" is speculative at best. That's like saying me stealing someone's sportbike is doing them a favor, because they would likely kill themselves on it.

 

[PlasmaBomb]

Originally posted by: Pepsei
Pharmacist Jerome Ersland shot at the two would-be robbers. Ersland fatally shot 16-year-old Antwun Parker and the second suspect was able to safely flee the scene.

Ouch 5 rounds into the incapacitated body is harsh.

 

[octopus41092]

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.

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!)

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.

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.

It's not defense after the robber is incapacitated. I think he should get charged with murder. I mean, seriously, that's fucked up. I can understand shooting him the first time and maybe even once or twice after the dude's down just to make sure... but FIVE times and ANOTHER gun?

 

[SarcasticDwarf]

Originally posted by: octopus41092

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.

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!)

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.

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.

It's not defense after the robber is incapacitated. I think he should get charged with murder. I mean, seriously, that's fucked up. I can understand shooting him the first time and maybe even once or twice after the dude's down just to make sure... but FIVE times and ANOTHER gun?

By that reason most police officers who have killed anyone in the line of duty are also guilty. Is it necessary to shoot someone 30 times? Hell no, but police do it all the time.

 

[DayLaPaul]

Sorry, but you can't murder the dead. If he can prove that the first head shot killed the robber, I think the most he should be charged with is desecration of a corpse.

 

[DayLaPaul]

Here is a better link with comments from the DA. He says the first head shot was justified, everything after was not.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,522461,00.html

I think the pharmacist has a solid defense here on the murder charge. The coroner will be able to determine if the initial head shot was fatal or not and if so, he has a pretty solid defense. Even if the coroner says the shot wasn't fatal, I'm sure the defense will be able to conjure up some expert witnesses with a different opinion. The outcome of this case will be very interesting.

 

[jlee]

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf
By that reason most police officers who have killed anyone in the line of duty are also guilty. Is it necessary to shoot someone 30 times? Hell no, but police do it all the time.

let's see - shoot someone, go get another gun, go back and shoot some more?

Really?

Link?

 

[FDF12389]

Originally posted by: DayLaPaul
Here is a better link with comments from the DA. He says the first head shot was justified, everything after was not.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,522461,00.html

I think the pharmacist has a solid defense here on the murder charge. The coroner will be able to determine if the initial head shot was fatal or not and if so, he has a pretty solid defense. Even if the coroner says the shot wasn't fatal, I'm sure the defense will be able to conjure up some expert witnesses with a different opinion. The outcome of this case will be very interesting.

They have already stated that he was alive when the five shots were fired, the only question is whether or not the first shot would have been fatal with the absence of the other shots, but its still murder either way.