Killing Stirs Debate of Vigilante Justice

[Armed Eastsider]

No wonder criminals laugh at us in this country. We have let them take over. They can do whatever the hell they want, and our government allows it. It is baffling.

 

[Bigum1969]

An all time thread resurrection...

 

[jsharmon7]

An all time thread resurrection...

Yeah? Well you started it!

 

[Bond 281]

No wonder criminals laugh at us in this country. We have let them take over. They can do whatever the hell they want, and our government allows it. It is baffling.

Yeah there's just no way that guy should have been convicted. We're on our way to becoming the next UK where it's illegal to defend yourself.

 

[96firephoenix]

fuuuuuuuu....

I didn't read the date stamp.

 

[E5RANGER375]

the pharmacist now wishes he had been a cop. he would be drinking vodka in his police cruiser by now.

 

[Steeler]

the pharmacist now wishes he had been a cop. he would be drinking vodka in his police cruiser by now.

SO TRUE!

 

[theweakerbrother]

I just need to get my facts straight.

A man was robbed at gunpoint, he retaliated by ending the threat until it stopped moving and he gets life in prison.

Bisard gets loaded on the job, his a few motorcyclists, murders one of them because of wrecklessness and gets paid leave.

SWAT teams bust down doors at the wrong house, shoot a man about 50 times and no one is punished because he had some pants that looked like police uniform pants (how many of you tacticool types have 5.11 pants?)?

Just keeping score here.

 

[E5RANGER375]

I just need to get my facts straight.

A man was robbed at gunpoint, he retaliated by ending the threat until it stopped moving and he gets life in prison.

Bisard gets loaded on the job, his a few motorcyclists, murders one of them because of wrecklessness and gets paid leave.

SWAT teams bust down doors at the wrong house, shoot a man about 50 times and no one is punished because he had some pants that looked like police uniform pants (how many of you tacticool types have 5.11 pants?)?

Just keeping score here.

im screwed if they ever accidentally pick my house

 

[mrjarrell]

I just need to get my facts straight.

A man was robbed at gunpoint, he retaliated by ending the threat until it stopped moving and he gets life in prison.

Bisard gets loaded on the job, his a few motorcyclists, murders one of them because of wrecklessness and gets paid leave.

SWAT teams bust down doors at the wrong house, shoot a man about 50 times and no one is punished because he had some pants that looked like police uniform pants (how many of you tacticool types have 5.11 pants?)?

Just keeping score here.

Actually, he didn't have any tacticool pants that they listed. He had a Border Patrol cap, (available via Amazon and other places), which they confiscated.

 

[Kutnupe14]

He was the victim of a crime who was shooting his assailant. You're the representative of the state, there to enforce the law. Victims get leeway. If it was you with a gun stuck in your face that you didn't ask for, if you were the actual victim and did that, then you'd get that leeway for being the victim. But showing up as the agent of the state, then no. You don't get to execute people on behalf of the state.

Are you really trying to make this into some sort of trollish hypocrisy that it isn't?

I wouldn't want the leeway. If I stop the threat, it ends there. There's no need to walk calmly back and put another bullet to kill a person if the threat has been stopped. Summary execution is not a right that should be extended to anyone, LEO or not. If the Pharm can articulate the need to finish off the guy sprawled out on the floor, fine "not guilty." If he can't, he needs to go to jail.
For the responsible gun owner, firearms are meant to defend no kill. There no way anyone can possibly believe that a man that shoots one teen, then chases out another, then returns, walks past the teen still on the ground, grabs another gun, and puts FIVE more bullets in him, as being anywhere remotely close to defense.
Here, I'll put it to you this way. If I, a LEO, was at the back of the store, and saw this situation go down. I'd think "good for him," until he walked behind the counter and to retrieve another weapon to finish off the guy. As soon as he would have pointed the weapon at the defenseless person on the floor, at that point the Pharm would be the threat, and if needbe I would use deadly force to stop him... minus the finishing off.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Yeah there's just no way that guy should have been convicted. We're on our way to becoming the next UK where it's illegal to defend yourself.

Explain to me how you "defense" is needed for an injured person on the floor that has been walked by the victim twice?

Seriously, it's scary the logic being applied here.

 

[Armed Eastsider]

Explain to me how you "defense" is needed for an injured person on the floor that has been walked by the victim twice?

Seriously, it's scary the logic being applied here.

Whats to say the bad guy didnt have a gun still on his person? How was the pharmacist supposed to know the guy wasnt still armed?

 

[Kutnupe14]

Whats to say the bad guy didnt have a gun still on his person? How was the pharmacist supposed to know the guy wasnt still armed?

Call me crazy, but a person that may still be armed, isn't a guy you walk past a couple of times. The Pharms actions weren't tactical noobery (new word!), he knew that guy on the ground was no longer a threat. But as I'm sure someone will point out, I wasn't there how could I know?

 

[BBill]

Bottom line-he was there to rob and maybe kill. If he was to survive he could possibly go after him for revenge or sue for lost "wages". As usual the victim is now the bad guy. He should have made sure he was dead immediately. He got what he had coming to him.

 

[femurphy77]

When I saw the original video I knew this guy was hosed! I agree with the sentiment of what he did, but it wasn't right. I wouldn't have made it past the interviewing of the potential jurors if I had seen the video first though so it wouldn't have fallen to me to judge.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Bottom line-he was there to rob and maybe kill. If he was to survive he could possibly go after him for revenge or sue for lost "wages". As usual the victim is now the bad guy. He should have made sure he was dead immediately. He got what he had coming to him.

Possibilities don't carry death sentence... You know what, I could even allow for the Pharm to pump a few rounds in the kid as he went out the door the first time, but going past 2 times, changing weapons, and then killing off a helpless, albeit scumbag, person.... nope, no way.

 

[Armed Eastsider]

OK then the pharmacist did it just to wipe a piece of crap off the face of the earth. I remind you he did not choose to be in this situation and his adrenaline had to be pumping.


JURY NULLIFICATION

 

[jbombelli]

I wouldn't want the leeway. If I stop the threat, it ends there. There's no need to walk calmly back and put another bullet to kill a person if the threat has been stopped. Summary execution is not a right that should be extended to anyone, LEO or not. If the Pharm can articulate the need to finish off the guy sprawled out on the floor, fine "not guilty." If he can't, he needs to go to jail.
For the responsible gun owner, firearms are meant to defend no kill. There no way anyone can possibly believe that a man that shoots one teen, then chases out another, then returns, walks past the teen still on the ground, grabs another gun, and puts FIVE more bullets in him, as being anywhere remotely close to defense.
Here, I'll put it to you this way. If I, a LEO, was at the back of the store, and saw this situation go down. I'd think "good for him," until he walked behind the counter and to retrieve another weapon to finish off the guy. As soon as he would have pointed the weapon at the defenseless person on the floor, at that point the Pharm would be the threat, and if needbe I would use deadly force to stop him... minus the finishing off.

IF you don't want that leeway, then WTF are you whining about?

I give leeway when people are acting under extreme emotional strain and adrenaline in response to being attacked. Extreme emotion and adrenaline, combined with the knowledge that you're about to die, will make people do things they'd never ordinarily do. Finish off the bad guy? Fine. I'll vote to acquit, unless you're not the victim. As I said before, victims get leeway. Cops don't, unless they're the actual victim.

And as an actual juror, I would vote to acquit regardless of how many times he walked past the guy on the floor, or how many rounds he fired into the guy on the floor. F*** that guy. You don't want to die, don't go around victimizing people.

 

[theweakerbrother]

Helpless? Hahahahhaah!!

I love it. If the man has fists and G-d knows what in his pockets, he is not helpless.