Man wounds robber, then shoots him 5 more times, murder or self defense?

[BDK]

The guys mistake was he walked away then returned to pump more shots into him...
If he had unloaded it in the first place, no problem but he walked away then returned...
The Coroner has already determined that the head shot was not the fatal shot, it was the additional rounds that killed him...
Don't jump me because of the facts and the law...
the first shot was in defense,
all the rest were additional after the fact, because the suspect was already incapacitated...manslaughter at the least...
color has nothing to do with it....
I have nothing to do with it but the law is very clear...
First shot he was in fear for his life...no problem
he then felt safe enough to walk away and then return..(no longer life threatening)
the next shots became the murder/manslaughter shots...
probably done out of anger not fear...
A fly on the wall might have heard something like this
"yeah, look at you now M*therF*cker, who is shooting who now?!!!"
This is clearly anger not fear...
Just because someone makes you mad doesn't give you the right to shoot them...

[brandon11130]

i want to say i would of put all six in the head, but honestly......i would want to see what happens when i shoot other parts, the head would get boring after 2 or 3 rounds.

[kroberts]

Please don't turn this into a race issue... Don't tell me they weren't robbing a pharmacy with an old white guy behind a counter for no reason. They had to case the place and know what they're dealing with, right? Are you saying they wouldn't rob the place if pharmacist was black? If black pharmacist shot black teens (happens a lot)? This isn't a rhetorical situation, it happened, and perhaps lesson to be learned from it for the rest of snot-nosed punks who think they can point a weapon without consequences.

Ridiculous statements there.

I'm not talking about the crime, I'm talking about the punishment.

I'm saying that if a black pharmacist had shot a white, teenage P.O.S. robber once in the head, chased white kid #2 out of the store, then returned and finished off kid #1 with five more rounds, Mr. Pharmacist would not presently be out on $100k bail.

Look, it doesn't take a genius to realize that lower income minority males are responsible for a disproportionate amount of crime in our country's urban areas. However, you are in a serious state of denial if you think the criminal justice system in this country is color blind. I'm not a freaky liberal either.

You guys seriously think that it was OK for the old guy to "finish off" the robber? Seriously? Dont get me wrong, I'm not going to loose any sleep over the little fuckers either. Let me put it to you another way, Our soldiers in Iraq and A-stan are not allowed to execute wounded enemy combatants. What did the pharmacist do?

I'm not saying he deserves to be punished (luckily I dont have to make that call). Nor am I saying that the little bastard didn't deserve to get shot. I'm saying I think he went too far. I wouldn't expect him to render aid to the robber, but he didn't have to empty the pistol into him.

[brandondan1]

lol

Just trying to have a civilized debate. I suspect you are arguing the other side just for the sake of it and don't really have a valid opinion to defend.

Hence,

lol

Lulz, one more time..

Don't look at it from a personal standpoint, but rather a legal one.

IF the kid was indeed unconscious/not a threat(medical examiners stated he was still alive after the first shot), and Jerome pumped 5 more bullets into him, then he is wrong not only in my eyes, but also the eyes of the law. This is true regardless of how you feel about the matter.

The fact that people want this guy to go free regardless of whether he broke the law(just because he got another "punk" off the street), is the reason for debate.

[Philipangoo]

It was a armed robbery.... if someone tried to rob me with violent intentions. I would return the favor.

[z31maniac]

Again, circles..

I don't have a problem with him being shot 5 more times IF he was still a threat. In fact, props to the old man for being able to hold his own. I never said otherwise. There's a lot more to be said, but I've had my share of pointless interweb arguing for a while, lol.

lol

Just trying to have a civilized debate. I suspect you are arguing the other side just for the sake of it and don't really have a valid opinion to defend.

Hence,

lol

[mrsleeve]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Funny when I read that it was like Sam L Jackson was yelling it in my head, before I even read that ITT bit

[jrhaile]

HELL YEAH THEY DESERVED TO DIE AND I HOPE THEY BURN IN HELL

- SAM L. Jackson ITT

[brandondan1]

What details do you want that you don't have? Pare this down philosophically, a violent criminal lost his life while commuting a violent crime.

Why do you have a problem with that?

Had he not gone into a pharmacy to rob it he would still be alive.

Again, circles..

I don't have a problem with him being shot 5 more times IF he was still a threat. In fact, props to the old man for being able to hold his own. I never said otherwise. There's a lot more to be said, but I've had my share of pointless interweb arguing for a while, lol.

[z31maniac]

Yes, that's your opinion. Life isn't always so black and white, and the details mean everything IMO.


We're just going in circles, lol.. I'll agree to disagree.

What details do you want that you don't have? Pare this down philosophically, a violent criminal lost his life while commuting a violent crime.

Why do you have a problem with that?

Had he not gone into a pharmacy to rob it he would still be alive.

[brandondan1]

You're missing the point.

The point is, he was committing felony armed robbery and his cohort had a lethal weapon and was threatening the pharmacist. Because he was committing this act, he deserved to die.

Yes, that's your opinion. Life isn't always so black and white, and the details mean everything IMO.


We're just going in circles, lol.. I'll agree to disagree.

[Jean]

you're missing the point.

The point is, he was committing felony armed robbery and his cohort had a lethal weapon and was threatening the pharmacist. Because he was committing this act, he deserved to die.

How can you possibly defend a criminal who was willing to take an innocent's life for a robbery? Even if he wasn't the one with the gun, he knew what he went in there to do, commit a violent crime, and he paid for his decision with his life.

How is that not justice?

+1

[Aptyp]

What?

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VBF-4M6SG8V-4&_user=10&_coverDate=02%2F28%2F2007&_rdoc=13&_fmt =summary&_orig=browse&_srch=doc-info(%23toc%235925%232007%23999359996%23640399%23F LA%23display%23Volume)&_cdi=5925&_sort=d&_docancho r=&view=c&_ct=22&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlV ersion=0&_userid=10&md5=2bb25d5d04d4cb35f855dcd66f 0affd8

didn't login, but look interesting, post it up.

[mrsleeve]

It is true that if a robber uses agun to commit a crime, he should expect the victime to use a gun to defend itself. With expected results. Which is why British bobbies (cops) have a stick, but no gun. This way, it lessens the need for criminals to have guns.

Lee

UMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

you need to check your facts, they do have armed cops and have for some time. Not all but enough so that a call on the raido will have one there in very short order.

Yes tis true that the way it has been for a long time,for several reasons the main one was to separate the image of the "bobby" form that of the army. Which had been used to put down several civil uprising with some very sad results, also the thought that brits were too sophisticated and civilized to commit lots of violent crime. These are the 2 reasons why they dont carry, the britts are stubborn and hate change, it has nothing to do with the fact that "Criminals wont use guns if the cops dont have them".


Well since the near 100% total gun ban, Stabbings and knife point crimes have have gone through the roof. So much to the point that they has been proposals in parliament to BAN KNIVES too. Will that stop knife crime???? The UK's gun crime has also gone way up since the ban's as has Belgium, Australia, and nearly any other gun banned country you can think of.

[z31maniac]

Prepare to be misinterpreted into stating that this was ACTUALLY the case rather than making a rebuttal to those saying "he needed to be shot 20 times, no matter the circumstance." It has been established as the only acceptable answer.

You're missing the point.

The point is, he was committing felony armed robbery and his cohort had a lethal weapon and was threatening the pharmacist. Because he was committing this act, he deserved to die.

How can you possibly defend a criminal who was willing to take an innocent's life for a robbery? Even if he wasn't the one with the gun, he knew what he went in there to do, commit a violent crime, and he paid for his decision with his life.

How is that not justice?