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

[brandondan1]

In this CIRCUMSTANCE, the robbers deserved to die.

Quit trying to twist what people say out of context.

The circumstance meaning whether or not the unarmed kid with a bullet in his head was a threat, in which case you've stated numerous times that you DON'T care, and he was fully justified in shooting 5 more times. Context clues...

I'm the one twisting words alright. You're totally right.. everything you're saying is fact. This is pointless..

[Jordan325iC]

That statement is simply not true. Look through entire country and tell me that places with the most guns don't have least violence. Obviously there is crime in heavily populated areas due to proximity, but when people are aware of weapons, they tend to not test their luck. In real world, criminals don't take those kind of chances, otherwise they become ex-criminals real fast.

What?

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...55dcd66f0affd8

[Massive Lee]

It is true that if a robber uses a gun 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

[z31maniac]

That adds a whole new dynamic if it's true, but it just seems too unlikely. I bet people would still think shooting him 6 times was justified though..

I believe that is true that kid shot didn't have a gun, I'd have to go back and read the numerous news stories.

And BTW guys, the video is up on one of the OKC news web sites along with the story.

But brandondan, let's assume the kid didn't have a gun. Are you trying to insinuate that the clerk should have waited around to find out after being threatened with a gun by his cohort?

[z31maniac]

no matter the circumstance.

That was never said, you incoherent....ahem.

We are talking about THIS SPECIFIC CASE, in which the kids were committing ARMED ROBBERY.

In this CIRCUMSTANCE, the robbers deserved to die.

Quit trying to twist what people say out of context.

[brandondan1]

IMO after you have immobilized/eliminated a threat it is wrong to continue shooting them.

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.

[884door]

IMO after you have immobilized/eliminated a threat it is wrong to continue shooting them.

On the other hand, say that instead the pharmacist killing the robber he shot him once then called 911, the robber spends x amount of time in the hospital to heal, then they go to court and get sentenced to x amount of time in prison. There's a possibility that when the robber gets out of prison he murders the pharmacist for revenge.

Pretty much a shitty situation either way.

[mrsleeve]

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

thank you

[Aptyp]

The "deterrence" theory of crime works up to a point, but it has generally been shown not to have much of an effect on most felonies (IE violent crime). Increasing punishment or risk has been shown to have no effectiveness in decreasing violent crime. The "jail time doesn't scare robbers, we have to kill them so they'll stop!" argument, though logical, really doesn't play very well in the real world.

That statement is simply not true. Look through entire country and tell me that places with the most guns don't have least violence. Obviously there is crime in heavily populated areas due to proximity, but when people are aware of weapons, they tend to not test their luck. In real world, criminals don't take those kind of chances, otherwise they become ex-criminals real fast.

Pulling out another handgun and firing 5 shots into an unconscious kid was not the responsible thing to do. Under the circumstances, it is understandable that he was angry, but he was wrong to fire into a face-down person.

effectively emptying another weapon into the (obviously) incapacitated youth. That was without a doubt a cognitive decision. And an extremely brutal one honestly. The neutrilization of the threat is important no doubt, but seeing a head wound unconcious on the ground and then choosing to (essentially) "finish him off" is twisted. Especially as he was not the one wielding the solitary weapon. It was the mistake of what sounds like two very stupid kids. I just don't know how well the dead kid learned his lesson if you catch my drift...

is there more info that emerged? post more articles if so, please.

Kid may not have been armed, but he may have pretended to be armed or reached for his pocket. Video would explain a lot, and if it was as brutal as we think, people in OK wouldn't stand up for this guy after seeing it on TV.

[mitch500]

ughhh give me my 2 mins of life back from reading that crap.... who cares.

[PaladinReed]

This is such a hard situation and if you posted your rebuttal in less than 30 minutes of reading it you probably didnt think hard enough. IMO the clerk was justified in his INITIAL response to the duo but lost control in effectively emptying another weapon into the (obviously) incapacitated youth. That was without a doubt a cognitive decision. And an extremely brutal one honestly. The neutrilization of the threat is important no doubt, but seeing a head wound unconcious on the ground and then choosing to (essentially) "finish him off" is twisted. Especially as he was not the one wielding the solitary weapon. It was the mistake of what sounds like two very stupid kids. I just don't know how well the dead kid learned his lesson if you catch my drift...

[Jordan325iC]

I didn't read the whole thread, but here are some comments.

A) The "deterrence" theory of crime works up to a point, but it has generally been shown not to have much of an effect on most felonies (IE violent crime). Increasing punishment or risk has been shown to have no effectiveness in decreasing violent crime. The "jail time doesn't scare robbers, we have to kill them so they'll stop!" argument, though logical, really doesn't play very well in the real world.

B ) I empathize with the clerk. If somebody comes in and waves a gun at you, they have forfeited their right to life right there. Certainly my first thought would be to kill them both. And he was right to do what he did up to a point. However, being a gun owner means being responsible and in control of yourself. Pulling out another handgun and firing 5 shots into an unconscious kid was not the responsible thing to do. Under the circumstances, it is understandable that he was angry, but he was wrong to fire into a face-down person. He deserves manslaughter.

[brandondan1]

That adds a whole new dynamic if it's true, but it just seems too unlikely. I bet people would still think shooting him 6 times was justified though..

Speculations are so much fun, and some people may feel like 5 shots were too few. That's their opinion. Also note that crazy old man didn't open fire at the guy running away. In 25 second interval he'd still be within bullet range. So obviously, this guy wasn't that insane.

Without speculation/opinion, this thread would reduced down to around 4 posts. Can't single me out for stating mine. You choose to ignore semantics, I don't. Simple as that.

[eurohick.]

i read this a couple of times and see that the kid he shot was unarmed. The kid who actually pulled the piece got away. im pretty sure thats the main issue.

ive always had cop friends tell me if you have to shoot someone, you empty the gun. But i never heard, empty your gun, then get your other one and empty that one as well.

[Aptyp]

25 seconds? that's it? It takes me that long to decide which soda I want with my Whopper.

Speculations are so much fun, and some people may feel like 5 shots were too few. That's their opinion. Also note that crazy old man didn't open fire at the guy running away. In 25 second interval he'd still be within bullet range. So obviously, this guy wasn't that insane.