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

[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

[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

[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..

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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]

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.

[jrhaile]

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

- SAM L. Jackson ITT

[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

[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

[Philipangoo]

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

[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.