Pharmacist shoots robber - found guilty of murder. People outraged.

So the plot thickens and there were no Black Jurors and plenty of Women Jurors. Thanks for posting the info Finch

 

No problem!:D

 

I suppose I see it from two points of view. If this wasn't the first time, then it's a little different story. The kids obviously aren't first timers the way they came charging in. Had he emptied his gun on the first little bastard, and then went after the second, I think he'd have been ok. Shooting the first little bastard and dropping him, then chasing after the other, and then coming back with another gun to "finish off," the #1 bastard either constitutes murder or abuse of a corpse.... Yet on the other side he may have been "ridding society of a worthless little turd that society has no need for..."

It became 1st degree when he went and got the second gun and shot the "victim." However, I think it could depend on whether the kid was terminally wounded by the original shot, but it'd be difficult to determine unless the first gun was a .32ACP while the second was a .44Mag or something. While I don't like it, I can understand it. Hopefully the little bastard that got away gets put in prison for a LONG time as well.

This is exactly where the law stands. It's called the "Right to self-preservation....." but once you've preserved your safety, you're job is finished, anything you do above and beyond is punishable by the law.

 

The threat was stopped (suspect laying on floor unconscious). Store guy could have just kicked his weapon aside and stood guard over him while armed till police arrived and he would not have been charged IMO. Pumping 5 more slugs into an unconscious suspect deserves something and I don't mean applause. I would like to hear the autopsy report stating what shot was the killing one, was he already dead? If so does he deserve to be charged with something, anything?

 

Reading all of that just makes me think even more that his attorney sucked. Disabled vet, pts disorder, pharmacy previously robbed employees held and pistol whipped...none of that could lead to making a bad decision during a robbery...did the first shot kill him? I may have missed that in there...if it did, is shooting a dead body 1st degree murder?

This info which was not let in I felt was crucial:

"The shotgun shell had three pellets about the size of a rounded bullet. When it was fired at the armed robber two pellets grazed his head. The third pellet enters his head and goes through the brain and is lodged inside."

Was that first shot fatal?

 

According to the medical examiner, no it was not fatal. But the defense attacked the medical examiner's credibility because he was fired shortly after the examination.

Why did the pharmacist lie so much if he did not have a guilty conscience?

 

Before the kid actually shoots someone? If so, I'd guess yes, that person would get a murder charge. After the kid already shoots and kills someone, probably not. Fair or not, that is probably how it would play out.

I see both sides on this. Like Rybo mentioned, you definitely won't change anyone's mind here. What does concern me a little is the attitude of "kill, kill, kill". I'm all for gun rights, but as racewayking mentioned, people need to be responsible. Someone mentioned that this man wasn't a trained individual. Well, maybe more training should be required?

I don't know enough about this story to take one side or the other. I'm just going off some of the responses here, and I think some of them are concerning.

 

Again I ask,

What if this happened in your house? Just curious, nobody seems to want to touch that too much. I feel like I would want to nullify the threat with extreme prejudice and would be really leary of survivors.

It just makes me ask myself the question: What would I do in my house? And if i'm a citizen on the jury doesn't that factor weigh in. I mean would I hold him to some higher level than I would hold myself while protecting/defending my own home/family/self?

 

What kind of sick person would shoot a corpse in the head 55 times?

Was his punishment too harsh? For sure.
Should he have walked free? Hell no.

Like Rybo pointed out, there is no changing minds on this one. You have people arguing on one side that he should be allowed to shoot 100 times and run him over w a truck. And some on the other side saying that the guy was a little loco and deserved his sentence for the execution.

I still hold the middle ground, I feel no sympathy for the little pos robbers, but I wouldn't feel right letting this guy walk free after squeezing off five rounds into a person laying there already shot in the head.

You can't argue he had no chance to flee or think to flee, he had already left and came back.
You can't argue the robber was still a threat, he nonchalantly walked by him to retrieve a second gun.

The guy made a mistake, as did the robbers. Who knows which made the worse decision, but both should be held accountable

 

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/149674/its-coming-right-for-us

 

I can't answer that because I do not know how I would react. I would hope, however, that I would not kill a thief after he was neutralized. I think I value human life more than that.

 

Well you know what they say, hope in one hand and s#*t in the other...see which one fills up faster.

jk Hooker and I can respect that.

 

According to the transcripts, he shot a 3 shot shotshell, and one lodged in his brain.

 

From the transcripts

 

I read it twice, and am not sure if that means first shot or the shot from the shotshell.

 

also from the transcripts...

"The shotgun shell had three pellets about the size of a rounded bullet. When it was fired at the armed robber two pellets grazed his head. The third pellet enters his head and goes through the brain and is lodged inside."

Confusing, it makes me want to read all of the transcripts and here some expert witness testimony on those first wounds.

 

Yay....turns out the robbery is gonna end up being a massive success!!

http://normantranscript.com/statenews/x57645641/Three-jury-prospects-let-go-in-trial/print

 

I'll answer this too, as the law is pretty clear in my state, once the threat is no longer present, you can't keep shooting. I am suprised that running after the other kid and shooting hasn't had separate charges filed for that. If the bad guy is running away, you can't shoot him (at least here).
So just because an event like this would happen in my house I can't fathom me emptying the gun into a person laying incapacitated on the ground.

 

Agreed Ryan, but I can imagine me having the adrenaline ramped up enough that my efforts to do CPR might result in him having punctured lungs and a free-floating sternum..... :D

What is sad is that these couple little thugs and their actions ruined the lives of many!!! I would hope that the 14 yr old is locked up until he's 21, however with our judicial and corrections system, he'll likely come out as bad or worse than he was when we sent him away!!!!

 

I kinda wonder if the suspect was already dead by the following statements between the defense and the 1st responding officer.

Edit....but they keep saying the initial head wound was non-fatal. The pharmacist should not have shot again....plain and simple. The little prick deserved to be shot again but Ersland should have just stood guard until the Police arrived.