- 1,323
- 15
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2011
i dont see how this isnt murder
createdestroy
Banned
- 4,310
- 2,017
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2010
I hope you're not American
createdestroy
Banned
- 4,310
- 2,017
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2010
I hope you're not American
- 968
- 10
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2008
we can all agree he was right up until step 5 came.
- 968
- 10
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2008
we can all agree he was right up until step 5 came.
- 958
- 11
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2002
The first shot was clearly in self-defense, so he's in the right there. IF there was a threat from the kid he shot when he returned (like if was laying there and aimed his gun at the pharmacist from the floor), that too would be pardonable since it would be self-defense. But you can clearly see the pharmacist takes his time to get another gun, slowly lean down beside the robber, and finish him off. For that reason, it became murder. If the robber had died from the first gun shot, and nothing else transpired, and they found the pharmacist guilty, that would have been wrong. But clearly this guy went beyond protecting himself and his employees by killing the guy in cold blood when he was already badly wounded. I understand the pharmacist was mad, but that was just barbaric.
- 958
- 11
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2002
The first shot was clearly in self-defense, so he's in the right there. IF there was a threat from the kid he shot when he returned (like if was laying there and aimed his gun at the pharmacist from the floor), that too would be pardonable since it would be self-defense. But you can clearly see the pharmacist takes his time to get another gun, slowly lean down beside the robber, and finish him off. For that reason, it became murder. If the robber had died from the first gun shot, and nothing else transpired, and they found the pharmacist guilty, that would have been wrong. But clearly this guy went beyond protecting himself and his employees by killing the guy in cold blood when he was already badly wounded. I understand the pharmacist was mad, but that was just barbaric.
hoosierdaddy282
Banned
- 1,248
- 11
- Joined
- May 2, 2011
That's clearly murder one. You gotta know your laws if you're gonna "be about that life"
Self defense allows you to DEFEND yourself to a degree, but once you can make a break for it, you're to do so and alert the "proper authorities". Self defense IS NOT "reactive murder".
Duh..
But if I was in his shoes, I'd have destroyed the footage FIRST... and done the same damn thing..
Self defense allows you to DEFEND yourself to a degree, but once you can make a break for it, you're to do so and alert the "proper authorities". Self defense IS NOT "reactive murder".
Duh..
But if I was in his shoes, I'd have destroyed the footage FIRST... and done the same damn thing..
hoosierdaddy282
Banned
- 1,248
- 11
- Joined
- May 2, 2011
That's clearly murder one. You gotta know your laws if you're gonna "be about that life"
Self defense allows you to DEFEND yourself to a degree, but once you can make a break for it, you're to do so and alert the "proper authorities". Self defense IS NOT "reactive murder".
Duh..
But if I was in his shoes, I'd have destroyed the footage FIRST... and done the same damn thing..
Self defense allows you to DEFEND yourself to a degree, but once you can make a break for it, you're to do so and alert the "proper authorities". Self defense IS NOT "reactive murder".
Duh..
But if I was in his shoes, I'd have destroyed the footage FIRST... and done the same damn thing..
- 21,151
- 37
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2004
It's murder, but I got no problem with it.
- 21,151
- 37
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2004
It's murder, but I got no problem with it.
- 149
- 10
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2011
clint eastwood made this story
- 149
- 10
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2011
clint eastwood made this story
- 14,370
- 243
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2009
GUILTY.
- 14,370
- 243
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2009
GUILTY.
- 4,201
- 10
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2011
- 4,201
- 10
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2011
- 2,418
- 10
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2011
I don't get how it's not murder.
- 2,418
- 10
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2011
I don't get how it's not murder.
- 17,697
- 2,714
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2006
LIFE
- 17,697
- 2,714
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2006
LIFE
- 11,810
- 645
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2010
After the initial shot he had time to collect himself. Not only did he collect himself, he went and checked on the culprit, walked to a drawer, unlocked it, pulled out another gun, and walked backed and fired 5 more shots.
How is that not murder?
- 11,810
- 645
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2010
After the initial shot he had time to collect himself. Not only did he collect himself, he went and checked on the culprit, walked to a drawer, unlocked it, pulled out another gun, and walked backed and fired 5 more shots.
How is that not murder?
- 732
- 10
- Joined
- May 29, 2001
If I was on the jury, I would've voted not guilty. I understand what everyone is saying "from a legal standpoint", but my view is:
Those 2 people, kids or not, came into HIS store with a gun. He didn't know if they would shoot him or not. Even after the first was shot, and the other was wounded on the ground, how was he to know how badly he was wounded. He coulda turned his back for 2 seconds, and the "wounded" robber coulda pulled another gun out and killed him. Also, the other robber coulda came back for his accomplice, and shot him. I'm not saying it was 100% right, but I understand. If its me or you, its either you, or me trying to make it you first. I have a wife and 2 kids, I'm not trying to die because 2 punks would rather steal what I have worked for than get up and work for themselves. But thats just my opinion
Those 2 people, kids or not, came into HIS store with a gun. He didn't know if they would shoot him or not. Even after the first was shot, and the other was wounded on the ground, how was he to know how badly he was wounded. He coulda turned his back for 2 seconds, and the "wounded" robber coulda pulled another gun out and killed him. Also, the other robber coulda came back for his accomplice, and shot him. I'm not saying it was 100% right, but I understand. If its me or you, its either you, or me trying to make it you first. I have a wife and 2 kids, I'm not trying to die because 2 punks would rather steal what I have worked for than get up and work for themselves. But thats just my opinion
- 732
- 10
- Joined
- May 29, 2001
If I was on the jury, I would've voted not guilty. I understand what everyone is saying "from a legal standpoint", but my view is:
Those 2 people, kids or not, came into HIS store with a gun. He didn't know if they would shoot him or not. Even after the first was shot, and the other was wounded on the ground, how was he to know how badly he was wounded. He coulda turned his back for 2 seconds, and the "wounded" robber coulda pulled another gun out and killed him. Also, the other robber coulda came back for his accomplice, and shot him. I'm not saying it was 100% right, but I understand. If its me or you, its either you, or me trying to make it you first. I have a wife and 2 kids, I'm not trying to die because 2 punks would rather steal what I have worked for than get up and work for themselves. But thats just my opinion
Those 2 people, kids or not, came into HIS store with a gun. He didn't know if they would shoot him or not. Even after the first was shot, and the other was wounded on the ground, how was he to know how badly he was wounded. He coulda turned his back for 2 seconds, and the "wounded" robber coulda pulled another gun out and killed him. Also, the other robber coulda came back for his accomplice, and shot him. I'm not saying it was 100% right, but I understand. If its me or you, its either you, or me trying to make it you first. I have a wife and 2 kids, I'm not trying to die because 2 punks would rather steal what I have worked for than get up and work for themselves. But thats just my opinion
