Excessive force??

imported post

I hopeI can get the link to this video posted. It's not really about OC, But I thought it would bring up a discussion about excessive force IF you ever have to use your weapon. What do YOU think?



http://www.news9.com/global/video/flash/popupplayer.asp?ClipID1=3804065&h1=Oklahoma%20County%20District%20Attorney%20David%20Prater%20Discusses%20Crime&vt1=v&at1=Station%202&d1=1092234&LaunchPageAdTag=News&activePane=info&rnd=19106796

imported post

OK. The above link works.



no. check link in next post

imported post

This is a new link to the video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHshsgpsxFg

imported post

I had read about this particular situation. I think it was excessive force as the perp had already been subdued. I don't agree with the charge of murder. To tell you the truth, I don't know what kind of charge would even be appropriate.

All in all, the world is a better place because of him.

imported post

If you saw the interview on Bill O'Reilly of the pharmacist you would probably change your mind. There is a lot of stuff that you don't see on the video that relates to other employees in the store. The perp was shot in the head first and was not dead. He was dazed and started to move around when you see the guy come back with the second gun. There is no way a jury will convict this guy. He will be set free. The person they should be charging with murder is the other little punk that tried to rob the store.

imported post

It comes down to the use of deadly force. Unfortunately, after reviewing all of the available footage, news articles....and if what the latest report says is true, that the suspect he shot in the head was unarmed....the murder charge will probably stick.

Now, before almost everyone here turns the flame up to inferno....I agree 100% that the initial shooting is completely justified. In another thread that got locked, we were discussing what we could not see after the suspect was shot in the head. Like I said though, IF he wasn't armed, well.....it just doesn't look good.

imported post

On the first link I posted, there is video from about three different angles. In just seeing the video, it doesn't look good for the Pharmacist. I believe it would be "excessive" use of deadly force according to KY law-there was no longer a threat. Remember, I'm just going by what I can see on the video.I still don't believe he will be convicted.I know if I was on the jury, I wouldn't convict him.

imported post

Well after looking at the video its a rough looking situation. Depending onhowyou have beentrained to engage your targetit could be considered "reasonable force". Given the mind setthat thisman wasafraid that the boy would stand up and continue to presenta threat.

Pulling the trigger and striking a person is a very tramatic situation even for the most prepared. "Excessive force" from my viewing perspective yes. I've Dealt with situtations of a similar nature. I'malsoprepared and trainedto quickly asses my threat and make a cognative decision to stop engaging my target and secure him from reemargingas a threat.When stoppinga threat you don't have to neccessarly kill the person your shooting at, just simply stop the action precieved asdangerous.

With that said in my opiniona simple person carrying a weapon for protection and minimal force trainingwillshoot at someone until they are dead. The fact is your afraid ofgettingkilled so kill the other guy before they kill you kicks in. From this shooters anglethe boy who was still alive was a threat. If he has a good enough lawyer he can beat the charge.

imported post

Ski-Mask = Threat.

I don't care who it was, coulda been Jesus Christ under that ski mask. Everyone can see the first gunman, and then the second gunman with the backpack pulls on a ski mask, and stands right at the counter moving back and forth.

I would have shot him too. The one holding the actual gun was closer to the door and the person who got shot was "the bagman".

Coming back to the wounded threat and dropping 5 more rounds into his guts? That is no longer self defense.

That's making sure that he is dead. When you go back to ensure that the threat is "dead" and not just nuetralized, you are taking that next step from Self Defense, to revenge, and or summary judgement of justice.



The most likelystory from the pharmacist will be that in the end, he killed the kid because he was worried about getting a lawsuit filed against him for just wounding, or brain damaging the guy.

So the shooting was in self defense, while the killing was in assumption offiscal defence.