Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 89

Thread: Jurors reject pharmacist’s self-defense plea; convict him of murder

  1. #1
    Regular Member SgtC's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Wheeling, WV
    Posts
    10

    Jurors reject pharmacist’s self-defense plea; convict him of murder

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_theloo...-him-of-murder


    I will not argue that emptying the magazine into a downed assailant is not exactly PC, but 1st degree murder? There is a big difference between waking up and telling yourself "I'm going to shoot someone today" and reacting (in this case OVER reacting) to someone pointing a gun at you in an attempted robbery. I think what he did was wrong but I don't think 1st degree was the proper finding.
    Opinions?
    Open or Concealed... CARRY ON!

  2. #2
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    I'm having a little trouble with this one.

    First, let me say the law can be an ass. If the law and law-givers presume to be able to control human reactions, they're being unrealistic. If a man, having survived a robbery attempt, goes into a towering rage and shoots the robber "too much", I think the law is asking for trouble. We're talking about some very powerful impulses here--survival itself, being on the receiving end of a threat to life, and so forth. It doesn't get much more emotionally charged than that.

    To have that thrust upon a person during his normal day-to-day mundane life, and then expect him to not have a very powerful reaction is nuts. Failure to recognize that those powerful reactions can come in more than one form--overmastering fear, rage, grief-- would be just a sub-category of the same nuttiness. Add that not all people who are entitled to defend themselves have the training about lethal force legalities like police or some of us. Meaning, they may not know they must master that rage or face legal problems. Its one thing to expect trained cops who face violence or the threat of violence every day to respond properly as trained professionals...

    With all that said, the problem I'm having with this one is that it does seem a bit cold blooded. The video only played once for me. But, what I caught was that the guy didn't seem all that enraged. No foot stomping, no yelling at the ceiling to let off anger, that sort of thing. Just goes off camera, then comes back and shoots several times, then turns and walks away.

    Hmmmm. It does occur to me that one can be in a rage without manifestations that would show on video. No law of human emotion says overmastering rage has to include certain actions that would show up on video.
    Last edited by Citizen; 05-27-2011 at 06:09 PM.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    I am wondering how many people on the jury actually had to shoot someone with their sidearm. It takes a lot of self-control of the finger, and emotions to not pull the trigger to many times.

    If the perp was armed, as far as I am concerned, shoot until you believe the threat is for sure gone.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Ohio, USA
    Posts
    1,558
    I will always stand by this. DO NOT TALK TO ANY POLICE OFFICER PERIOD AFTER A SHOOTING. Give them your name and then point to said person who threatened you and state I feared for my life and I acted accordingly. Any more info requires a lawyer to be present PERIOD. COPS are not your friends when your involved in a shooting, KEEP YOUR MOUTHS SHUT, any other advice will get you similar result as you read above.
    Last edited by zack991; 05-27-2011 at 06:38 PM.
    -I come in peace, I didn't bring artillery. But I am pleading with you with tears in my eyes: If you screw with me, I'll kill you all.
    -Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.
    Marine General James Mattis,

  5. #5
    Regular Member VW_Factor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Leesburg, GA
    Posts
    1,098
    Ive been digging and reading as much as I could about this in the past couple of days..

    From what it sounds like, he used a .380 P3AT first landing a hit in the head to the assailant. Afterwards sounds like he grabbed a revolver and emptied it into the already disabled assailant after chasing off the other attackers.

    Is this accurate to what actually happened?

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by SgtC View Post
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_theloo...-him-of-murder


    I will not argue that emptying the magazine into a downed assailant is not exactly PC, but 1st degree murder? There is a big difference between waking up and telling yourself "I'm going to shoot someone today" and reacting (in this case OVER reacting) to someone pointing a gun at you in an attempted robbery. I think what he did was wrong but I don't think 1st degree was the proper finding.
    Opinions?
    If the facts are as presented in the article, I would have voted to convict of first-degree murder. Premeditation can form in an instant. In this case, leaving the store, coming back, getting another gun, and shooting the unconscious man, who had long since stopped being a threat, clearly was no act of self-defense. He may have shot the robber upon return out of spite, or hatred, or anger, or just because he thought he could. But no reasonable person would have feared for his life from a wounded and unconscious thug.

    Guilty.

  7. #7
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    If the facts are as presented in the article, I would have voted to convict of first-degree murder. Premeditation can form in an instant. In this case, leaving the store, coming back, getting another gun, and shooting the unconscious man, who had long since stopped being a threat, clearly was no act of self-defense. He may have shot the robber upon return out of spite, or hatred, or anger, or just because he thought he could. But no reasonable person would have feared for his life from a wounded and unconscious thug.

    Guilty.

    Not so fast, Eye. I don't know about that. I think we err if we confuse law with actuality.

    Lets remember that self-defense law is designed to prevent or punish certain things over the ages. It doesn't exist for its own sake, and wasn't developed all at once as though handed down on stone tablets. For example, the angle about not contributing to the difficulty has its roots in trying to close the door somewhat on a killer provoking his victim, then killing the victim when he went for his weapon, the killer then claiming self-defense and receiving legal blessing for what otherwise would have been murder.

    I have little doubt the fear-for-life and stop-when-the-threat-ends legal barriers were not developed for this sort of scenario. The fear-for-life limitation would have been to set a standard to prevent a common argument or fist-fight from being justification.

    The part about stopping when the threat ends seems to me more likely have been designed to prevent a feud situation or lying in wait later for revenge, another scenario that could escalate into a range war or feud. I have no information that it was ever developed or intended to cover a situation like this.

    Also, if we apply the government's perhaps self-serving idea that pre-meditation can develop in an instant, we basically erase the line between first and second degree murder. Sure, pre-meditation can develop in an instant. It has to. An idea only takes an instant. But, the point is whether it is a crime of passion carried out in the moment of the passion, or planned some time in advance after the "provocation".

    I think the government is up to something.

  8. #8
    Regular Member buster81's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,461
    Quote Originally Posted by VW_Factor View Post
    Ive been digging and reading as much as I could about this in the past couple of days..

    From what it sounds like, he used a .380 P3AT first landing a hit in the head to the assailant. Afterwards sounds like he grabbed a revolver and emptied it into the already disabled assailant after chasing off the other attackers.

    Is this accurate to what actually happened?
    That seems accurate based on what I've read. I think he would have been OK, until he decided to shoot the robber laying on the floor who was bleeding, incapacitated and unarmed.

    It seems to me that the jury was given the choice of murder, manslaughter or not guilty. I think the second would have been a better choice for them.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Western PA
    Posts
    50
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    If the facts are as presented in the article, I would have voted to convict of first-degree murder. Premeditation can form in an instant. In this case, leaving the store, coming back, getting another gun, and shooting the unconscious man, who had long since stopped being a threat, clearly was no act of self-defense.
    Textbook guilty. He was outside the store, where he could flee in complete safety, and then went back into the store. Not to mention getting a different gun, standing between the downed assailant and the door, etc. There's no way to construe that as self-defense.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Ohio, USA
    Posts
    1,558
    above--I agree
    -I come in peace, I didn't bring artillery. But I am pleading with you with tears in my eyes: If you screw with me, I'll kill you all.
    -Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.
    Marine General James Mattis,

  11. #11
    Regular Member We-the-People's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    White City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,234
    Quote Originally Posted by Ponch View Post
    Textbook guilty. He was outside the store, where he could flee in complete safety, and then went back into the store. Not to mention getting a different gun, standing between the downed assailant and the door, etc. There's no way to construe that as self-defense.
    FAIL Remaining outside the store left his fellow employees inside the store with one of the assailants. There was no way to know if that assailant was down and staying down, armed or not. Going back into the store was a REASONABLE ACTION especially when one considers that that's where the phone to call 911 is and there are co-workers who may still be at threat. Now he didn't HAVE to go back in but the law in most states is clear that you are lawful if you are going into a situation from which you are removed if it is to defend another against a threat.

    FIRST DEGREE murder is absolutely uncalled for in this situation. Second degree at worst, manslaughter is a better fit, and NOT GUILTY is the APPROPRIATE verdict.

    I guarantee that he did not have a jury of his peers as the state would disqualify any potential juror who presented even an inkling of ability to consider that killing someone is "okay" in some situations and most certainly anyone that mentioned nullification.

    This SHOULD be overturned on appeal but if not, the Governor needs to be assailed by a massive campaign from the citizens to grant a full pardon. PARDON not clemmency!

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by Ponch View Post
    Textbook guilty. He was outside the store, where he could flee in complete safety, and then went back into the store. Not to mention getting a different gun, standing between the downed assailant and the door, etc. There's no way to construe that as self-defense.
    Yeah. He did so many things that militate against self-defense and for premeditation that it is incredible that anyone could reasonably think that he should be found guilty of premeditated murder. Remember both intent and premeditation can form in an instant.

    When he got the other gun and went up to the unconscious bad guy, no other explanation makes any sense other than he wanted the unconscious (and, at the moment, harmless) thug dead. That ain't justification; that is premeditation; that is murder one.

    GUILTY.

  13. #13
    Regular Member We-the-People's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    White City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,234
    And we know this animal was unconcious? The defender KNEW it was unconcious? No chance it was playing possum waiting for a chance right? We can SEE that right? I haven't seen it in the video. Did the defense stipulate to that or did the prosecution prove it?

    Remember, in criminal trial it must be proven BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. ONE single little TINY bit of doubt and he is required to walk free.

    And for those of you who are appalled that I would call this scumbag terrorist an animal. Well I've never been acused of being PC. Anyone that would conspire to deprive law abiding people of their rights by masking themselves and committing armed robbery.....is an animal. (and biology backs that up so it is even technically correct).

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Please note that everything I said was premised on, as I wrote, "If the facts are as presented in the article..."

    If you wish to come to a conclusion based on another set of facts, feel free. However, considering that there was a trial of fact, the story either presented those facts or the reporting was pretty sloppy.

  15. #15

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Los Angeles County
    Posts
    23
    The threat was eliminated.... Going back to finish him off was murder. End of story. You won't find any sympathy from me for his actions.

    Here is a caveat. What if the the perp that was shot was dead the instant he was hit by the first round, then the second volley of shots were just discharging rounds into a dead corpse. would he be tried for murder? Makes you go HMMMM.
    Last edited by abechira; 05-29-2011 at 12:53 AM.

  16. #16
    Regular Member We-the-People's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    White City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,234
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Please note that everything I said was premised on, as I wrote, "If the facts are as presented in the article..."

    If you wish to come to a conclusion based on another set of facts, feel free. However, considering that there was a trial of fact, the story either presented those facts or the reporting was pretty sloppy.
    Or, as is too often the case, the jury were NOT fully and properly instructed in the law and their duties, responsibilities, and powers. I guarantee you they were not instructed in their lawful ability to nullify, no jury in this country ever is and in fact courts in mulitple locations have gone to great lengths to harass those who distribute information about jury nullification to those entering court houses.
    "The Second Amendment speaks nothing to an unfettered Right". (Post # 100)
    "Restrictions are not infringements. Bans are infringements.--if it reaches beyond Reasonable bans". (Post # 103)
    Beretta92FSLady
    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...ons-Bill/page5

    Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nothing in any of my posts should be considered legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult a reputable attorney, not an internet forum.

  17. #17
    Regular Member We-the-People's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    White City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,234
    Quote Originally Posted by abechira View Post
    The threat was eliminated.... Going back to finish him off was murder. End of story. You won't find any sympathy from me for his actions.

    Here is a caveat. What if the the perp that was shot was dead the instant he was hit by the first hit, then the second volley of shots were just discharging rounds into a dead corpse. would he be tried for murder? Make you go HMMMM.
    Do we KNOW (by video, witnesess, or god forbid the defenders own statements) that the threat WAS eliminated? I know that's what the prosecution argued...that's a given...but when is the threat eliminated in reality?

    When the perp is down, hands under him, unmoving but breathing? When he's just down, wriggling around? Just because a perp is shot and down does not remove the threat. If he's not dead there is potential that he's still a threat...he may well have a weapon that he didn't have time to get into play because he was too busy trying to get his mask on and got shot before it came out. So he's laying there waiting for a chance to use it. Yes the guy went overboard by the existing draconian laws that put good citizens behind bars and create victims out of criminal thugs. But premeditated is bull ****. The only premeditation was the two who conspired to deprive the employees in that pharmacy of their civil rights.
    "The Second Amendment speaks nothing to an unfettered Right". (Post # 100)
    "Restrictions are not infringements. Bans are infringements.--if it reaches beyond Reasonable bans". (Post # 103)
    Beretta92FSLady
    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...ons-Bill/page5

    Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nothing in any of my posts should be considered legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult a reputable attorney, not an internet forum.

  18. #18

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Los Angeles County
    Posts
    23
    Quote Originally Posted by We-the-People View Post
    Anyone that would conspire to deprive law abiding people of their rights by masking themselves and committing armed robbery.....is an animal. (and biology backs that up so it is even technically correct).
    OTFLOL I have never known an animal mask themselves and commit armed robbery BAHAHA!!!

    OH wait... you must mean animal the human kind. OK. I agree, we are all animals.

  19. #19

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Los Angeles County
    Posts
    23
    Quote Originally Posted by We-the-People View Post
    Do we KNOW (by video, witnesess, or god forbid the defenders own statements) that the threat WAS eliminated? I know that's what the prosecution argued...that's a given...but when is the threat eliminated in reality?

    When the perp is down, hands under him, unmoving but breathing? When he's just down, wriggling around? Just because a perp is shot and down does not remove the threat. If he's not dead there is potential that he's still a threat...he may well have a weapon that he didn't have time to get into play because he was too busy trying to get his mask on and got shot before it came out. So he's laying there waiting for a chance to use it. Yes the guy went overboard by the existing draconian laws that put good citizens behind bars and create victims out of criminal thugs. But premeditated is bull ****. The only premeditation was the two who conspired to deprive the employees in that pharmacy of their civil rights.
    Your argument is WEAK! You my friend would also be going to jail. As a sheepdog, I would never lower my personal standards to that of a wolf. End of story.

  20. #20
    Regular Member We-the-People's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    White City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,234
    Quote Originally Posted by abechira View Post
    OTFLOL I have never known an animal mask themselves and commit armed robbery BAHAHA!!!

    OH wait... you must mean animal the human kind. OK. I agree, we are all animals.
    You should stop by and check out the Racoons around here...masked and they're definitely committing armed robbery....the little bugger use their "hands" quite efficiently.

    But I was referring to those members of the homospaien species who are a lot closer to the kindom (animal) than the modern (i.e. civilized) species. The ones that decide their lives aren't worth much and run around committing attrocities against humanity until someone stops them.
    "The Second Amendment speaks nothing to an unfettered Right". (Post # 100)
    "Restrictions are not infringements. Bans are infringements.--if it reaches beyond Reasonable bans". (Post # 103)
    Beretta92FSLady
    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...ons-Bill/page5

    Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nothing in any of my posts should be considered legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult a reputable attorney, not an internet forum.

  21. #21

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Los Angeles County
    Posts
    23
    Quote Originally Posted by We-the-People View Post
    You should stop by and check out the Racoons around here...masked and they're definitely committing armed robbery....the little bugger use their "hands" quite efficiently.
    I like

    Your right, we can be so brutal a species. That is more on a much deeper level I care to be on in a forum.

  22. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by We-the-People View Post
    Or, as is too often the case, the jury were NOT fully and properly instructed in the law and their duties, responsibilities, and powers. I guarantee you they were not instructed in their lawful ability to nullify, no jury in this country ever is and in fact courts in mulitple locations have gone to great lengths to harass those who distribute information about jury nullification to those entering court houses.
    You really must try to read what is actually written, and respond to it, rather than responding willy-nilly.

    Moving on. I'll discuss this with others.

  23. #23
    Regular Member EricDailey X-NRA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Wake County, NC
    Posts
    209
    Quote Originally Posted by zack991 View Post
    I will always stand by this. DO NOT TALK TO ANY POLICE OFFICER PERIOD AFTER A SHOOTING. Give them your name and then point to said person who threatened you and state I feared for my life and I acted accordingly. Any more info requires a lawyer to be present PERIOD. COPS are not your friends when your involved in a shooting, KEEP YOUR MOUTHS SHUT, any other advice will get you similar result as you read above.
    +1
    Learn this lesson well and it may be as useful as having a self defense weapon.
    Get a DVR, a Digital Voice Recorder, carry it 24/7. It's cheap, easy and makes a good witness in Court.

    Triangle Open Carry Meetup
    http://www.meetup.com/r/inbound/0/0/...ry/?a=sharetxt
    This is a link for a "gunz r welcome" sign.
    http://www.gunlaws.com/images/unity.gif
    FORUM RULES (14)
    ....This web site is focused on the right to openly carry properly holstered handguns in daily American life.

  24. #24
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Reno, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,713
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    If the facts are as presented in the article, I would have voted to convict of first-degree murder. Premeditation can form in an instant. In this case, leaving the store, coming back, getting another gun, and shooting the unconscious man, who had long since stopped being a threat, clearly was no act of self-defense. He may have shot the robber upon return out of spite, or hatred, or anger, or just because he thought he could. But no reasonable person would have feared for his life from a wounded and unconscious thug.

    Guilty.
    If he acted out of sudden intense feelings of hatred or anger, might that be a reason to lower the crime from first degree murder to second degree murder, making it a crime of passion rather than a premeditated attack? To me it is not clear what happened. Maybe he went to check on the guy, (grabbing a loaded gun first as a precaution), and when he went over to him he got spooked, or the guy made a sudden movement.

    If the shopkeeper really wanted to have the guy die and the guy was actually unconscious, he was pretty stupid in his actions if he thought it was a good idea to come up and fire five more shots into the abdomen of an unconscious person. After being shot in the head, there was a good chance he would have died anyway.
    Last edited by Felid`Maximus; 05-29-2011 at 01:03 PM.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Western PA
    Posts
    50
    Quote Originally Posted by abechira View Post
    What if the the perp that was shot was dead the instant he was hit by the first round, then the second volley of shots were just discharging rounds into a dead corpse. would he be tried for murder? Makes you go HMMMM.
    That's actually a classic law-school quiz question. The answer is that if you shoot a corpse thinking he's alive and intending to kill him, you're guilty of attempted murder.

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •