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

abechira · May 29, 2011

We-the-People said:
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.

eye95 · May 29, 2011

We-the-People said:
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.

EricDailey X-NRA · May 29, 2011

zack991 said:
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.

Felid`Maximus · May 29, 2011

eye95 said:
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.

Ponch · May 29, 2011

abechira said:
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.

xxx.jakk.xxx · May 31, 2011

I watched the video. I believe that Self Defense ended when he entered the building after the threat was gone. An execution happened after that. He needs to pay for his crime. Even if the guy died when he first dropped (just a hypothetical), that was still a cold blooded execution when he returned with a new magazine/ gun and fired into him more.

Felid`Maximus · May 31, 2011

Well from the looks of it he will spend the rest of his life in prison. No possibility of parole for 38 years, when he's 96.

We-the-People · May 31, 2011

Felid`Maximus said:
Well from the looks of it he will spend the rest of his life in prison. No possibility of parole for 38 years, when he's 96.

There are appeals and the possibility of a gubernatorial pardon or clemency. I would suspect that there will be pleas for both from both the victim (shooter) and the public in this case. "Appropriately" countered by the opposing view I'm sure.

230therapy · May 31, 2011

This guy made too many mistakes. He survived the fight, but not the courtroom battle.

We would do well to study this case in detail.

RetiredOC · Jun 2, 2011

Looking at the big picture, it is really crappy that the man who saved everyone is the one going to jail.

Now, if he was dead first, is there any law against shooting a dead body?

eye95 · Jun 2, 2011

Schlitz said:
Looking at the big picture, it is really crappy that the man who saved everyone is the one going to jail.

Now, if he was dead first, is there any law against shooting a dead body?

Yep, mutilating a corpse and, if one does not know that the victim is dead, the felony of attempted murder.

RetiredOC · Jun 2, 2011

eye95 said:
Yep, mutilating a corpse and, if one does not know that the victim is dead, the felony of attempted murder.

SMH, it sucks that he did that. I don't know if there is much left to say, he shouldn't have shot a second time.

TechnoWeenie · Jun 2, 2011

Legally he may be in trouble.

Morally, I don't see a problem.

He's a modern day cattle rustler, and we all know what they did with cattle rustlers.

Claytron · Jun 2, 2011

We-the-People said:
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.

Oh look, an ignorant sniveling racist who is so ashamed at himself that hes too much of a coward to even be openly racist. Thats incredibly, incredibly pathetic.

BigDave · Jun 2, 2011

I watched the video again and my opinion from when I first seen this when the incident occurred, he was acting in self defense until such time he went to get another gun and returned and emptied it into the robber laying on the floor.

Note that he walked right past the robber that he had shot in the first encounter with his back towards him and then returned to kill him.
This was not in self defense at this point.

His actions after getting another weapon (to return and empty it into a downed attacker where he demonstrated a few seconds earlier not to be a threat) were not legal nor morally correct in trying to justify such actions, he crossed the line from being a victim versus the attacker.

We-the-People · Jun 2, 2011

BigDave said:
His actions after getting another weapon were not legal nor morally correct in trying to justify such actions, he crossed the line from being a victim versus the attacker.

You are confusing morals with ethics.

Morals are PERSONAL, ethics are imposed by society.

His actions were moral in my eyes, unfortunately society has devolved to the point that law abiding citizens are sacrificed in order to keep those with "kinder and gentler" ideas happy.

WCrawford · Jun 2, 2011

I tend to lean to agreeing with eye's argument. I think the guy is guilty of a crime, as the laws are written.

That being said, if I was on the jury, I would go for jury nullification.

tcmech · Jun 2, 2011

I did not read the article but I did watch the video, a couple of times. If he said the FELON on the floor was a threat, he was. Let me elaborate on that......... Those are periods. Everyone looks at what they saw and make their judgement on what the video showed, not what it didn't. If I was on the jury that dude would have walked.

BigDave · Jun 2, 2011

BigDave said:
His actions after getting another weapon (to return and empty it into a downed attacker where he demonstrated a few seconds earlier not to be a threat) were not legal nor morally correct in trying to justify such actions, he crossed the line from being a victim versus the attacker.

We-the-People said:
You are confusing morals with ethics.

Morals are PERSONAL, ethics are imposed by society.

His actions were moral in my eyes, unfortunately society has devolved to the point that law abiding citizens are sacrificed in order to keep those with "kinder and gentler" ideas happy.

The only person confused here is you, there is no confusion on my part.

sudden valley gunner · Jun 3, 2011

WCrawford said:
I tend to lean to agreeing with eye's argument. I think the guy is guilty of a crime, as the laws are written.

That being said, if I was on the jury, I would go for jury nullification.

I don't agree with the guys actions but I wouldn't convict him either.

The laws have become a burden on people.

To me the bottom line is the guy got shot and killed by someone he tried to make a victim. I feel no sympathy for him. And if this happened a 100 years ago I doubt there would even be charges for the shooter at all.

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

New member

Well-known member

Regular Member

Activist Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Activist Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Well-known member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Opt-Out Members

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Opt-Out Members

Regular Member