• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

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

SgtC

Regular Member
Joined
May 25, 2011
Messages
10
Location
Wheeling, WV
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelo...cists-self-defense-plea-convict-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?
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
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:

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
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.
 

zack991

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
1,535
Location
Ohio, USA
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:

VW_Factor

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2010
Messages
1,092
Location
Leesburg, GA
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?
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelo...cists-self-defense-plea-convict-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.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
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.
 

buster81

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Messages
1,461
Location
Richmond, Virginia, USA
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.
 

Ponch

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2010
Messages
50
Location
Western PA
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.
 

We-the-People

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2009
Messages
2,221
Location
White City, Oregon, USA
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!
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
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.
 

We-the-People

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2009
Messages
2,221
Location
White City, Oregon, USA
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).
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
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.
 

abechira

New member
Joined
Apr 10, 2011
Messages
23
Location
Los Angeles County
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:

We-the-People

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2009
Messages
2,221
Location
White City, Oregon, USA
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.
 

We-the-People

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2009
Messages
2,221
Location
White City, Oregon, USA
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.
 

abechira

New member
Joined
Apr 10, 2011
Messages
23
Location
Los Angeles County
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.
 

abechira

New member
Joined
Apr 10, 2011
Messages
23
Location
Los Angeles County
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.
 

We-the-People

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2009
Messages
2,221
Location
White City, Oregon, USA
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.
 
Top