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

[We-the-People]

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.

And a lot less crime because even the criminals would be smart enough to figure out that the risk was higher.

 

[zack991]

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.

Agreed. I think anyone who is killed by the person they intended to rape, murder, rob, ext. got what they deserved no matter how their death came about. I have zero sympathy for any scumbag who is killed even if their death was over kill, but because in the end it was their actions that got them killed. I have ZERO pity or sorrow for people like that robber.

 

[BigDave]

How short cited so many are here, for example you come across someone kneeling over that appears have just been raped, attacked or killed and with a few that have posted here their reasoning would be to kill that person that was kneeling over then victim when it may have just been someone trying to save their life.

The lack of maturity and reasoning of nothing matters but them is beyond belief and feeds the anti's in their continued ignorance.

If there is a current active threat then attend to it, once they are no longer a threat then you are not the Judge, Jury and Executioner.

This line of thinking plays right along with the groups of past and present that feel the laws and the government do not apply to them.

As seen here Sovereign Citizen also has been known by Township or Anarchist Movement.

 

[We-the-People]

How short cited so many are here, for example you come across someone kneeling over that appears have just been raped, attacked or killed and with a few that have posted here their reasoning would be to kill that person that was kneeling over then victim when it may have just been someone trying to save their life.

I think it's a BIT of a reach to think the posters here are advocating the extreme that your scenario presents.

It's a far different situation from that presented to the Pharmacist convicted. Unless I've missed something, and I've followed every post in this thread, it is equally as far from the sentiments being expressed.

 

[jag06]

I agree that going back in and getting another gun was excessive. I think most people on here agree that crime is rampant as of late, urged on by the down economy. Now I would personally never do something like what he did, but in a way I see it as a message that is sent to criminals, we are tired of you robbing, raping, and killing us. If you try and rob someone, you have a chance of not getting away alive. That is the message that needs to be sent to criminals. If the law allowed for such force used when in a self defense situation, I can't help but wonder what affect that would have on crime rates. Most criminals just have a gun for looks, to scare people to give them what they want, a lot don't even use it, they want something quick and easy without a fight and run from fights. If every time one of their buddies was shot like this in a robbery, I think they would start saying this is to risky, time to work for micky d's.

You can also look at it this way, the kid was 16 and already on the career criminal path unless something major happened in this kids life. Now I believe in second chances, but by this kids death, how many lives are saved down the road? We will never know, but if at 16 the kid was already robbing stores with a gun, what is he going to be into when he turns 20 or 30? How many people would he have killed in robberies and possible gang activity? As morbid as it sounds, the pharmacist could possible have saved lives down the road by killing the criminal and is going to prison for it. Like I said I would not do it, but I can't blame him for doing it either. Criminals show no mercy for us, why should we for them?

 

[sudden valley gunner]

How short cited so many are here, for example you come across someone kneeling over that appears have just been raped, attacked or killed and with a few that have posted here their reasoning would be to kill that person that was kneeling over then victim when it may have just been someone trying to save their life.

The lack of maturity and reasoning of nothing matters but them is beyond belief and feeds the anti's in their continued ignorance.

If there is a current active threat then attend to it, once they are no longer a threat then you are not the Judge, Jury and Executioner.

This line of thinking plays right along with the groups of past and present that feel the laws and the government do not apply to them.

As seen here Sovereign Citizen also has been known by Township or Anarchist Movement.

Please read posts more careful before you insinuate bad motives or lack of maturity. Your example has nothing to do with what is being discussed and is a big stretch. You are actually more likely to be arrested and convicted for murder by police, prosecutors and a jury in your scenario than ever be shot by someone?

 

[BigDave]

The main theme in this last page was that it was okay to shoot someone who is no longer a threat, laying on the ground and unconscious because he was involved in a crime.
To leave and ignore the perp with his back to him, while he walked back retrieved another weapon to return to hm and kill him while there was no immediate threat.
Then those who as yourself feel this is legal to do so in some absurd and distorted way.

Pretty simple here, if there is no longer a threat like laying on the floor shot and unconscious, not moving or talking, you do not unloaded a retrieved gun into them! they are not a threat, you are not the Judge, Jury or Executioner, you do not get to take the law into your own hands.

Emotions are very intense feelings in a person and you will find many, many people in prison today are there based on some emotional response that was not controlled and committed a crime.

Jury Justification is to right an improper application or intent of a law, the law was applied appropriately.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

The main theme in this last page was that it was okay to shoot someone who is no longer a threat, laying on the ground and unconscious because he was involved in a crime.
To leave and ignore the perp with his back to him, while he walked back retrieved another weapon to return to hm and kill him while there was no immediate threat.
Then those who as yourself feel this is legal to do so in some absurd and distorted way.

Pretty simple here, if there is no longer a threat like laying on the floor shot and unconscious, not moving or talking, you do not unloaded a retrieved gun into them! they are not a threat, you are not the Judge, Jury or Executioner, you do not get to take the law into your own hands.

Emotions are very intense feelings in a person and you will find many, many people in prison today are there based on some emotional response that was not controlled and committed a crime.

Jury Justification is to right an improper application or intent of a law, the law was applied appropriately.

No it hasn't been the main theme at all.

My highlighted part of your post supports what I was saying these people shouldn't be in prison when someone tried to make them the victim and they "over reacted". If I was on this jury I would not convict him of murder, possibly manslaughter, but I personally would take human emotion into it and the circumstances that lead him to shoot this scumbag.

This is how far strayed from the protection of the people our legal system was originally designed to a burden of the people. Who's willing to bet the jury was given "strict guidelines" on how to rule. Bring back nullification, of course many statist are afraid of nullification because their goes their "law and order" tyranny they so much adore.

 

[eye95]

The main theme in this last page was that it was okay to shoot someone who is no longer a threat, laying on the ground and unconscious because he was involved in a crime...

It is appropriate that you should decry this. Just know that folks who advocate such (or would not vote to convict in such a case--same difference) are a tiny minority of our group (and virtually non-existent in the rest of the population). You won't change their minds.

It still is important the we propose the rational alternative for two reasons: One, there are folks here who are forming their opinions. It is important that we reach them with rationality, even if they are only reading and not posting. Two, it is important that we make it clear that wacko ideas about shooting unconscious bad guys are NOT representative of our Liberty movement.

The pharmacist is one of the bad guys. His actions demonstrate that. That his victim was also a criminal does not mitigate the evil of his cold-blooded actions. It is good that he was convicted of his crime. Rational people need to say so.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

"Birds of a feather......"

 

[We-the-People]

Jury Justification is to right an improper application or intent of a law, the law was applied appropriately.

The term is "Jury Nullification" and it is equally appropriate to use it when a a jurist feels that the law is wrong. There is no need for it to have been applied improperly or for the intent to be misconstrued. It is sufficient that a jurist disagrees with a law.

Yet no court in the nation that I am aware of will inform the jury of this fact.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

The term is "Jury Nullification" and it is equally appropriate to use it when a a jurist feels that the law is wrong. There is no need for it to have been applied improperly or for the intent to be misconstrued. It is sufficient that a jurist disagrees with a law.

Yet no court in the nation that I am aware of will inform the jury of this fact.

This is why we see so many ridiculous convictions too, the jurist are given strict instructions on how to rule and they think they must follow those instructions and don't educate themselves on what the true nature of a jury is.

 

[DevinWKuska]

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.

We-the-people did you even see the camera footage? Your argument is moot at best. The Pharmacist shoots the kid in the head runs outside to chase off the other guy. Then returns into the store walks right past the downed kid(calmly mind you) gets another gun, walks over(again he appears fairly calm and focused) stands over the kid and shoots him 5 more times. What strikes me is if you see his body language when he comes back to the assailant it looks like he is getting into an aiming stance.

Also the other employees where nowhere to be found, so his coming back was un-necessary. Even so to walk right by the assailant without so much as looking at him, getting another gun and shooting again... come on man thats not even close to self defense. Now maybe if he glanced at the assailant as he came back in and flew over the counter and then charged guns blazing.... maybe... but this guy's legal self defense ended when he stood over the kid and shot him 5 more times without cause.

 

[eye95]

The term is "Jury Nullification" and it is equally appropriate to use it when a a jurist feels that the law is wrong. There is no need for it to have been applied improperly or for the intent to be misconstrued. It is sufficient that a jurist disagrees with a law.

Yet no court in the nation that I am aware of will inform the jury of this fact.

I tend to agree with laws designed to keep us from removing the Life, Liberty, or Property of another without Due Process of Law. Such laws include those against deliberately killing a person in a currently in a totally helpless state just because he has been a threat in the past and may again, at some nebulous point in time, be again.

After all, I don't want some citizen, of his own singular accord, deciding that death is the right consequence for something I may do wrong in the future.

To the point, I see this pharmacist as a criminal (more so than the man he killed, as he is now a killer and not just an armed robber). Yet I don't believe that one of us should kill him out of the fear that he might kill again. If we can do it to him, and he can do it to another, can not someone do it to one of us?

You see, we have a justice system for dealing with criminals who have already been thoroughly subdued. A justice system endowed with the proper power to remove Life, Liberty, and Property after due process has been applied and with the consent of Twelve Men Good and True. As it should be.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

We-the-people did you even see the camera footage? Your argument is moot at best. The Pharmacist shoots the kid in the head runs outside to chase off the other guy. Then returns into the store walks right past the downed kid(calmly mind you) gets another gun, walks over(again he appears fairly calm and focused) stands over the kid and shoots him 5 more times. What strikes me is if you see his body language when he comes back to the assailant it looks like he is getting into an aiming stance.

Also the other employees where nowhere to be found, so his coming back was un-necessary. Even so to walk right by the assailant without so much as looking at him, getting another gun and shooting again... come on man thats not even close to self defense. Now maybe if he glanced at the assailant as he came back in and flew over the counter and then charged guns blazing.... maybe... but this guy's legal self defense ended when he stood over the kid and shot him 5 more times without cause.

It does appear cold blooded, but we have no idea what was going on inside of him. I have many family members who are very "stoic" in their nature even under intense circumstances. But that could be just the stereo typical "Indian" nature. That sometimes just rings true. I know not "panicking" has saved my life several times.

Do I condone this guys actions, would I act the same? Not at all, but I feel no sympathy for the person who put himself into harms way by doing what he did to initiate the shooting. I think Jury's have forgotten this or are given strict instructions on how to rule. A 100 years ago I don't think the jury would have ruled the same. Of course none of us here were on the jury and none of us here has heard all the testimony.

( This was not meant to be argumentative, but to simply point out other points of view)

 

[hjmoosejaw]

Walk a mile in his shoes ( I don't think you would want to.)

It seems there is a difference between Pre-meditated and fearing for your life. (at least there should be). Can you say for sure how you would react?

 

[eye95]

It seems there is a difference between Pre-meditated and fearing for your life. (at least there should be). Can you say for sure how you would react?

Yep. I can say unequivocally that I would not have shot the unconscious bad guy (thereby making me one).

I can also unequivocally say that I would not have even walked back into the store. My safety and the safety of the others in the immediate area of the robbery had been secured. It then became time for the mop-up. That is one thing that the police do much better than we.

 

[DevinWKuska]

It does appear cold blooded, but we have no idea what was going on inside of him. I have many family members who are very "stoic" in their nature even under intense circumstances. But that could be just the stereo typical "Indian" nature. That sometimes just rings true. I know not "panicking" has saved my life several times.
( This was not meant to be argumentative, but to simply point out other points of view)

I understand what your saying about people handling stress differently. I myself have had others comment on how I seem "Cool, and collective" under emergency situations. So I get the being stoic, but to calmly walk by the downed assailant and not so much as glance down as you walk by... that tells me the he knew the kid was no longer a threat. To then proceed to go get another gun(looks almost like he loaded it in the corner) then stand over the assailant and fire 5 more shots downward... I just dont know. That seems much more like an execution then someone who handles stress seemingly stoic.

Again I would like to mention that as he walks toward the assailant he appears to be bracing his shoulders and grips the gun with both hands and is firing downward. What would be interesting to learn is if the assailants firearm was even in close proximity. Does that make sense? If his weapon was 10 feet away then even a concious intruder doesnt pose much of a threat laying on the ground when you have a .38 or .357 aimed at him. Dont get me wrong guys I dont want the law to start drawing too many lines as to what is justified and what isnt(Birk being another great case of a bad shooting). But the evidence against this guy would seem to me to indicate no justification to shoot the assailant 5 more times while unconcious on the ground with a bullet in his head.

It seems there is a difference between Pre-meditated and fearing for your life. (at least there should be). Can you say for sure how you would react?

I agree to a point although sometimes the line between pre-meditation and fearing for your life can get very grey. Domestic violence victims for instance. But in this case the would be "victim" slowly walks back into the store gets another gun then slowly walks over to the subdued assailant and shoots him 5 more times at point blank... I think had the pharmacist shot the kid and then on the way out shot him 5 more times this story would have been easier for jury to swallow as being heat of the moment self defense. But he rushed the two kids as the shooting started... but walked back to finish the job...

 

[Ponch]

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

...in the movies.

 

[carry for myself]

just came across this. i have to side with the jury. guy shot him. chased the other guy, came back.....re loaded.....then emptied the gun into the un-concious guy........

now pre meditated can happen in 2 minutes. it is the choice you make when you say "well hes down, but im going to kill him anyway". that makes it illegal. this guy should have shot him, let the other one run, and called 911. shooting the kid over and over and over.........not cool