Author Topic: What's up here? (Read 8878 times)

Stand_watie · « **Reply #25 on:** May 31, 2009, 09:43:35 AM »

Quote from: Antibubba on May 31, 2009, 01:58:52 AM

Did you see a different video than I did? Because nothing I saw in the store security video suggests the robber was no longer a threat. Because the miscreant is laying down on a part of the floor not covered by the camera, I have no way at all to tell if he moved again or not. There is nothing stating that the first shot--the one to the head--incapacitated Antwun; we've all read about bullets that pierce the skin and wind up sliding along the skull instead of piercing it, to use one example.

If I were on the jury, I would need a great deal more evidence before I could convict him. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" is not met with that tape.

If the miscreant wasn't moving, then the head shot probably killed him...in which case the worst crime the pharmacist is guilty of is desecrating a corpse.

cassandra and sara's daddy · « **Reply #26 on:** May 31, 2009, 10:05:23 AM »

only one gun and the dead kid didn't have it

makattak · « **Reply #27 on:** May 31, 2009, 04:30:41 PM »

Quote from: cassandra and sara's daddy on May 31, 2009, 10:05:23 AM

only one gun and the dead kid didn't have it

Untrue.

There were 3 guns. One with the micreant's associate, and two with the pharmacists.

The dead thief had no gun, we now know that. Judging a man based off information unavailable to him at the time is unjust.

S. Williamson · « **Reply #28 on:** May 31, 2009, 06:05:33 PM »

Quote from: makattak on May 31, 2009, 04:30:41 PM

Judging a man based off information unavailable to him at the time is unjust.

BWAAHAAHAA!!!

So ignorance is acceptable? It's okay for me to shoot a cop in plainclothes arresting a suspect, because it looks like a thug robbing someone?

makattak · « **Reply #29 on:** May 31, 2009, 06:16:35 PM »

Quote from: Dionysusigma on May 31, 2009, 06:05:33 PM

BWAAHAAHAA!!!

So ignorance is acceptable? It's okay for me to shoot a cop in plainclothes arresting a suspect, because it looks like a thug robbing someone?

That depends entirely on the circumstance.

However, we don't expect someone in their home to wait to determine for certain that the intruder has a weapon.

Werewolf · « **Reply #30 on:** May 31, 2009, 10:26:58 PM »

Quote from: Dionysusigma on May 31, 2009, 06:05:33 PM

BWAAHAAHAA!!!

So ignorance is acceptable? It's okay for me to shoot a cop in plainclothes arresting a suspect, because it looks like a thug robbing someone?

Not in that case...

Here's why.

Many states, including OK which is where Dionysusigma lives, recognize the doctrine of stepping into another's shoes.

Part of that doctrine is making sure you step into the right shoes. In the scenario you postulated you would be stepping into the thug's shoes. He has no legal right to shoot the cop and therefore neither would you.

The lawyer who taught the CCW class I attended spent quite a bit of time on the concept. Told a number of true stories that went both ways and thoroughly confused most of the students which I believed and confirmed after the class was concluded. He used the confusion to make the point that though it was legal to do it was probably not something most should with out being 100% sure of the circumstances.

RoadKingLarry · « **Reply #31 on:** May 31, 2009, 10:45:22 PM »

it is not just the OKC area here in Oklahoma where people are outraged at the DA for charging the businessman. Anytime I've heard it mentioned From the grocery store to the farm store to the donut shop, people are pissed that the pharmacist has been charged with 1st degree murder. I don' think if it goes to a jury he will be convicted. Instead I see the DA's office dragging it out and wearing him down emotionally and financially till he ends up with a plea bargain for manslaughter and probation.

HankB · « **Reply #32 on:** May 31, 2009, 11:00:16 PM »

Were I in the pharmacist's shoes, I do NOT repeat NOT see myself shooting the downed perp multiple times.

Were I to serve as a juror when the pharmacist is on trial . . . I would hang the jury before voting to convict him.

Of anything.

MicroBalrog · « **Reply #33 on:** June 01, 2009, 05:39:17 AM »

Quote from: Dionysusigma on May 31, 2009, 06:05:33 PM

So ignorance is acceptable? It's okay for me to shoot a cop in plainclothes arresting a suspect, because it looks like a thug robbing someone?

Kevin Harris got acquitted.

grey54956 · « **Reply #34 on:** June 01, 2009, 08:26:43 AM »

If aging could be slowed significantly, stopped, or reversed, it would probably eliminate our social security problems. Of course, we'd still have to worry about other forms of gov't assistance.

The social problems this would create would be astronomically complex.

280plus · « **Reply #35 on:** June 01, 2009, 08:55:10 AM »

I was taught to kill in my CCW class. Two to the body one to the head. That sounds like killing to me.

I was also taught my intent was not to kill but to make him/her stop.

"Why did you shoot him?"

"Because I wanted him to stop."

Not "Because I wanted to kill the SOB."

Werewolf · « **Reply #36 on:** June 01, 2009, 01:32:15 PM »

Quote from: 280plus on June 01, 2009, 08:55:10 AM

I was taught to kill in my CCW class. Two to the body one to the head. That sounds like killing to me.

I was also taught my intent was not to kill but to make him/her stop.

"Why did you shoot him?"

"Because I wanted him to stop."

Not "Because I wanted to kill the SOB."

Words have meaning...

We are taught to shoot to STOP, to eliminate the threat. If the 1st shot eliminates the threat one stops shooting. That's all there is to it. Really, really simple concept.

Of course - circumstances do dictate whether the threat has been eliminated or not.

If you roll the dice and decide circumstances dictate the threat has not been eliminated one can only hope that if the local DA does not agree tha a jury of your peers will.

MicroBalrog · « **Reply #37 on:** June 01, 2009, 02:50:30 PM »

Quote from: 280plus on June 01, 2009, 08:55:10 AM

I was taught to kill in my CCW class. Two to the body one to the head. That sounds like killing to me.

I was also taught my intent was not to kill but to make him/her stop.

"Why did you shoot him?"

"Because I wanted him to stop."

Not "Because I wanted to kill the SOB."

My Army training was very different.

The phrase "In the case of an attempt to kidnap or injure a fellow soldier or snatch his weapon occure, open fire immediately towards the attacker's center of mass in order to kill" was a big one.

280plus · « **Reply #38 on:** June 01, 2009, 03:15:04 PM »

Yea, we have to play semantics here given all the bleeding hearts and sue happy lawyers.

I agree, if the threat has ceased there is no reason to keep shooting. But then again, my CCW instructor told me, "Empty your gun into him and say you panicked." Which I don't necessarily agree with but he's him and I'm me. I've been in enough scrapes with guys to where I don't panic, I actually stay pretty calm and concentrate on defending myself. I boxed and wrestled when I was a kid so that has something to do with it I'm sure. My biggest fear is getting bopped from behind because I've had it happen. Not fun. I still owe a couple people for that but I'm not going to prison over it. Let them approach me in a threatening manner again however.

jackdanson · « **Reply #39 on:** June 01, 2009, 03:27:22 PM »

Quote

But then again, my CCW instructor told me, "Empty your gun into him and say you panicked."

Had he shot the guy immediately as he was going down/right as he hit the ground I don't think we'd be having this discussion. The problem is he walked around, picked up another gun, walked over to him and shot him again. This is not a clean shoot, not that I feel bad for the BG or anything. If you have to shoot someone and want to make sure they are dead just keep shooting as they hit the ground. One or two bonus bullets within a second of them hitting the ground is still going to be considered SD. Walking around and then deciding to shoot again is going to be considered murder.

makattak · « **Reply #40 on:** June 01, 2009, 03:29:03 PM »

Quote from: jackdanson on June 01, 2009, 03:27:22 PM

Had he shot the guy immediately as he was going down/right as he hit the ground I don't think we'd be having this discussion. The problem is he walked around, picked up another gun, walked over to him and shot him again. This is not a clean shoot, not that I feel bad for the BG or anything. If you have to shoot someone and want to make sure they are dead just keep shooting as they hit the ground. One or two bonus bullets within a second of them hitting the ground is still going to be considered SD. Walking around and then deciding to shoot again is going to be considered murder.

Unless, of course, the perpetrator has become a threat again.

I cannot pass judgement on this pharmacist because I cannot know what the thief on the ground was doing.

Werewolf · « **Reply #41 on:** June 01, 2009, 04:02:16 PM »

Quote from: makattak on June 01, 2009, 03:29:03 PM

Unless, of course, the perpetrator has become a threat again.

I cannot pass judgement on this pharmacist because I cannot know what the thief on the ground was doing.

Geeeeeeezz!

The punk had been shot in the head.
He was on the ground.
He DID NOT HAVE A GUN - which was plain to see from the video and if he had one wouldn't he have presented it along with his cohort?
The Pharmacist turned his back on him and went to get ANOTHER GUN! NO ONE TURNS THEIR BACK ON A STILL EXTANT LETHAL THREAT no matter how much adrenaline they've got in them.
The Pharmacist went back to the kid - still on the ground - and pumped 5 more bullets into his abdomen - if the kid was still a threat why did the pharmacist walk up to, stand over him and shoot instead of shooting him from where he retrieved the new gun which would have provided some cover?

I'm shedding no tears over the death of that stupid kid. Make all the excuses that can possibly be made but it will not change the facts and the facts as we know them point overwhelmingly to this being a bad shoot.

If I get on the JURY (I am an OKC resident) the Pharmacist is gonna walk or at least there'll be a hung jury.

Wait - what? Oh crap. I guess I just ruined my chances of getting on that jury. Damn!

makattak · « **Reply #42 on:** June 01, 2009, 04:09:13 PM »

Quote from: Werewolf on June 01, 2009, 04:02:16 PM

Geeeeeeezz!

The punk had been shot in the head.
He was on the ground.
He DID NOT HAVE A GUN - which was plain to see from the video and if he had one wouldn't he have presented it along with his cohort?
The Pharmacist turned his back on him and went to get ANOTHER GUN! NO ONE TURNS THEIR BACK ON A STILL EXTANT LETHAL THREAT no matter how much adrenaline they've got in them.
The Pharmacist went back to the kid - still on the ground - and pumped 5 more bullets into his abdomen - if the kid was still a threat why did the pharmacist walk up to, stand over him and shoot instead of shooting him from where he retrieved the new gun which would have provided some cover?

I'm shedding no tears over the death of that stupid kid. Make all the excuses that can possibly be made but it will not change the facts and the facts as we know them point overwhelmingly to this being a bad shoot.

If I get on the JURY (I am an OKC resident) the Pharmacist is gonna walk or at least there'll be a hung jury.

Wait - what? Oh crap. I guess I just ruined my chances of getting on that jury. Damn!

GEEEEEEEEEEEeeeeeeeeeeeeeez!!

The punk had been shot in the head.

He was on the ground. He was pulling up his mask, which was plain to see as he got shot, so how could the pharmacist know whether he had a gun.

The pharmacist turned his back on him and went to get ANOTHER GUN! NO TURNS THEIR BACK ON A STILL EXTANT LETHAL THREAT no matter how much adrenaline they've got in them. This, of course, means the youth was not a threat AT THAT TIME. Likely because he was shot in the head and possibly unconcious. (At least stunned, since the coroner says the headshot didn't kill him)

THe pharmacist went back to the kid- OUT OF THE CAMERA'S VIEW- and shot him 5 more times. We can't know he was "standing over the thief" because WE CAN'T SEE THE THIEF.

To me, walking past him all those times tells me something changed in order to cause the pharmacist to go back to the perpetrator: either he suddenly decides he should just off the thief after passing him "ALL THOSE TIMES!!111!!!" or the youth began presenting himself as a threat once again.

I will not condemn this man since I see no evidence to doubt his story yet.

I'm glad you won't vote to condemn him, but I don't think it's proven he's a murderer, yet.

Perd Hapley · « **Reply #43 on:** June 01, 2009, 05:19:08 PM »

Quote from: MicroBalrog on June 01, 2009, 02:50:30 PM

My Army training was very different.

The phrase "In the case of an attempt to kidnap or injure a fellow soldier or snatch his weapon occure, open fire immediately towards the attacker's center of mass in order to kill" was a big one.

Yes, you would expect a difference between civilian and military training. My Army training was all about killing as many of the enemy as we could go out of our way to find.

But I presume you're talking about situations other than open warfare?

MicroBalrog · « **Reply #44 on:** June 01, 2009, 05:48:53 PM »

That is correct. My military career was not very spectacular, but we did a lot of guard duty. We received instructions on what to do in the case of infiltrators and attempts to attack soldiers or steal their guns.

Antibubba · « **Reply #45 on:** June 02, 2009, 02:27:54 AM »

One more time: Show me something indicating the kid was not a threat. Maybe the head shot dazed him, and he was attempting to get up. Maybe he had something in his hand that appeared threatening. I don't know, and neither do any of you, based on what can be seen.

cassandra and sara's daddy · « **Reply #46 on:** June 03, 2009, 07:13:43 PM »

can't show you anything about the dead kid. we do know for a fact that the shooter lied his tail off. and thats gonna bite him in the tail big time. it already has.

Balog · « **Reply #47 on:** June 03, 2009, 07:14:57 PM »

Quote from: cassandra and sara's daddy on June 03, 2009, 07:13:43 PM

can't show you anything about the dead kid. we do know for a fact that the shooter lied his tail off. and thats gonna bite him in the tail big time. it already has.

We do? Serious question, been casually following the thread and I've not seen any concrete lies the fellow has told.

News:

Author Topic: What's up here? (Read 8878 times)