Oklahoma druggist arrested for killing holdup man

[vraiblonde]

My whole deal and hesitation on forming an opinion rested on the fact that I don't know how much of a threat the person shot still posed. If he was still a threat, then neutralizing that threat is acceptable to me.

Okay, so let's go there:

Head shot, BG is wounded. Druggist guy stops and calls the cops.

Now what happens? Realistically, that is, not what we hope would happen.

 

[Larry Gude]

I do not and will not side with the person who chose to initiate all of this. I do not choose to stand by the side of the thug who was killed, or by the side of the coward who shot an unarmed wounded man.

To me, they are both wrong. Two wrongs don't make a right. A coward is anyone who would harm a defensless human being.

I stand on the side of the law.

The law is not some autonomous entity that just exists on its own; it exists to serve the people. When the robber and his victim are judged equal, as you are doing, either the law is no good or your interpretation of it might need some work.

 

[Toxick]

Okay, so let's go there:

Head shot, BG is wounded. Druggist guy stops and calls the cops.

Now what happens? Realistically, that is, not what we hope would happen.

I don't know.

Thus my question: HOW MUCH OF A THREAT WAS THE GUY AFTER BEING SHOT?


The only one who's answered me so far is eddy.

Based off his answer, the guy posed no threat. He was bleeding, and not doing much else. Therefore, he was not a threat and murdering him - whether he deserved it nor not - is an illegal act, and puts the storekeeper on the same level as the original robber, IMO. It's not his goddam job to be a street-judge nor exact vengeance by carrying out their executions.

So, to answer your question: Realistically... the guy would've laid there until the ambulance and police showed up, and probably would have died from exsanguination before they got there, in which case, tough titty.




Now, had you answered me with: "He was reaching toward his boot for a knife" (or something), then I would have agreed that the thug still posed a significant threat, and therefore every round that slammed into his midsection was necessary and was propelled by justice.

So, to answer your question: Realistically... the shop-keep may have been stabbed to death, and had the right to defend himself.

 

[vraiblonde]

Thus my question: HOW MUCH OF A THREAT WAS THE GUY AFTER BEING SHOT?

The answer is: he was probably not an immediate threat anymore. I don't know how bad the guy was wounded - he may have been down for the count or he may have been able to keep coming.

But that's neither here nor there because I'm trying to point you to the future. You know, when the punk recovers from his gunshot wound and is all healthy again.

What happens then?

 

[vraiblonde]

Anyway, it's a sad day when some predator threatens to shoot you, and you shoot him instead, you end up in jail.

Score one for the criminals. Bet they're laughing their asses off because they know the system is on their side and they can do whatever they please.

 

[Toxick]

The answer is: he was probably not an immediate threat anymore. I don't know how bad the guy was wounded - he may have been down for the count or he may have been able to keep coming.

And as far as I'm concerned the threat level is the only thing that matters.

But that's neither here nor there because I'm trying to point you to the future. You know, when the punk recovers from his gunshot wound and is all healthy again.

What happens then?

:shrug: Maybe he finds God in prison. Maybe he becomes a serial rapist. Maybe he simply learns his lession. Maybe he blows up a school. Maybe he becomes a flaming homosexual hair-stylist of the stars. To me the answer to this question is neither here nor there. Who knows what happens then? I don't. And (believe it nor not) you don't either. The pharmacist certainly doesn't know, and as I said, it's not his job to be judge, jury and executioner. If the guy was on the floor weeping, crawling away, or just trying to hold pieces of his skull together, then shooting him down was pure murder.

Whether or not you or I think he "deserved it", murder is against the law.

I know that I, personally, talk a lot of #### about various laws - but in general, I do respect the law, and I try to obey them, even the ones I think are useless, silly, counterproductive or even oppressive (for example, I wear my seatbelt because the law requires it - although I think it's pure fascism to tell me that I have to do that).


Laws against murder, however, happen to be a subset that I agree with. And they are probably the only reason that most of us are still alive. I'm sure someone out there thinks I'm a worthless ####pile who deserves to die. I am grateful for the laws that prevent them from carrying out their desires to see me dead.


Shooting someone (even a scumbag) repeatedly through the abdomen because they might do something in the future is abhorrent to me.

 

[Toxick]

Anyway, it's a sad day when some predator threatens to shoot you, and you shoot him instead, you end up in jail.

The way I understand it, he's not in jail for shooting the guy.


He's in jail for shooting the guy, walking away, getting more ammo, reloading, then resume shooting the guy until he's dead.


Big difference. If the guy had stopped after the first head-wound, I'd be the first one in line golf-clapping and saying, "Good aim, guy!"

Score one for the criminals. Bet they're laughing their asses off because they know the system is on their side and they can do whatever they please.

Yeah. I'm sure that's happening in prisons everywhere.

 

[Libertarian]

That's fine, you can disagree with me. But that is the law of the land. I think we should be an honorable society. There are laws for that reason.

Tell me what honor there is to shoot a wounded defensless person? Tell me why that act doesn't reduce this person to the scumb that just robbed him? Because the scum that just robbed him was invading the right of a law-abiding citizen and threatening his life by sticking a gun in his face; the law-abiding citizen was making sure the robber was unable to get up and reach for another gun...can you vouch that you know what frame of mind someone is in after they have had a gun to their head? If the store owner caught the person a year later outside of his store, would you say it is justifiable for him to put five rounds in him then?Certainly not! But this was not a year later...it was a minute later!

...

 

[Libertarian]

If the guy had stopped after the first head-wound, I'd be the first one in line golf-clapping and saying, "Good aim, guy!"

Yep...and anti-gun advocates would be saying the same thing they are now: "That's why we need to ban guns."

 

[Toxick]

Yep...and anti-gun advocates would be saying the same thing they are now: "That's why we need to ban guns."

It sounds like you're implying that if he had not brutally gunned this thug down, the anti-gun-nuts would be screaming louder than they would be now, given that he actually murdered the guy.




Yeah - that makes perfect sense.

 

[bcp]

So, you're totally cool with unbridaled anarchy, mayhem and flouting of the law.

yes I am.
when the law becomes soiled with liberal constraints to the point that it is no longer able to protect, it becomes time to create our own law that can eliminate the crap that the current judges keep letting back into our communities.

I can not see any problem at all in killing someone that is a known violent criminal.
and, since your question made me think, I now have to go back and retract my statement that he should not be killed if found a week later.
since the law has become so polluted by those like you, honest citizens have no choice but to kill in any way they see fit, any person that has been involved in a violent crime.

shoot them, burn them, hang them, drag them behind the car, run them over with the car, torture them then bury them alive. I dont care. If it saves one innocent person from being robbed, raped or killed, who really cares about the crap in society.

 

[Libertarian]

Is there any indication whether or not the guy on the floor was an actual threat?


Was he unconcsious? Was he going for his gun again? Sure, he was wounded and on the floor - but that does not mean that he wasn't still a threat.



That being said, if he was laying on the ground comatose, unconscious or otherwise incapacitated and posing no threat, then I'm going to have to agree with eddy here. The purpose of self-defense is to "defend oneself". Not to exact revenge after the threat has been neutralized. Gunning down someone who's laying there bleeding on the floor defenseless is nothing but cold-blooded ####ing murder, pure and simple. Even if the victim was a worthless piece of ####. And even if the world's a slightly better place without him in it.

I totally agree with the first shot that took the thug down.

I don't know enough to condemn or validate the remaining shots.

I partially agree with you, Toxick. The key is whether the store-owner still PERCEIVED the robber as a threat as he laid on the floor with a gunshot wound to the head. He could very well have been comatose or unconscious, but the store-owner who just had a gun stuck in his face would not be in his right mind (IMO) to determine whether he still presents a threat. In that case, I would give the store-owner the benefit of the doubt. On the other hand, if the store owner knew good and well the robber was out cold and posed no immediate threat, and his motive was simply to keep him from committing future crimes or what have you, then in my mind that is excessive force and qualifies as murder. Still, if I were on the jury, would I convict in either case? Definitely not in the first case, and probably not in the second. Why? Because as far as I am concerned he did society a favor.

 

[Toxick]

yes I am.

Fair enough. I was just asking.

since the law has become so polluted by those like you, honest citizens have no choice but to kill in any way they see fit, any person that has been involved in a violent crime.

I would like you to elaborate on this.


Define "those like me". I'm interested in what this means to you. Since you've used the word "Polluted" I'm guessing it's not a positive thing.





Edit:

If it saves one innocent person from being robbed, raped or killed, who really cares about the crap in society

I'd also like you to clearly define "crap in society".
The reason I ask - you said up there that the law is polluted with people like me, it sounds as if you think I'm crap-like.
Do you think I deserve to die?

 

[muttdog]

yes I am.
when the law becomes soiled with liberal constraints to the point that it is no longer able to protect, it becomes time to create our own law that can eliminate the crap that the current judges keep letting back into our communities.

I can not see any problem at all in killing someone that is a known violent criminal.
and, since your question made me think, I now have to go back and retract my statement that he should not be killed if found a week later.
since the law has become so polluted by those like you, honest citizens have no choice but to kill in any way they see fit, any person that has been involved in a violent crime.

shoot them, burn them, hang them, drag them behind the car, run them over with the car, torture them then bury them alive. I dont care. If it saves one innocent person from being robbed, raped or killed, who really cares about the crap in society.

There was a case here in DC a few years ago where a man got shot in the head and went down. He got back up and started chasing after the man that shot him, so you dont know if the robber was still a threat or not till he stopped breathing. Nobody here has been thru this so we have no idea what the pharmicist was thinking at the time. Whould you condem him if he sat in the corner after the first shot and let the robber bleed to death?
If the scum bag had not come in the store to rob it, none of this would have happened.

 

[Libertarian]

Well maybe it can be plead down to manslaughter, but if you are on the jury, and you are a person of your word, you swear an oath to give a judgement based on the circumstances. It isn't for the jury to decide leniency, it's for a judge. The fact that he went back and had time to think about shooting the subject makes it first degree murder. Do I hope he goes to jail for that? NO. But as a juror, I would abide by the oath I swore. That's how our system is supposed to work.

Eddy1, it seems like you have already made up your mind on the case without even hearing all the facts, so I don't know why you are trying to preach to someone about being a good juror. Besides, as Imnomensa has stated, jurors have a right to "nullify," which is to find a "not guilty" verdict despite what the evidence shows. This is not breaking their oath; it is their right and from what I understand is intended in part to prevent laws from being applied to unfair circumstances.

 

[vraiblonde]

Yeah. I'm sure that's happening in prisons everywhere.

And you are surely aware that there are many criminals who don't go to prison?

 

[This_person]

Is there any indication whether or not the guy on the floor was an actual threat?

I guess that depends on what you consider a "threat".

Per Eddy's answers, the guy was an armed robber, with a buddy whose whereabouts were not specifically known, in a neighborhood of high crime rate and relatively slow police response, who was not dead. To me, by his actions and relatively slow official response, he was clearly a threat until dead.

To Eddy, he wasn't a threat because he wasn't currently in the process of leveling a gun at the guy.

:shrug: It's all up to interpretation. I'd default to the law-abiding citizen protecting himself over the criminal who may or may not have been neutralized.

 

[ImnoMensa]

You are leaving out a huge difference. First, the person you refer to in this post was actively shooting at the police. If the store owner at the time of the robbery had pumped five shots or as many shots as his gun had in it at the time he shot this guy, I would have no problem with that. My problem is that he went back to the store, retrieved another gun, and shot an unarmed defenseless wounded person lying on the ground. I submit that is a cowardly act.

This guy was actively shooting at police until 68 bullets got him?/

He was one bad hombre.

And if it took 68 bullets to kill that guy I sure dont blame the pharmacist for giving his perp 5 more to make sure he wasnt going to get up, after all he only hit him once, maybe just stunned him.

No the fact is the police tried their guy ,convicted him and executed him. I dont blame them but I dont make excuses for them either, like others in the fraternity.

 

[Toxick]

There was a case here in DC a few years ago where a man got shot in the head and went down. He got back up and started chasing after the man that shot him, so you dont know if the robber was still a threat or not till he stopped breathing.

That's why you don't put your gun away until the authorities arrive and square the situation away. If he got up and made a move, then I would be the leading the cheers that the second shot completed the job the first one didn't.


There is no evidence that anything of the sort happened here, though.

Nobody here has been thru this so we have no idea what the pharmicist was thinking at the time.

That's why we have a court system in place. The shopkeeper may present a story that completely changes my mind, and vindicates his actions, and again, I'll be leading the cheer campaign. How great is it that we have trials for such events, and we're all innocent until proven guilty....


Well - most of us, anyway.

Whould you condem him if he sat in the corner after the first shot and let the robber bleed to death?

No.

If the scum bag had not come in the store to rob it, none of this would have happened.

I won't argue with that logic.

 

[Toxick]

I guess that depends on what you consider a "threat".

Someone or something which has the potential to cause injury or death.


Examples:

A criminal with a bullet hole in his face reaching for a dagger in his boot: Threat.

A criminal with a pointing a gun at your face demanding money: Threat.

A criminal with a garrot wire standing behind you: Threat.

A criminal with brass knuckles trying to steal your stuff: Threat.

A criminal on the floor with a bullet hole in his face twitching and exsanguinating: Not A Threat.

Per Eddy's answers, the guy was an armed robber, with a buddy whose whereabouts were not specifically known, in a neighborhood of high crime rate and relatively slow police response, who was not dead. To me, by his actions and relatively slow official response, he was clearly a threat until dead.

Could you please explain how a person laying on the floor laying in a spreading pool of his own blood could possibly pose a threat, simply because he wasn't dead. And how his buddy - whereabouts unknown - could possibly have a bearing on the danger-level posed by such a quivering mass.


If you pull the legs off a spider, even a poisonous spider, they are no longer a danger. They may still have venom, but without the means to apply it, it's harmless.

To Eddy, he wasn't a threat because he wasn't currently in the process of leveling a gun at the guy.

To me he wasn't a threat because he wasn't doing a ####ing thing.

:shrug: It's all up to interpretation. I'd default to the law-abiding citizen protecting himself over the criminal who may or may not have been neutralized.

Interesting choice of words.


As soon as he started firing rounds into the criminals belly, he ceased being a law-abiding citizen.