That's a very interesting, intriguing, well-said, persuasive argument.
Thank you
Unfortuantely, it's also a lot of smoke and mirrors. There's a couple of problems with your scenario, the way I see it.
Oh damn....
Someone who cannot control their emotions to the point where they succumb to adrenaline, paranoia and shock (all words you used) is not someone that I, personally, would want in possession of a loaded weapon. But, be that as it may.... it's irrelavent to the point.
I mostly agree with the bolded part.....
I never said that the pharmacist should examine the body, perform triage or administer any sort of first aid (Although if he'd taken the hypocratic oath...) or anything beyond not filling his ass full of lead because he's running on adrenaline and paranoia. There's a big difference in helping someone, and not blasting the ever loving piss out of them during a psychotic fugue.
No, you didn't say it, but you implied it.
Here's why I think that. How else would the store guy know whether the thug was a threat or not? Unless he took the time to examine the wound, determine the potential medical consequences, etc., how would he know if, or how much of, a threat the thug was?
So, okay, maybe not render first aid, but certainly triage to evaluate the thugs wounds. Meanwhile, waiting for a potential threat to reenter the door at any moment? That just doesn't pass the "reasonable" test to me, especially given that the pharmacist appears to be an older, not great shape man in the immediate threat of at least one, if not more, much younger much more fit men who have already threated his life.
Now, I completely agree with you that the possiblity of the other guy's return - perhaps with others - was a real and present danger. And a reasonable person the pharmacist's position, THAT should've been the danger they would be most focused upon.
That would be the one I'd be afraid of, and one of the first ways to prepare for that would be to eliminate any potential threat/distraction already in residence.
The guy on the floor - that pile of #### was no more threatening than a smoked ham.
Maybe, maybe not. Without evaluating his condition, how would the druggist know?
Gunning him down did precisely dick, insofar as reducing the threat posed by the guy still roaming the streets.
True. All it did was eliminate the threat in the room, the distraction should the guy not be as injured as it may first appear. Again, without doing an evaluation of the purp on the floor, who knows for sure? And, who wants to do the evaluation when their life has just been realistically threatened, and there may be a threat coming in the door at any moment?
Unless it is your contention that the guy on the floor was making a move toward the guy, or otherwise POSING A THREAT, I cannot be convinced that the guy did anything but murder. Please tell me that. Please tell me you think the guy made a move at him, or was reaching for a weapon or even merely said, "I'll get you, mother####er!".
Tell me this and I will unequivocably agree with you.
Nobody has made that bold claim, however. Nobody has stated that they think the broken bleeding dying mess on the floor was in the least bit threatening. All I've heard is a bunch of "He was a scumbag who deserved to ####ing die, because he's a scumbag, and scumbags deserve to die!"
My point is neither of those. While I fully agree that he was a scumbag who got what he deserved, that's not the legally worthwhile answer. In my opinion, the mere fact that the guy on the floor's medical status was unknown, and there was still no police on hand or even able to be called yet, and there was the realistic threat of the other thug coming back 9with a large potential for bringing some buds with him) - all of these things added up make it reasonable to eliminate the potential threat the thug on the floor was.
Take a part of that away - no other thug in the picture, the thug on the floor CLEARLY gone (not maybe, not probably, but CLEARLY without a doubt gone), the police pulling in the parking lot..... and I'll agree with you if ANY of the elements is removed. Added up, I vote to acquit.
He may have been a scumbag, and he may have deserved to die. But I ask you, do you think it's the place of a shocked, adrenaline-pumped, paranoid pharamcist to decide if a broken bleeding unmoving mess on the floor deserves to die?
Yes. Only because the pharmacist, IMHO, was looking at "him or me", and was not the one to initiate the need for such a decision. I think a "him or me" thought is reasonable to imagine the pharmacist's frame of mind to be in for this situation.
Or do you respect the law?
Yes, I do.
on you.
