|
|
Post by Thejebusfire on Jul 13, 2011 21:33:39 GMT -5
He should have called 9-1-1 after he shot the kid. There was no need to shoot him again.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Jul 13, 2011 21:37:33 GMT -5
I can see the argument for "not getting life," but I can't believe anyone would actually try and justify that kind of execution. Unfortunately, some people have bought into the rhetoric about "losing your humanity" if you commit a crime. |
|
|
|
Post by Amaranth on Jul 13, 2011 21:58:39 GMT -5
I can see the argument for "not getting life," but I can't believe anyone would actually try and justify that kind of execution. Unfortunately, some people have bought into the rhetoric about "losing your humanity" if you commit a crime. The weird part is that it's hard to argue shooting any unconscious subject 5 times (or any number of times, really) doesn't similarly qualify. It's like people are looking for an excuse to act like monsters, so they see something bad happen and use it to justify doing something grossly inhuman. Seriously, I have limited sympathy for people who get hurt when they're committing a crime, but this....Wow. |
|
|
|
Post by dasfuchs on Jul 14, 2011 2:21:21 GMT -5
I suspect it has to do with shooting an unconscious person 5 times. The dude was already unconscious due to the head shot. What was the point of shooting him 5 more times? Being thorough Seriously though, I think the sentence is a bit over the top. I've been robbed at work before. First instinct was defend myself. After that there was that feeling of "How dare you!" in which, had I taken the perp down, would continue to beat him unmercifully till either i was tired or the cops showed. |
|
|
|
Post by sylvana on Jul 14, 2011 2:47:26 GMT -5
The life sentence does seem a bit harsh, but I think there are some other factors that need to be looked at. I dont know if anyone else watched the surveillance video but those last 5 shots were definitely premeditated murder. Being emotional or full of rage does not make one abandon ones still loaded firearm by walking right past and stepping around the unconscious unarmed victim, going to fetch a larger caliber weapon walking up to and then kneeling down by the victim and shooting him 5 more times. Or course we must not forget that this victim was also stationary, unconscious, wounded and at close range when the 5 rounds were shot into him. In those circumstances 1 shot would have been more than enough to ensure the target remained down, but 5?
Also please do remember that he didn't call emergency services at all until after the person had been killed. I go to my pharmacy pretty regularly and I guarantee there are far more phones each easily accessible and easier to get to than either of those fire arms. Hell he would no doubt have had to walk past those phones to get that second gun. I dont know about anyone else, but the calling the police is one of those things that gets drilled into everyone as what one should do for a given emergency. Not casually walk to get another gun and then shoot the incapacitated assailant 5 more times.
|
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Jul 14, 2011 7:39:26 GMT -5
Okay then lets talk about this a bit more, when exactly does it stop? When does your right to kill someone that has done something illegal end? After 10 minutes, 20 minutes, 30 minutes, 1 hours, 1 day? I mean he was subdued and was posing no threat at the moment. Would the Pharmacist still have the right to do that if he had tied up the robber? Until the police arrive or if the suspect manages to escape like his partner did. There's no basis for that claim. No court would hand crime victims the right to coup de grace of defenceless, unarmed nonthreats. Shooting someone in self-defence is still murder, you're just allowed. The law never requires you to give up your life in order to uphold it (or shouldn't). The right to self-defence is justified only on that basis, a right to protect your own life. Now, I think the crime victim may have already breached the law. Using a firearm against unarmed opponents is probably excessive force. If he told them to bugger off and they advanced on him or threatened him with knives, that would justify his actions. But I'm not sure that occured. Indeed. The legitimate consequences of petty theft include lengthy jail terms, as applied by law. They do not include a death sentence. In any case, private citizens are not deputized to apply that sentence. |
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Jul 14, 2011 7:45:41 GMT -5
This is why I think everybody who is allowed to own a gun needs to prove they know the laws for self defense. I'm a little rusty on the laws of self-defense, but this is the gist of what I was taught back in 2008: Defense of life: Lethal force may be authorized, but non-lethal force is preferred. Defense of property: Lethal force is never to be used. Huh. I don't think that's the deal in Australia. Where are you from? I don't know what I think of that. |
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Jul 14, 2011 8:21:09 GMT -5
I don't see the sentence being over the top at all. I think it is well deserved. There was not reason for the pharmacist to get another weapon and basically execute that man.
|
|
|
|
Post by dasfuchs on Jul 14, 2011 8:21:56 GMT -5
I'm a little rusty on the laws of self-defense, but this is the gist of what I was taught back in 2008: Defense of life: Lethal force may be authorized, but non-lethal force is preferred. Defense of property: Lethal force is never to be used. Huh. I don't think that's the deal in Australia. Where are you from? I don't know what I think of that. Here in Michigan the castle laws were changed a bit ago. It used to be "retreat to the farthest place possible and only shoot if your life is directly threatened". Now there's no retreat needed...and don't shoot the perp outside or in the back. |
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Jul 14, 2011 8:58:20 GMT -5
Now, I think the crime victim may have already breached the law. Using a firearm against unarmed opponents is probably excessive force. If he told them to bugger off and they advanced on him or threatened him with knives, that would justify his actions. But I'm not sure that occured. The one who was chased off was armed (not sure with what) and being confronted by two people is a hell of a lot more dangerous than just one. |
|
|
|
Post by Ranger Joe on Jul 14, 2011 9:30:13 GMT -5
Or he could have just killed him the first time. I agree. It's because of the extra five rounds he put in the guy.
On a side note, I highly doubt a teenager, even if he was able to regain conciousness after getting shot in the head (very unlikely), would try to shoot him again.
|
|
|
|
Post by musicalbookworm on Jul 14, 2011 12:48:36 GMT -5
Considering the culture in Oklahoma, his actions must have been pretty egregious, even more than we know here for a DA to prosecute, a jury to convict and a judge/jury to give such a harsh sentence.
|
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Jul 14, 2011 14:09:45 GMT -5
Pumping five more rounds into an unconscious man is not egregious enough?
|
|
|
|
Post by Amaranth on Jul 14, 2011 14:14:25 GMT -5
I don't see the sentence being over the top at all. I think it is well deserved. There was not reason for the pharmacist to get another weapon and basically execute that man. I'm on the fence in terms of premeditation, which is a pretty big point of first degree general. |
|
|
|
Post by itachirumon on Jul 14, 2011 14:20:43 GMT -5
I'm a little rusty on the laws of self-defense, but this is the gist of what I was taught back in 2008: Defense of life: Lethal force may be authorized, but non-lethal force is preferred. Defense of property: Lethal force is never to be used. Huh. I don't think that's the deal in Australia. Where are you from? I don't know what I think of that. I repeat my citation of Joe Horne, shooting two robbers over property (that wasn't even his own) after being told repeatedly to stand down by cops is disturbing.. the fact that it was Texas and they were Mexican (and the fact that the time elapsed between "move, yer dead" and -bang bang bang bang- was about 3 seconds). Lethal force for protection of property is fucked up in pretty much any civilized society. I remember it raising a huge ruckus over the castle laws... as well as making me even more cynical of my fellow man. |
|
