|
|
Post by Amaranth on Jul 15, 2011 13:04:18 GMT -5
If he had unloaded five, ten, or 19 into the guy without reloading, then there would be grounds for self defense. I'm fine with somebody emptying a magazine in self defense, as long as lethal force is acceptable. Odds are good only 1 or 2 bullets will actually hit from most shooters. It's also the methodology police departments practice. There is also that, for most shots, the assailant is not stopped with a single bullet (especially from a handgun). That bullet might kill, but they can still do shit before they're completely dead. But, again, firing upon a downed assailant, not good. The goal is to remove the threat. An unarmed teenager with a bullet in his head is not much of a threat. And let's face it. In a self defense situation, even reasonable people are going to err on the side of overkill, rather than killed. It's hard to judge when someone's gonna go down, as you're already indicating. Even if you have some reasonable respect for the firearm and an understanding of what kind of punishment the human body can take, there's still a good chance that when in doubt, you're going to use more bullets. This isn't an FPS, "conserve ammo" usually doesn't exactly apply. But once they're down, things change. Again, like you say. Not disagreeing on any level. Just expanding. |
|
|
|
Post by malicious_bloke on Jul 15, 2011 13:10:43 GMT -5
there's still a good chance that when in doubt, you're going to use more bullets. Yes. But, if you are in doubt...are you going to leave your current weapon and the target unattended while you go get something bigger to unload into him? |
|
|
|
Post by malicious_bloke on Jul 15, 2011 13:11:05 GMT -5
Also, getting a chainsaw would have given more style points.
|
|
|
|
Post by Amaranth on Jul 15, 2011 14:02:33 GMT -5
there's still a good chance that when in doubt, you're going to use more bullets. Yes. But, if you are in doubt...are you going to leave your current weapon and the target unattended while you go get something bigger to unload into him? As I wasn't justifying him, I'm in doubt as to why I was asked that. In case there actually was any doubt. |
|
|
|
Post by Yaezakura on Jul 15, 2011 14:30:18 GMT -5
If the kid had been killed from the first round of fire, I'd say more power to the guy. But he did kind of leave, go get another gun, and come back to shoot a helpless target.
Shooting a robber is entirely reasonable. Unloading every bullet you have in your gun is entirely reasonable. Leaving the unconscious guy on the floor, grabbing another gun, and coming back to fire shots into his still-unconscious body is... well, that goes quite a ways beyond reasonable.
|
|
Neith
Junior Member
Posts: 80
|
Post by Neith on Jul 16, 2011 23:53:01 GMT -5
And let's not forget. After he shot the unarmed kid the first time and before he came back to unload a 2nd gun on him, he chased the other (armed) robber outside and shot at him, which is why the first gun was emptied in the first place.
Not only did he commit murder by shooting an unconscious kid, but he also put innocent lives at risk when he chased the armed guy outside and shot at him.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Jul 17, 2011 12:37:35 GMT -5
^^ That's the part that has me questioning the whole "panic made him do it" reasoning. The fact that he chased the guy down suggests his actions were based more on anger than fear. Granted, the latter tends to lead to the former, but that doesn't make it any more justifiable.
Having been a victim of a serious crime (one which was arguably worse than being robbed) I do understand the impulse to chase the fucker down and make him pay. In fact, there was a brief moment when I was a nerve signal away from doing just that. Despite the strength of the impulse, however, I was still able to stop myself -- and this was during a time in my life when my impulse control was absolute shit. I have a difficult time believing that this guy couldn't have chosen to do the same thing.
Mind you, I don't think that the circumstances surrounding the murder should be ignored, either. His actions were absolutely, undeniably wrong, but the fact that this took place during a robbery (as opposed to, say, a heated argument) needs to be taken into consideration, at least during sentencing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Yla on Jul 17, 2011 15:47:41 GMT -5
Shooting a robber is entirely reasonable. Unloading every bullet you have in your gun is entirely reasonable. Leaving the unconscious guy on the floor, grabbing another gun, and coming back to fire shots into his still-unconscious body is... well, that goes quite a ways beyond reasonable. Not disagreeing with you on principle, just nitpicking: Unloading the entire magazine is not reasonable. It's justifiable (heat of the moment etc.), but not reasonable. Mind you, I don't think that the circumstances surrounding the murder should be ignored, either. His actions were absolutely, undeniably wrong, but the fact that this took place during a robbery (as opposed to, say, a heated argument) needs to be taken into consideration, at least during sentencing. Agree. Life's a bit much. Somewhere between 8 and 20 years imho. Edit: I was unaware where exactly the minimum sentence for murder was. I was aiming for something on the lower end, not realizing that I was undershooting this much. |
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Jul 17, 2011 16:02:42 GMT -5
Shooting a robber is entirely reasonable. Unloading every bullet you have in your gun is entirely reasonable. Leaving the unconscious guy on the floor, grabbing another gun, and coming back to fire shots into his still-unconscious body is... well, that goes quite a ways beyond reasonable. Not disagreeing with you on principle, just nitpicking: Unloading the entire magazine is not reasonable. It's justifiable (heat of the moment etc.), but not reasonable. Except that it is reasonable. In a high stress situation most people are lucky to have 1 or 2 bullets even hit their target, let along actually stop them. It is near impossible to actually instantaneously incapacitate an assailant, only hits to the nervous system can do it reliably. Hell, even if you get the heart the person hit can function for 10-15 more seconds, plenty of time to kill you if armed. |
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Jul 17, 2011 16:09:50 GMT -5
Mind you, I don't think that the circumstances surrounding the murder should be ignored, either. His actions were absolutely, undeniably wrong, but the fact that this took place during a robbery (as opposed to, say, a heated argument) needs to be taken into consideration, at least during sentencing. Agree. Life's a bit much. Somewhere between 8 and 20 years imho. I don't understand this. What he did was essentially murder. He grabbed a gun with the pure intention of killing an incapacitated person. Criminal or not, that kid was still a human being. He doesn't magically become less of a human being for committing a crime. Life is appropriate. |
|
|
|
Post by Damen on Jul 17, 2011 16:40:19 GMT -5
I'll just put this out there: Oklahoma still has the Death Penalty. He's fucking lucky he just got life.
|
|
|
|
Post by Yla on Jul 17, 2011 17:25:34 GMT -5
Not disagreeing with you on principle, just nitpicking: Unloading the entire magazine is not reasonable. It's justifiable (heat of the moment etc.), but not reasonable. Except that it is reasonable. In a high stress situation most people are lucky to have 1 or 2 bullets even hit their target, let along actually stop them. It is near impossible to actually instantaneously incapacitate an assailant, only hits to the nervous system can do it reliably. Hell, even if you get the heart the person hit can function for 10-15 more seconds, plenty of time to kill you if armed. I didn't think of that. Agree. Life's a bit much. Somewhere between 8 and 20 years imho. I don't understand this. What he did was essentially murder. He grabbed a gun with the pure intention of killing an incapacitated person. Criminal or not, that kid was still a human being. He doesn't magically become less of a human being for committing a crime. I agree, and I didn't say that. I said/agreed to the statement that there are extenuating circumstances to be taken into consideration. Like the fact that less than one minute had passed since he had to defend himself against the victim. That doesn't absolve him. He's still guilty of murder, but not every murder warrants the same penalty. Edit: In other terms, while it falls down on the murder side, it's very close to voluntary manslaughter. I looked it up, and apparently the minimum sentence for murder is higher than I previously thought. You can correct my numbers a bit upwards. I'll just put this out there: Oklahoma still has the Death Penalty. He's fucking lucky he just got life. I was wondering about that. |
|
|
|
Post by dasfuchs on Jul 17, 2011 22:48:40 GMT -5
This is where I fall on the matter. Because one person can look on with calm, rational thought and decide it's an execution worthy of a life sentence, that same person must also understand the situation and events around that.
These two came into his store and threatened his life. It seems he responded more out of anger than rational thought or fear.
|
|
|
|
Post by Passerby on Jul 20, 2011 16:35:20 GMT -5
I agree that you are quite justified in using deadly force to defend yourself, but once your assailant no longer poses a threat the word defense no longer applies. There is the kill confirmation and mercy kill angle to consider, but that doesn't typically entail any more than a second shot. This was definitely done in rage. What I want to know is why he got a second gun. Was he shooting with both for an adrenaline rush? That shows signs of being mentally disturbed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on Jul 20, 2011 17:30:35 GMT -5
Personally I do think life is a bit much. I personally would simply hit him with a fine and limit him to one gun from now on and leave it at that.
|
|
