Killing Stirs Debate of Vigilante Justice

[finity]

Which Hollywood movie did you get that gibberish line from?

A Society which punishes the criminal is not stooping to they're level. A Killer, child molester, rapist - None deserve to live. They are a burden on the tax payer, and not to mention no Justice is given to the family, by allowing the perp to live. NONE!

I never said that just the simple punishment is stooping to their level. You really need to stop changing my words to make your argument sound reasonable.

I said that when we start employing their tactics as you & others suggested (you know like killing someone for pick-pocketing a wallet or torturing someone to death) makes us just as bad as them.

SHOW ME THE RIGHTS HE AFFORDED TO THE CRIMINAL! I searched, and found nothing more than Rights afforded to the ACCUSED.

You must not have looked in the right place:

"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."US Constitution, 8th Amendment

If the other Amendments are followed then there would be no punishment until after they are technically defined as a "criminal" - i.e. convicted. Therefore the limitation of no cruel or unusual punishment is meant to be for the rights of the criminal.

How about another right of a criminal:

"The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it." - US Constitution, Article 1, Section 9

Of note - While they used the word "privilege" instead of "right", the "Great Writ" is harder to suspend than other rights specifically listed as such. The Writ can only be suspended during great national emergency but other rights can be suspended by due process of law (i.e. a simple court proceeding)

Here's another one:

Prisoners still retain the same rights as someone who has not been convicted of a crime in any subsequent criminal proceeding - the 5th & 6th Amendments still apply to them even though they are "criminals".

These are just the ones I came up with off the top of my head. I'm sure there's more.

The argument that prisoners don't & never had rights is laughable. Think what you want. The SCOTUS has ruled time & again that criminals have rights.

 

[finity]

Increase in the rate of violent crime in Sweden from 1976 to 2006. In three decades, reported violent crime have increased by about 200 %.

Ok. Well, I was using the quote from the body of the article that I posted above. You'll have to excuse me if I didn't read the super small fine print from the small pictures on the sidebar. I assumed (silly me) that they would somehow relate to each other.

OTOH, the article stated that crime has been relatively constant since 1980 while the graph shows crime being relatively constant since 1988-ish. That STILL doesn't support your argument that crime is greatly increasing. It has been fluctuating but fairly steady for almost 20 years - at least going by the article you posted.

OTOH again, I don't see what a supposedly rising crime rate in Sweden has to do with any evidence of a supposed rising crime rate in this country.

=====================================

I have family in Sweden & Europe... They sing quite a different tune about Crime rate than what you are saying.

I'm not going to outright say that your family is mistaken. I'm not there. I don't know. But I will say that it could be the same effect that we see here - the media is getting better at reporting crimes & that gives people the impression that crime is sky-rocketing when, in fact, it is steady or decreasing in the US as a whole.

 

[mrjarrell]

Here's an update on this story. The pharmacist in question was found guilty and is going to prison. There comes a point when you stop shooting, he clearly passed it and is now paying the price for it.

Jury convicts US pharmacist in suspect's death

 

[finity]

Thanks for the update.

I was with him all the way up to the point that he stood over the kid & pumped him full of lead.

I'm not going to say that I'm "glad" for the outcome. It is a tragic set of circumstances for everyone involved. But I think it was a fair, if unfortunate, decision.

 

[j706]

The only eye-witness (ie: the pharmacist) says that the robber was trying to get up & until I see substantial evidence to the contrary, I believe him.

Same here and I don't believe anything MSnbc does with their usual liberal agenda filled spin.

 

[finity]

Same here and I don't believe anything MSnbc does with their usual liberal agenda filled spin.

You realize this thread was from 10 months ago & what mrjarrell posted was an UPDATE.

Obviously the jury found "evidence to the contrary". He was found GUILTY of murder.

I doubt MSNBC had anthing (or much) to do with it.

 

[Armed Eastsider]

I think the guy deserves a medal. Lord knows our justice system wouldnt have taken care of the problem.

They chose to rob the pharmacy, they get to live with the consequences. When somebody makes a decision to do something like that I think the victim should have free reign to do whatever the hell he wants to them.

Of course thats only my opinion. Dont even let me get started on the NAACP.

 

[EdC]

It looks like life with parole is the most he can hope for, under the Ok. statute.

 

[printcraft]

The pharmacist in question was found guilty and is going to prison.

The pharmacist would not be in this position were it not for the
scumbags that were robbing him at the point of a gun.

Occupational Hazard.......... Tough

Don't commit violent crime, don't meet a violent end.

I would have voted to acquit.

 

[Armed Eastsider]

The pharmacist in question was found guilty and is going to prison.

The pharmacist would not be in this position were it not for the
scumbags that were robbing him at the point of a gun.

Occupational Hazard.......... Tough

Don't commit violent crime, don't meet a violent end.

I would have voted to acquit.

Exactly. The guy is a damn pharmacist. Im sure he never wanted to kill anybody. He was put in this situation. He didnt choose to be robbed. I swear our justice system is all kinds of f***** up.

 

[sporter]

NOT GUILTY.

 

[Paco Bedejo]

It's pretty obvious to me that, in his head, he was repeating the old/ignorant saying "If you have to shoot someone, make sure they don't survive"... Bad move on his part. That said, if this happened in Indiana & I were on the jury, nullification would become a likely reality.

 

[Kutnupe14]

again the leeway extended is baffling...

 

[jsharmon7]

Isn't this why everyone is taught to "shoot to stop the threat?" Once the threat has stopped, there's no need to finish him off. If the pharmacist had stopped there, we wouldn't be reading this verdict. Maybe the kid was still a threat in his eyes, I don't know. I know that the jury didn't see it that way though.

 

[91FXRS]

There was another thread I read yesterday about a girl getting charged with murder cause a leo was run over by someone else but they said she put him in that place at that time. So is the little B***h 14 year old with the gun facing murder charges as well? Maybe if these little F**** thought this is what they would be getting instead of a slap on the wrist and sent back home to mommy things might change. 14 and committing armed robbery WTF

 

[LCSOSgt11]

OK, there MAY be some validity in the charging of the pharmacist, but only as legal discussion, not to actually charge him. Also, we weren't there during the incident, or the subsequent investigation.

The real threat was the 14 yr. old gunman that was arrested. Apparently, Oklahoma does not or (more than likely) the prosecutor involved does not wish to invoke the "Felony Murder" rule. I would also agree that just because the decedent did not show a weapon, how does one know at the time that the person is unarmed? Answer: one doesn't know.

Under the felony murder process, the perpetrator of the crime and their surviving associates are liable for ANY death which occurs as a result of a criminal act, such as a robbery. The invocation of that doctrine is usually at the discretion of the Prosecuting Attorney in the case. Why it was not invoked in this matter certainly gives one pause.

The criminals should not win AT ALL. When they walk into a store, or a home for that matter and things go south for them, well, that's the price of doing business.

The pharmacist deserves a parade and a paid vacation to Bora Bora. And, as for the mother and family of the "innocent" (and deceased) robbery associate, no he wasn't such a bad boy, he's only received his "rehabilitation", unfortunately for him, it was permanent and he won't be able to share his enlightened learning experience with anyone.

I have no sympathy at all for the bleeding hearts. This kid walked in and participated in an armed robbery. He was apparently too stupid to get out of the line of fire quickly enough.

Oh well, court costs cut, bad guys collared, no good guys hurt physically.

 

[jbombelli]

again the leeway extended is baffling...

He was the victim of a crime who was shooting his assailant. You're the representative of the state, there to enforce the law. Victims get leeway. If it was you with a gun stuck in your face that you didn't ask for, if you were the actual victim and did that, then you'd get that leeway for being the victim. But showing up as the agent of the state, then no. You don't get to execute people on behalf of the state.

Are you really trying to make this into some sort of trollish hypocrisy that it isn't?

 

[indykid]

There is another thread going around about how a SWAT group went into a residence and didn't stop shooting until there was nothing left of the homeowner. Where is the difference? Both had a situation where someone was pointing a firearm at them, and both didn't stop shooting until there was no doubt there would be no more resistance from the guy laying on the ground.

The only difference was that one group were honest uniformed civilians, the other was an honest business owner.

Either way, when someone points a firearm at you, it used to be that they were giving up their rights when they attacked you and yours. Not so anymore it seems.

 

[EdC]

Mitchell and Morrison, the two adults who planned the robbery and sent the 16 yr. old and 14 yr. old inside to do the actual robbery, were convicted of first degree felony murder.

Oklahoma City pharmacist Jerome Ersland found guilty of murder in killing of suspect - Crimesider - CBS News

Emanuel Mitchell Attacks Oklahoma County D.A. David Prater - NewsOn6.com - Tulsa, OK - News, Weather, Video and Sports - KOTV.com |

The 14 yr. old that actually had the gun plead guilty to first degree felony murder, but I can't find the link.

 

[LCSOSgt11]

Thanks, EdC.

At least there was some common sense used here. Hopefully, the term
"anal retentive" will not apply to the two "adults" that were convicted.

Lock them all up, and weld the door shut.