they tried to rob the wrong place

[Richard]

Again , the wounded boy on the ground was unarmed .

In your mind he's a helpless wounded boy, in my mind he's an extremely dangerous armed robber.

 

[Joe Williams]

I guess it all boils down to whether or not you give the benifit of the doubt to the armed robber or if you give it to the victim of the armed robbery.

Personally I give the benifit of doubt to the victim, considering he did not initiate the deadly confrontation & was only reacting to the life or death situation which the armed robbers put him in.

Sadly, when he executed the robber, he was NOT reacting to the situation he was put in. Watching the video, it's clear that by the time he very casually bent over the robber (back brace didn't keep him from doing that) and fired into his chest and stomach, he wasn't feeling threatened. He just wanted to kill the peckerhead. We don't get to kill people just cause they need killing. Not if we'd like to continue living in a society ruled by law.

One cannot condemn the lawless behavior of the robber, then turn around and embrace the lawless behavior of the murderer.

 

[Richard]

Sadly, when he executed the robber, he was NOT reacting to the situation he was put in. Watching the video, it's clear that by the time he very casually bent over the robber (back brace didn't keep him from doing that) and fired into his chest and stomach, he wasn't feeling threatened. He just wanted to kill the peckerhead. We don't get to kill people just cause they need killing. Not if we'd like to continue living in a society ruled by law.

One cannot condemn the lawless behavior of the robber, then turn around and embrace the lawless behavior of the murderer.

What evidence do you have that the robber wasn't trying to get up as the victim/pharmacist claims?

And what evidence do you have that the victim/pharmacist "just wanted to kill" the armed robber?

 

[Indy317]

I have been involved in a major discussion on this case on another forum. First off, the press conference was _horrible_. The DA referred to the punk thug robber as a "child." While not a "legal adult," the kid was 16 years old, hardly a "child." That right there made me want to puke. I guess if this DA thinks that 16 year olds are children, and therefore would _never_ file adult charges on _any_ 16 year old regardless of the crime?

The next thing is that the video show only what it shows. What does the video _really_ show? It shows two robbers, one goes down, _out_ of camera view. The other flees and escapes. It shows the employee come back in, grab another gun, go the area the other robber is _believed_ to be laying down at, and fire. The only thing the video shows of the robber in the store is that his feet are still. It doesn't show if he is awake or waking up. It doesn't show if his arms are moving around. It doesn't have sound that I know of, so it doesn't tell us if while at the register getting gun number two, the kid started making a sound, putting fear into the employee that he was still alive and still a threat. The DA tries to paint a picture of a massive, incapacitating head wound per the ME. Then he turns right around and claims the ME's opinion is that the head wound was basically no big deal and in the MEs opinion, the kid would have made a full recovery? Yea, that is going to be a great sell to the jury: First shot head wound is horrible, oh wait, not that horrible, but horrible enough the man shouldn't have shot a second time, but not that horrible because the kid would have been OK and the man shouldn't have shot a second time.

I think the DA just decided to let the chips fall where they may. He seemed to open himself up to a lot in that press conference. To me, he flat out admitted that war veteran may have issues in dealing with these situations (ie: In war, you make _sure_ the enemy is dead, thus you waste ammo if need be). This wasn't like he drove around for a couple hours, found them on a basketball court, and opened fire. Also, this is a good example of why you _never_ talk to the cops and the media, _ever_. Let them figure it out and make their own conclusions. This guy has already gave conflicting statements to the media and the police, but those statements are likely what _he_ believes happened, given the stressfulness of such a situation.

This case will be interesting.

 

[Indy317]

Anyone know why the clock stopped at 15:40:55 then picks up again at 15:41:11?

Motion sensing cameras. When he left, they didn't sense any motion, so they clicked off.

Again , the wounded boy on the ground was unarmed .

Easy for a Monday morning quarterback to say. Unarmed means one thing to me: The person is completely naked, and they have done a complete, slow rotation of their body with arms up and legs apart. Any clothing, any part of the body that is concealed to the human eye, and I don't attach the "was unarmed" label against anyone. The kid had full clothing on, he could have had a gun _anywhere_ on his person. A person doesn't have to do a complete body search, hoping that what could be a semi-conscious person doesn't turn into a complete conscious person, one who pulls their own pocket pistol out and shots you dead.

I am sympathetic to the shooter. But after watching the video several times and based on what other limited information I have... It looks like an execution to me. I think the shooter is fugged...

And the question becomes: Should juries base their verdicts on what something "looks like?" Given the fact that in Texas they let Joe Horn (sp?) go, and he went _outside_, put himself in that position, I think this guy gets a pass.

Sadly, when he executed the robber, he was NOT reacting to the situation he was put in. Watching the video, it's clear that by the time he very casually bent over the robber (back brace didn't keep him from doing that) and fired into his chest and stomach, he wasn't feeling threatened. He just wanted to kill the peckerhead. We don't get to kill people just cause they need killing. Not if we'd like to continue living in a society ruled by law.

Maybe you should contact the DA and tell him to have you as a state's witness...with your mind reading capabilities and all. You, nor anyone else, can sit there and tell us what the employee was thinking. It is not _clear_ at all. Unless you have been in that situation, it is very easy to second guess someone else. The fact is, he may have glanced over, saw the robbers hand moving, and decided that he only has five round or so left, and he still felt his life was in danger. This wasn't someone who drove around the city, looking for the robbers and blow them away. This was within seconds after just having these thugs rob you, one of which clearly had a gun, the other one who _might_ have had a gun. You may want to re-think this, because at sometime in the future, it could be _you_ who are being judged the same way. The video shows _nothing_ except feet not moving. The DA will parade their ME with his MD who will claim the head shot was so horrible, it is his medical _opinion_ that the kid was not moving. When asked about if he told the DA the kid would make a full recover, the ME will likely say yes, and then give some garbage about how the head shot was _that_ bad. Well which was it doc? Could the kid have been moving his head and arms and hands? If so, he is still a threat. All it takes is one second, any given second, for that person to come back to full consciousness, pull their own weapon, and we are back to a gun fight in the lobby. The employee isn't like the cops, who are trained to use a tactical approach, almost always with back-up present, give a quick pat down for weapons, then handcuff the suspect.

One cannot condemn the lawless behavior of the robber, then turn around and embrace the lawless behavior of the murderer.

Actually they can. Lawless behavior is what society deems it to be. In more and more cases, folks are saying that, for lack of a better term, vigilante behavior, immediately proceeding the crime, is A-OK. They found a guy here in Indy "Not guilty!" The guy was three punk teenagers stealing a car from his driveway. He was armed, he hoped in his other vehicle, and gave chase wanting to get his property back. They both ended up in some field, the two passenger punks got out the passenger side door and fled. The driver got out and was shot. Man claimed the thief teenager threatened him. Long rap sheet thug accomplice claimed he looked back and the teen was not threatening the guy. The jury gave the guy a pass. Texas is the same story. Joe Horn sees guys breaking into a neighbors home, tells 911 he was going to shoot them (if I recall), and ends up doing just that. A grand jury no-bills him.

People are sick and tired of our government failing to protect us from common street thugs. Our governments will bend over backwards to raise all sorts of taxes to build billion dollar sports stadiums for billionaires, yet they sigh at the idea of more prisons/jails. Like the saying goes: Better be tried by 12 than carried by 6. The simple fact is that at any given second, this kid could have reached into his waist band and produced his own gun. This wasn't a hunt them down, kill them next week shooting. It was a spur of the moment, we don't know what really was happening, but have a good idea. Well, should juries convict people on good ideas? Should juries give thug criminals "justice" on a "good idea" of what happened or a "looks like" what happened? Or, should they say that even if this was vigilante justice, maybe it is time to give the good guy, the model citizen, a pass. He wasn't driving around the hood looking for trouble, he was just doing his job, after serving his country, and two horrible people came in to do him harm. Things played out as they may and in this case the model, productive citizen won. There are good many people out there who are coming around to believing that even if the employee wanted to kill the kid, knew the kid wasn't moving at all, his behavior was far from lawlessness. Not only that, given how these guys are normally out on the street withing a few years time, maybe he could claim he was just defending someone from being a victim in the future?

 

[Joe Williams]

snip

Actually they can. Lawless behavior is what society deems it to be. In more and more cases, folks are saying that, for lack of a better term, vigilante behavior, immediately proceeding the crime, is A-OK.snip

Yes, they can. People supported lynchings for a long time. Looks like some still do.

 

[teknickle]

Indy317 makes some good points.
People can speculate all day as to intentions and outcomes.
For me, the bottom line is that 2 criminals entered that store for the sole intent of robbing the store by THREATENING lives of those working.
If the threat was empty, then why would anyone give them money or drugs?
BECAUSE THEIR LIVES WERE IN PERIL. The threat was real.
And as long as those BG's were physically in the store, the terms of the threat were not 're-negotiated or mitigated'.
Oh, I am sure he was a 'good boy' and that the pharmacist was some klan loving racist just hoping to get robbed.
Consequences here are death.
If you are unwilling to risk loss of your own life, never threaten that of another.

 

[Richard]

Yes, they can. People supported lynchings for a long time. Looks like some still do.

The only folks I see looking to lynch an innocent person here are the folks who keep insisting that the armed robber was "murdered" by the pharmacist.

I have watched the video numberous times & I saw no evidence which would support a murder charge against the pharmacist.

 

[Boilers]

I am not lynching him. I was not there. But I do not think he's going to have an easy time with that video in existence. Nor with the DA's attitude towards this.

 

[Indy317]

I am not lynching him. I was not there. But I do not think he's going to have an easy time with that video in existence. Nor with the DA's attitude towards this.

Did you watch the press conference? Prior the silly "child" comments, the DA almost seemed like he was _forced_ to press these charges. The same DA has charged others involved in the robbery with the murder of the dead robber as well. How does that happen, how does a person get murdered by two different people? The DA basically said that his office is _very_ open to the idea that the guys military training may have played a role, that everything the robber was or wasn't doing while on the ground is based solely on the ME's report. He then claims the head wound was so severe, that they believe the robber was knocked out, then turns around and says the ME, with his medical opinion, believes the robber would have made a full recovery???

 

[finity]

Did you watch the press conference? Prior the silly "child" comments, the DA almost seemed like he was _forced_ to press these charges.

I'm sure he was as conflicted as the rest of us here. The only problem for him is that he doesn't have luxury of putting it off on someone else to take the responsibility. He must enforce the law. Yes, I'm sure he also has some discretion.

I'm not saying that he needs to be "made an example of" (man I hate that phrase) but let's say that someone else sees this video & interprets it to show the pharmacist standing over the guy & executing him because "he needed killin'". If the DA doesn't charge him then that sends a message that it OK legally to take those actions in the future possibly under different circumstances. If he gets charged the the DA has shown that there are limitations to the self-defense laws & that this is one.

A jury could change all that by finding him not guilty. The DA in this case is not necessarily on a crusade to crucify the GG. He's just doing his job.

The one thing that may save him (provide a reasonable doubt) is the fact that you can't see exactly what the BG is doing. If he was getting up & making moves that would cause the pharmacist to think he had a weapon then the shooting was justified. If he was just laying there or even twitching/writhing from his injury then the shooting was murder.

Good luck to the pharmacist. I think he's going to need it.

The same DA has charged others involved in the robbery with the murder of the dead robber as well. How does that happen, how does a person get murdered by two different people?

The same way as if the murderers were on the same side. If several people commit a crime & someone ends up getting killed because of it everyone of the BG's are charged with murder, not just the killer.

Heck, sometimes the actual killer isn't even charged, as is the case in self-defense. If several people are threatening you with death during a crime & you kill one in self-defense you will likely not get charged but the other surviving BG's will.

The DA basically said that his office is _very_ open to the idea that the guys military training may have played a role,...

Do you think that just because the guy was a vet he should be given a pass on murder?

If you argue the fact that the guys military training had a part then I think you are getting into very dangerous territory for the rights of our vets (remember I am one also).

If in fact he was found to have used poor judgement in his killing of the BG on the ground (i.e. convicted) & during his trial he tries to use his training as a mitigating circumstance then that casts a shadow over all vets returning from battle. If this guy was influenced so much by his training that he was willing to execute a person then maybe we should (as the argument might go) restrict other vets from weapons ownership as well.

I think that has already been enacted & most gun-owners & veterans groups are against it (including me). Why would anyone want to give leverage to the other side to help show they might have been right?

...that everything the robber was or wasn't doing while on the ground is based solely on the ME's report. He then claims the head wound was so severe, that they believe the robber was knocked out, then turns around and says the ME, with his medical opinion, believes the robber would have made a full recovery???

It is possible to have it both ways. He could have been injured enough to be unconscious but it not be life-threatening. That happens all the time.

 

[Indy317]

Do you think that just because the guy was a vet he should be given a pass on murder?

If you argue the fact that the guys military training had a part then I think you are getting into very dangerous territory for the rights of our vets (remember I am one also).

He should not be given a pass, but it should, and will, be taken into consideration. If your just doing basic training, non-LEO or military, then a person would be _more_ likely, to just get into a defensive mode. If you look at how quickly this guy walks back in, gets the gun, shoot the kid, goes to the phone and calls....there is _zero_ hesitation, none. To me, if the military teaches you to make sure a threat is stopped, as long as he can say that robber was still a threat, in _his_ mind, then to me, he is innocent. I would be thinking different if he had walked in, looked around, took in the situation, checked the kid, etc. before shooting, but the fact he did it so quickly makes me believe that he honestly thought the kid was still a threat. Given the DAs flip flop statements over the head wound, I can see the kid laying there, but opening his eyes, moving his head and arms. The "he was unarmed" is laughable because the kid was wearing clothing and there is no way that the employee could know the kid was unarmed without stripping him completely naked.

If this guy was influenced so much by his training that he was willing to execute a person then maybe we should (as the argument might go) restrict other vets from weapons ownership as well.

I disagree because as long as the robber can still be shown to be a threat, then there is still justification for taking out the robber. To me, if we are talking some kind of battle stress issue here, I think you need more than a _real_ life or death situation to basis that on. It would be one thing for a vet who opens fire on someone egging their home. It would be one thing for a vet who finds out who suspects are and then hunts them down while they are on a basketball court.

It is possible to have it both ways. He could have been injured enough to be unconscious but it not be life-threatening. That happens all the time.

There is a different between a non-life threatening wound and one that would allow a person a complete and full recovery. I have a hard time believing that if the wound wasn't that bad, that the robber would have made a complete and full recovery, that there isn't a chance the robber still could have been moving his arms and head about, that he may have been in a semi-conscious state. All it would take for me on that jury is one MD to say the robber might have been conscious and alert and/or the ME to say that s/he can't say with 100% accuracy the robber was totally unconscious.