Oklahoma Incident

OK so the Pharmacist shoots the robber with a gun and gets arrested. The masses are lining up to either defend or condemn the guy. How do you see it?

My view is when you are threatened you react to the threat and when the threat is over its over. The crook was shot in the head and was lying on the ground and the guy goes behind the counter , gets another weapon and pumps several more rounds into the crook.

Whether the crook deserved to die isn't germaine to the issue. The victim here simply executed the crook. Pretty much cold blooded murder.

Was the pharmacist out of his mind with fear? Did he think the threat continued?

Could you provide a link to the case itself? I can't form a proper opinion without more information.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thebigspendur

My view is when you are threatened you react to the threat and when the threat is over its over.

---

What if the crook had threatened to come back and kill the Pharmacist when it was all over?

Many criminals make that kind of threat. Some of them carry through.

Just something to consider, I don't know the case.

did he mean to keep shooting and run short of ammo so he retrieved another weapon?

what was the round count in the original weapon?
I'm sorry but I can't find good info, maybe you can link?

do you want a prediction?
NOT GUILTY or charges dropped

short of more info I can only offer my views, like anyone wants that LOL

I say once someone initiates an act of aggression sufficient to warrant deadly force, the game isn't over until someone has died (hello? deadly force?)

all those coward PC concealed carry instructors and others who
"shoot to end the fight" are full of crap and are responsible for this

you shoot to kill
if you don't want to kill them then you have no business using a firearm
they are the machinery of death plain and simple :chop:

Here's a link to the story on the drudge report
The page begins with this:

Quote:

---

A little before 6:00 p.m., last Tuesday, two armed men rushed into the Reliable Discount Pharmacy in Oklahoma City, and demanded money and drugs. The store had been robbed two years earlier, a robbery in which the store's employees had been forced into a back room and severely beaten.

---

...i dont know the whole story, but i do know that some people, when their life is threatened or under extremely,dangerous situations, black out and dont remember or cant control what they are doing. Possibly a berserker???
I know i did this once in a high school fight...came to, trying to stuff a gangmembers head in a soda machine. This thing is very scary and i feel for the defender, if that is what happened.
Heh...he could just be crazy too...we will only know his side now.

I read a bit about the case before. The kid he shot was hit in the head, and was laying on the floor unconcious. OUT. THe other robber ran out, and the guy chased him...but did not catch him. Returned tot he store, where the kid was STILL UNCONCIOUS. Then, the pharmacist grabbed another gun from behind the counter (as far as I'm concerned, this point doesn't matter, it could have been the same gun), and fired five mroe times into the unconcious robber.
I'll be interested to see how it plays out.

Shooting a person in self defense? Yes. Absolutely. They were shooting at him, shooting back is perfectly acceptable.

But ONCE YOU ARE SAFE, it is no longer self defense. Unconscious=no danger, no danger= murder.

Quote:

---

Ersland grabbed the semi-automatic Kel-Tec .380 in his pocket.
"And that's when I started defending myself," he said. "The first shot got him in the head, and that slowed him down so I could get my other gun."

---

What kind of thought process is that? Can anyone explain WHY on earth any rational human being would think "I just shot this guy in the head, so now I need another gun to take care of him?" There's something fundamentally wrong there. I shoot. I have had guns since I was 12 years old. I'm a lover of good guns. But this guy honestly makes me think that people should have psych evaluations before they are allowed to carry a deadly weapon...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smokelaw1

I read a bit about the case before. The kid he shot was hit in the head, and was laying on the floor unconcious. OUT. THe other robber ran out, and the guy chased him...but did not catch him. Returned tot he store, where the kid was STILL UNCONCIOUS. Then, the pharmacist grabbed another gun from behind the counter (as far as I'm concerned, this point doesn't matter, it could have been the same gun), and fired five mroe times into the unconcious robber.
I'll be interested to see how it plays out.

---

well in this case I'm not so certain

if he was unconscious then ........ perhaps the coroner could determine if the original wound was fatal

as in
it wouldn't have mattered anyway

what was the duration of the owners absence before returning to shoot him more?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smokelaw1

I read a bit about the case before. The kid he shot was hit in the head, and was laying on the floor unconcious. OUT. THe other robber ran out, and the guy chased him...but did not catch him. Returned tot he store, where the kid was STILL UNCONCIOUS. Then, the pharmacist grabbed another gun from behind the counter (as far as I'm concerned, this point doesn't matter, it could have been the same gun), and fired five mroe times into the unconcious robber.
I'll be interested to see how it plays out.

---

Thanks for the details Smoklaw. :)

Mac

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JimR

Quote:

---

The first shot got him in the head, and that slowed him down so I could get my other gun.

---

What kind of thought process is that?

---

Quite rational if the first weapon achieved no more than slowing the attacker down.

After he shot the four kids for brandishing a screwdriver and demending five dollars, Bernhard Goetz walked over to Darrel Cabey who was lying on the floor wounded and said, "You don't look so bad, have another." And he shot Darrel again, severing his spinal cord leaving him paralyzed for life. Goetz was hailed as a hero and aquitted of all charges except an illegal weapon charge for which he served a third of a year.

I tend to believe that there must be a clear and immediate threat to justify use of deadly force in self defense. I don't believe a kid lying unconscious on the deck bleeding poses any credible threat.

Brad

Video of event here.
Final shots seemed unnecessary to me, but the whole event took place inside 60 seconds, he would have still been panicing.
I wouldn't want to be a juror on that trial.

Why the hell was he charged with first degree murder though?

The clerk shoots the kid in the head and runs after the other robber. He then calmly waddles back in, has a look at the kid once more, gets the other gun and returns to finish him off.

The crazy gun laws in the US permit people to carry them around for "self defense" -- but with one perpetrator off like a flash and one knocked out and bleeding out the linoleum floor, the clerk had succeeded in defending himself and his property. He should have ensured the wounded robber was unarmed and subdued and then dialed 911.

There was recently a case in BC where a McDonalds drive-thru was held up with a knife... a guy with a knife, sitting in his car, tried to demand money from the window. If they had taken a step back and pressed the "close window" button, they'd have been perfectly safe. Instead, one of the workers tossed a litre of boiling fryer oil on the robber's face. I thought that was excessive force also.

why first degree?

my guess would be overzealous or activist prosecutor

see Duke Rape Case

after watching the video it is clear that he went back to shoot before calling the police

it is very possible to shoot someone in the head and them to survive for some time
the head presents a poor target
panic hampers good aim
things shot in the head tend to flop around a lot and still look alive

I think it is very possible that the store owner felt the wounded assailant hadn't been neutralized.
We need a autopsy report in order to determine the severity of the head wound.

If the head wound was fatal then it is moot.
If the head wound wasn't fatal, maybe a graze or through the cheek/frontal lobes/etc then the owner would be justified in firing until the assailant was "out" for sure.

What I mean is that if the head wound wasn't fatal in and of itself then the threat hadn't been neutralized.

here is an example
Shot in the head: the Brad Beck incident | American Handgunner | Find Articles at BNET

this man was shot in the forehead at arms length and still managed to put three extra holes in his attacker

the simple fact is that a grazing head wound can knock you down, maybe loopy, but you CAN come back
we need an autopsy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blade Wielder

If they had taken a step back and pressed the "close window" button, they'd have been perfectly safe. Instead, one of the workers tossed a litre of boiling fryer oil on the robber's face. I thought that was excessive force also.

---

I hope you are aware that car doors are designed to open.
Wonder of wonders, the front door of the building is designed in a very similar fashion.

You assume a lot.
I'm glad you aren't charged with safeguarding my life.

I've got mixed feelings on this one.

On one hand, it does seem a bit extreme to pop the guy in the head, and go back with another gun and keep filling the corpse with lead.

Also, given that they were previously robbed, and that it entailed employees being savagely beaten, I can only conclude that the pharmacist couldn't have possibly been in his right mind.


On the other hand, if you're going to shoot somebody because you believe that your life is in danger, it only makes sense to me that you should keep shooting until the person is absolutely, positively, beyond a shadow of a doubt, completely dead and beyond the help of anything short of divine intervention.

Let's say that the guy survives the wound to the head. (I know it's unlikely, but it does happen depending on the gun, round, range, entrance and exit)

When the guy wakes up, and then eventually get's out of jail, he's not going to be happy. Since we already know he is a low life criminal, as evidenced by the fact he was there committing robbery, there's a chance he might come back looking for pay-back.

So, to a certain extent, I say never pull the trigger, or keep shooting until you're out of bullets. There's no point in going half-way.

1st degree requires premeditation. That was obviously not the case. He'll be acquitted on that one. Anything else they want to throw at him though, he could be in trouble.
He was absolutely right to defend himself and his employees. Coming back to finish him off was a little ridiculous. As a juror, I would certainly empathize, but he got a bit gun happy. With the situation in hand, he could have made sure the guy was out of the fight peacefully. He was mad, and amped up, and wanted to shoot him.
And all this talk about the robbers being criminal scumbags...really? Yes, they took their lives in to their own hands when they went in with guns, and they got what was coming to them, but these were hardly hardened professional crooks. They're a couple of kids. Look how useless the kid who gets shot was. He was scared out of his gourd. And did he even have a gun? I didn't see it...He spent most of the time fixing his mask.
Bring on the angry rebuttals...

why do the rebuttals have to be angry?

how do you know the guy was mad?
how do you know these guys hadn't done this before?
how do you know what happened off camera?

since we can't see the man "getting finished off" how do we know what the owner was thinking?

How DO we know what he was thinking?

fact is, he probably (almost certainly) wasn't thinking.

he was REACTING
big big difference

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gratewhitehuntr

you shoot to kill
if you don't want to kill them then you have no business using a firearm
they are the machinery of death plain and simple :chop:

---

I agree that if you shoot as a reaction to deadly force, you shoot to kill, because shooting to hurt is not going to prevent the other person from shooting back at you.

But if the threat has ended and there is no risk of deadly force anymore because the other guys is on the ground and unable to do anything, then by legal definition, you are taking the law in your own hands by executing the attacker.

Whether I would personally agree is a matter of context (I know nothing of the case) but legally, he is in a lot of trouble, and the context is what will decide the outcome of the jury deliberations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kenneyty

And all this talk about the robbers being criminal scumbags...really? Yes, they took their lives in to their own hands when they went in with guns, and they got what was coming to them, but these were hardly hardened professional crooks. They're a couple of kids..

---

I would usually avoid this kind of thread, but this gets to me.

I don't care who it is- if you point a gun at me, all bets are off. That's more than fair and moral. I carry legally, and I know better than to draw my gun, let alone point it at another person without intending to end their life.
I can only assume that any person that points a gun at me has reconciled that decision as well. In that situation there's no time or reason to try to figure out their age or intent. If they just slightly twitch their finger because they're "scared out of his gourd", you're dead. You may be OK with that, but I'm not.

On topic, I have seen the video, read a few articles and I'm torn with this case. My gut feeling is that it's either self defence, or self defense woth a possible charge of corpse abuse, depending on the autopsy results.

If this man is charged, I can only hope that his accomplice and getaway driver are charged with the same crimes.

Also, even the DA feels that he should still be able to carry a gun even though he's out on bail.

Quote:

---

One day after the shooting the pharmacist told NewsChannel Four his physical condition and fear for his and his co-workers lives prompted him to fire at the two juvenile robbers - killing one of them. Now prosecutors fear Ersland's life could be in danger. District Attorney David Prater insisted Ersland be allowed to carry a gun even though he was charged with first degree murder. The judge seemed stunned by the request.

"You're saying the DA in Oklahoma County wants him to have a gun," Judge Tammy Bass-Lesure said.

"That's right," David Prater said.

The judge did not agree, and her decision has angered some of Ersland's supporters.

"If she doesn't allow him to protect himself," Mike Manning said. "He's going to be dead in a week. What they're doing to this businessman is wrong."

---

Source: Developments at pharmacist's hearing - KFOR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gratewhitehuntr

fact is, he probably (almost certainly) wasn't thinking.

he was REACTING
big big difference

---

People reacting under stress or at sudden events don't think unless they are trained to do so. I expect a trained soldier to be able to make rational decisions at such a time. Untrained civilians... not really.

One time I was getting money out of an ATM and a friend of mine walked up behind me and said 'give me your money'
...
He was lucky that he was far enough away from me that I had to bridge the distance between me and him with a full step, which allowed me to recognize him before my fist hit him and I managed to pull back.
I was mad at him because it could have ended really badly for him.
My point: in such situations, people react. They don't think.

After reading what I could, I can't watch the vid on dial up but I will later...

It sounds like he went overboard or might have been out of it from stress overload...

Criminal charges????
No way, not in my book they shot at him first, period, end of story, it really in my eyes doesn't matter if they shot at him slipped and fell and knocked themselves out....and then he killed them both, to bad so sad...

They entered into a fight to the death when they pointed their guns and pulled the trigger.... one or both dead is their tuff luck I have no sympathy not one little bit ....The only reason he is not dead is they were lousy shots....


Unfortunately the law won't see it that way, but if he has a good lawyer he should still walk....

I guess I would not make it on the Jury :)

exactly what I am saying Glen.

If you start a fight to the death only death is going to end it
yours, or mine, or both

to forgive someone trying to kill me is beyond me

WHEN (prediction here)
when he gets off
IT WILL send a message to criminals

OPEN SEASON ON GOBLINS

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JimR

Shooting a person in self defense? Yes. Absolutely. They were shooting at him, shooting back is perfectly acceptable.

But ONCE YOU ARE SAFE, it is no longer self defense. Unconscious=no danger, no danger= murder.



What kind of thought process is that? Can anyone explain WHY on earth any rational human being would think "I just shot this guy in the head, so now I need another gun to take care of him?" There's something fundamentally wrong there. I shoot. I have had guns since I was 12 years old. I'm a lover of good guns. But this guy honestly makes me think that people should have psych evaluations before they are allowed to carry a deadly weapon...

---

You need to be put into a similar life threatening situation, your primal survival instincts may take over, fight or flight, rational thought is not part of the equation once the violence starts, its kill or be killed , and it wont stop until the adrenaline says so. I doubt if vengence had anything to do with it and if it did so what? The crook forfieted his right to life when he tried to deny another their right to life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blade Wielder

The clerk shoots the kid in the head and runs after the other robber. He then calmly waddles back in, has a look at the kid once more, gets the other gun and returns to finish him off.

The crazy gun laws in the US permit people to carry them around for "self defense" -- but with one perpetrator off like a flash and one knocked out and bleeding out the linoleum floor, the clerk had succeeded in defending himself and his property. He should have ensured the wounded robber was unarmed and subdued and then dialed 911.

There was recently a case in BC where a McDonalds drive-thru was held up with a knife... a guy with a knife, sitting in his car, tried to demand money from the window. If they had taken a step back and pressed the "close window" button, they'd have been perfectly safe. Instead, one of the workers tossed a litre of boiling fryer oil on the robber's face. I thought that was excessive force also.

---

Crazy gun laws ?? So the alternative being the criminals who are armed because they don't obey laws come in and shoot you, you're only hope being they only want you money and not your life?

A few years ago in a restaurant across the street from where I work two guys went in at 10PM and herded the three female employees into the kitchen and shot all three in the head. One of the victims was 17 years old. They got $120.00 for their efforts. The police caught them because one of the bragged to a friend telling him of the murders. I guess he was proud of himself. The friend dropped a dime on him.

Regrettably they were not given the death penalty they both so richly deserve. The taxpayers will have to pay for both perpetrators food and lodging for the rest of their natural lives. Once in custody each denied being the shooter and accused the other. I guess not so proud after all.

If I was on the jury I would have acquitted Bernard Goetz and I would acquit the pharmacist as well. Predators are fair game in my book.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JimmyHAD

Predators are fair game in my book.

---

That struck me as sorta funny there Jimmy, as most states have a no bag limits on predators... :)

One thing is for sure:
That guy will not be robbing me anytime.

case closed

Here's a few things to add to the mix:

My understanding is the initial firearm that the pharmacist used to deliver the headshot was a .380 auto. Not exactly a superlative self-defense round. As to the weapon, manufacturer, capacity, or its condition (operational, jammed, our of ammo, etc) nobody has said. It has not been made public why the pharmacist changed weapons. It has been stated he changed weapons, which is different than reloading his primary weapon.

The pharmacist is a medically discharged Iraq War veteran. He had recently had back surgery, which is why he is wearing a back brace. This may factor into his thought process, as he is in no condition for a physical scuffle with anyone at this point. The store had been robbed before, and the employees beaten. This is what prompted him to obtain a concealed carry permit and have a weapon at the store.

The only thing that says the wounded attacker was unconscious is the medical examiner's report. The surveillance video does not show the soon-to-be decedant -- the view is obscured by the counter. The medical examiner ruled the head shot was not fatal, but rather the decedant expired due to the additional rounds.

The surveillance video is video only -- no audio. It is possible the soon-to-be decedant was conscious and made either a verbal threat or possibly moved (or twitched), leading the citizen to still be in fear.

A theory going around about the murder charge. First degree murder means pre-meditated. I don't know that a jury in my county is going to agree this guy sat down, thought about killing someone, planned it out then executed that plan. Manslaughter perhaps, but not murder. The DA might have given in to pressure from groups like the NAACP and filed the charge. I predict the pharmacist will get a not guilty from the jury.

The pharacist has secured the services or Irvin Box, a very prominent attorney and legal analyst for local NBC news affiliate KFOR TV. The DA had best eat his Wheaties, because Box is a shark in the courtroom.

I'm not a real fan of the District Attorney right now, and I'm not the only one. He filed a first degree murder charge against the pharmacist. But, the 14 year old perp who had a firearm and waved it around to start the incident doesn't catch a murder/manslaughter/weapons charge. HELLO? You are illegally in possession of a firearm, while committing a felony, which resulted in someone's death. I don't give a damn if you're 14 or not, you should catch a felony murder charge and let the justice system run its course. Of course, the NAACP isn't on this bandwagon; they're all for the pharacist being tried though.

The DA did request the pharmacist be permitted to have a firearm at the premises. The judge declined. The same judge who raised his bail from $50k to $100K. Not going to be getting my vote at the next election. This pretty much declares it to be open season on the pharmacy and its employees. The judge has received several death threats already.

In the end, here's a couple of lessons.
(1) A .380 semiauto isn't really the best personal defensive round;
(2) Spend time punching holes in paper at the range. If the pharmacist would have delivered larger caliber weapon fire more accurately, this case wouldn't be a case at all.
(3) Shoot to kill, not neutralize.
(4) Find a lawyer now, before you need one. Sitting at county jail is not the time to go through the yellow pages.
(5) Remember your constitutional right to the 5th amendment. Shut up and don't say a word to the police without your attorney present. I haven't found a lawyer who wishes his client would have talked to the police instead of being quiet.

If we still lived in the jungle (yea I know many think we still do) then you act with primal animal instincts. Someone harms you or threatens you you reaction is to utterly devastate that person and his family who might take later revenge on you.

People always threaten others with harm verbally and that is an assault. It does not justify getting a weapon and eliminating that person just in case he was actually serious unless you have evidence he had a weapon and was preparing to use it.

Law Enforcement Officers are trained to shoot to kill with the exception of secret Service Agents who are trained to shoot to wound when appropriate. LEO's are also trained to shoot to nutralize the threat. That does not mean shooting someone with a Glock 17 which has 17 rounds and hitting him 5 times while he's on his feet and another 5 on the way down and another 5 on the ground unless he still has a weapon in his hand and is conscious and is still a threat. Once the perpetrator is on the ground with no weapon within reach and especially unconscious the treat is over period, end or argument. If you think the coup de gras is appropriate your letting your emotions get control. (why that dirty rat he stuck a gun in my face and now I'm gonna kill him)

Its up to lawyers to argue whether the shooter went temporarily insane or some weird circumstance happened we don't know about.

Looks like a clear case of self-defense to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JimmyHAD

Crazy gun laws ?? So the alternative being the criminals who are armed because they don't obey laws come in and shoot you, you're only hope being they only want you money and not your life?

A few years ago in a restaurant across the street from where I work two guys went in at 10PM and herded the three female employees into the kitchen and shot all three in the head. One of the victims was 17 years old. They got $120.00 for their efforts. The police caught them because one of the bragged to a friend telling him of the murders. I guess he was proud of himself. The friend dropped a dime on him.

Regrettably they were not given the death penalty they both so richly deserve. The taxpayers will have to pay for both perpetrators food and lodging for the rest of their natural lives. Once in custody each denied being the shooter and accused the other. I guess not so proud after all.

If I was on the jury I would have acquitted Bernard Goetz and I would acquit the pharmacist as well. Predators are fair game in my book.

---

Yes, crazy gun laws.

I love guns and own guns, but many of the U.S gun laws are nuts.

The story you told sounds horrible and tragic...but different. The kids in the convenience store robbery clearly aren't professionals - they want to get in and out with the register's contents as quickly as possible, and although they're carrying guns, they probably don't want to shoot them. I mean, if I were to rob a store at gunpoint, I wouldn't be looking to kill anyone -- I'd just want the money. But I guess there are all kinds of different people, aren't there?

The guys who robbed the place across from your workplace obviously weren't geniuses either if they only managed 120 bucks, but systematically executing three people? It certainly sounds premeditated in the sense that they reasoned they had to be killed (maybe they didn't wear masks and thought they could identify them?) and then carried out those killings. Maybe it happened after a discussion then and there or maybe it was a split second decision - but I can say confidently that it probably wasn't a "heat of the moment" decision to execute a defenseless 17 year-old and two others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sensei_kyle

Here's a few things to add to the mix:

My understanding is the initial firearm that the pharmacist used to deliver the headshot was a .380 auto. Not exactly a superlative self-defense round.

---

This is what I don't get: if you want to carry for self defense (no argument from me) then why use such a ****ty weapon / round? I know squat of guns, but self defense scenarios don't often call for long range shooting.
A 357 magnum with short barrel and hollow point (or whatever damages the most) rounds would seem better to my untrained eye. no?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sensei_kyle

A theory going around about the murder charge. First degree murder means pre-meditated. I don't know that a jury in my county is going to agree this guy sat down, thought about killing someone, planned it out then executed that plan. Manslaughter perhaps, but not murder. The DA might have given in to pressure from groups like the NAACP and filed the charge. I predict the pharmacist will get a not guilty from the jury.

---

I hope he will get off home free too.
I know first degree is not determined by a timeframe. Planning for months to kill someone is identical to kicking someone down, and then deciding he has to die and getting a weapon to do it, from a legal pov.
Perhaps the fact that he shot once, and then got another weapon to shoot again caused this decision?

Wow, one that I really want to post on but man I've got lot to say. I'll try to organize it.

1st- the incident itself. not having all the facts, and the criminal inside being off camera I can't make a call to if the perp was still a threat or not. However, there are a couple of reasons the guy may have gone back. first being that he may likely was trained not to leave a threat behind. second being that he may have been told, as I was as a kid by my retired sheriff grandfather, to always kill the criminal. it eliminates conflicting versions of the events. and in places like Kalifornia where everybody sues everybody it could save you civil trouble as well. out here criminals are very happy to sue anybody brazen enough to thwart their plans. they're like the US automakers, they'll get your money one way or another ;)

Did this guy do something wrong? wasn't he in fear of his life, under stress and the influence of adrenaline? If the bad guy was truly unconscious, and it was purely calculated to finish him, then that may be cold, it doesn't mean it was wrong. what's better, to have the criminal live, go to prison at cost to tax payers, come out and go back into the same life? somebody mentioned retribution, that is very true. I read a story of a Los Angeles Jewelry store owner who shot some gang members that tried to rob him, they robbed him again, more shootouts, finally there was a target on his head and he had to close up his doors and hide out. doesn't seem fair that the honest run and hide because the evil men have power.

somebody said they weren't hardened criminals intent on killing. I don't know, no sound, if they were firing or just waving the gun, but have you ever had a gun pointed at you? did you feel relaxed knowing that the person probably wasn't going to shoot you? was the gun empty? if not then whether they "intended" to shoot anybody or not there was the possibility, and the lack of concern over that outcome. they were willing for an unknown payout to risk and maybe even take the lives of multiple innocent, working, people. and accidents happen, it is very easily to accidentally fire a gun, especially if you are amped up and swinging it about like that. accidentally being shot and wounded or killed sucks just as much as if the person did it on purpose.

I think the guy on trial should be acquitted, I think he defended himself, and without being in his head at the time nobody can know the reasoning there. the people were/are criminals. IMO criminals, during the committing of a crime, are entitled to NO RIGHTS. that's the choice they've made.

1st degree? isn't there something about if you are acquitted for the maximum crime they can't retry for a lesser charge? I wonder if the DA is doing a two-fer, making the stupid people that want to make it about race and excessive force happy by "coming down hard" but giving the guy a hand in reality, the jury is unlikely to say first degree, any jury, and once acquitted he has no need to fear future indictments.

As to the 380's viability/potency etc. sensei's five bullets give a good list
(1) All guns, IMO under 40cal are compromise weapons ***(Edit- I meant under the power level of a 40s&w, 38special and 357 mag of course are smaller dia. but completely sufficient), and ofter what is reasonable to carry on yourself is not the ideal weapon. when I had my permit I carried a small 38 snub and also a sig 380 (not at the same time). the 38 I had faith in the 380 not ideal but BETTER THAN NOTHING. when I camp/hunt I carry a 45long colt with Speer hollow points, even a winging is going to throw a guy down. but I couldn't carry that damn thing around all the time, couldn't conceal it for one. remember, this guy was interacting with customers, (not like the guys at the pawn shop who just wear it exposed, he had to be discreet) and had an injury. isn't it thunder ranch or another training facility that says use a pistol to get to a gun? i.e. use what you've got to get to the better weapon.

(2) He obviously made a good shot if he hit the gun in the head, a difficult shot, during the initial confusion. I want to say it was a couple of years ago here in Fresno they had on the news a car that had been run to ground by cops for whatever reason. something like 96 shots fired, bad guy hit a couple of times non-fatal. these were professionals! in real life with the movement, adrenaline, tunnel vision or whatever, I think it is really hard it's just that in movies they make it look too easy. I hope if people are ever shooting at me it's hard as hell for them to hit me :D

(3) Shoot to kill, not neutralize. ALWAYS!

(4) Find a lawyer now, before you need one. Sitting at county jail is not the time to go through the yellow pages. SMART! and let me tell you something on lawyers, pick one that isn't' buddy buddy with the prosecutor. it does nothing for your trial if the lawyer is unprepared because the night before he was at a party, with the prosecutor.

(5) Remember your constitutional right to the 5th amendment. Shut up and don't say a word to the police without your attorney present. I haven't found a lawyer who wishes his client would have talked to the police instead of being quiet. THIS IS THE NUMBER ONE MOST IMPORTANT THING ALWAYS IN DEALING WITH THE "MAN". yes, some of them are on your side, hell, most of them might be good people. but remember, they aren't your friends and don't have your best interest in mind. I've known people railroaded by the system, victims of the machinations of men that needed to feel important and powerful.

in the beck case, considering what the assailant did to beck who was cooperating, the "innocent bystander" that sued him should have been grateful, he likely would have shot and possibly killed her as well after getting her vehicle. people amaze me. too bad they settled. people like her are one of the things wrong with our world.

well, this has kept me up too late. the baby stopped throwing up thank God so I can go ahead and get some sleep. you gents play nice if you're still up.

Red

If you are an armed robber isn't being killed sort of an occupational hazard?

I think one important thing people should take away from these sorts of topics is that
THE POLICE ARE NOT YOUR FRIENDS

REPEAT

THE POLICE ARE NOT YOUR FRIENDS

it is the job of the police to
ticket YOU
fine YOU
arrest YOU
help prosecute YOU

this is the function of the police force

DON'T TALK
and whatever you do
DON'T TAKE THEIR ADVICE
ASSUME EVERYTHING YOU ARE TOLD IS A LIE
REALIZE THEY WANT YOU TO CONFESS
YOU DON'T ALWAYS HAVE TO BE MERANDAIZED
JUST DON'T TALK

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bruno

This is what I don't get: if you want to carry for self defense (no argument from me) then why use such a ****ty weapon / round? I know squat of guns, but self defense scenarios don't often call for long range shooting.
A 357 magnum with short barrel and hollow point (or whatever damages the most) rounds would seem better to my untrained eye. no?

---

A .357 Magnum is a great round. A snubby is easily concealable, but it's a hand cannon not suitable for everyone. I suspect part of the issue is the .380 is small & easily concealed. In Oklahoma, the concealed carry permit means exactly that -- concealed, no bulges, distortion of clothing, no hint the weapon is even there. Makes things difficult, especially in the 100+ degree summers. Something like the Ruger LCP is great for concealability. I'd call it tiny, since the entire weapon fits in my hand with room left over. But, the price you pay is a lower powered round and less of them. And, as one of my shooting buddies is fond of saying, being a turd is becoming a team sport.

Quote:

---

I hope he will get off home free too.
I know first degree is not determined by a timeframe. Planning for months to kill someone is identical to kicking someone down, and then deciding he has to die and getting a weapon to do it, from a legal pov.
Perhaps the fact that he shot once, and then got another weapon to shoot again caused this decision?

---

The first degree charge will be tough for the prosecutor to prove. Premeditation is the key. I'm no lawyer, but if the DA fails, the pharmacist cannot be charged for the same crime again (double jeopardy). However, the pharmacist is still open to civil suit from the 16 year old scumbag's family.

Also, regarding talking to the police: remember in the miranda warning "anything you say can and will be used against you". Nothing you say to the police can be used for your defense. You cannot call on the police to testify on your behalf. So, shut up & lawyer up.

I think what is being misunderstood here in his choice of round is the purpose.

For the purpose of defense a .380 is ok (ish)

If his shot to the head knocked the guy down (about the only way you will with a .380) then the round had served it's purpose.
He could have gotten away.

If you intend to kill your opponent, then a larger round is in order.
I carry Mjollnir.

I think he had changed form defense to offense when he got his other gun.
It's clear as day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blade Wielder

There was recently a case in BC where a McDonalds drive-thru was held up with a knife... a guy with a knife, sitting in his car, tried to demand money from the window. If they had taken a step back and pressed the "close window" button, they'd have been perfectly safe. Instead, one of the workers tossed a litre of boiling fryer oil on the robber's face. I thought that was excessive force also.

---

that's awesome. I hope the clerk asked him, "would you like fries with that?"

I don't know how many of you have actually killed someone, watched someone die from a gunshot wound, or have been in a situation where your life is in grave danger or how many x combat vets we have here. There's no telling how you will react in that type of situation. Believe me, you don't want to know. It can mess up your head for a long, long time... Military and Police forces train and train for these situations and sometimes, their still not ready. Don't be so quick to judge the Pharmacist. There's no telling what went through his brain at the time. He was probably still wired from the robbery. He'll probably get off with a warning.