chamwilljam23
Banned
- 1,411
- 10
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2005
THANK YOU! It was an ARMED robbery- regardless of whether both were strapped or not. Luckily it wasnt me in this situation- cuz I would've done the same thing, and been long gone
- 6,522
- 1,035
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2006
theres a big difference between that first shot, and the shots he used to kill the kid with
- 6,522
- 1,035
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2006
theres a big difference between that first shot, and the shots he used to kill the kid with
- 1,020
- 466
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2003
So if we are using your thought process then who's to say in the time he was waiting he still wouldn't have died to begin with?
- 1,020
- 466
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2003
So if we are using your thought process then who's to say in the time he was waiting he still wouldn't have died to begin with?
- 3,807
- 11
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2006
- 3,807
- 11
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2006
- 17,572
- 1,165
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2008
He could have easily stood there and held him at gun point to make sure he didnt do anything crazy until the paramedics came.
He murdered him.
- 17,572
- 1,165
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2008
He could have easily stood there and held him at gun point to make sure he didnt do anything crazy until the paramedics came.
He murdered him.
- 3,807
- 11
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2006
This is almost as ridiculous as when people suggest that people should shoot a dangerous attacker in the leg to diffuse a life-threatening situation.
Bunch of Monday morning quarterbacks replying in this thread. Not one of you have even addressed the basic criteria needed to meet the definition of murder. The even more hilarious responses are the ones where people are indicating arbitrary numbers of years for sentences they'd recommend instead of life. "Eh, not life, but def 10 yrs."
Unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought.
The only part that can be proven is that he killed a human being. The unlawfulness and the malice is arguable at best. The malice aforethought is imaginary at best.
- 3,807
- 11
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2006
This is almost as ridiculous as when people suggest that people should shoot a dangerous attacker in the leg to diffuse a life-threatening situation.
Bunch of Monday morning quarterbacks replying in this thread. Not one of you have even addressed the basic criteria needed to meet the definition of murder. The even more hilarious responses are the ones where people are indicating arbitrary numbers of years for sentences they'd recommend instead of life. "Eh, not life, but def 10 yrs."
Unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought.
The only part that can be proven is that he killed a human being. The unlawfulness and the malice is arguable at best. The malice aforethought is imaginary at best.
- 14,388
- 243
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2009
^Maybe I missed it,but Russ what is YOUR take on this?
- 14,388
- 243
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2009
^Maybe I missed it,but Russ what is YOUR take on this?
- 2,328
- 2,078
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2010
How is that hilarious ?
Last I checked "judges" hand out arbitrary sentences all the time (as long as they fall in between often flawed/arbitrary state guidelines).
- 2,328
- 2,078
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2010
How is that hilarious ?
Last I checked "judges" hand out arbitrary sentences all the time (as long as they fall in between often flawed/arbitrary state guidelines).
- 6,522
- 1,035
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2006
Thats not even close to the same situation, no one in here was complaining because he didnt shoot the intruder in the leg, like u said earlier if he would have killed him with the first shot no one would be complaining.
and i have been in a similar situation to this i have been robbed at gunpoint in my store, and yes this was still murder
- 6,522
- 1,035
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2006
Thats not even close to the same situation, no one in here was complaining because he didnt shoot the intruder in the leg, like u said earlier if he would have killed him with the first shot no one would be complaining.
and i have been in a similar situation to this i have been robbed at gunpoint in my store, and yes this was still murder
- 12,264
- 51
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2007
Open shut case.
- 12,264
- 51
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2007
Open shut case.
- 6,522
- 1,035
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2006
It stopped being armed robbery well before he killed the kid...the only one armed was the shop owner, and the only one who was in any danger was the kid shot on the ground
- 6,522
- 1,035
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2006
It stopped being armed robbery well before he killed the kid...the only one armed was the shop owner, and the only one who was in any danger was the kid shot on the ground
- 3,807
- 11
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2006
At worst, temporary insanity or self-defense. At best, drop the charges and let this man go on with his life.
Keep in mind, too, that we don't have all of the facts of the case solely from this post. We don't know:
if the wounded robber was conscious or not.
whether the wounded robber was continuing to threaten the man or not.
if the older pharmacist was absolutely out of harm's way or not.
that the wounded robber didn't have a/another weapon.
etc.
People are saying since the pharmacist walked past the wounded robber that he must have felt safe... he may have been running off adrenaline. I mean, hell, he just had two guys run in waiving a pistol in his face. Not sure if any of you have had that happen, but it gets your adrenaline going. This same adrenaline combined with the nature of the situation--A POTENTIAL ROBBERY AND MURDER--is enough to hinder a man's judgement and desire for safety to a point where right and wrong can be indistinguishable.
Take cases where police shoot people who are unarmed or use what seems to be excessive force, battered wife defenses, etc. The fact that he was able to be convicted of MURDER is ridiculous. Whether or not the killing was unlawful depends on where the self-defense threshold stops... which is entirely debatable given the circumstances. Then throw in the fact that the only malice aforethought would have had to have been formed in SECONDS--seconds where a man was still trying to defend himself.
The burden of proof in a criminal trial is beyond a reasonable doubt. I don't think any even half-way reasonable person could look at this video--perhaps even at all the evidence--and seriously say that this guy murdered somebody.
Keep in mind, too, that we don't have all of the facts of the case solely from this post. We don't know:
if the wounded robber was conscious or not.
whether the wounded robber was continuing to threaten the man or not.
if the older pharmacist was absolutely out of harm's way or not.
that the wounded robber didn't have a/another weapon.
etc.
People are saying since the pharmacist walked past the wounded robber that he must have felt safe... he may have been running off adrenaline. I mean, hell, he just had two guys run in waiving a pistol in his face. Not sure if any of you have had that happen, but it gets your adrenaline going. This same adrenaline combined with the nature of the situation--A POTENTIAL ROBBERY AND MURDER--is enough to hinder a man's judgement and desire for safety to a point where right and wrong can be indistinguishable.
Take cases where police shoot people who are unarmed or use what seems to be excessive force, battered wife defenses, etc. The fact that he was able to be convicted of MURDER is ridiculous. Whether or not the killing was unlawful depends on where the self-defense threshold stops... which is entirely debatable given the circumstances. Then throw in the fact that the only malice aforethought would have had to have been formed in SECONDS--seconds where a man was still trying to defend himself.
The burden of proof in a criminal trial is beyond a reasonable doubt. I don't think any even half-way reasonable person could look at this video--perhaps even at all the evidence--and seriously say that this guy murdered somebody.
- 3,807
- 11
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2006
At worst, temporary insanity or self-defense. At best, drop the charges and let this man go on with his life.
Keep in mind, too, that we don't have all of the facts of the case solely from this post. We don't know:
if the wounded robber was conscious or not.
whether the wounded robber was continuing to threaten the man or not.
if the older pharmacist was absolutely out of harm's way or not.
that the wounded robber didn't have a/another weapon.
etc.
People are saying since the pharmacist walked past the wounded robber that he must have felt safe... he may have been running off adrenaline. I mean, hell, he just had two guys run in waiving a pistol in his face. Not sure if any of you have had that happen, but it gets your adrenaline going. This same adrenaline combined with the nature of the situation--A POTENTIAL ROBBERY AND MURDER--is enough to hinder a man's judgement and desire for safety to a point where right and wrong can be indistinguishable.
Take cases where police shoot people who are unarmed or use what seems to be excessive force, battered wife defenses, etc. The fact that he was able to be convicted of MURDER is ridiculous. Whether or not the killing was unlawful depends on where the self-defense threshold stops... which is entirely debatable given the circumstances. Then throw in the fact that the only malice aforethought would have had to have been formed in SECONDS--seconds where a man was still trying to defend himself.
The burden of proof in a criminal trial is beyond a reasonable doubt. I don't think any even half-way reasonable person could look at this video--perhaps even at all the evidence--and seriously say that this guy murdered somebody.
Keep in mind, too, that we don't have all of the facts of the case solely from this post. We don't know:
if the wounded robber was conscious or not.
whether the wounded robber was continuing to threaten the man or not.
if the older pharmacist was absolutely out of harm's way or not.
that the wounded robber didn't have a/another weapon.
etc.
People are saying since the pharmacist walked past the wounded robber that he must have felt safe... he may have been running off adrenaline. I mean, hell, he just had two guys run in waiving a pistol in his face. Not sure if any of you have had that happen, but it gets your adrenaline going. This same adrenaline combined with the nature of the situation--A POTENTIAL ROBBERY AND MURDER--is enough to hinder a man's judgement and desire for safety to a point where right and wrong can be indistinguishable.
Take cases where police shoot people who are unarmed or use what seems to be excessive force, battered wife defenses, etc. The fact that he was able to be convicted of MURDER is ridiculous. Whether or not the killing was unlawful depends on where the self-defense threshold stops... which is entirely debatable given the circumstances. Then throw in the fact that the only malice aforethought would have had to have been formed in SECONDS--seconds where a man was still trying to defend himself.
The burden of proof in a criminal trial is beyond a reasonable doubt. I don't think any even half-way reasonable person could look at this video--perhaps even at all the evidence--and seriously say that this guy murdered somebody.