OUTRAGE: They're sending this guy to prison

[SubwayGuy]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20110527/us_yblog_thelookout/jurors-reject-pharmacists-self-defense-plea-convict-him-of-murder

 

For those of you who don't know, this guy was robbed at gunpoint and went after the perps and shot one of them dead. Now they're putting him in jail claiming it was "cold-blooded" murder.

 

If you can't defend yourself with force, there's nothing left and criminals will rule the world.

 

Looks like the white collar "they're never guilty" attitude is being spread to all of society. This guy should be praised as a hero who got rid of useless scum off this planet, instead he's not a risk to society but the taxpayers are going to pay for him to sit in prison while he loses the rights he fought to defend anyway, and which had he not been robbed he would still have today.

 

The entire legal system in this country is an absolute joke.

[LRG]

Absolutely disgusting. Reminds me of a story in which a robber broke into someone's house and fell on something in the person's house, resulting in the robber injuring his leg or his arm or something and the robber had the nerve to SUE the owner of the house because a safety hazard put him on the shelf, preventing him from doing his job as a robber...and if I'm not mistaken the robber won. Unbelievable!

[INDman]

I don't think you can call that self defen e since the perp fled the scene and the store owner was not in iminante danger. While it is a bit messed up, I don't think the shooting was self defense.

[Y2Julio]

Yeah, I agree with you. Once the guy ran, it changes things when it comes to self defense.

[INDman]

Had he blown the kids head off in the store I would fully support him, but no after he chased him out of the store.

[Kamen Rider]

Please, watch the Nazi Banksters Crimes Ripple Effect at http://jforjustice.co.uk/banksters

[Roadcruiser1]

He's actually a criminal. The fact is the robbers ran out of the store. If he was threatened at gunpoint in the store, and pulled out a gun and shot them that would self defense, and it would have been legal, but he shot the robbers when they left the store. He shot them outside the store, and they weren't threatening him any farther. Instead he had to pull the trigger, and he became the assailant. That actually makes him guilty of manslaughter. That's punishable to 25 years to life in prison.

[B35 via Church]

The issue isn't that this store clerk simply defended himself with deadly force.... He used deadly force when the level of danger/bodily harm to himself, diminished greatly (sure the argument could be made that, those 2 kids could have came back later & "got him", but that aint gonna hold up in court).... The end result here iddn't any different than some random person steppin on my new timbs & me dumpin 5 hot ones in him b/c of it....

 

Which would boil down to nothin more than outright spite & anger.....

 

Which is what this situation sounds like to me.... and believe me, I am a spiteful person - Have no problem admitting that..... Someone aims a gun @ me & doesn't pull the trigger... or shoots me & doesn't kill, or paralyze me in some way, that person better hope & pray I don't see his ass again.... Because I would be in the same position this clerk is in.... And I would welcome the title of cold blooded murderer too.

 

Once those kids ran out the store, that clerk can not, and I repeat... can not, claim self-defense.....

[SubwayGuy]

He's actually a criminal. The fact is the robbers ran out of the store. If he was threatened at gunpoint in the store, and pulled out a gun and shot them that would self defense, and it would have been legal, but he shot the robbers when they left the store. He shot them outside the store, and they weren't threatening him any farther. Instead he had to pull the trigger, and he became the assailant. That actually makes him guilty of manslaughter. That's punishable to 25 years to life in prison.

 

how do you know that? as far as the store owner is concerned the kid could have been going back to get a bigger gun. you can't make the assumption the threat is over just because someone runs away. they could be coming back.

 

the robber gave up his right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness the second he pulled a gun out and threatened someone.

[Roadcruiser1]

As I can explain it you can't shoot the assailant unless if he threatens you. In the end he wasn't threatening him & there wasn't proof that he held him to gunpoint out in public so with no evidence the defendant wasn't doing the right thing.

[TrainFanatic]

Not a joke to me. There is no way in hell you can justify such an act. Shotting the robber five more times was totally irrelevant. One shot in the leg would of done the trick. Case clossed. Makes me wonder if the users who thanked the first post would do the same and think that it was "okay".

[Forest Glen]

In order to assert self defense, the force must be commensurate to the threat. However, I wish people knew how it felt to be robbed before passing judgment.

[INDman]

Not a joke to me. There is no way in hell you can justify such an act. Shotting the robber five more times was totally irrelevant. One shot in the leg would of done the trick. Case clossed. Makes me wonder if the users who thanked the first post would do the same and think that it was "okay".

 

I can tell that you have never discharged a firearm in you life with your asinine statement. When you use DPF, your shooting to kill and you shoot until the threat is gone even if you need to fire 20 shots. And no, you can't "just shoot him in the leg", it does not work like that unless you some world class marksmen.

[TrainFanatic]

In order to assert self defense, the force must be commensurate to the threat. However, I wish people knew how it felt to be robbed before passing judgment.

 

It's almost impossible to live in my neighborhood and say you've never been robbed. I know how it feels, I was jumped for my first bike some time ago. Sure I was pretty angry, but not angry enough to feel the need to take their life away.

[INDman]

In order to assert self defense, the force must be commensurate to the threat. However, I wish people knew how it felt to be robbed before passing judgment.

How do you know people who commented haven't been robbed before? I have, but I chased the guy and got my stuff back at knife point.

[R68 Subway Car]

You have the right to defend your self. The Second Amendment protects that right.

[INDman]

You have the right to defend your self. The Second Amendment protects that right.

 

It's not self defense when you shoot and kill someone who is running away. Also the Second Amendment says nothing about self defense.

[East New York]

How do you know people who commented haven't been robbed before? I have, but I chased the guy and got my stuff back at knife point.

 

I got robbed once in Manhattan. The guy came up to me, said he had a gun, and snatched my phone. I chased his ass to 6th ave, and got my phone back! I commenced to kicking his ass right as NYPD rounded the corner off 8th street. He ran off, I kept my phone, they caught his ass 15 minutes later, and he got 10 months in Rikers.

 

Now if I had gotten a chance to kick his ass, I could have gone to jail for assault, because after he fled I no longer needed to "defend myself." That's the law.

[SubwayGuy]

It's almost impossible to live in my neighborhood and say you've never been robbed. I know how it feels, I was jumped for my first bike some time ago. Sure I was pretty angry, but not angry enough to feel the need to take their life away.

 

And was a gun pointed in your face during this robbery? If not, that's not anywhere near the same thing.

[SubwayGuy]

A friend of mine was pickpocketed and attempted to recover his property by chasing the perp through Grand Central...all the way to the subway steps where he tackled him down the stairs and pretty much broke every bone in the guy's face. Thankfully law enforcement was sane about it, and the guy was probably an illegal immigrant anyway, so nothing was going to come up in the courts. Those criticizing the use of lethal force in self defense (the store owner here) and the use of non-lethal force (in other cases being brought up) to recover property obviously do not understand the spirit with which the law is written...which is to say that you have a right to defend yourself, your family, and your property (albeit to a lesser degree than you can defend yourself + family)...this is an idea which is as American as America itself.

[B35 via Church]

You have the right to defend your self. The Second Amendment protects that right.

 

You do not have a "right" to defend yourself....

You have the "right" to keep & bear arms... In laymens, you have the right to own a weapon.... that's it....

 

The 2nd amendment doesn't apply.

 

 

In order to assert self defense, the force must be commensurate to the threat. However, I wish people knew how it felt to be robbed before passing judgment.

1st statement is incomplete... and you're relying on emotional appeal to make your point, afterwards.....

 

I'm still waiting for someone to illustrate/explain that this clerk was in anymore danger when those kids left the store.....

[Kamen Rider]

Please, watch the Nazi Banksters Crimes Ripple Effect at http://jforjustice.co.uk/banksters

[B35 via Church]

Those criticizing the use of lethal force in self defense (the store owner here) and the use of non-lethal force (in other cases being brought up) to recover property obviously do not understand the spirit with which the law is written...

the spirit....

where's a picture of an american flag & a bald eagle when ya need one....

 

 

Anyway...

The criticism here is that, this situation where ole dude used lethal force, wasn't self defense to begin with.....

[SubwayGuy]

Yes, the right to protect yourself is an American right. Those who say it's not based in the 2nd amendment are also correct, however. 2nd amendment doesn't deal so much with self-defense. The right to protect yourself and your property is based in years of court decisions and state and federal penal codes which would be voluminous to try and cite, but it's there.

 

Lethal force has always been deemed "legal" to use when defending a person from rape, death, and physical violence. This guy having a gun pointed at him certainly meets 2 of the 3 criteria when only one is really needed.

 

Non-lethal force has always been deemed "legal" to use when defending property, but the law has historically (this too is beginning to change) recognized the right to incapacitate the attacker with (non-lethal) force and confiscate or destroy anything they used to attempt the robbery (ie you can destroy tools a criminal used to pick your lock).

 

The issue here is that many here are assuming that because one guy ran away and the other was unconscious that neither was a threat. The guy running away could easily come back with a bigger gun...you don't know. The guy who is unconscious could easily regain consciousness AT ANY SECOND, and was very much a threat considering he still had a gun.

 

Now to all the wise guys who say he should have taken the gun away, well, the very fact this perp had a gun makes approaching the prone criminal to confiscate the gun very unsafe, because at any time the criminal could regain consciousness and fire on him. Again we are talking about guns and fear of imminent death. That fear will lead people to do some very crazy, very violent things, which is why the law has always exempted this behavior, and declared it to be "legal".

 

Notifying law enforcement (required once things calmed down) would have required the shopkeeper to divide his attention. That creates a hazard to his personal safety too should the criminal regain consciousness which, again, can happen at any time before the cops arrive. He was justified in doing what he did because the threat was NOT over, only temporarily delayed.

[East New York]

Yes, the right to protect yourself is an American right. Those who say it's not based in the 2nd amendment are also correct, however. 2nd amendment doesn't deal so much with self-defense. The right to protect yourself and your property is based in years of court decisions and state and federal penal codes which would be voluminous to try and cite, but it's there.

 

Lethal force has always been deemed "legal" to use when defending a person from rape, death, and physical violence. This guy having a gun pointed at him certainly meets 2 of the 3 criteria when only one is really needed.

 

Non-lethal force has always been deemed "legal" to use when defending property, but the law has historically (this too is beginning to change) recognized the right to incapacitate the attacker with (non-lethal) force and confiscate or destroy anything they used to attempt the robbery (ie you can destroy tools a criminal used to pick your lock).

 

The issue here is that many here are assuming that because one guy ran away and the other was unconscious that neither was a threat. The guy running away could easily come back with a bigger gun...you don't know. The guy who is unconscious could easily regain consciousness AT ANY SECOND, and was very much a threat considering he still had a gun.

 

Now to all the wise guys who say he should have taken the gun away, well, the very fact this perp had a gun makes approaching the prone criminal to confiscate the gun very unsafe, because at any time the criminal could regain consciousness and fire on him. Again we are talking about guns and fear of imminent death. That fear will lead people to do some very crazy, very violent things, which is why the law has always exempted this behavior, and declared it to be "legal".

 

Notifying law enforcement (required) would have required the shopkeeper to divide his attention. That creates a hazard to his personal safety too should the criminal regain consciousness which, again, can happen at any time. He was justified in doing what he did.

 

 

I agree with you 100% on the top part. Now from the bolded part down......

 

You. CANNOT go after some one and kill them and expect it ho hold up in court. If you want to talk about Supreme Court precedence then let's go. Fear, and the possibility of them coming back, and all that jazz won't fly in court at all.

 

If he had shot the guy, or guys in the legs, we wouldn't be having this discussion. But if fear has you put 5 hot ones in somebody's back, you need to see a therapist!

 

Then go immediately to prison. Do not pass go, or collect $200.

 

And if you can't divide your attention enough to merely disable the suspects, and call the cops, (after you have clearly gotten that chance) make sure you sign up to see the therapist as soon as you get to your cell too! There are some things you just don't do.

 

This is not an example of any of the justifiable homicide cases on the books.