Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Pharmacist charged with murder

Of course for note, LEO tend not to be liable for the bullets they unleash

It is an interesting video, pretty calm and cool, the only move that seemed wrong was going after the fleeing suspect rather than focusing on the one hit and down in the store,
was suprising to see how he walked to the back of the store and calmly shot the downed suspect,
however as a policy in general I think that immediately after a what can only be characterized as a righteous shoot (initially), due to stress and perhaps no training/experience (how many people including cops have actually experienced this event?) he should not be charged,
I hope the jury finds him blameless

I also hope he gets off. Aside from the obvious need to defend himself, judging someone's state of mind who has just been placed in a position to defend himself using deadly force ... get my point here? It's not everyday you pull a trigger on someone. He didn't ask to be placed in that position. The perp put him in that position. All benefit of the doubt should be given to the one who had to defend himself in my opinion.

He did not ask for that responsibility. It was placed on him involuntarily. I stand by my statement. When DEFENDING oneself in that kind of adrenaline and highly stressful situation, I don't think one should be held to a very high standard of performance. The state of mind from one individual to the next will vary highly ... so I feel a low standard of expectation should apply. Likewise, when folks potshot inconsistent statements ... who has not ever recounted an incident from memory that was told imperfectly? Now add the stress of a deadly force self-defense situation to that scenario.

To my mind, all burden for consequences fall on the criminal aggressor in this situation. Failure to assign full responsibility on the criminal in these situations places an undue burden and precedence against all innocents who must defend themselves. I feel very strongly about this. I am, of course, speaking very specifically about these types of situations. Less clear cut confrontations might yield a different opinion.

He did not ask for that responsibility. It was placed on him involuntarily. I stand by my statement. When DEFENDING oneself in that kind of adrenaline and highly stressful situation, I don't think one should be held to a very high standard of performance. The state of mind from one individual to the next will vary highly ... so I feel a low standard of expectation should apply. Likewise, when folks potshot inconsistent statements ... who has not ever recounted an incident from memory that was told imperfectly? Now add the stress of a deadly force self-defense situation to that scenario.

To my mind, all burden for consequences fall on the criminal aggressor in this situation. Failure to assign full responsibility on the criminal in these situations places an undue burden and precedence against all innocents who must defend themselves. I feel very strongly about this. I am, of course, speaking very specifically about these types of situations. Less clear cut confrontations might yield a different opinion.

when the first one went down he thought the guy was DRT.
after the short foot chase he came back, noticed movement, reloaded and finished the guy off.
It would have been easier to defend if he pumped the 5 rounds into the guy then chased the 2nd perp.
timing is everything.

The perp was unarmed,laying face down with a bullet hole in his head, was he not?

its called responsibility.
It was his responsibility to act according to law when he chose to carry that firearm.
he deviated from what society deems justifiable.
but you think its OK?

So finishing them off is OK in your book?
Does that apply to perps who surrender? should they just be executed right there?

I don't think so. The report says he was shot 5 times in the stomach. The pharmacist may do time, but I don't think he'll go down for murder 1.

++++++++++++++

ebd...he was first shot in the head and then 5 times in the stomach. The shooting in the stomach, after a cooling off period, is more hurtful to the pharmacist as he was able to visibly see the perp was unarmed and disabled.

Under the law, there could be sufficient evidence for a 1st degree conviction but, as you, I find it unlikely.

I suspect a plea deal will be reached for a lesser offense but a felony conviction will likely result.

The perp was unarmed,laying face down with a bullet hole in his head, was he not?

Further, when the pharmacist turned his back on the perp to go after another and then went bck to reload, that was sufficient time to get into a legal term of art known as a "cooling down" period.

The second volley of fire was a ill-advised, non-justified shoot and there will be consequences for it,ebd...save for a possible jury nullification if it goes to trial.