Robber Killed-- Pharmacist Charged - Page 5

Jaxon · #41 06-10-2009, 09:18 PM

And one important difference between this case and an accused child molester case where the accused is not allowed to be around children. We are talking about a right guarenteed by the second amendment. And the DA even requested the man be allowed to carry his gun. He thought he needed it even though he charged him........I think that shows the fallacy of the charge being leveled.

MissBrattified · #42 06-10-2009, 10:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jaxon

And one important difference between this case and an accused child molester case where the accused is not allowed to be around children. We are talking about a right guarenteed by the second amendment. And the DA even requested the man be allowed to carry his gun. He thought he needed it even though he charged him........I think that shows the fallacy of the charge being leveled.

I still think it was excessive force. He could just as easily have held the kid at gunpoint until the police arrived, without shooting him again.

Just like the man who murdered the abortion doctor makes pro-lifers look bad, this pharmacist is making people who want the right to carry guns look bad.

What do you mean by the DA requesting the man be allowed to carry his gun? Do you have a quote or link?

Aquila · #43 06-10-2009, 10:40 PM

As Christians, how would Jesus have us respond to an armed robber?

scotty · #44 06-10-2009, 11:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jaxon

DA David Prater said that he thought the gunman would recover from the wound to the head. Now think about that for a second. He is making that assesment from looking at the guy (or a picture). Now if I look at someone who has been shot in the head and say I think the guy would recover from that, don't you think it would have to be either super ficial or at least easy to see it's not serious. Most times when a person is shot in the head you can't make that assessment. So if the DA makes that assessment do you think the pharmacist could see that as well.

Don't know, I do know this. He himself is reported to have stated the boy was unconsious. He also appeared that way on the tape. Also, the coroner will be able to tell you if the shot was survivable.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jaxon

And one important difference between this case and an accused child molester case where the accused is not allowed to be around children. We are talking about a right guarenteed by the second amendment. And the DA even requested the man be allowed to carry his gun. He thought he needed it even though he charged him........I think that shows the fallacy of the charge being leveled.

No sir, you lose your rights when you can not handle the responsability that must come with them. The DA was either seriously flawed for that or feared the pharmacist may face retaliation by the family or friends .

Look , Im not against what he was trying to do , but somewhere he went too far, he crossed a line .

Jermyn Davidson · #45 06-12-2009, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scotty

[B][SIZE=3]
Look , Im not against what he was trying to do , but somewhere he went too far, he crossed a line .

I am wondering how this guy was able to look down at this boy bleeding from his head and blast five more times in the gut?

I understand adrenaline-- but adrenaline does not make one not responsible for his or her actions, does it?

Are the actions of the Pharmacist to be excused?

Jaxon · #46 06-12-2009, 03:32 PM

D. A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
From Oklahoma's make my day law. I understand the argurment here hinges on the last two lines "believes it is necessary..........." OK, I have tried to put myself in the position of the pharmacist and ask. WHAT WOULD I DO?? I REALLY DON"T KNOW. I and I think most other people don't either. By the way, on the video, there is no audio, the body of the gunman on the ground is out of the view of the camera when he is shot again. Now we are talking about trying to get inside someone's head to try and determine what they were thinking in order to determine guilt or innocence.

Jaxon · #47 06-12-2009, 03:48 PM

Perhaps this should have a thread of it's own, but this case really brings to light a question I have always wondered about. Namely, we say a person is innocent until proven guilty. But it doesn't always seem to be that way. For instance this case, the pharmacist had his 2nd amendment rights stripped and he hasn't even had a trial. Are we supposed to park our constutional rights at the courthouse door simply because an accusation is leveled. Think about it. If we say "innocent until proven guilty" but have no problems with one's constutional rights being yanked as they leave the courthouse what do we really believe. Now, I know accused child molesters need to be be kept from children and so forth. And I also know this makes me sound like I'm on both sides of the issue. But I said I've thought much about this "innocent until proven guilty" so I am trying to reconcile this in my mind.