"Man has no regrets defending Oklahoma City pharmacy"

[codename_47]

imported post

Guys, I don't think anyone is really just sick with sorrow for the robbers, but seriously, you can't shoot someone in the head, run out of the store, walk back in past him, go get another gun, then pump 5 rounds into a prone assailant.

It looked VERY deliberate and not rushed or under duress as he fired the remaining shots, which is murder.

You just can't go an finish someone off because they are a bad person. Yes, the guy is a criminal, and he got shot in the head for his poor decision making, which I don't have a problem with.

This is VERY different from the Joe Horn case, where he had2 robbers that were trying to flee at night. I suspect if Joe horn had stood over the bodies of the assailants and pumped 5 more rounds into them, Mr. horn would be in jail and rightfully so.

 

[Don Barnett]

imported post

Concur.

 

[Washintonian_For_Liberty]

imported post

well I completely disagree... as long as the robber is moving... he's a potential threat... something tells me that if he was not moving at all... that the pharmacist likely would not have perceived him as a threat.

If you all don't like the idea of shooting to kill... sell all your guns and buy a tazer. You should not have a gun. Pistols are designed for one purpose and one purpose only... to kill people. Get rid of all your people killing guns... your AKs, your AR15s without the long barrels... and of course your pistols... and carry a tazer or pepper spray. You likely won't kill someone with either of those... they're not designed for killing.

I find it disturbing that people who carry weapons designed to kill think using them to kill when you've been attacked is wrong. You play silly word games and say "Stop the threat!" What the hell does that mean? You could stop the threat with a tazer or pepper spray as well... and you wouldn't kill the perp.

Again, pistols are not toys, they're not something you can strut around with to make you look cool, they're not something to scare your neighbors with... they're a tool designed for one thing and one thing only... killing human beings.

 

[MarlboroLts5150]

imported post

"I find it disturbing that people who carry weapons designed to kill think using them to kill when you've been attacked is wrong. You play silly word games and say "Stop the threat!" What the hell does that mean? You could stop the threat with a tazer or pepper spray as well... and you wouldn't kill the perp. "

Maybe because some of us here view taking someone else's life, good guy or BG, as an absolute last resort. The possibility is there that a tazer or PS won't stop the threat, so carry a gun I will. That being said, it doesn't mean I'm going to kill someone every time I pull the trigger. If I kill the BG while stopping him, so be it. If he is still alive, it doesn't necessarily mean I'm going to "go back and finish him off".

You were trained different and have a different mentality on the whole issue. Nothing wrong with that. But please, stop berating others here for not having the exact same opinion as you. You are not GOD ALMIGHTY on this forum. We are all entitled to have and voice our own opinions here, same as you. Because we don't agree doesn't make it wrong.....just different.

 

[sv_libertarian]

imported post

Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A69kCXd5rXI&feature=related

Nice to know that someone more knowledgeable than most here agrees with me.

sv_libertarian, nice way to start in with an Ad Hominem attack... so I won't respond to you since anything you say after a personal attack is worthless.

Naturally you won't. It gives you an easy out and allows you to act morally superior without having to defend your flawed views.

 

[sv_libertarian]

imported post

Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:

well I completely disagree... as long as the robber is moving... he's a potential threat... something tells me that if he was not moving at all... that the pharmacist likely would not have perceived him as a threat.

If you all don't like the idea of shooting to kill... sell all your guns and buy a tazer. You should not have a gun. Pistols are designed for one purpose and one purpose only... to kill people. Get rid of all your people killing guns... your AKs, your AR15s without the long barrels... and of course your pistols... and carry a tazer or pepper spray. You likely won't kill someone with either of those... they're not designed for killing.

I find it disturbing that people who carry weapons designed to kill think using them to kill when you've been attacked is wrong. You play silly word games and say "Stop the threat!" What the hell does that mean? You could stop the threat with a tazer or pepper spray as well... and you wouldn't kill the perp.

Again, pistols are not toys, they're not something you can strut around with to make you look cool, they're not something to scare your neighbors with... they're a tool designed for one thing and one thing only... killing human beings.

A handgun is designed to kill. That is a no brainer.

Here is the thing. If you shoot a perp and the perp falls down and no longer has access to or ability to use a weapon against you then you are no longer legally entitled to apply force. If a person is on the ground and still has a gun in his hand and is trying to use it, then keep shooting. If the person is on the ground and is NO LONGER ABLE TO BE A THREAT then you must stop shooting.

One is entitled to use potentially lethal force in certain cases, but just because you have a lethal tool does not mean you are going to apply lethal force. For instance showing your gun may stop the attack, or you may score a wounding shot and the perp survives with medical care. But to keep shooting when the perp no longer poses a threat becomes murder, because you are no longer threatened.

All the bravado, bluster and chest thumping will not justify you shooting a person who no longer poses a threat.

 

[N00blet45]

imported post

Shooting them after they are on the ground is to keep them from threatening you with a civil suit.

Humor disengaged.

 

[Washintonian_For_Liberty]

imported post

MarlboroLts5150 wrote:

"I find it disturbing that people who carry weapons designed to kill think using them to kill when you've been attacked is wrong. You play silly word games and say "Stop the threat!" What the hell does that mean? You could stop the threat with a tazer or pepper spray as well... and you wouldn't kill the perp. "

Maybe because some of us here view taking someone else's life, good guy or BG, as an absolute last resort. The possibility is there that a tazer or PS won't stop the threat, so carry a gun I will. That being said, it doesn't mean I'm going to kill someone every time I pull the trigger. If I kill the BG while stopping him, so be it. If he is still alive, it doesn't necessarily mean I'm going to "go back and finish him off".

You were trained different and have a different mentality on the whole issue. Nothing wrong with that. But please, stop berating others here for not having the exact same opinion as you. You are not GOD ALMIGHTY on this forum. We are all entitled to have and voice our own opinions here, same as you. Because we don't agree doesn't make it wrong.....just different.

Calling a person who shoots a perp after the perp came into his home or store a vigilante is wrong... not just different... it's wrong... it's even wrong from the definition of vigilante. Calling what that man did murder is also wrong... not just different, but wrong. The kid had a backpack... the kid was on the ground, but likely still moving... and to a 57 year old man with a bad back... that is a potential threat that must be taken care of.

When people look at the situation after it has happened... and judge the man committed murder because the perp was "no longer a threat"... that's wrong... not just different... but wrong. You will never know about a situation like that until you are right in the middle of it... and if there are people near who you care about... the last thing you want is to have some guy you shot and thought was no longer a threat, get out a hidden weapon and kill someone you love... or kill you. All it takes is one time and there is no second chances. The perp chose to commit armed robbery... you nor your loved ones chose the situation. It was forced upon you making you the victim.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. In the heat of the moment, you're likely to be scared shitless... you likely won't be thinking anything much other than wanting to make sure the threat is neutralized. Non moving perps are pretty much neutralized... if that means they're dead.. then so be it.

Pistolsare designed to kill people. Its strange that people who are such strong advocates for the second amendment have a problem with using the tools for what they were designed for. If you aim your gun at someone and fire... you're trying to kill them... why is that so hard to say? Killing them stops the threat. Why is that so hard?

I know, you're all scared "People will think we are all gun nuts, talking about killing with our guns." It's hypocritical to talk about guns, and the use of guns without talking about the purpose of guns (pistols in this case). The reason we shoot someone should be self defense, the purpose should be to kill them.

 

[AZkopper]

imported post

All of you who are asserting that the BG was no longer a threat, based on the video, please tell me specifically, based on the video, when he was no longer a threat. What specific actions, or lack of actions, by the BG in the video constitute 'no longer a threat'.

Since we cannot see the BG on the floor, due to video angle, it is impossible to see how he was laying, where his hands are, or if he even moves.

Those of you so quick to judge the pharmacist should think about this: One day you may be in the same situation. Do you want to be presumed guilty by those who were not there and cannot see the entire picture?

 

[Washintonian_For_Liberty]

imported post

sv_libertarian wrote:

A handgun is designed to kill. That is a no brainer.

Here is the thing. If you shoot a perp and the perp falls down and no longer has access to or ability to use a weapon against you then you are no longer legally entitled to apply force. If a person is on the ground and still has a gun in his hand and is trying to use it, then keep shooting. If the person is on the ground and is NO LONGER ABLE TO BE A THREAT then you must stop shooting.

One is entitled to use potentially lethal force in certain cases, but just because you have a lethal tool does not mean you are going to apply lethal force. For instance showing your gun may stop the attack, or you may score a wounding shot and the perp survives with medical care. But to keep shooting when the perp no longer poses a threat becomes murder, because you are no longer threatened.

All the bravado, bluster and chest thumping will not justify you shooting a person who no longer poses a threat.

Last sentence aside... it seems you can engage in a conversation without personal attacks... kind of.

What constitutes posing a threat? This is an arbitrary construct as it will be different for each person. If the perp has a backpack, a fanny pouch or a jacket where a gun might be, and after you shoot him... he's fumbling with any of them or even looks like he might be fumbling with them... what do you do? You haveonly seconds to decide before he produces a weapon. What if you decide he's shot, so he isn't a threat and you focus on dialing 911... and he shoots you. What if you shoot him, and it turns out he did not have a gun?

What if's will get you killed...

In the case we initially were talking about here... the pharmacist has never had a run in with the law... he's a hard working family man... the video isn't clear as to why he shot the robber... the kid could have been conscious saying he was going to kill the guy... he could have been fumbling with his back pack... it will come out in trial... but I'm afraid that they'll try and make an example out of him and put him in jail for life... and future incidents will happen where the pharmacist hesitates for fear of prosecution and gets him and his two staff killed.

I have never had to draw my weapon in fear of my life or my family's life... thank god... but if I ever get to that point... I will shoot to kill because any other action could put my wife and daughter at risk.

 

[marshaul]

imported post

sv_libertarian wrote:

All the bravado, bluster and chest thumping will not justify you shooting a person who no longer poses a threat. 

+1

^That being my final say. If Washingtonian wants to find out how a jury responds to his idea that a criminal held at gunpoint is a threat literally up until the point that said criminal is fully deceased, then he's welcome to do so. I'm not going to trust a jury I've never met this far.

That's the whole reason I say "Shoot to stop". Because "shoot to kill" is how people like Washingtonian describe it. And these are the kinds of people who will murder a prone robber, already bleeding out on the floor, simply because "OMG he poses a threat to me despite my being armed and uninjured with the ability to keep my weapon trained on him and his being disarmed and gunshot!"

 

[DonTreadOnMe]

imported post

Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:

well I completely disagree... as long as the robber is moving... he's a potential threat... something tells me that if he was not moving at all... that the pharmacist likely would not have perceived him as a threat.

If you all don't like the idea of shooting to kill... sell all your guns and buy a tazer. You should not have a gun. Pistols are designed for one purpose and one purpose only... to kill people. Get rid of all your people killing guns... your AKs, your AR15s without the long barrels... and of course your pistols... and carry a tazer or pepper spray. You likely won't kill someone with either of those... they're not designed for killing.

I find it disturbing that people who carry weapons designed to kill think using them to kill when you've been attacked is wrong. You play silly word games and say "Stop the threat!" What the hell does that mean? You could stop the threat with a tazer or pepper spray as well... and you wouldn't kill the perp.

Again, pistols are not toys, they're not something you can strut around with to make you look cool, they're not something to scare your neighbors with... they're a tool designed for one thing and one thing only... killing human beings.

Washintonian,
As someone that sympathizes with both views on this issue, I have the feeling your misunderstanding the point someone that says they shoot to stop a thread is advocating.
I of course can not speak for everyone that would use that expression. But, let me suggest another way to look at it.
If I am called upon to use a firearm on another human being....it will be 'to end a threat'. To me that means to make myself and/or someone else safe. I don't have the goal of killing anyone per say. Frankly, I really dont give a fat rats a$$ if they live or die at that moment I am protecting myself or someone else. But, once the threat is over in my mind....and I am the judge at the moment...then the equation changes. At that point, I do care. I am not out to end a life simply to end a life. That is not a goal in life I have, plus the added legal issues are not really desired.
It is a mistake to think that someone thinks in terms of shooting to stop a threat is less likely to shoot a killing shot on an active threat. The difference comes in where one decides enough is enough. I would be very very shy, to tell someone else when they should precive a threat is over. By the same token, I offended that because I dont have the same psephology in self defense as you that I should not carry a gun. I dont feel the need to "make sure he is dead", I just need to know i have kept who i need to keep safe safe.
BTW, I practice the Mozambique Drill as well. Two to the body, followed up by one to the head...IF NEEDED. Why do you think the drill bothers with that judgment call on the head shot? Why bother? You keep asking what if, there are lots of what ifs in a life and death situation. My answer is, I will do what my judgment calls for at the time. Trust me, the perp would have no more chance to harm me or my family because my out look.
Tell me, have you never heard someone say...'I would rather not have the perp testify against me at the trial, better to make sure he is dead'? That out look goes passed ending the threat and goes to the ending of the perps life being the goal.

 

[MarlboroLts5150]

imported post

Calling a person who shoots a perp after the perp came into his home or store a vigilante is wrong... not just different... it's wrong... it's even wrong from the definition of vigilante. Calling what that man did murder is also wrong... not just different, but wrong.

NO one here has called him a murderer...NO ONE. Putting 5 rounds into a mans chest at near point blank range 30-40 seconds after he was shot in the head is what we are all debating. We can't see what the BG was doing, neither can you. You keep saying we shouldn't assume that he is NOT still a threat, You keep assuming he is. "Were you there? No. So you cannot sayit was impossible for the perp to still be athreat" You can't say that he was still a threat either......You weren't there as well!

The kid had a backpack... the kid was on the ground, but likely still moving... and to a 57 year old man with a bad back... that is a potential threat that must be taken care of.

You are not THAT 57 Yr old man, neither are we. You don't have a clue as to what was going thru his mind or what he saw when he went back and fired 5 more times, neither do we.

When people look at the situation after it has happened... and judge the man committed murder because the perp was "no longer a threat"... that's wrong... not just different... but wrong.

No one here has or is judging him, why are you judging us? We are debating what we can't see, same as you.

You will never know about a situation like that until you are right in the middle of it... and if there are people near who you care about... the last thing you want is to have some guy you shot and thought was no longer a threat, get out a hidden weapon and kill someone you love... or kill you. All it takes is one time and there is no second chances. The perp chose to commit armed robbery... you nor your loved ones chose the situation. It was forced upon you making you the victim.

I agree with you 100%. And I'm sure most everyone else here will too.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. In the heat of the moment, you're likely to be scared @#$%less... you likely won't be thinking anything much other than wanting to make sure the threat is neutralized. Non moving perps are pretty much neutralized... if that means they're dead.. then so be it.

Again, I agree with you, 100%.

Pistolsare designed to kill people. Its strange that people who are such strong advocates for the second amendment have a problem with using the tools for what they were designed for. If you aim your gun at someone and fire... you're trying to kill them... why is that so hard to say? Killing them stops the threat. Why is that so hard?

This is where I disagree with you. 1) I don't have a problem with using a gun when the situtation calls for it. Does that mean if I pull my gun I'm going to fire....NO. Does that mean that if I fire I'm going to kill him...NO. You did say in another post somewhere that if we are shooting center-mass, we are shooting to kill, I disagree. Everyone I have ever trained in the use of firearms ( and thats roughly 500+) to include my own training, you shoot center-mass because that is the largest part of the body. Most likely the BG isn't going to just stand there and let you shoot him, he is going to be moving. Shooting center-mass gives you the most likely chance of HITTING a moving target. There isn't any LE, Military, or even an NRA instructor in this country that would disagree with that statement. If you hit your target center-mass and it kills him, agreed, it stops the threat. I'm not trying to kill anyone, but if my shooting him stops him from any more aggression towards me, and he dies from those wounds, then so be it. On that we agree.

I know, you're all scared "People will think we are all gun nuts, talking about killing with our guns." It's hypocritical to talk about guns, and the use of guns without talking about the purpose of guns (pistols in this case). The reason we shoot someone should be self defense, the purpose should be to kill them.

Simply put, I disagree with that. Thats not being a hypocrite, thats simply a different point of view from different training and personal experience, same as you.

We have both come to different conclusions here, thats expected. We are not the same people, we ALL look at things differently. Whats wrong with that? Again, no one here has labeled him a murderer, a vigilante. We are not assuming he WASN'T justified, you ARE assuming he was. ALL of this is based on what NONE OF US can see in the footage, after the initial shot(s) that dropped the BG out of view.

Just because we DON'T have the same point of view doesn't give you reason or right to label the rest of us as "being scared, a "sick indivisual", "un-American" or hypocritical. Speaking for myself here, I'm not and I haven't labeled you, All I'm asking from you is the same. Fair enough?

 

[codename_47]

imported post

well I completely disagree... as long as the robber is moving... he's a potential threat... something tells me that if he was not moving at all... that the pharmacist likely would not have perceived him as a threat.

Ok, please step back into reality. If a person is shot in the head, they are more than likely going to be immediately incapacitated. The fact that the kid dropped like a sack of potatoes is a good indication of immediate incapacitation. I'm not sure if he was shot in the face or head or what, but if there was any penetration of his brain, there is probably less than a 10% chance that the kid was conscious.

The mortality rate is probably something between 60 and 80% for headshots.

The odds are that the kid wasn't a threat.

I know if I shoot someone in the head and they are fumbling around and speaking, I'm going to get in my car and drive very fast in the opposite direction. Even zombies die when you shoot them in the head.

All of you who are asserting that the BG was no longer a threat, based on the video, please tell me specifically, based on the video, when he was no longer a threat. What specific actions, or lack of actions, by the BG in the video constitute 'no longer a threat'.

The store owner walking calmly around the BG, no ducking or defensive moves, the BG going down like a sack of potatoes. If he thought he was a threat, why turn his back to the threat and run out the store?

 

[Washintonian_For_Liberty]

imported post

codename_47 wrote:

Ok, please step back into reality. If a person is shot in the head, they are more than likely going to be immediately incapacitated. The fact that the kid dropped like a sack of potatoes is a good indication of immediate incapacitation.

First of all... the pharmacist never went looking for trouble... they came to him with a weapon and wearing masks.

Second, it does not matter that he was incapacitated, he was very likely moving, reaching for something, involuntary or not... it may have seemed voluntary to the pharmacist and made him feel he needed to put down the threat once and for all.

By initiating the armed robbery, the robber forfeited his life. Armed robbers should be able to be killed by the victim at the time of the robbery. I think this case will raise this and more issues.

I stand on the side of kill all armed robbers at the time of the robbery. You all who condemn this guy probably have never had a gun shoved in your face and threatened by an armed robber. Maybe you might have reacted differently, but when do you turn off that adrenaline switch? When do you think you're safe? It's different for everyone. We can watch the video, and our adrenaline is not pumping... so we can armchair quarterback the situation to the end of time... but this guy was right in the middle of things.... everyone who makes snap judgements about how this went down is doing all gun owners a disservice. I've read notes in this forum where people just gettingstopped at gunpoint byLEOs got the adrenaline pumping... think of how much more it would be pumping if the person holding the gun had nothing stopping him from killing you like a LEO has.

Bravado? Bluster? Chest thumping? Grow up! We're talking about reality... and a situation that I'll bet that none of you claiming that what I'm saying is "bravado or bluster or chest thumping" have been through.

Before I carried... I was attacked by a guy with a butterfly knife... I have to say... everything was a friggin blur... even for half an hour after the incident. My adrenaline was pumping like mad and my hands were shaking. I lucked out because as he grabbed me and tried to stab me... I was able to lock his hand and knife at my side and fall backwards. The blade hit the pavement and broke off around an inch of the tip and it was wrenched out of his hand. It all happened so fast, I didn't even notice the cut in my motorcycle jacket. Thank god for thick cowhide. I realized that if I wasn't wearing the jacket... I'd have been stabbed in my gut.

What's my point? Adrenaline clouded my memory of the situation... and hid a lot of details from me. Plus... it took at least 30 minutes for things to clear up and for me to stop shaking from the adrenaline rush. Count the seconds from when he first shoots the kid to the final shots... it was 47 seconds.... less than a minute. If it was three or four minutes... you MIGHT convince me that there was no perceived threat... but 47 seconds??? I'd like to see any of you try and recover your senses after an armed robbery and shooting in under a minute.