Big Brother IS watching.

It's called "Innocent until proven guilty." You have to prove without a shadow of a doubt that he is guilty. This video literally does not show the state of the second robber when he was shot the second time. The prosecutor can claim anything he wants. He was unconscious, unarmed, non-threatening, wearing a pink dress and making puppy eyes. That's not fact, that's just claims. Pony up more evidence or acquit.

What will likely happen is he will admit (if he hasn't already) that he shot a unarmed man that posed no threat to him. The evidence at the scene will likely be enough to convict him. If the man had no visable weapons on him, or the ability to hurt the man, then he will likely be convicted. Ballistics evidence (such as in the case of bullet passing through and into the floor) will easily prove that he shot the man when he was on the ground. Blood patterns, markings, etc will easily prove where the man was when he died. If the man was standing up and was then shot, evidence will show that he fell on the ground (either by damage to the body, blood splatter, etc.

Remember even if the cops find a gun in the perps back pocket, it can't be used to further the case for the shooter because he had to have known about it (thus it played a roll in his decision to pull the trigger). The mear possibility of the perp having a gun (that is if your basing your opinion on your fear and not actual evidence such as seeing a gun shaped bulge in a pocket) is not justification to shoot him a second time when he was likely on the floor, since the ability to use deadly force hinges on you actually seeing enough evidence to support you were in danger of death or great bodily harm.

Like it or not what the man likely did (holding out absolute until the evidence is totaled up) shoot a man that was unarmed and not a threat. Thats considered against the law. The ability (green light) to use deadly force can change in a instant, and this video should serve as a reminder that deadly force is only justifiable when the facts of a situation allow for it. In a instant the facts can go from a person can cause you death or great bodily harm, to they can't. When that happens you better de-escalate your level or force or you will face a conviction.

DR. ROFLMAO <<< Better?

All kidding aside, this guy is probably screwed.
I have to differentiate from my previous post about a snake too.
It's one thing to repeatedly hit a snake till it's dead and quite
another to do the same to a human already laying on the ground shot.

In high insight, this guy should of probably retreated
and waited for the cops to arrive.
One thing's for certain, the BG won't be doing this again
and it's one less criminal for the tax payers to have to house.

On the other hand, now the shooter will be housed, unless he gets a sympathetic jury.

I don't know if anyone saw this last night, but the pharmacist was on the Bill O'Reilly show. He was asked, amongst other things, why he returned to the store and shot the perp again. His summarized explanation was: apparently there were two other people in the pharmacy at the time of the attempted robbery (a mother and young daughter named Megan). After the initial shooting, he stated that he heard the mother crying, repeatedly saying her daughter's name, and apologizing to her, i.e. "i'm so sorry, Megan, i'm so sorry". He deduced from these sounds, apparently they were not within sight of him, that the daughter had been shot so he returned to the perp and shot him 5 more times. Personally, I was amazed that his lawyer, who was sitting beside him during the interview, allowed him to give his interpretation of the event as such. It seems that this would be self incriminating, at least according to the letter of the law. I can only guess that they are counting on being able to successfully appeal to a jury's emotions/sensibilities rather than a legalistic argument since they seem to have painted themselves into a legal corner. Then again, I'm not a lawyer, so what do I know?

Apparently they are now asking Veterans at the VA simple questions.

Do I feel stressed?

Do I feel desire to hurt yourself or someone else?

Do I feel threatened?

I hearsay that they are simple questions being asked by Nurses from the VA where normally they did not ask these questions before. I will look around and see where this goes.... but have feeling that it might tie into the recent flap about Homeland Security thinking that VETS are dangerous.

Do you think that the VA has the power to disarm vets? Are they really that watching?

Travis Bickle - Jury foreman

Click to expand...

lol