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?