Big Brother IS watching.

[Dokkalfar]

There could be another camera view, but it seems unlikely as it hasnt been mentioned at all.

As to the initial shot, I believe I saw a story where the coroner or another medical professional stated that the first bullet was not a fatal wound. I think it may have been of freerepublic mayhaps, but not sure...

 

[4v50 Gary]

Even my friend who is a deputy advises that cops are not your friends. They seek to build a case against you, not to clear you of wrong doing. You ask for your attorney and let him speak on your behalf.

 

[CoRoMo]

Thank you Gary.

I was going to type the following line, but then decided against it.

Cops are employed to gather evidence AGAINST everyone they come in contact with.​

I just have a hard time finding evidence to the contrary.

 

[MattTheHat]

Whats wrong with the notion that if someone is trying to rob you that they must accept whatever happens to them?

Well, I guess they don't have any choice but to accept it. And you would then have to accept the consequences of shooting someone who is no longer a threat. (Please note, I'm not saying the robber was no longer a threat, I have no way to know.)

-Matt

 

[t165]

Law enforcement is suppose to collect/secure all evidence involved in a crime. In major crimes it is best for the police to ask the prosecutors office for advice/guidance. They are the attorneys who will be prosecuting the case and if they are not satisfied with the results they will refuse to bring formal charges.

If charged all evidence recorded/collected/seized is suppose to be turned over to the defendant for examination...even exculpatory evidence. I know, that does not always happen.

If a suspected criminal is targeted by law enforcement, like an organized crime figure, then "yes", the job of the investigators is to build a case against a person through various means. However, a simple robbery the case is usually worked backwards to simply find out the facts instead of using premptive measures...surveilance, undercover operatives, buys, infiltration, informants, wiretaps...ect.

If O. J. Simpson taught us anything is that the law is not always correct or fair. The robber who survived could strike a deal with the prosecution for his testimony. His charges are far less than the one the Pharmacist is facing (unless the state has some specific laws where he could be charged in the murder also via the attempted felony attempt). He could say his accomplice was still alive and asking for help when he ran out the door (I do not think security video cameras are allowed to record voices due to federal wiretap laws...I haven't kept current on these laws so I may be in error). He could say the pharmacist shouted to him, when he chased him outside, that he was going back in the store to finish his accomplish off. The robbers defense attorney has the right to view/listen/read all evidence which is going to be used to prosecute his client and form a plausable stroy/defense after examining the evidence. It sounds horrible but the surviving robber may very well walk away with very little jail time. If the pharmacist has made statements to the police then he is locked into that story...the robbers defense attorney can use the pharmacist's statements to cut his client a deal if the robber was smart enough to keep his mouth shut and not lock himself into a story.

This thread is titled "Big Brother is watching us" or something similar to that. That is very true in many regards. Law enforcement will look into the pharmacist's background to ascertain if he has made any comments what he would do if anyone attempted to rob him. Why did he have (2) firearms present. They will talk to his family and friends looking for comments which may be used to prosecute him. They will talk to the gun store/shop personel about him. If he belongs to a gun club or visits a range they will beat the bushes to find anyone who will testify he made past comments about what he would do if he was robbed. And what if he subscribed to a firearm forum such as this...law enforcement could check the forum archives and search for comments made that could be used against him. You would be amazed what law enforcement can glean from computers and also from visited websites. Chest thumping on the internet could very well come back to haunt a person.

I know I'm being long winded but I have more than a little experience with this. Try to learn the law surrounding self defense...I've been in the middle of an armed robbery and **** happens fast...one wrong decison and you can become the one who goes to jail...law abiding citizens and even law enforcement can find themselves behind bars because of circumstances thrust upon them. There are plenty of people out there who will feel sorry for the robbers and hope the pharmacist goes to jail. I seem to remember the state had a "stand your ground" statute. That should help the pharmacist.

 

[t165]

I just viewed a better video of the robbery. It is clear now that the slain robber was placing a mask over his face so the innocent/confused bystander argument is out the window. Just so much we really do not know at this point.

 

[vicdotcom]

And again, what did you see in that video to lead you to believe that the guy in the ground was unarmed and unconscious?

The only video I have seen shows ONLY the pharmacist. The perp is not in frame.

We just don't have enough information to make any choice about what happened here, any statements like you make are just speculation.

Although your right and that there is no definative proof of that in the footage, it does leave me to question why the pharmacist would have walked up that close to the robber to shoot him if the thief wasnt incapacitated. If the pharmacist did see an agressive movement by the robber, the pharmacist would have shot as he turned that corner from the counter, not turn the counter and then walk closer, stop, then shoot robber again. Why walk closer to danger and practically over him in order to shoot?

 

[CLIFF 11]

Big brother

The video that I saw along with reading the newspaper, this does not appear to be a GOOD SHOOTING, you can defend your self from deadly force, by using a firearm, the perp comes at you with a deadly weapon, and you shoot him six times, in order to save your own life great. PROBLEM the good DR. walks ouside looking for perp two but He is not located, DR returns to the store walks over to perp 1 laying on the floor with a bullet in his head sizes up the problem, then walks to the back of his store and bring out a second pistol, walks towards perp 1 with the bullet in his head, leans over and shoots him again 6 more tome, this is where the problem starts. A simple perb goes into the same store attempting to rob and you shoot he or her 12 times in FEAR of you life, no problem, you can not go back and kill the wounded, no mercy killing
cliff11

 

[Travis Bickle]

For the record, I'm expressing disgust with people who would defend that pharmacist without knowing what actually happened. It looks extremely iffy from the video but that's what courts are there to sort out.

What exactly happened is irrelevant to me, as I take the same view as the Texas State Legislature on such matters. One should have the right to turn any violent felon into worm chow, so long as there is close proximity in time and place between the crime committed and the worm chow manufacture. It is unmistakable from watching the video that there is close proximity in time and place. That's all I need to know.

 

[THE MACHINIST]

he should be awarded a medal for valor, because we sit here and are armchair commandos and say yes he should have done this ,but he did what few have done and taken a human life but ITS DONE, SO ROLL THE BONES IN THE LEGAL SYSTEM....THE CAMERA EYE SEARCHES HIGH AND LOW......

 

[t165]

Worm Chow! I have to remember that one!

 

[outerlimit]

The guy was in a body brace for crying out loud. Imagine if that animal who still had a gun in his hand got up again. What do we say here about keep firing until the threat is over???

This country has become degenerate because we worry more about the rights of the criminal than the victim.

 

[MisterMike]

As some have noted, the video is disturbing, but doesn't tell the whole story. I would hope, though, that this debate has served to remind all of us of a core legal principle of armed defense--once the threat is neutralized, you must stop shooting.

You can argue all day long about whether the perp "got what he deserved." But there's a clear distinction--legally if not always factually--between self-defense and murder.

 

[Travis Bickle]

Worm Chow! I have to remember that one!

Well, I usually use the term "worm s***" instead but that's not very high road...

 

[Travis Bickle]

a core legal principle of armed defense--once the threat is neutralized, you must stop shooting.

That's not true in all states. In Texas, you have the absolute right to use lethal force so long as there is close proximity in time and place between the application of force and the commission of the crime.

 

[bdickens]

For the record, I'm expressing disgust with people who would defend that pharmacist without knowing what actually happened. It looks extremely iffy from the video but that's what courts are there to sort out.

For the record, I'm expressing disgust with people who are ready to hang the pharmacist without knowing what actually happened.

 

[TexasRifleman]

I just viewed a better video of the robbery. It is clear now that the slain robber was placing a mask over his face so the innocent/confused bystander argument is out the window. Just so much we really do not know at this point.

I'd like to see that, you have a link?


FYI more people have been arrested in this and the DA is charging everyone with murder. Almost seems like the DA is just slinging it out there and seeing where it sticks. Apparently 2 adults gave the guns to the kids and taught them how to pull of this robbery. Felony murder charges for them as well.

 

[Prion]

Can't tell the whole story from the video but it doesn't look good to me.

Defend yourself, yes, judge, jury and executioner, no.

The legal punishment for robbery is not the death penalty. No one except the law has the right to decide the fate of a perp once the threat is neutralized.

Let's not forget that these type of actions could gravely effect ccw and 2A laws. So he doesn't deserve a medal, he deserves a life behind bars for putting my rights in jeopardy with a bad shoot, if that is determined to be the case

My main point is that this could have been a poster child example of a good shooting. Guy foils robbery with a single shot! No one else hurt, cops called, guy arrested, pharmacist called hero etc. Instead it's national level bad press for all law abiding gun owners. Another case perpetuating the notion we are all out of control dangers to society.

We are all representatives of our embattled 2A rights, do what is right and legal, and do what you can to keep the good light shining on us. Our freedoms depend on correct, righteous action.

 

[Keb]

I hope he gets off so the Perps get a lesson and no victory.

But his body language when leaning over doing the coup-d-grace do not look like he had any more fear.

 

[RDak]

I hate to see a law abiding citizen getting prosecuted for going too far when shooting a thug in the act of an armed robbery.

But that's the way it is whether we like or not.

Only shoot to stop the threat. That is all we are allowed to do.

And yes, our rights to privacy have, for all intents and purposes, been abolished for decades now IMHO.

I'm afraid to say that you have to go under the assumption that you are being watched or listened to whenever you engage with the public in any way, shape or form IMHO.

 

[Nickjc]

How do you feel having both private and government cameras watching you - even in the most innocuous places???

And they are...however that private establishment had internal CCTV and it is routine to pull video from areas when an event happened....almost ANY private location you enter today is CCTV surveiled

HOWEVER on the flip side, there are MANY public locations that have networked CCTV surveillance as well. The problem with that is with today's high end processing software with higher end analytics, you face is being mapped and ran against a database. This is problematic for me and is akin to 'stop and frisk' without cause.

For example...let's say I am at the terminal and I see john doe doing something normal or abnormal...with analytics I can tell the software to 'look' for that pattern and track it on the 'system'

As an aside how many of you have ever flown out of Nassau in the Bahamas?? Have you noticed the cameras at US immigration on the island....again facial analytics at work. For the most part most entries to the US have it now and the NYPD is looking to employ it on Manhattan island at large.

 

[runrabbitrun]

Has anyone ever been attacked (or stuck at)
by a poisonous snake?

Not a good defense in this situation, I guess, but when I've been in a situation like that.
The adrenalin flows and that snakes gets hit MANY times with shovel or whatever, till lit is no longer a threat.
Even if I have to go get another instrument to use to kill that sucker.

I guess I too would be in a boat load of trouble because
I shot more than once at a perp. to make him no longer a threat.

This guy is probably screwed.
Maybe he will get a suspended sentence though, who knows.

This begs to ask why is it that deadly force can NOT be used to stop an armed robber?

You would think if the law said: "if you die in the commission
of your crime, too bad too sad," the message would be loud and clear to those thugs
that they ought NOT to engage in that sort of behavior.

I know this, if someone has threatened my life, with a gun in their hand...
I'd probably feel justified in taking them out.
I mean, what's to stop BG from coming back and killing me after his short stint in the penal system?

 

[kingpin008]

you can not go back and kill the wounded

If the wounded is attempting to get back to their feet and continue the attack or reach the pistol that they entered the shop with, you sure as heck can go back and kill the wounded. As others have said, the goal in a self-defense shooting is to stop the threat before the threat stops you - and as we all know, we can't see the head-shot offender in this camera angle. If he was only wounded by that headshot, there is a definite possibility that he was indeed still an active threat, and making an attempt to continue the fight. If that's the case, the pharmacist is competely justified in shooting him again.

In short - just because a dog is wounded, doesn't mean he can't still bite you in the ass before he dies when you turn your back in him.

 

[61chalk]

Seems to me its getting dangerous for thieves......I would think that is a good thing. I don't know what was going through the pharmacist mind, rage at trying to be killed, maybe falling into shock....what some in combat have called the "Fog of war."...I'm not judging the pharmacist, I'm just glad he is alive, an wasn't killed by the thug who is the one that started it. We have made it too easy, an felt tooo sorry for them for toooo long, The pharmacist didn't ask for this, yet some are ready to hang him who don't have all the facts, an have made a judgement from one tape...hasn't anybody ever seen the movie "12 Angry Men" with Henry Fonda...?.....

 

[9x23]

t165 - Please select all those that apply...

t165 - I read your post (#30) and it appears that you have a "handle" on the process.

You are correct that once the police focus their attention on a person-of-interest the course of action becomes one of building a case against them. They do not look for exculpatory evidence per se, but if it arises and it removes the person from the realm of "beyond a reasonable doubt" then the police usually move in another direction.

Like it or not, the thinking here is that the perps can defend their actions in a court of law after being given all the evidence that has been collected and also given an attorney if one cannot be afforded - all the while being protected against rights violations by all court officers and judges.

To some it may seem that too much protection is being afforded to the defendant, but when you consider the resources available to the prosecution (read - government) one cannot be absolutely sure who has the advantage.

Woe be unto ANY court officer that withholds any excupatory evidence. I wouldn't want to be in their shoes!

I guess I'm being a little long winded here too, but back to my inquiry about your post - Please select all that apply:

Are you:

A - Member of my homicide team
B - Attorney
C - Victim
D - Perp
E - All of the above

Any answer you give will be held against you. This might be a good timeto plead the 5th or get an attorney! .....9x23