Jump to content

A cause for controversy in Oklahoma City


chase.colston

Recommended Posts

I'm glad you're on the right side.

 

 

I still think this guy went to far..first off he could not flee because of disability, but he is able to pursue. Again I think his first shot was lawful and he was in the right, but to come back and unload the gun in the guy went to far.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 264
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

When one chooses to violate the rights of others and do wrong. You do not get the luxury of also being able to decide the response of the wronged person. When the two robbers entered the store they knew they were wrong, they took that chance. By accepting that chance they accepted any and every response they might encounter. Now this is one of the major problems of our country, we let people believe that he/she can do whatever wanted and that the response will be minimal. I can come in, point a gun at you, threaten your life and then change my mind and run and the act of running takes precidence over my original choice. How stupid. Sorry buddy, ain't no kings x in this game. You buy the ticket, you ride the ride. You don't get to say, hold it time out, didn't know you had a gun too, didn't know you were gonna protect what was yours, excuse me, now that you are shooting at me, I have decided that easy money, money I didn't earn, money I have no right to, is not quite a important as the bullets coming at me. Nope none of that.

 

We so allow people to make bad decisions, put them into play, then want to change our minds once something bad happens. Bass Ackwards, we need to insist people make the right decison first. My Dad taught me early that son, you better think about what you do before its done, once done, I will handle it my way. I learned to think about the consquences first, then consider if it was worth it. We have it wrong here.

 

Now, should he have returned and finished the job? No. Should have finished it first, then chase the other one. In our system, this will cost him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If any of those two women that were in the store at the time of the robbery (were my kin) I would thank the guy for fininshing the job. Those women could of been killed or raped.

 

If that pharmacist was my father, husband, son or brother I would be glad he was a live.

 

If I had any children that those two evil men could have sold the drugs to I would thank the guy for fininshing the job.

 

 

What makes what the pharmist did any more wrong then what a soldier would do?

 

What about the right to not to live in fear of being robbed at gun point?

 

I like how some people are selling self control ( which would have been a good thing the robber probably was going to die anyway) I aint buying it. How many times have two men pointed thier guns at you and fired them?

 

Who here remembers of hearing how bonnie and clyde died? Lots of bullets, even after they died.

 

Gotta agree with colmsniel bad guys and evil dudes beware.

 

What is to say that as the man calmed down from the adrinaline rush the robber not come to and pick his gun back up!

 

Joe Horn was justified in what he did.

 

-----------------

 

For those who say I am harsh my response is no! I HAVE COMPASSION FOR THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN ATTACKED AND MADE TO LIVE IN FEAR.

I'm having a hard time figuring you out JV COACH. You post more christian reference threads than anyone else on this board, yet you come back with statements like these. The irony of the whole thing. You know what they say about people in glass houses.

 

Personally, I have no problems with the pharmacist shooting to kill the first time, but coming back and unloading his gun into the man was about as wrong as one can get. Also, Immortal hit on it immediately - the guy said he couldn't get away because he's handicapped, but he chased the other would be robber? Something aint right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something ain't right? How in the world is something not right? Two criminals come into a store and point a gun at someone. One is dead. The pharmacist did not retreat. Why does he have to? Why do we even consider that he should? Why do we even consider that he did anything wrong. He was at work, doing his job. In case you missed that, HE WAS AT WORK, DOING HIS JOB. Two criminals come in and try to rob him, and we say something ain't right.

 

Jesus help us, for those of you who wonder what is wrong with our society, read these kind of posts. This is so typical of our society. Let me tell you what ain't right here. He missed the second one, he is handicapped and couldn't catch him. That is what is not right, he should have been a better shot, or faster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jesus help us, for those of you who wonder what is wrong with our society,

 

 

so to make our society we should unload into anyone we think is a crminal or doing criminal activity? Screw the courts, or the laws of the land and just decide that we indivually can decide to be the judge, jury and to punish as we see fit?

 

Again I have no problem with the first shot, the guy was 100% in the right. But to go back an unload his weapon on a downed person IMO is not right..cops are not allowed to just shoot and kill when they see fit, and a civialln should not be able to either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Longhorn now we know why people do not pray to me for forgivness of sin.

 

Second I am sad the robber is dead we all would have thought the pharmasict a truely compasionate man full of mercy had he turned and started to give the thief first-aid, but he did not, he gave him justice. And I do not feel he should get in trouble for that, he was at work being a good citizen he was not out looking to get in a gun fight. Truely he saved the life of himself and two other ladies at and maybe countless of others. So I think I am showing compassion. The victam was the store clerk not the thief.

 

 

Thirdly what do expect me to have said?

 

So what do you think you would have done?

 

If a soldier did this on the batlle field should he be arrested?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Longhorn now we know why people do not pray to me for forgivness of sin.

 

Second I am sad the robber is dead we all would have thought the pharmasict a truely compasionate man full of mercy had he turned and started to give the thief first-aid, but he did not, he gave him justice. And I do not feel he should get in trouble for that, he was at work being a good citizen he was not out looking to get in a gun fight. Truely he saved the life of himself and two other ladies at and maybe countless of others. So I think I am showing compassion. The victam was the store clerk not the thief.

 

 

Thirdly what do expect me to have said?

 

So what do you think you would have done?

 

If a soldier did this on the batlle field should he be arrested?

 

Maybe after he shot him he should have spoke to him of God and taught him the word and maybe actually changed the kids life. Much more powerful than the gun!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TxBroad, first. I said he should not have gone back and finished him off. So let's not try to muddy the waters. Which is so typical of the courts and our system today. Yeah, I did something wrong, but it really wasn't my fault because..... Not gonna go there.

 

Now, again, I will try and clear the waters for you. I certainly did not say for us to go and decide justice for ourselves. However, once someone comes in and pulls a gun, the issue is pretty clear. Or did I miss part of the article that said the pharmacist went to their place of work and made them come rob his store. No, they came to him. When they did, they gave up their right to decide the response they recieved. Yes, they were betting they could get away with it, and at most, some small amount of jail time. They were wrong, that is a risk they accepted, whether they knew they were accepting it or not.

 

Again, I think it unwise for him to have finished off the guy. I stated that. Simply because in our system the owner will be the one punished. Should he? No! Those two criminals accepted whatever response they got. They just didn't think they would get what they got, but they did. And you cannot argue the fact that if they had not entered the store to rob it, to DO WRONG, it would not have happened. They chose the path, they bought the ticket, they just didn't like the ride.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Straw, the pharamicst arranged the meeting for him and God. I am sure they spoke and I am sure the "kid" was sent where he needs to be. Sometimes reality and the truth is very hard for some to believe and understand, but it is nonetheless the truth. Justice which is a very very good thing, but it can also be a very painful thing. Our society wants justice without pain. Not always possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My first thought after reading this was, if he shot the first guy in the head, he went back and shot him in the chest to put him out of his misery. The pharmacist probably knew the guy wasn't going to make it, so rather than leave him there suffering, he finished it. The fact of the matter is those two thugs should not have been there causing trouble in the first place. As unfortunate as it is, when you put yourself in that position, you can only expect the worse. Thepharmacist had to protect his Rx, and this just shows that we as Americans cannot truely protect what we own. There's always a "But" to every situation...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now, again, I will try and clear the waters for you. I certainly did not say for us to go and decide justice for ourselves. However, once someone comes in and pulls a gun, the issue is pretty clear. Or did I miss part of the article that said the pharmacist went to their place of work and made them come rob his store. No, they came to him. When they did, they gave up their right to decide the response they recieved. Yes, they were betting they could get away with it, and at most, some small amount of jail time. They were wrong, that is a risk they accepted, whether they knew they were accepting it or not.

 

 

yes the criminals as you say gave up the right to decide the response, but that does not give the pharmacist the power or impunity to decide to go beyond the protection of the people and his store and decide to take the life of the robbers ONCE THE CRIMINAL WAS ALREADY DOWN.

 

IMO it is not justice to unload your weapon in a downed man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally if they were so bad as to be performing armed robbery then taking them on out is no great loss to society as a whole. The problem lies in him coming back in and finishing off the theif. Under the law that change from self defense to more of a premeditated murder. Sadly he will probably get convicted because of that final act. If he had been a littel better shot and killed him right off the bat then there would not be a problem one. Sad to see someone go to jail for the rest of their life over protecting his business and killing a thug that obviously was not on the path of a model citizen! Too bad he could not have gotten them both if he was going to have to go through this.

This is another case that really requires some objective thought. I think that the pharmacist was justified for defending his life and property. I think he was justified to defend his employees. I wish he had secured the premises and called for the police. The video is very damaging as far as any defense claim after he returned to the store.

 

He will have to live with what he did, regardless of what the court says. I hope that he does not have to spend much time in jail awaiting trial. I do not think he deserves to unless he is convicted. His neighbors and friends are afforded the right to decide what is acceptable behaviour in their community.

 

Find the other guy and charge him in his buddy's death, he is at least as guilty as the pharmacist!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The pharmacist went too far when he became the executioner. He had full right to defend himself by shooting at the men and hitting one in the head. He has full right to defend himself, his employees and his property from assualt and robbery.

 

He does not have the right to walk up to a defenseless person (criminal or not) and essentially execute them. If he or one of the employees had actually been wounded he might have a better defense or if the robber he hit was mobile and still able to present a possible threat.

 

From what the survelliance seems to show, he had plenty of time to call the police before he went and shot the downed robber again. He will probably do serious time. If he had stopped with simply shooting the guy in the act he would have probably been safe and sound.

 

On the other hand, some lawyer would have tried to sue him for shooting the guy... but he wouldn't be possibly losing his freedom for murder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My first thought after reading this was, if he shot the first guy in the head, he went back and shot him in the chest to put him out of his misery. The pharmacist probably knew the guy wasn't going to make it, so rather than leave him there suffering, he finished it. The fact of the matter is those two thugs should not have been there causing trouble in the first place. As unfortunate as it is, when you put yourself in that position, you can only expect the worse. Thepharmacist had to protect his Rx, and this just shows that we as Americans cannot truely protect what we own. There's always a "But" to every situation...

 

The pharmacist had "protected what he owned" he downed one robber and chased the other off. He would not be in trouble if he had stopped at that. He crossed the line when he shot a defenseless person. Even if the guy possibly was going to die from the head wound he still doesn't have the right to "mercy kill" the man.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The pharmacist had "protected what he owned" he downed one robber and chased the other off. He would not be in trouble if he had stopped at that. He crossed the line when he shot a defenseless person. Even if the guy possibly was going to die from the head wound he still doesn't have the right to "mercy kill" the man.

 

ok so if you were looking at the man you just shot and saw him probably going into shock and you knew the ambulance was not going to get there in time, you would just sit there for the next few minutes watching as he suffered. In a way I agree. If he did go back to shoot the guy just to make sure he was completely dead, he may have gone a little overboard, however if I was the one who shot this guy I would have probably finished it too if he was already going to die.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TxBroad, you are correct. It was not a good call on his part. But my point is that we try to make things so much more complicated than nature needs. The robbers choice sets it all in motion. Everything. We try to say, okay yes, but, at this point, a different path should have been take, okay that path was taken, and then another path comes up. It is really simple, if the original sin/crime had not been committed, then no bad comes. But once that first action is committed, we cannot expect to judge the reaction. If you ever pull a gun on someone you must accept that death can come to you. If you hit someone, they may hit back more.

 

BGR under no stretch can he be called defenseless. His actions took his life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. When he entered the store to rob, he accepted the ultimate cost for his decision an action. He does not get to decide okay I am going to do this wrong, but at some point, I regain all my rights and due process. We strive for a perfect system thinking we can break every decision down and get one, get every law abidding citizens to always react with afterthought. We cannot.

 

I do think that after all settles the man will regret going back and shooting the criminal. Was he justified in doing so? Probably so, will he regret doing so? Yes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ok so if you were looking at the man you just shot and saw him probably going into shock and you knew the ambulance was not going to get there in time, you would just sit there for the next few minutes watching as he suffered. In a way I agree. If he did go back to shoot the guy just to make sure he was completely dead, he may have gone a little overboard, however if I was the one who shot this guy I would have probably finished it too if he was already going to die.

 

If you do mecy killing you can be convicted of murder because you don't have the right to make that call. If he was conscious and begging to be put out of his misery... such as someone burning to death slowly... that is a completely different situation than this but you could still be convicted of murder by our laws.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you do mecy killing you can be convicted of murder because you don't have the right to make that call. If he was conscious and begging to be put out of his misery... such as someone burning to death slowly... that is a completely different situation than this but you could still be convicted of murder by our laws.

 

 

If I had a huge hole in my head and I wasn't going to make it anyway, I would want somebody to put me out of my misery. That's my personal opinion. You don't have to like it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BGR under no stretch can he be called defenseless. His actions took his life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. When he entered the store to rob, he accepted the ultimate cost for his decision an action. He does not get to decide okay I am going to do this wrong, but at some point, I regain all my rights and due process. We strive for a perfect system thinking we can break every decision down and get one, get every law abidding citizens to always react with afterthought. We cannot.

 

How can you not call a man unconscious with a head injury defenseless? He was totally incapacitated, that in my book is defenseless.

 

The robbers actions set the events in motion that took his life. He full well deserved to be shot while in the act of attempted robbery and that was his own fault. It was not his fault that the pharmacist decided to take his life by shooting him while he was defenseless.

 

If the pharmacist had killed him with the first shot I would have no problem what-so-ever but when he went back and shot him five more times that is where the pharmacist violated the law. The robber no longer posed a threat, the pharmacist could have called the cops and EMS while watching him to make sure he stayed down.

 

He decided to kill this man in cold blood. You can't be the executioner like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something ain't right? How in the world is something not right? Two criminals come into a store and point a gun at someone. One is dead. The pharmacist did not retreat. Why does he have to? Why do we even consider that he should? Why do we even consider that he did anything wrong. He was at work, doing his job. In case you missed that, HE WAS AT WORK, DOING HIS JOB. Two criminals come in and try to rob him, and we say something ain't right.

 

Jesus help us, for those of you who wonder what is wrong with our society, read these kind of posts. This is so typical of our society. Let me tell you what ain't right here. He missed the second one, he is handicapped and couldn't catch him. That is what is not right, he should have been a better shot, or faster.

When I stated "something aint right," I was refering to the story reported by the pharmacist or by the reporter. I don't really know because facts seem to not mean much when it comes to reporting these days for some people. The story says the pharmacist could not flee the scene because he was handicapped, but hen it continues and says he chased the second robber. If he is too handicapped to flee the scene (noticed, I've never said he should have fled in the first place), then how does he have the ability to actually chase someone? That is what is not right. It doesn't make sense. . . period.

 

I said before I have no problem with the man defending himself, his property, or the other two women. Perfectly within his rights, but coming back later to finish the job in the manner he chose is wrong IMO. I don't buy the idea that the pharmacist was putting the robber out of misery either.

 

JV COACH - I cannot answer your question regarding soldiers at war. I've often wondered about that myself.

 

I do continue to see a problem with people on here that spit out their Bible versus only to say this man did everybody a favor by finishing off (executing) the injured robber. I remember years ago when the stretchable rubber bracelets came out, and one of the most popular was WWJD (What Would Jesus Do?). Well...WWJD? If you are going to preach the Bible, it might be a could idea to practice what you preach.

 

Again, don't misunderstand what I'm saying. I'm not taking up for the punks that came in with criminal intentions. If it were a crime of passion, I could understand the actions of the pharmacist. For example, if he or one of the ladies were injured or even if the robbers killed somebody, I can see the pharmacist losing it somewhat. But no one was injured except the criminal that was lying in a pool of his own blood with a gun hole in his head. This pharmacist is a veteran, he should have been able to control his actions.

 

Last, I'm not wishing that the pharmacist gets sent to prison, but if he does, I would have no problems with it. I would be somewhat shocked if he gets off free. He has the right to defend himself and his property, but he does not have the right to execute people. And that is what he did when he came back and unloaded his gun into the stomach of the thief.

 

LOCUTUS - you can point the finger at me all you want and make statements that my opinion is what is wrong with society today. You don't know me at all except that I have a different opinion than you regarding this situation. This is not a "black & white" case. Heck, there wouldn't have been any questions had he just waited on the police to arrive. If the guy dies while waiting for an ambulance, then so be it, but when you decide to take the laws into your own hands, there will be consequences. The robbers didn't realize that, and one of them is dead. The pharmacist didn't pay attention to it either. . . it remains to be seen what heppens with him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...