A cause for controversy in Oklahoma City

[jaykay08]

Actually, liking it or not, has nothing to do with it. I simply have a differing personal opinion.

 

Look, I know there is a very thin line between murder and mercy killing. I also know that I do not know the pharmacist's intentions. I'm not a fan of mercy killing in any circumstances. I would never want to hurt anyone, much less kill someone. I know it's the law, but that doesn't take away from the fact that I never want to see someone suffer because of me. If I knew someone was going to die because I pulled the trigger and they were suffering, I wouldn't be able to handle that. If it truely was self-defense and the guy was conscious enough to reach for the gun, that's different. If the guy was still coherent and looking around, I would have prayed with him and called the ambulance, but if the guy is dying, what more can you do?

[chase.colston]

He wouldn't have anything to worry about here, either. Let the criminals beware!!!

 

It's good to know there are plenty of other people out there like you who take the law into their own hands before doing what is right.

 

Aren't you a preacher?

[Locutus]

BGR I agree he was helpless at that point. And again I don't think it was a good call to shoot him after the fact. Of course there is so much we don't know and is out of camera veiw. Did criminal move on floor, was a gun on floor near him. He was not however defenseless. His defenses should have kept him from ever going in and trying to rob the place. So we may be just being symantical here. I think we both basically see it same way.

 

LHorn I am not pointing the finger at you per se. Our difference is much like the difference people encounter with texting. It is very hard to interpert intent and reference with typed words. I see your point about the reporting of the story and something not adding up. Happens every day.

 

I do not agree with the mercy killing either, if he did that for that reason, bad bad call.

[Locutus]

Mantle. Shouldn't the law and what is right go hand in hand? I am really curious about your statement. It really made me think, what exactly does he mean.

[BGR]

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

 

Soldiers have to follow the Geneva Convention which the US signed in 1949. There is a newer edition the US has not agreed to sign also.

 

The Geneva Convention collectively refers to five international treaties signed on the neutral ground of Geneva, Switzerland, which are primarily focused on establishing conventions for the more humane treatment of the wounded and dying in a state of war. Most of this is paraphrased and generalized but still retains the general message.

 

Chapter 2. Wounded and Sick

 

This chapter deals with, as might be expected, the treatment of wounded and sick soldiers. It first states that these people shall be respected and protected in all circumstances, regardless of sex, race, religion and so on. They must also not be murdered, tortured, subjected to biological experiments, left without medical attention or exposed to contagion or infection. It also states that any army abandoning its wounded to the enemy must leave some of its medical personnel and materials behind to assist in their care.

 

This protection is further extended to militias and volunteer corps who operate openly, have a fixed leadership structure, and "..conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war."

 

After any battle, both sides "shall, without delay, take all possible measures to search for and collect the wounded and sick, to protect them against pillage and ill-treatment, to ensure their adequate care, and to search for the dead and prevent their being despoiled." It is also stated that whenever possible, a cease fire must be declared to allow the removal and exchange of wounded and sick.

 

 

The "battle" was over when the pharmacist shot the wounded robber.

[BGR]

BGR I agree he was helpless at that point. And again I don't think it was a good call to shoot him after the fact. Of course there is so much we don't know and is out of camera veiw. Did criminal move on floor, was a gun on floor near him. He was not however defenseless. His defenses should have kept him from ever going in and trying to rob the place. So we may be just being symantical here. I think we both basically see it same way.

 

Symantics it may be because I consider defenseless and helpless the same thing. I think we are basically seeing it the same way.

 

I think his morals and common sense should have kept him from trying to rob anyone but several people don't have high moral standards or common sense.

 

I commend the pharmacist for defending himself, his employees and his property but he should have stopped at that.

[BGR]

If the guy was still coherent and looking around, I would have prayed with him and called the ambulance, but if the guy is dying, what more can you do?

 

Not much more you can do.

 

The worst thing in this situation is the pharmacist put himself in jeapordy of being punished for murder. If he had kept an eye and his gun on the guy while he called EMS and police he probably would never have been charged with murder. I say probably because you never know what a DA will try to do in situations like this.

 

[chase.colston]

Mantle. Shouldn't the law and what is right go hand in hand? I am really curious about your statement. It really made me think, what exactly does he mean.

 

Yes, it should ... and that's what the pharmacist did at first until he decided to play the role of executioner. After he shot him, the right (and lawful) thing to do at that point was to keep the kid there and wait for the police. If he was to hold that gun to the kid's head until the police got there (and with the kid already shot in the head), he wouldn't be moving.

[Medman7]

It's good to know there are plenty of other people out there like you who take the law into their own hands before doing what is right.

 

 

While I agree that emptying the gun into the guy is a little over the top, shooting a guy who is pointing a gun at you is self defense. That is not taking the law into your hands. We all have the right to defend ourselves which put the pharmacist and anyone else in this predicament in the right when firing at the attacker wheninitially approached. The only wrong here is the finishing off of the theif!

[TheShadowKnows]

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

 

Can you tell me what you would have down in the elapsed time if you were in that life and death struggle.

 

 

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. You are the only one who has siad anything about The Bible and did he do the robber a favor? Probablly not,

 

 

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. Once agian I have not preached but since you brought it up I would like to hear what you think Jesus would have done or a more moral person like yourself?

 

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 This is a crime of passion! Most people are pretty passionate about not being shot, stole from or violated in any way, 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. They dont teach soldiers compassion in boot camp.

 

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.

 

I dont think the pharmacist should go to prison, what is different in what he did to hanging people for cattle rustling in 1880?

And my next question is if the pharmasict would have just let the guy bleed out and die without offering first aide people still would have thought him guilty?

 

What I have hard time understanding is why you do not have compassion on the people who were robbed and thier lives were threatned for just living peacefully in thier community.

 

 

 

[TxBroadcaster]

JV Coach..it is not about compassion for the criminal, it is about someone taking the law in their own hand and shooting someone who has already been taken down..and not just shooting him ONE more time, but in fact UNLOADING the weapon into the guy. Sorry but there is IMO no way to defend that and make a case for it being justified.

 

and just because they hung people in 1880 for cattle rustling means nothing in 2009..they also used to have shoot outs and gun fights in the 1800's should we go back to that as well?

[chase.colston]

While I agree that emptying the gun into the guy is a little over the top, shooting a guy who is pointing a gun at you is self defense. That is not taking the law into your hands. We all have the right to defend ourselves which put the pharmacist and anyone else in this predicament in the right when firing at the attacker wheninitially approached. The only wrong here is the finishing off of the theif!

 

If you would go back and read what I have posted, I said the pharmacist was in the right in shooting at them to begin with. Where he was wrong was shooting the kid five more times when he was already down instead of holding him there until the cops got there. Perhaps I shouldn't have worded it as "taking the law into his own hands," but shooting him five more times is where he was wrong.

 

In a matter of seconds, the pharmacist went from a man defending himself, his co-workers and his store to a murderer. Simple as that.

[Medman7]

I caught that Mantel. No problem. We are on the same page now. I had already posted it before I read your last statement!

[TheShadowKnows]

Why were not the cops already thier? Becuase it happened that quickly the pharmasict did not have the luxury of sitting back and watching the story unfold at the comfort of his computor so for some to sit back and judge him as a killer after he already been shot at and shot the criminal and say he is wrong he crossed the line and needs to be punished I find that hard to do.

 

 

 

 

 

Just a random question. What about the dude who had the trunk popped up on his car?

 

 

[Lhornfan]

JV COACH -

 

I can't tell you what I would have done if I were in the same situation as the pharmacist at the time the gun was pulled on him. I would hope that I had the same courage as the pharmacist.

 

My reference to the Bible is the fact that you yourself post quite a bit concerning Christian values, and it was mentioned somewhere in the thread that the pharmacist had done society a favor and saved taxpayers money, etc...

 

I'm not sure what Jesus would do, but I feel comfortable with my beleifs that I would be okay for shooting a man that had intentions of shooting me. I don't think I would be okay coming back later and emptying the rest of my gun into the same man that was probably bleeding out on the floor with a hole in his head. You know, if the pharmacist would have shot him a few more times before he ran out of the store everything would be okay.

 

Crime of passion? The first shot yes, the last five - NO.

 

I think you are dead wrong about soldiers not having compassion.

 

To compare criminal events from 2009 with events from 1880 makes absolutely no sense.

 

I would not have any ill feelings toward the pharmacist if he didn't offer first aid. The guy tried to rob him at gunpoint.

 

Your pride for being right is not allowing you to comprehend what you read. I have no compassion for the robber that got shot. You put those words in my mouth when I said a soldier should be able to control his actions. In fact I do have compassion for the people at the pharmacy. This crime took place in broad daylight. I can't imagine how hard it might be for those ladies to go back to work thinking anybody that walks in the door might be there to rob them or shoot them.

 

One last time, my only two points in this scenario are:

1. The pharmacist was wrong IMO for going back to the robber and emptying his gun. We cannot allow people to take the law into there own hands or we'll be back in the 1880s.

2. I find it hypocritical for some to preach Christian values in one thread and having no problems with an execution style shooting in another thread. The pharmacist had every right to shoot, but when he came back later, went to re-load his gun, and killed the robber with more shots into the stomach, he was wrong.

[Lhornfan]

Why were not the cops already thier? Becuase it happened that quickly the pharmasict did not have the luxury of sitting back and watching the story unfold at the comfort of his computor so for some to sit back and judge him as a killer after he already been shot at and shot the criminal and say he is wrong he crossed the line and needs to be punished I find that hard to do.

 

Just a random question. What about the dude who had the trunk popped up on his car?

Watch the video again. The two robbers come in with one of them struggling to get his gun out of a bag. One runs out and the other is capped in the head. The pharmacist walks quickly (probably as quick as he can with his disability) outside after the other robber that ran away. The pharmacist then walks at a slower pace back into the store, walks by the man on the floor over to the far side of the counter. I can't really tell, but it looks like he's reloading his gun. He then casually walks over the the man on the floor and unloads bullets into the downed criminal. After that he again casually walks over to the phone to call the cops (this is an assumption because I have no idea who he was calling). All in all, the veteran handled the situation much more calmly than any pharmacist I know. I've watched the video four times, and IMO, I think the pharmacist was just #### so much becuase these kids tried to rob him and threatened his life, that he decided he was going to kill them regardless. He might get off scott free if he can prove to a jury that he was still afraid for his live when he shot the kid the second time.

[TheShadowKnows]

In 1981, the townsfolk of Skidmore rid themselves of a notorious criminal, Ken McElroy, in what has become one of the best-kept secrets in the county. He was shot while sitting in is truck on the street in Skidmore. There were multiple shooters, as was evident by the different caliber bullets found in the truck. When questioned by the Sheriff, everyone claimed that they dove under the pool table at the town bar when the shooting started. Sheriff Estes was later quoted as saying "That must have been the biggest #### pool table in the world." The book and movie In Broad Daylight is based on these events.

 

 

This happened in missouri no body was ever convicted and Ken never hurt another soul.

 

 

[TheShadowKnows]

JV COACH -

 

I can't tell you what I would have done if I were in the same situation as the pharmacist at the time the gun was pulled on him. I would hope that I had the same courage as the pharmacist.

You hope to have the same courage then say he was wrong that does not make sence to me

 

 

My reference to the Bible is the fact that you yourself post quite a bit concerning Christian values, and it was mentioned somewhere in the thread that the pharmacist had done society a favor and saved taxpayers money, etc... I will not argue those are harsh words but my compassion is for the man who was being robbed not the man who got shot several times for aggravated robbery by then man who he was trying to rob at gunpoint

 

I'm not sure what Jesus would do, but I feel comfortable with my beleifs that I would be okay for shooting a man that had intentions of shooting me. I don't think I would be okay coming back later and emptying the rest of my gun into the same man that was probably bleeding out on the floor with a hole in his head. .Well if we as a society did not try to take Jesus out of our modern society our society would b a lot better off and Lets put LATER in prespective and say a minute becuase that is about how long all of this took place.

You know, if the pharmacist would have shot him a few more times before he ran out of the store everything would be okay I do not see the difference

 

Crime of passion? The first shot yes, the last five - NO. Disagree passion is still invloved once agian the whole event did not last over a couple of minuts.

 

I think you are dead wrong about soldiers not having compassion. I believe soldiers have compassion too I also believe that when faced with death compassion for those trying to kill you are not your first thought.

 

To compare criminal events from 2009 with events from 1880 makes absolutely no sense. I am not comparing Cattle rustlen to armed robbery I was comparing how if it is ok to hang a man on sight for stealing a cow then it can not be that wrong for finishing someone off who tried to kill you.

 

I would not have any ill feelings toward the pharmacist if he didn't offer first aid. The guy tried to rob him at gunpoint. Always good to agree

 

Your pride for being right is not allowing you to comprehend what you read. I have no compassion for the robber that got shot. You put those words in my mouth when I said a soldier should be able to control his actions. In fact I do have compassion for the people at the pharmacy. This crime took place in broad daylight. I can't imagine how hard it might be for those ladies to go back to work thinking anybody that walks in the door might be there to rob them or shoot them. And when they throw the man in jail that saved the ladies (from who knows what) it will be even harder to feel safe at work.

One last time, my only two points in this scenario are:

1. The pharmacist was wrong IMO for going back to the robber and emptying his gun. We cannot allow people to take the law into there own hands or we'll be back in the 1880s.

From my personal experiance I think we are a more lawless society today then back then.

 

2. I find it hypocritical for some to preach Christian values in one thread and having no problems with an execution style shooting in another thread. The pharmacist had every right to shoot, but when he came back later, went to re-load his gun, and killed the robber with more shots into the stomach, he was wrong. Sorry you feel that way and if you think I am harsh please do not face God without knowing His Son.

[TxBroadcaster]

JV Coach..u said this

 

And when they throw the man in jail that saved the ladies (from who knows what) it will be even harder to feel safe at work.

 

They would not throw him in jail because he saved the ladies..that act had already happened when he shot the guy and the other ran..up until that point he was doing his civic duty asnd protecting everyone.

 

Where does going back and UNLOADING HIS WEAPON into the guy on the ground save anyone? again he did not just shoiot once more, but FIVE more times. What in that act made those ladies any safer than after he shot him the first time putting him on the ground with a head wound?

 

 

You also said

You hope to have the same courage then say he was wrong that does not make sence to me

 

I think he meant having the courage for the first act that protected everyone..again that does not make the 2nd shooting ok

[Lhornfan]

JV Coach..u said this

 

You also said

You hope to have the same courage then say he was wrong that does not make sence to me

 

I think he meant having the courage for the first act that protected everyone..again that does not make the 2nd shooting ok

That is exactly what I meant.

 

[TheShadowKnows]

JV Coach..u said this

 

And when they throw the man in jail that saved the ladies (from who knows what) it will be even harder to feel safe at work.

I am willing to bet that the ladies hold what he did for them in high esteem and so should we

They would not throw him in jail because he saved the ladies..that act had already happened when he shot the guy and the other ran..up until that point he was doing his civic duty asnd protecting everyone. Some say it is the civic duty of the police alone to save us from the criminals and some would argue that him even having a gun is wrong, some would say that if he would have shot the other armed robber while he fled he should be charged. And then thiers well he went to far a should be punished and then thiere is my lonesome dove opinion that he should not be punished at all. And whichever one chooses just count to 130 while being cussed, robbed and shot at and then tell me in your heart if still think the man should be found guilty and if you do you are one heartless dude.

 

Where does going back and UNLOADING HIS WEAPON into the guy on the ground save anyone? Stoping crime and making an example out of people who do evil (ie agravated armed robbery) is a tried and true way of stoping later crimes and thus saving lives again he did not just shoiot once more, but FIVE more times. The dude went bazerk and rightfuly so. What in that act made those ladies any safer than after he shot him the first time putting him on the ground with a head wound? What so hard to understand that the ladies will feel safer the next time they are all at work together because of his actions and let me give you a lil edumacation when saving a damsel in distress they just want to be saved they do not care how you do it.

[TxBroadcaster]

Sorry JV we will just have to agree to disagree..His shooting the first time was heroic and spot on..The unloading of the weapon in a person already down IMO is no better than a common criminal. He had the power at that moment and the the threat was rendered powerless. He then used his power to play God and basically executed the guy. You say I have no heart for understanding that, Well your right I dont have a heart for murder and the FIVE shots wqhile the guy was down is IMO murder

[Straw]

Sorry JV we will just have to agree to disagree..His shooting the first time was heroic and spot on..The unloading of the weapon in a person already down IMO is no better than a common criminal. He had the power at that moment and the the threat was rendered powerless. He then used his power to play God and basically executed the guy. You say I have no heart for understanding that, Well your right I dont have a heart for murder and the FIVE shots wqhile the guy was down is IMO murder

 

 

I agree with you TXBroadcaster! He should have let the law handle it after he shot him the first time.

[TxBroadcaster]

He should have let the law handle it after he shot him the first time.

 

And that is what our whole society is based on. Letting the laws of our lands dole out the punishment. If we allow the common citizen to become savages we as a society will decay. Again no problem with the first shot no problem at all.

[TheShadowKnows]

I agree we will have to agree to disagree.

 

For what it is worth I enjoyed the banter.