Casey Anthony walks... This guy gets life in prison...

[Vandy Vol]

He was obviously under duress because a teenage boy once licked his balls. 

Acquittal.

No way!  The video stopped before you could see this, but I'm pretty damn certain that he put on a sexy dress and partied for 31 days right after the shooting.

That's definite party guilt right there.

[JR4AU]

He was obviously under duress because a teenage boy once licked his balls. 

Acquittal.

These fuckin juries just cant get it right.  Mother fuckers!  Aquittal- wrong.  Conviction- wrong.

[RWS]

Video can be faked. 

I saw a video where a guy ran 40 feet up a wall to catch a baseball. 

Video won't convince me of shit.  They should have had more of that. 

If they could have resurrected the kid and had the pharmacist shoot him again then I'd probably accept it. 

But they're doing all kinds of crazy shit with CGI.  I mean I found out yesterday that the Decepticons didn't actually destroy Chicago. 

So I guess it's possible that they could CGI the guy in there and convince me it was real. 

Oh wait.  I have to wonder whether the robber died as a result of the fall, not the bullet.  Maybe the bullets didn't kill him and falling on the ground did.   Maybe he had a heart attack when he saw the gun. 

They can't prove that the pharmacist actually killed him, can they? 

Fuck it.  I've got reasonable doubt.  Set that man free.

Not even the same ballpark.

[Kaos]

Not even the same ballpark.

I saw the fucking video.  I couldn't tell if there was a body on the floor or if he was shooting at a rat that came out of the back room. 

I didn't see the kid actually did. 

For all I could tell he was using a paintball gun. 


I'd acquit.  I've got doubt. 

I'd acquit Manson, too.  And Gacy. 

[GarMan]

You guys are being completely unrealistic here.  This guy's probably still schitting his pants having just had a gun shoved in his face threatening his life and the lives of his co-workers.  Would you be thinkng rationally at this point?  Bullskat!!!  He's a pharmacist.  He's not a professional security guard.  He's not in law enforcement.  And, he's not a doctor.  He did what he thought was necessary to remove the threat of the situation.  Calmly?  My ass!  He was probably winded and whimpering like a little girl.  He just had the absolute schit scared out of him. 

Be honest for a moment...  If someone just had a gun in your face, or threatened the lives of your wife, your children or your friends, would you be rational?  Would you be expected to watch the guy at gunpoint further risking your life of the lives of others waiting on the police?  HORSE SQUEEZE!!!  Your Monday-Morning Quarterbacking is real sweet as an afterthought from the comfort and safety of your office chair, but what would you be inclined to do in a similar situation, in the heat of a confrontation? 

This is the same pussy-assed position that requires police to respond with like-force.  If a drug-crazed maniac charges a police officer with a baseball bat, he's not supposed to use deadly force to defend himself.  He's a professional, after all.  He's supposed to use a taser or a club.  Bullschit!  He should be permitted to shoot the phucker in the face. 

There's a rest of the story to this.  The local African-American community tried to characterize this guy as a racist having executed a poor defenseless black man.  The local municipality made an example of him, and this is bullschit!!!

[Vandy Vol]

You guys are being completely unrealistic here.  This guy's probably still schitting his pants having just had a gun shoved in his face threatening his life and the lives of his co-workers.  Would you be thinkng rationally at this point?  Bullskat!!!  He's a pharmacist.  He's not a professional security guard.  He's not in law enforcement.  And, he's not a doctor.  He did what he thought was necessary to remove the threat of the situation.  Calmly?  My ass!  He was probably winded and whimpering like a little girl.  He just had the absolute schit scared out of him. 

Be honest for a moment...  If someone just had a gun in your face, or threatened the lives of your wife, your children or your friends, would you be rational?  Would you be expected to watch the guy at gunpoint further risking your life of the lives of others waiting on the police?  HORSE SQUEEZE!!!  Your Monday-Morning Quarterbacking is real sweet as an afterthought from the comfort and safety of your office chair, but what would you be inclined to do in a similar situation, in the heat of a confrontation? 

This is the same pussy-assed position that requires police to respond with like-force.  If a drug-crazed maniac charges a police officer with a baseball bat, he's not supposed to use deadly force to defend himself.  He's a professional, after all.  He's supposed to use a taser or a club.  Bullschit!  He should be permitted to shoot the phucker in the face. 

There's a rest of the story to this.  The local African-American community tried to characterize this guy as a racist having executed a poor defenseless black man.  The local municipality made an example of him, and this is bullschit!!!

If I'm scared shitless of a man lying on the floor after I shot him, then I wouldn't be focusing on the guy running away from me out of the store.

If I'm scared shitless of a man lying on the floor after I shot him, then I wouldn't turn my back on him in order to follow after the guy who was wielding a weapon in my store moments earlier.

If my main purpose in shooting an already injured man five additional times is to protect a mother and her daughter, then I'm not going to leave the mother and daughter alone with him in the store to see if I can chase down someone who's running from me.

If I'm scared shitless of a man lying on the floor after I shot him, then I wouldn't walk directly by him in order to get another gun when I already have a gun in my hands.

If I'm scared shitless of a man lying on the floor after I shot him, then I wouldn't get in point blank range so that he could have a chance at wrangling the gun from my handicapped old ass.

Even if you attempt to claim that he only appeared calm, but that he was actually scared shitless of an unconscious teenager on the floor, his actions don't show that he was scared of him.  His actions show that he knew that he was incapacitated and was no longer a threat.  His actions show that he wanted to get the other kid too, so he tried to chase him down, because he didn't have to worry about the unconscious kid on the ground who never showed a weapon.  His actions show that he knew he had time to get a second gun, and that he didn't even have to watch the kid the entire time, as he turned his back to him at least twice.

None of his actions support the theory that he was frightened of the guy on the ground.

[JR4AU]

You guys are being completely unrealistic here.  This guy's probably still schitting his pants having just had a gun shoved in his face threatening his life and the lives of his co-workers.  Would you be thinkng rationally at this point?  Bullskat!!!  He's a pharmacist.  He's not a professional security guard.  He's not in law enforcement.  And, he's not a doctor.  He did what he thought was necessary to remove the threat of the situation.  Calmly?  My ass!  He was probably winded and whimpering like a little girl.  He just had the absolute schit scared out of him. 

Be honest for a moment...  If someone just had a gun in your face, or threatened the lives of your wife, your children or your friends, would you be rational?  Would you be expected to watch the guy at gunpoint further risking your life of the lives of others waiting on the police?  HORSE SQUEEZE!!!  Your Monday-Morning Quarterbacking is real sweet as an afterthought from the comfort and safety of your office chair, but what would you be inclined to do in a similar situation, in the heat of a confrontation? 

This is the same pussy-assed position that requires police to respond with like-force.  If a drug-crazed maniac charges a police officer with a baseball bat, he's not supposed to use deadly force to defend himself.  He's a professional, after all.  He's supposed to use a taser or a club.  Bullschit!  He should be permitted to shoot the phucker in the face. 

There's a rest of the story to this.  The local African-American community tried to characterize this guy as a racist having executed a poor defenseless black man.  The local municipality made an example of him, and this is bullschit!!!

Pffft

[GarMan]

If I'm scared poopless of a man lying on the floor after I shot him, then I wouldn't be focusing on the guy running away from me out of the store.

If I'm scared poopless of a man lying on the floor after I shot him, then I wouldn't turn my back on him in order to follow after the guy who was wielding a weapon in my store moments earlier.

If my main purpose in shooting an already injured man five additional times is to protect a mother and her daughter, then I'm not going to leave the mother and daughter alone with him in the store to see if I can chase down someone who's running from me.

If I'm scared poopless of a man lying on the floor after I shot him, then I wouldn't walk directly by him in order to get another gun when I already have a gun in my hands.

If I'm scared poopless of a man lying on the floor after I shot him, then I wouldn't get in point blank range so that he could have a chance at wrangling the gun from my handicapped old ass.

Even if you attempt to claim that he only appeared calm, but that he was actually scared poopless of an unconscious teenager on the floor, his actions don't show that he was scared of him.  His actions show that he knew that he was incapacitated and was no longer a threat.  His actions show that he wanted to get the other kid too, so he tried to chase him down, because he didn't have to worry about the unconscious kid on the ground who never showed a weapon.  His actions show that he knew he had time to get a second gun, and that he didn't even have to watch the kid the entire time, as he turned his back to him at least twice.

None of his actions support the theory that he was frightened of the guy on the ground. 

Yeah...  I'm sure that he deals with this sort of thing all of the time.  He should have known better to not chase the other person from the store or to turn his back on a potential threat.  He should have been just as rational as you in your comfy little chair tippy-typing at the keyboard.  If everyone would be as level-headed and intelligent as you guys...   

[JR4AU]

Yeah...  I'm sure that he deals with this sort of thing all of the time.  He should have known better to not chase the other person from the store or to turn his back on a potential threat.  He should have been just as rational as you in your comfy little chair tippy-typing at the keyboard.  If everyone would be as level-headed and intelligent as you guys...   

This, from the guy that knows just how he's going to react when it happens to him.

Here's the bottom line.  You have the right to defend yourself, and others.  You have the right to bear arms.  You also have a responsibility to the law.  The law says you can use deadly force when you have a reasonable fear (even though that threat later turns out not to be as you perceived) of your life, the life of another, or great bodily harm.  However, once that threat has ceased, it doesn't have to be dead, just no longer presenting a threat of death or great bodily harm, you have to drop your response level.

A jury watched this video, listened to the forensics, other evidence, as well as the defense the old man presented, and made a decision that he didn't act within the law.  Not only that, but a grand jury did the same thing, and that was done without a group that had been voir dired.  Just random citizens found probable cause.  The trial jury not only found him guilty, but recommended life.  I believe in the jury system, flaws though it may have.   The video, to a reasonable person, is pretty damning.  You want to argue that it ought to be lawful to "finish off" the wounded.  Make it.  But your arguments, in light of the law on self defense, are fruitless.   You do talk real tough though. 

"I'd put a second bullet in his head"  Wow!  Tough talk!   

You ever carried a weapon for a living?  Cop?  Military?  Ever had to make a shoot/no shoot decision?  Ever taken  a life?  Been on a jury responsible for making a life/death decision? 

[RWS]

You guys are being completely unrealistic here.  This guy's probably still schitting his pants having just had a gun shoved in his face threatening his life and the lives of his co-workers.  Would you be thinkng rationally at this point?  Bullskat!!!  He's a pharmacist.  He's not a professional security guard.  He's not in law enforcement.  And, he's not a doctor.  He did what he thought was necessary to remove the threat of the situation.  Calmly?  My ass!  He was probably winded and whimpering like a little girl.  He just had the absolute schit scared out of him. 

He looked pretty cool, calm, and collected to me. Like he knew exactly what he was going to do as he was walking back into the store. It wasn't the first time he had been robbed. Would I be thinking rationally if somebody shoved a gun in my face? I would hope so, but I've had firearms training. This guy hasn't. However, your average citizen would probably hesitate to shoot somebody in the first place. Not only did the pharmacist not hesitate to shoot this robber (I have no problems with that), he didn't hesitate to walk right up to him and pump 5 more rounds into the guy.

This is the same pussy-assed position that requires police to respond with like-force.  If a drug-crazed maniac charges a police officer with a baseball bat, he's not supposed to use deadly force to defend himself.  He's a professional, after all.  He's supposed to use a taser or a club.  Bullschit!  He should be permitted to shoot the phucker in the face. 

If a drug-crazed maniac charges an officer with a baseball bat and that officer shoots the guy, it will be justified. For that matter, you can tase or spray somebody before soft open hands. You're not even expected to try and touch/fight somebody before you tase them. All they have to do is refuse to follow verbal commands. Of course, every situation of disobedience doesn't call for taser or spray and can often be solved with soft open hands, but taser or spray would still be justified. It's not a "pussy-assed" position to take. It's the law. Oklahoma even has the enhanced gun law like Florida, and Alabama now have, that give a gun owner the right to stand his ground and shoot somebody rather than try to flee from the threat, etc. Bottom line, dude broke the law when he put 5 more rounds into the robber. You won't (and shouldn't) get away with that anywhere in this country. This shouldn't be so difficult to comprehend.

[GarMan]

This, from the guy that knows just how he's going to react when it happens to him. 

Pot meet kettle?  Isn't that exactly what you're doing by criticizing his actions?

You do talk real tough though. 

"I'd put a second bullet in his head"  Wow!  Tough talk!    

Pathetic...  Seriously...  We don't know how we'd react in that situation, but in the heat of that particular moment, the same rational perspective that you're conveying sitting in front of your computer right now will not likely be on your mind.  You're goal is to reduce and potentially eliminate the threat.  I'm not suggesting that I'd be a tough guy with my statement above.  I did admit that the 5 slugs seem to be a bit overkill, but even with the thug on the ground, he still posed a threat.  I'd be inclined to take action, as any reasonable person should be expected.  To speculate anything else is nonsense. 

[GH2001]

  You do talk real tough though. 

"I'd put a second bullet in his head"  Wow!  Tough talk!   

You ever carried a weapon for a living?  Cop?  Military?  Ever had to make a shoot/no shoot decision?  Ever taken  a life?  Been on a jury responsible for making a life/death decision?

Except for taking a life and being a cop, yes.

[AUJarhead]

I realize that this wasn't a military operation, but I know Special Forces are trained to put a second or third bullet into the head/chest of targets that are down.  An extra bullet or two is much cheaper than training a new SEAL because the target wasn't dead.  An extra bullet makes sure he's down for the count.

Should we prosecute SEALs for murder in these cases?

[Saniflush]

You ever carried a weapon for a living? 

Yes

Cop? 

No

Military? 

Yes

Ever had to make a shoot/no shoot decision?

  Yes

Ever taken  a life?

Yes

Been on a jury responsible for making a life/death decision?

No

That pretty well cover it?

[GarMan]

He looked pretty cool, calm, and collected to me.

Oh...  So, he should he have been running around like a maniac with his arms flailing in the air, pulling his hair out, while crying uncontrollably?  HORSESCHIT!!!

It's not a "pussy-assed" position to take. It's the law.   

It's the beta position...  The weaker position...  The kinder, gentler, softer and sweeter position...  It's only become the law because we've allowed society to be wussified and pussified by morons. 

Oklahoma even has the enhanced gun law like Florida, and Alabama now have, that give a gun owner the right to stand his ground and shoot somebody rather than try to flee from the threat, etc. Bottom line, dude broke the law when he put 5 more rounds into the robber. You won't (and shouldn't) get away with that anywhere in this country. This shouldn't be so difficult to comprehend. 

I don't disagree that 5 more rounds seems excessive, but put yourself in that situation.  Honestly...  How do you think you'd react?  Even with the criminal on the ground, would he not still pose a threat to you? 

[Snaggletiger]

 Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it?  You Sani?

Wait...you do actually have a gun...and you have actually killed peeps....

Okay, you can do it.

[AUTiger1]

Bunch of bleeding heart faggotry going on in this thread






here fishy, fishy!

[Snaggletiger]

I admit I didn't read through all the story but RWS said something earlier that I think may have played as big a role in all this as anything...at least to helping establish this guy's state of mind.  RWS said this isn't the first time this guy had been robbed.  If this is true, then I'm guessing he'd have a far better presence of mind and more control than if he was confronted with this for the first time.  It would appear to me the guy acted more out of anger than self preservation when he went back and fired off 5 more rounds.  And 2 guns? 

I'm with everyone else in protecting his and anyone's right to bear arms and blow this guy away when the robbery first began.  But I think this man also had it in the back of his mind that if this ever happened again, someone's gonna pay. 

[GarMan]

I admit I didn't read through all the story but RWS said something earlier that I think may have played as big a role in all this as anything...at least to helping establish this guy's state of mind.  RWS said this isn't the first time this guy had been robbed.  If this is true, then I'm guessing he'd have a far better presence of mind and more control than if he was confronted with this for the first time.  It would appear to me the guy acted more out of anger than self preservation when he went back and fired off 5 more rounds.  And 2 guns? 

I'm with everyone else in protecting his and anyone's right to bear arms and blow this guy away when the robbery first began.  But I think this man also had it in the back of his mind that if this ever happened again, someone's gonna pay.

Well, he is white, and he did shoot an unarmed black man...  Does anything else matter?

[Kaos]

A jury watched this video, listened to the forensics, other evidence, as well as the defense the old man presented, and made a decision that he didn't act within the law.
 

Juries are stupid.  We've established that. 

Who serves on a jury anyway?