-
After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.
Where Does Self Defense End? Killer of Robber Convicted of Murder
- Thread starter nlsme
- Start date
- Status
Those who are certain that it is murder and those that are certain that it is justified are both wrong. Based on the information available here, there is no way to tell which is the case. A dozen citizens that were presented with all the information decided unanimously that it was murder.
The missing piece that we do not have is why the pharmacist went back to the shooter and what transpired when he got there.
1) If the pharmacist went back to make sure that the robber was dead and if not to finish the job, then it is clear cut murder.
2) If the pharmacist went back to render aid to a clearly alive robber but believed that the robber was reaching for a firearm and therefore shot him in self defense, then it is justified.
I suspect that the prosecution argued #1 while defense argued #2. The prosecution would have used a lot of evidence, including witness statements (if any), the pharmacist's initial phone call to 911 (recorded), his initial ans subsequent conversation with police (most of them recorded), his statements to the press, his prior and subsequent statements to people including his postings on the internet.
Some of the things that could have resulted in the verdict that they did are:
If the pharmacist initially claimed that things went down a certain way but the video tape proved him wrong, he would have a serious credibility problem.
If the pharmacist had previously posted statements on the internet like a few people have here along the lines of praising some other shooter for saving taxpayers money (even if that shooting was ruled justified), that would make him look like a vigilante.
If the firearm had been modified in a way to make the shooter look like "Rambo" that would cause problems.
The fact that the pharmacist chased the other gunman out of the store weakens his case of "I was scared for my life".
Finally, the single biggest causes of problems for a shooter in this situation is their statements to the press or even strangers after the shooting. Speaking in general and not about this particular case, the DA may be on the cusp of deciding not to prosecute when the shooter goes on TV and declares that the bastard deserved to die or how he is proud of his good shooting skills, or some other remark the inflames a large portion of the public. The DA, an elected official, then has no choice but to bend to the public sentiment and prosecute.
The missing piece that we do not have is why the pharmacist went back to the shooter and what transpired when he got there.
1) If the pharmacist went back to make sure that the robber was dead and if not to finish the job, then it is clear cut murder.
2) If the pharmacist went back to render aid to a clearly alive robber but believed that the robber was reaching for a firearm and therefore shot him in self defense, then it is justified.
I suspect that the prosecution argued #1 while defense argued #2. The prosecution would have used a lot of evidence, including witness statements (if any), the pharmacist's initial phone call to 911 (recorded), his initial ans subsequent conversation with police (most of them recorded), his statements to the press, his prior and subsequent statements to people including his postings on the internet.
Some of the things that could have resulted in the verdict that they did are:
If the pharmacist initially claimed that things went down a certain way but the video tape proved him wrong, he would have a serious credibility problem.
If the pharmacist had previously posted statements on the internet like a few people have here along the lines of praising some other shooter for saving taxpayers money (even if that shooting was ruled justified), that would make him look like a vigilante.
If the firearm had been modified in a way to make the shooter look like "Rambo" that would cause problems.
The fact that the pharmacist chased the other gunman out of the store weakens his case of "I was scared for my life".
Finally, the single biggest causes of problems for a shooter in this situation is their statements to the press or even strangers after the shooting. Speaking in general and not about this particular case, the DA may be on the cusp of deciding not to prosecute when the shooter goes on TV and declares that the bastard deserved to die or how he is proud of his good shooting skills, or some other remark the inflames a large portion of the public. The DA, an elected official, then has no choice but to bend to the public sentiment and prosecute.
D
Dark Jedi
Guest
Problem with number 2. The pharmacist walked right past the robber laying on the floor and retrieved his second gun and then stood over him and shot execution style. So if that's giving aid then I don't want none from him.
A.Nonymous
Extreme Android User
From the other stories I've read, this guy didn't try to make any sort of self-defense argument. His lawyer was clearly smart enough to know that wouldn't fly. Instead he argued for manslaughter instead. Basically, they were arguing that the guy did not have any intent to kill. He shot the guy intending to disable him, but not intending to kill him. The jury didn't buy it and I don't either. When you shoot a guy five times while he's on the ground it's hard to argue you didn't intend to kill him. According to the news stories, the guy's first shot (which took the kid down and caused the other guy to run for his life) hit the kid in the head. We don't know where in the head the kid was hit, but in general gunshot wounds to the head tend to be disabling.
This going off topic for this particular incident.
Most reputable self defense instructors teach that if you are involved in a shooting, never try and render aid to the person you shot. Call 911 or direct someone to call 911 as soon as you can do so safely and let the pros evaluate the situation and render aid. Unfortunately there are a few yahoo's on the internet forums that claim that rendering aid shows that you had no intention to kill the person. They can not cite any actual cases where that made a difference, but this is the internet so they do not need facts, just opinions.
I have not bothered to research this in as much detail as would like to when I have time.
The lawyer's decision not to plead "going to help and had to shoot in self defense" may not be because he was smart. Self defense is an affirmative defense and the judge has to allow the defense to use that. The lawyer may have tried but the judge may have disallowed it as not supported by evidence. It may also be that the pharmacist made statements to people that contradict a claim to self defense. If he had claimed self defense, those incriminating statements, which were normally excluded, may have come into evidence as rebuttal evidence.
Bottom line is that not everything that is out there can be used in a court of laws either due to legal or strategic reasons. The facts that a jury gets to consider are always a subset of the known facts about the case. And that is just talking about real facts, not including all the BS fabricated by the media to sensationalize the story to gain ratings.
Here's another piece of info. If someone is convicted and appeals their conviction, about the only thing they are allowed to appeal is what data or defense strategy the judge allowed or did not allow. In all but the rarest of cases, they can not appeal on the grounds that the jury reached the wrong conclusion based on the data presented. The appeal is almost always about claiming that the jury would have reached a different verdict if the judge had allowed them to see a different set of data.
Roze
Hiding behind a mystery
No access to youtube...source link to the news please
shawn1224
Ex CEO-DNPSEA foundation
No access to youtube...source link to the news please
Yes please.
If he was already fatally wounded he would have a better argument for his defense. Not that I agree with his actions though.
A.Nonymous
Extreme Android User
No access to youtube...source link to the news please
This article reports he had initially shot the kid in the head. This article says the same thing, although neither reports their original source. This article also says the kid was shot in the head and adds more information to the story. According to it the store owner says the guy with the gun fired at him and he was firing back. He claims he shot guy on the ground because he was getting up. Prosecutors contend the kid would've been rendered unconscious from the first shot.
Interestingly enough, the store owner (or his supporter's one) have put together a web site supporting him. The story there is very, very different from what is reported in all the news stories and very different from what the video tape shows to. According to the site:
None of the news stories say anything about the first guy shooting. None of them say anything about a bullet hitting Jerome. There are no news reports of him being hit other than one where he claims his watch was hit. Saying he "returned fire killing one of the robbers" sounds very heroic, but from seeing the video it clearly isn't true.
A.Nonymous
Extreme Android User
I'm not a lawyer and I don't play one on TV. I also know that I don't have all of the facts about the case. If I was this guy's lawyer knowing what I do know about the case there's really not a strong defense you can come up with. The initial shooting (when he shot the guy in the head) is 100% justified. He had a gun pointed at him. Allegedly he was being shot at. Either way, it's a clear case of self defense.
When he comes back in is obviously the sticky part. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the store owner's story is 100% factual. All indications are that it's not, but let's claim it is. He's minding his own business. Bad guys come in the store. One of them has a gun, one of them is unarmed. The guy who is armed shoots at the store owner. The store owner pulls a gun and fires back. He happens to hit the unarmed guy in the head. The unarmed guy crumples to the floor. The armed guy runs out of the store and the store owner goes after him. Now, at this point, no one has any real objections to the store owner's actions. Seems completely justified. He probably shouldn't have chased the armed man, but it's the heat of the moment. It's understandable.
Then the store owner re-enters the store. He has two female employees in there. He wants to check on them to make sure they're ok. They may have been hit in the shooting, who knows. Perfectly understandable. He walks right by the guy who is on the ground. Now, according to the store owner's story, this guy who had been shot in the head is now moving and starting to get up. So the owner walks around the counter, grabs a gun and shoots the guy 5 more times in the abdomen. Obviously the guy was not moving very quickly if he was still on the ground when the owner shot him.
Even if that story is 100% factual, you can't justify self defense. This is an unarmed, wounded man on the ground and he shot five times at point blank range. A self-defense argument would have to argue that there was an immediate threat to this man's life or other's. It's hard to argue that your life is threatened by an unarmed man who's been shot in the head and is on the ground, even if he is trying to get up. Manslaughter would mean arguing that there was no intent to kill this kid. That's very hard to argue when the store owner shot him five times. This is a former Air Force Colonel. Can you really argue that an ex-soldier had no idea that shooting someone in the abdomen five times at point blank range would kill them? Can you really argue that he was trying to disable the guy? I don't think so.
pharm came back in and grabbed another gun, in lieu of reloading, and went to check on perp he shot initially, when he confronted perp, he was actively trying to harm the pharm even in his wounded state...pharm shot perp again, and neutralized him. how can that be murder?
Our state, Mississippi, we do not have to retreat from any threat if we are in said location legally. Be it our homes, work or anywhere .We have the right to self defense of our lives and or property and use of deadly force is authorized.
The castle law gives law abiding citizens much more room to defend life and property. without the last part of the incident on video it's the pharms word against forensics.
Our state, Mississippi, we do not have to retreat from any threat if we are in said location legally. Be it our homes, work or anywhere .We have the right to self defense of our lives and or property and use of deadly force is authorized.
The castle law gives law abiding citizens much more room to defend life and property. without the last part of the incident on video it's the pharms word against forensics.
A.Nonymous
Extreme Android User
What do you have to back up this statement? The prosecution claims the shot to the head would've rendered the bad guy unconscious. He was shot five times in the abdomen while he was laying on his back.
I am guessing he has the claim of the pharmacist or the pharmacist's lawyer, which has the same weight as the claim of the DA. At that point it becomes a war of experts. One expert says that the head shot would've rendered the guy unconscious and unable to move. The other expert claims that that is not a certainty and the guy could have been conscious, which is enough for reasonable doubt. That is what is called "a question of fact" which a jury is supposed to decide.
Knewz
Android Expert
So he was on his back, wounded, unarmed, and still able to initiate deadly harm to the trigger happy pharm. What was he firing energy balls at him? Maybe throwing sharpened Doritos?
But in all seriousness, there is no way anyone can justify 5 shots at point blank with the intent to "neutralize".
D
Dark Jedi
Guest
Just because he could of been conscious doesn't mean that he was a threat to the pharmacist. Anyone with severe head injuries isn't going to be doing much of nothing in their state. Look at that congress woman that was shot in the head. Did she get up an run away or did she lay there bleeding?
The guy turned in to a murder when he shot 5 times. If you want to keep someone from moving around easy you shoot like in the leg of arm. Shooting someone in the gut and more than likely they will die. With 5 shots he wanted the guy dead.
The guy turned in to a murder when he shot 5 times. If you want to keep someone from moving around easy you shoot like in the leg of arm. Shooting someone in the gut and more than likely they will die. With 5 shots he wanted the guy dead.
That is one of the reasons if you chose to carry a firearm, you need to get training and practice. While you goal (and hope) is that you never have to use your firearm, if you ever have to use it, it should be executing a well thought out plan rather than a make it up as you go situation. The decision to chase or not chase an attacker out of the building should have been planned out long in advance.
Heading out the door was tactical mistake #1 for the pharmacist and most probably created an impression of him as going after his attackers, rather than merely defending against them.
We know now that it was an unarmed wounded man, but at that point in time the pharmacist did not know either to be the case. Police shoot at unarmed people all the time because something like a wallet or cell phone can look like a firearm in the split second required to make the decision. Even a "furtive gesture" can be enough to justify opening fire when nothing resembling a firearm is actually visible. A vast majority of shootings even by trained police officers result in the entire magazine being emptied. So none of the factors you cite are all that persuasive if weighted without the benefit of hindsight.
It was the decision to chase the first guy and then approach the second guy in the first place that doomed the pharmacist. I suspect there are other factors as well, such as modifications to the firearms, incorrect or misleading statements to the police or public statements that only made things worse for him.
Again, I have not had the time to research this in detail. I am typing all of this while I am on hold.
A.Nonymous
Extreme Android User
The guy still shot a guy five times while he was laying on the ground. Assuming he was conscious, how do you justify that he was any sort of threat? And even if he was a threat, how do you argue that the threat he posed was an immediate threat to your life or the life of others? The guy was laying on the ground with a gunshot wound to his head.
Supposedly this guy was/is a former air force colonel. He would've likely had more firearms training than the average schmuck.
Fair enough. Let's say the pharmacist did think the guy was armed. The guy was still on the ground, on the other side of the counter with some sort of bullet wound to his head. The pharmacist would've seen this once when he walked by him and would've seen this again when he approached him the second time. What gesture from a wounded man laying on the floor would be considered threatening? If such a gesture was made when the pharmacist walked back into the store, then he was easily able to remove himself from himself from the threat. We saw that when he walked away from the guy and walked behind the counter. At that point, the threat has gone away. He can't see any gesture the guy is making as the guy is on the other side of the counter on the floor.
murdered. pre-meditated with malice aforethought.
as i stated before. trust me, we have picked this apart on many firearm and self defense sites that i visit. all of them with memebers that are lawyers. most with access to the details of the case mentioned. we pretty much all come to the conclusion that he murdered the individual pre-meditated and with malice aforethought.
but never let your opinions or what-if scenarios get mixed up with documented case material.
as i stated before. trust me, we have picked this apart on many firearm and self defense sites that i visit. all of them with memebers that are lawyers. most with access to the details of the case mentioned. we pretty much all come to the conclusion that he murdered the individual pre-meditated and with malice aforethought.
but never let your opinions or what-if scenarios get mixed up with documented case material.
D
Dark Jedi
Guest
This is very true we can do a million what if scenarios till we are blue in the face. If the pharmacist thought he was a possible threat? Then he could of had the gun pointed at the kid and stayed there till the cops came and handcuffed him and took him away. Ever thought of that scenario 55pilot? He was an air force col. So he had the training to take cover. The facts like batgeek stated is right to judge evidence at hand not what if stuff.
Every firearms class I have ever taken, there is a list of "do not do these dumb things". Number 1 on the list is always "Do not chase after the bad guys" followed at some point with "do not approach a fallen bad guy to check up on them, disarm them or render aid" and "do not try and hold them at gun point because you are either going to get spooked and shoot them or going to get shot by them"
It is easy to do Monday morning quarterbacking and being an expert with no qualifications. Until you have been in a really stressful situation, you do not appreciate how your mind and body reacts and you are not going to be able to do certain things unless you have had a lot of practice. I see pilots getting killed all the time doing exactly that. They make unrealistic plans for dealing with an emergency, not appreciating how their faculties are likely to fail them when the need to execute those plans in a real life or death situation.
Can you cite the source for his veteran status? Assuming that info is accurate, can you cite a source for the type of training he received? Here's a hint: If he was an airforce pharmacist, part of the medical corps, it is unlikely he got any firearms training.
I had a friend in college that went on to join the army after she finished med school. I talked to he at the 5th reunion (1 year into her military career) and she said that her entire military training lasted a few weeks and consisted of military protocol, how to salute, who to salute and how to properly wear a uniform. She had never touched a firearm and did not need to because she was a pediatrician. If this guy was in the medical corps in the airforce, especially in the reserves, he may not have any more official training than that.
To be clear, what we are doing here is what-if scenarios. What else could have happened? How else could things have gone down?
The jury has already looked at all the evidence, which we do not have access to, and decided that it was murder, which appears to be the case based on the info in the readily available public domain.
you forgot the most important one:
don't go get another firearm and execute the individual.
- Status