Cool, I thought I was the only one who recognised this and I didn't want to bringing it up if I was wrong.Dags90 said:
OT: Old news, he went way too far.
Oklahoma pharmacist sentenced to life for killing would-be robber
- Thread starter rancher of monsters
- Start date
Recommended Videos
OT: Old news, he went way too far.
So how long must a man arbitrarily wait before it's no longer okay to shoot him?Dense_Electric said:
If the kid was lying there for 20 minutes doing nothing, and then the guy shot him to death is that okay? Obviously not.
What about 10 minutes? Obviously not.
5 minutes? Obviously not.
2 minutes? It's a long time, especially with adrenaline.
It seems blatantly obvious to me that self-defence does not extend into "he had it coming". Self defence is not vigilantism.
Wow. That incident seems like it was lifted word-for-word from Albert Camus' The Outsider. Am I the only one seeing that?
I have the feeling I would have done the same thing.
The sentence is a bit too harsh. It's probably that I'm not from the US, but were I live you'd get 'MAYBE' 15 years for murder. Often being released after 10 years. Then again I have the feeling your jails are more meant for punishment then rehabilitation.
The sentence is a bit too harsh. It's probably that I'm not from the US, but were I live you'd get 'MAYBE' 15 years for murder. Often being released after 10 years. Then again I have the feeling your jails are more meant for punishment then rehabilitation.
The robbers were breaking the law, they should not get a second chance. For they would not give him any.
This man took justice in his own hands, while a broken court system judges him guilty.
I am not for a world where all people taking actions in their own hands. But I applaud when someone does the right thing, despite the consequences.
I wonder what got through his head as he shot the man.
Most likely the thought that, when he wakes up, they will take out revenge on him or is family or co-workers. Killing him off would show that he would not be scared to take action against them.
People like that only fear other people that fight back.
I hope he get a re-trail and get a much lower sentence or is let go completely.
This man took justice in his own hands, while a broken court system judges him guilty.
I am not for a world where all people taking actions in their own hands. But I applaud when someone does the right thing, despite the consequences.
I wonder what got through his head as he shot the man.
Most likely the thought that, when he wakes up, they will take out revenge on him or is family or co-workers. Killing him off would show that he would not be scared to take action against them.
People like that only fear other people that fight back.
I hope he get a re-trail and get a much lower sentence or is let go completely.
It's just Darwinian evolution taking its course. The idiots in the world will be idiots and get themselves killed thus removing their useless traits from the gene-pool.
I sincerely doubt that the headshot was intentional. There's a reason why almost every shooting school of thought trains all but the absolute elite, to shoot at the upper torso, if you miss a bit wide you'll still probably hit them. Under the stress of the situation and given his stance, which indicates an older range training, my guess is he simply didn't take the time to properly align the sights, and the shot went high.CobraX said:
Off topic, I'm surprised Mod Wrath hasn't been handed down on those who contributed the exact same opinion.
On topic, The pharmacist has a back brace, and still shot the robber in less than minute (46 seconds) after he had originally shot him. Given that he went and got a different gun, that generally means that something is wrong with the first one, so simply switching weapons probably would have tacked on at least 10 seconds. Given that the coroner stated that the first bullet did not kill Antwun, how is the Escapist so sure that he didn't twitch? While I agree that he didn't pose a threat any longer, I'm also comfortably sitting in front of a computer.
Finally the fact that the jury recommended life is unbelievable, considering there a murderers who do only a few years. Or even worse, Mary Winkler who shot her sleeping husband and was only sentenced to 210 days, 60 of which were spent in a mental health facility.
If he killed him with the first shot, then its self-defence.
If the guy bled out after the first shot, then its self-defence.
If the robber got up and was about to shoot Ersland, then its self-defence.
This situation of double-tapping the robber, is definitely murder.
He should have called the cops to deal with the guy he shot, not finished him off.
Rot in jail douchebag.
If the guy bled out after the first shot, then its self-defence.
If the robber got up and was about to shoot Ersland, then its self-defence.
This situation of double-tapping the robber, is definitely murder.
He should have called the cops to deal with the guy he shot, not finished him off.
Rot in jail douchebag.
While i think the guy is guilty a life sentence is more that a bit much. He overstepped the line but the shit would have probably robbed other places if he found he could get away with it. At the end of the day, he's just a guy protecting his property and business
"One Lowlife killing another makes our job easier" - L.A. Noire
"One Lowlife killing another makes our job easier" - L.A. Noire
I was not debating the fact that he would be found guilt. I was merely stating that most of you, luckily, have never been in that sort of situation. You don't know what you're capable of until you find yourself in that situation.
I agree, the man on the floor posed no threat, but his adrenaline was probably pumping, he in no doubt was caught up in the moment.
Given that his first shot was a headshot, I think there is a distinct possibly he would have died anyway. Not that this is the point I'm trying to make.
The rules on self defense are funny. You can defend yourself, but then there's excessive force. Also, if you've had any training, martial arts or military, then you can be viewed in a different light for defending yourself lethally.
I see you focusing on the fact that he grabbed a gun, loaded it and emptied the contents of the gun. Does it make a difference if it took 5 minutes to load the gun before he fired it or only 12 seconds? If it was a shorter time, maybe he has had training with firearms making his decision a lot less rash than it appears.
There are just too many factors and too many details I do not have to make a full argument against this ruling.
I agree, the man on the floor posed no threat, but his adrenaline was probably pumping, he in no doubt was caught up in the moment.
Given that his first shot was a headshot, I think there is a distinct possibly he would have died anyway. Not that this is the point I'm trying to make.
The rules on self defense are funny. You can defend yourself, but then there's excessive force. Also, if you've had any training, martial arts or military, then you can be viewed in a different light for defending yourself lethally.
I see you focusing on the fact that he grabbed a gun, loaded it and emptied the contents of the gun. Does it make a difference if it took 5 minutes to load the gun before he fired it or only 12 seconds? If it was a shorter time, maybe he has had training with firearms making his decision a lot less rash than it appears.
There are just too many factors and too many details I do not have to make a full argument against this ruling.
I'm aware of the historian's fallacy, but for the justice sytem to work we still have to come to certain conclusions with the information we have. In which case, I ask you what possible threat was Parker posing when Ersland turned his back to him, grabbed a second gun, loaded it, and unloaded it into a wounded man and was the threat significant enough to warrant five bullets? If you can not think of a threat then logically you would have to say that he is guilty of murder.[/quote]warprincenataku said:
I can easily understand why the pharmacist would have shot the robber when he was about the either attack the pharmacist or rob him. I don't see why he would need to shoot an unconcious person however, it's not like they were going to just get back up and start attacking again. Still I can see how you could end up doing such a thing "in the heat of the moment" as they say. Temporary insanity would make sense here as a plea.
People have survived being shot in the head before. We don't know the whole story, the bullet could have just grazed his skull, which would only have knocked him cold. There have even been stories where people have survived a bullet that pierced the skull, I guess it just missed parts of the brain that are vital for the body to function. There was an assassination attempt on some American politician earlier this year where a bunch of bystanders were shot and she took a bullet to the head, but survived it. I never heard if she recovered though, or died some time later in hospital.gamezombieghgh said:
This pharmacist though, if he was crazy enough to overkill the kid that badly, I wouldn't be surprised if he was crazy enough to try and take out any witnesses he saw watching at the time. Give him life.
The first shot was all good, however the pharmacist really should have stopped after the guy was on the ground.
Life in prison sounds pretty harsh in this case though. Sure, the robber was defenseless on the ground...but he just tried to rob the pharmacists store. I would be pretty pissed if someone came into my work and tried to mess my shit up.
I don't know, maybe I'm crazy, but 25 years, less with good behavior and mandatory counselling just sounds a lot more reasonable than life in prison.
Life in prison sounds pretty harsh in this case though. Sure, the robber was defenseless on the ground...but he just tried to rob the pharmacists store. I would be pretty pissed if someone came into my work and tried to mess my shit up.
I don't know, maybe I'm crazy, but 25 years, less with good behavior and mandatory counselling just sounds a lot more reasonable than life in prison.
Wait, they tried to rob a pharmacy with what I assume was a knife and people say it's okay to shoot one of them in the head for that?
Good ceiling cat, you have an odd sense of defense.
If I tried that here I'd be convicted for attempted murder right away...
Seriously, a headshot is probably the quickest way to a lethal shot and if you don't know that you should never be able to have access to a firearm. And a gun vs knife situation should normally not justify a shot you damn well know can instantly kill.
Also, a signature petition to pardon the guy? Do people really think 20.000 signatures weigh more than the law? That's almost as ridiculous as the "don't put Charlie Sheen in jail" facebook group...
Good ceiling cat, you have an odd sense of defense.
If I tried that here I'd be convicted for attempted murder right away...
Seriously, a headshot is probably the quickest way to a lethal shot and if you don't know that you should never be able to have access to a firearm. And a gun vs knife situation should normally not justify a shot you damn well know can instantly kill.
Also, a signature petition to pardon the guy? Do people really think 20.000 signatures weigh more than the law? That's almost as ridiculous as the "don't put Charlie Sheen in jail" facebook group...
Killing a armed robber is self defense: Perfectly justified.
Shooting an unconscious robber five times in the chest: Murder.
Shooting an unconscious robber five times in the chest: Murder.
I never thought you were. I was just explaining that the kid could indeed have survived the first shot. He'd have to be very lucky- or not, as the case may be- but he could survive it.gamezombieghgh said:
So, did Gabrielle Giffords recover?