Armed robbery is one twitchy finger away from first degree murder. We aren't talking about a pickpocket here.Chronamut said:
Oklahoma pharmacist sentenced to life for killing would-be robber
- Thread starter rancher of monsters
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Don't want to get shot by an angry pharmacist? Don't try to rob him. It's really hard to give a damn about thieves. At sixteen years old you are aware of the repercussions of your actions and should be prepared to suffer the consequences.
Do I think the pharmacist should have shot him five more times? No. Do I think he was in the wrong for doing so? Not terribly. Certainly not deserving of a life sentence.
Please stop trying to downplay the severity of their actions by calling armed robbery a "mistake".
Do I think the pharmacist should have shot him five more times? No. Do I think he was in the wrong for doing so? Not terribly. Certainly not deserving of a life sentence.
Please stop trying to downplay the severity of their actions by calling armed robbery a "mistake".
You say that if the pharmisist thought that the downed(?) robber was a threat, he wouldn't have turned his back on the kid.
Well, I hate to tell you this, but not all of us are Solid Snake. Not all of us have ever even been in the military. Not all of us have advanced tactical training, or any basic understanding of tactics at all. Most of us only watch movies about violence. Very fake and very fictional movies, I might add. Truth is, most of us are totally ignorant about a great many things, and we make idiot mistakes whenever we're presented with a completely unfamiliar situation, no matter how dire that situation is. Turning his back on an attacker in the middle of an engagement is the kind of stupid mistake that I would expect a total noob to make. I really doubt that the defendant in this case had EVER been faced with a situation like that before, and therefore he falls well within the "noob" category.
Just saying..
Well, I hate to tell you this, but not all of us are Solid Snake. Not all of us have ever even been in the military. Not all of us have advanced tactical training, or any basic understanding of tactics at all. Most of us only watch movies about violence. Very fake and very fictional movies, I might add. Truth is, most of us are totally ignorant about a great many things, and we make idiot mistakes whenever we're presented with a completely unfamiliar situation, no matter how dire that situation is. Turning his back on an attacker in the middle of an engagement is the kind of stupid mistake that I would expect a total noob to make. I really doubt that the defendant in this case had EVER been faced with a situation like that before, and therefore he falls well within the "noob" category.
Just saying..
shooting a robber isn't that bad but shooting him while he is incapacitated/unconscious is a whole other thing. (self-defense has the goal of incapacitating your target not killing it)
First shot = castle law (depending on the state, place of employment counts)
Execution = jail time, pretty straight forward. No rush, got a new gun, put new holes in robber
Sympathy for either of them = 0
Execution = jail time, pretty straight forward. No rush, got a new gun, put new holes in robber
Sympathy for either of them = 0
I love how everybody assumes that he was still alive when he was shot 5 times. He was shot IN THE HEAD! Now I dont know about you but its nigh impossible for people to survive after being SHOT IN THE HEAD!
Wait, he shot a dead body 5 times? If you don't send him to jail for murder send him there for defiling a corpse.
I somewhat agree and disagree on the first one. You're angry, just been through a fricking nightmare of a situation. Your adrenaline is still on high, and you're nervous because for all you know that punk is going to come back with another gun, or another friend, and they'll try it again.razer17 said:
in that situation, you're very high sprung, and there's a lot of different ways to relieve that tension. He chose a horrifically bad way to do so. But at the same time, if we were in his shoes, would we have done differently? Its easy to say here "I'd *NEVER* do something like that." but saying that, and being there, are two different things.
There is no such thing as a sure 'non-lethal shooting area'. Thing about the human body, its full of blood, nerves, bone, and all sorts of important bits. There is no such thing as a 'flesh wound'. If you're hurt, you've been hurt. The safest place to be shot, is right in the butt. That's because its mostly fat and tissue there, not proper muscle, and there's a lot of it between the outside and a major blood vessel or a nerve.razer17 said:
Frankly its a miracle he got a headshot, as panicky and how fast he probably drew the gun. There's a reason Police are always taught to aim for the center of mass. Less likely to miss, and hit a pedestrian, or another policeman, or some other innocent.
depends on the caliber of bullet. Smaller bullet size might even have just knocked him down hard, it does take a good bit of force to penetrate the human skull. .22 would probably make a hole but stop at the skull. .45 or a 9mm though, that would likely penetrate the skull. Even then, people have survived being shot in the head with skull penetration before.GreyKnight3445 said:
Someone actually had a bullet fired at the center of their forehead, tumble and ricochet inside the skin, around to the back side of the person's skull, and out the back, making it look like it was a perfect headshot. The person came out of it just fine. just a few scars around their head.
As for assuming he is still alive, well, we can't assume he's dead either. Like I said, depending on the caliber of the weapon, and the area where it was hit, he could have been alive, and perfectly savable. Even then, there are only a few spots that will result in almost instant death. Most of them are in the position that you need to shove the barrel of the gun up against the roof of your mouth to do it.
I'll bro-hoof to that. You actually just took the words right out of my mouth.Dense_Electric said:
Wait, the kid was merely unconscious after being shot in the head. Doesn't that normally kill people fairly quickly.
"Confronted by two holdup men, Ersland pulled a gun, shot one of them in the head and chased the other away. Then, in a scene recorded by the drugstore's security camera, he went behind the counter, got another gun, and pumped five more bullets into Parker as he lay on the floor unconscious.
At the trial, prosecutors argued that Ersland crossed into the wrong when he shot the unarmed and unconscious Parker five more times."
Ok, first off there is no reason for you shot him in the head unless he has a gun. Is it that difficult to aim your gun a bit lower and shoot him in the arm or stomach instead? Secondly You do not shoot a unarmed and unconscious man, no matter what. I don't care if he killed everyone you've ever known - You don't do that. That being said "Murder" is a bit iffy....maybe "Manslaughter".
At the trial, prosecutors argued that Ersland crossed into the wrong when he shot the unarmed and unconscious Parker five more times."
Ok, first off there is no reason for you shot him in the head unless he has a gun. Is it that difficult to aim your gun a bit lower and shoot him in the arm or stomach instead? Secondly You do not shoot a unarmed and unconscious man, no matter what. I don't care if he killed everyone you've ever known - You don't do that. That being said "Murder" is a bit iffy....maybe "Manslaughter".
Like many others here I'd say that life in prison was maybe a bit too harsh. Yeah, the act speaks to some kind of inner rage when the guy had the presence of mind to get another gun and shoot a probably unconcious kid five more times. He might have some anger management issues, or maybe even a budding sociopath. But then again maybe it was a temporary bloodlust that drawing blood sometimes brings out in people. Since it's impossible to prove if he just lost himself in the moment and wanted to sate his bloodlust, or he's a Ted Bundy waiting to happen, he should have gotten a lighter sentence.
That said, his lawyer was obviously an idiot not to plead temporary insanity. Seriously, seems like an obvious error to me, unless the judge blocked that plea from being entered.
That said, his lawyer was obviously an idiot not to plead temporary insanity. Seriously, seems like an obvious error to me, unless the judge blocked that plea from being entered.
The problem here lies with this man putting the law into his own hands. This man went from a defender to judge, jury and executioner. In western societies, generally we've sacrificed our freedom for safety, and thus the law takes over. It's better than in Britain, where you have to assume the foetal position until the criminal stops stabbing you and wait for the police to stroll on by.
Guilty. First shot sure, self defense, defending his coworkers. Coming back and shooting five more times? No. Even if the kid was still "a threat" (alive) take away his gun or something and call the police. He was shot in the head, you don't exactly stand back up and continue your poorly planned robbery after that happens.
The first shot was self defence, the other 5(?) were pointless murder. So I think it's legit. He could have just taken the gun from the wounded guy.
I can understand his motive though, I probably would have done so too. But still, guilty. Though life in prison is perhaps a bit too much.
I can understand his motive though, I probably would have done so too. But still, guilty. Though life in prison is perhaps a bit too much.