Vigilante Killing?

[Menelik]

He probably shouldn't have put those extra rounds in the perp but I can only imagine his state of mind. Having said that I think that he will get off. 1st degree murder is way too harsh of a charge. At the most it should have been involuntary manslaughter imho. What do you guys think?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31003987/

 

[The Hock]

I think in Thuggery 101 they teach you to put your ski mask on before the robbery.

The pharmacist will probably be convicted of something, although maybe not 1st degree.

 

[StarWars]

I do not think he was justified in any additional shots after the one to the head. The charge should be murder because he was not dead when the pharmacist shot him, and posed no threat. And if he was a veteran of war shouldn't he be able to deal with adrenaline better? I'd have to see the tape to decide but it went down the way the media is describing it then I would have no problem with the pharmacist being convicted of murder.

On a different not I heard a late term abortion doctor was killed by a vigilante recently. In that case I am actually somewhat pleased that the abortion doctor is dead.

I believe in self defense over all else. But I think murder is unforgivable. Would the robber have any problem with murdering the clerk? I think not, but we will never know. All we know is that thhe pharmacist shot an unarmed man. That does not sound like the fairness a white man should possess. I also hate abortion. Seriously, with people adopting kids from Africa, why kill a US baby? Especially like the late term abortion doctor.

 

[jaxvid]

I do not think he was justified in any additional shots after the one to the head. The charge should be murder because he was not dead when the pharmacist shot him, and posed no threat. And if he was a veteran of war shouldn't he be able to deal with adrenaline better? I'd have to see the tape to decide but it went down the way the media is describing it then I would have no problem with the pharmacist being convicted of murder.

Ridiculous!!!! When your life is threatened you react, the person threatening you deserves what they get. No rational response can be expected by a man who believes his life is in danger. How many movies show the antaganist dead then suddenly come to life and attack again.

At any rate a murder charge is insane. It is easy to sit at a keyboard and imagine how one should react but when the blood is rushing to your head, your blood pressure is up 100 points, your adrenaline has upped your heartbeat to 200, and you are shaking like a rattle it's a different story.

 

[StarWars]

I guess I agree that the charge should not be MURDER. But MANSLAUGHTER would be more appropriate. I guess a little part of me puts myself in both the shoes of the crook and the clerk. I know for a fact that I would have the guts and composure to be able to react rationally. I guess you have a point that it may be too much to ask for of a pharmacist, because we all react differently. I actually know a marine that had killed a girl by accident. It scared him and my bet is the pharmacist feels a little of that. But from talking to that marine I know he would never should an unarmed man unless that man killed or hurt a friend of his. The reaction to shoot someone who is no longer a threat seems gutless and I know a marine that feels horrible about an accident, let alone a conscious decision to kill. This reaction to kill seems like that of a woman or a ghetto thug.

 

[jaxvid]

I guess I agree that the charge should not be MURDER. But MANSLAUGHTER would be more appropriate. I guess a little part of me puts myself in both the shoes of the crook and the clerk. I know for a fact that I would have the guts and composure to be able to react rationally. I guess you have a point that it may be too much to ask for of a pharmacist, because we all react differently. I actually know a marine that had killed a girl by accident. It scared him and my bet is the pharmacist feels a little of that. But from talking to that marine I know he would never should an unarmed man unless that man killed or hurt a friend of his. The reaction to shoot someone who is no longer a threat seems gutless and I know a marine that feels horrible about an accident, let alone a conscious decision to kill. This reaction to kill seems like that of a woman or a ghetto thug.

I'm curious, how do you know "for a fact" that is how you would react? Have you been in a similar situation and reacted with guts and composure?

It is not unusual to kill someone who is no longer a threat because it is impossible to know that for sure. In self defense classes they teach you to shoot until the clip is empty because a wounded attacker is even more dangerous.

And yes you feel horrible after you kill someone, if you are a normal human, justified or not, it's not unusual to puke your guts out and feel sicker then you ever felt before, it's the adrenaline hangover.

 

[StarWars]

You make a good point about a wounded man being more dangerous. To me, shooting in the stomache seemed beyond self defense because disarming if possible or disabling (by shooting the limbs) would be more appropriate. But as far as legality you make a good case for this being legal. Maybe I wouldn't react the way I'd like to. Still, if I ever met this guy I would be disgusted with him unless he had a good excuse. Just as I amdisgusted with abortion.

I remember that in texas there was a guy who shot and killed a theif. To me that is just unneccessary because there is no self ddefens in question at all. Here is the link; what are your thoughts?

[tube]RPuM_XAo2BE [/tube]

 

[jaxvid]

I take my view on this issue from one who was better equipped to analyze it: John Locke

And thus it is that every man in the state of Nature has a power to kill a murderer, both to deter others from doing the like injury (which no reparation can compensate) by the example of the punishment that attends it from everybody, and also to secure men from the attempts of a criminal who, having renounced reason, the common rule and measure God hath given to mankind, hath, by the unjust violence and slaughter he hath committed upon one, declared war against all mankind, and therefore may be destroyed as a lion or a tiger, one of those wild savage beasts with whom men can have no society nor security. And upon this is grounded that great law of nature, "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed." And Cain was so fully convinced that every one had a right to destroy such a criminal, that, after the murder of his brother, he cries out, "Every one that findeth me shall slay me," so plain was it writ in the hearts of all mankind.

This makes it lawful for a man to kill a thief who has not in the least hurt him, nor declared any design upon his life, any farther than by the use of force, so to get him in his power as to take away his money, or what he pleases, from him; because using force, where he has no right to get me into his power, let his pretence be what it will, I have no reason to suppose that he who would take away my liberty would not, when he had me in his power, take away everything else. And, therefore, it is lawful for me to treat him as one who has put himself into a state of war with me -- i.e., kill him if I can; for to that hazard does he justly expose himself whoever introduces a state of war, and is aggressor in it.

 

[StarWars]

Yes, but where do you draw the line? When somebody wants to take posessions such as land, money or family then of course killing is a right. But for smaller things and when murder is not necessary I don't think we have the right to kill. I think all humans have the right to make mistakes as well. Some of us have a line that is drawn different from others, though.

 

[jaxvid]

Yes, but where do you draw the line? When somebody wants to take posessions such as land, money or family then of course killing is a right. But for smaller things and when murder is not necessary I don't think we have the right to kill. I think all humans have the right to make mistakes as well. Some of us have a line that is drawn different from others, though.

It's not the size of the property but the method of stealing, armed robbery of anything deserves lethal response, if a person is willing to threaten your life then you have the right to take theirs first. If someone puts a gun in your back to steal a paper clip from you then you have the same right to use lethal force as if it was your wallet.

more Locke:
And here we have the plain difference between the state of nature and the state of war, which however some men have confounded, are as far distant, as a state of peace, good will, mutual assistance and preservation, and a state of enmity, malice, violence and mutual destruction, are one from another.

Men living together according to reason, without a common superior on earth, with authority to judge between them, is properly the state of nature. But force, or a declared design of force, upon the person of another, where there is no common superior on earth to appeal to for relief, is the state of war: and it is the want of such an appeal gives a man the right of war even against an aggressor, tho' he be in society and a fellow subject.

Thus a thief, whom I cannot harm, but by appeal to the law, for having stolen all that I am worth, I may kill, when he sets on me to rob me but of my horse or coat; because the law, which was made for my preservation, where it cannot interpose to secure my life from present force, which, if lost, is capable of no reparation, permits me my own defence, and the right of war, a liberty to kill the aggressor, because the aggressor allows not time to appeal to our common judge, nor the decision of the law, for remedy in a case where the mischief may be irreparable. Want of a common judge with authority, puts all men in a state of nature: force without right, upon a man's person, makes a state of war, both where there is, and is not, a common judge.

 

[StarWars]

Agreed. But what about the man in the video who went out of his way to protect someone's property that is not his own? His life was never in danger. A car on the other hand being stolen I would agree with force.

I don't know much about guns but is it really that hard to just aim for the legs, arms, or other means of non-lethal disabling? If the aggressor also has a gun I would fire first and not care what I hit. But if someone robbed me of a prized possesion and had a knife or looked stronger than me I would shoot for the limbs.

As for legality. I would say that you can shoot someone who is a theif if you warn them under any circumstance, and shoot them at will if tthey seemed like a threat to your life at all. I would try disarming cautiously or disabling first though.

But shooting a theif without warning to me is not right. As for the pharmacist I understand your view that an injured man is still very if not more dangerous.

 

[The Hock]

I take my view on this issue from one who was better equipped to analyze it: John Locke

And, therefore, it is lawful for me to treat him as one who has put himself into a state of war with me -- i.e., kill him if I can; for to that hazard does he justly expose himself whoever introduces a state of war, and is aggressor in it.

I think that just about sums it up. Regardless of how this case turns out, in the bigger picture we are sliding into a state of war.

 

[jaxvid]

I don't know much about guns but is it really that hard to just aim for the legs, arms, or other means of non-lethal disabling?

It's impossible. It takes a fraction of a second for a person to be upon you from a few feet away, even well trained people such as policman have less then 25% accuracy rate at 7 feet (that's point blank range!) if you miss and they take away your gun they are not going to shoot to wound you. You are dead. If you take your gun out you better be ready to use it, if you use it you better shoot to kill. There is no such thing as a disabling shot, that's a Hollywierd fantasy concept.

But shooting a theif without warning to me is not right.

Giving someone a warning that you are going to shoot them is another way of saying "here I am shoot me first" it's a dumb idea and another Hollyweird fantasy.

 

[Menelik]

I don't know much about guns but is it really that hard to just aim for the legs, arms, or other means of non-lethal disabling?

It's impossible. It takes a fraction of a second for a person to be upon you from a few feet away, even well trained people such as policman have less then 25% accuracy rate at 7 feet (that's point blank range!) if you miss and they take away your gun they are not going to shoot to wound you. You are dead. If you take your gun out you better be ready to use it, if you use it you better shoot to kill. There is no such thing as a disabling shot, that's a Hollywierd fantasy concept.

But shooting a theif without warning to me is not right.

Giving someone a warning that you are going to shoot them is another way of saying "here I am shoot me first" it's a dumb idea and another Hollyweird fantasy.

Agreed. My 20 years military, to include sniper school, and 5 years as a deputy, I never trained to take "limb" or "head" shots. I was trained to shoot center mass i.e. a chest shot.

 

[StarWars]

Ok, I'll take yor guys' word for it. Here are my revised rules of engagement:

Stolen Property Unarmed Criminal: Warining, then shoot if criminal persists.

Stolen Property Armed Criminal: Shoot to kill immediately without hesitation.

Any dangerous situation: shoot to kill.

So I guess the onlt thing I see as unjustified is the youtube vid I posted.

 

[Jimmy Chitwood]

Ok, I'll take yor guys' word for it. Here are my revised rules of engagement:

Stolen Property Unarmed Criminal: Warining, then shoot if criminal persists.

Stolen Property Armed Criminal: Shoot to kill immediately without hesitation.

Any dangerous situation: shoot to kill.

So I guess the onlt thing I see as unjustified is the youtube vid I posted.

StarWars, it takes a big man to admit it when he was wrong. i am impressed with your maturity, sir.

additionally, i would submit to our fellow posters that StarWars is quite exceptional in another way. if i'm not mistaken he is from California, and despite his youth he has seen through many of the lies that American epicenter of socialism and multi-culturalism has to offer. mayhap we should take that into consideration when we point things out to him. i grew up in a southern state and was in collegebefore i finallyadmitted that myfather, who told me the way things were, was right. StarWars is exposed daily to nothing but lies, yet he has seen through much of the bullcrap already.

just my two cents.

 

[waterbed]

nice to see you back Jimmy Chitwood