[Joe 6-pack]

"I suspect the verdict would have been innocent if Jerome had not executed the man on the floor and he died from the wounds inflicted by Jerome defending himself."

Had he merely defended himself, there would have been no verdict as this never would have been prosecuted. Even the prosecutor openly acknowledged that the first round to the head was a non-issue.

[IamCenny]

Exactly, Jerome did in fact commit murder, he hasn’t been sentenced yet, I don’t think he’ll get life.

[MHGinTN]

What the pharmacist grabbed first looks like a 'Judge' possibly loaded with .410 shot, so it is hard to say how much damage the head got with the shot. Could have been nothing penetrating the skull. The impact might have knocked the punk out while the pharmacist walked past him TWICE exposing his back to the downed perp TWICE, the first time running to get a shot at the fleeing perp, the second time in a walk back to get the second gun. I keep trying to get folks to see that for what it means, but, alas ...

[ansel12]

I would like to see someone start a thread on this that would be more real, and more fun.

Something related to my take on this robbers, meet murderer event.

What is so difficult about looking at an entire event and seeing the actions of all parties, why treat it as if we have to take a side of one of the bad guys, why not just accept that it was a freak case of robbers trying to rob a Walter Mitty psychopath.

I find the coincidence of these characters all meeting up as the amusing aspect of this.

Can you imagine the two adults that got a life sentence for murder having to explain their conviction for the rest of their lives to the other cons? “Well, we was robbin the place and got away, but the white druggist murdered one of my boys in cold blood while he was unconscious, and because the white man got convicted, they convicted me too”.