>> These thugs shouldn’t have been waiving a gun and threatening innocents to begin with.
Well, that is the obvious trigger that caused the problem. Had those two assholes stayed home that evening this man would still be freely filling prescriptions today.
It’s idiotic to accuse a man of murder for responding to a threat on his life. The only premeditation that existed in this case was in the hands of the robbers.
Exactly right! The choice was in the hands of the robbers who chose to go out and commit a crime. The response to their plans by anyone and in anyway should not be litigated. Their choice sealed their own fate.
You need to watch the video. He responded appropriately at the beginning. He fired and hit kid #1, and kid #2 scattered. That was entirely appropriate. He responded to the threat to his and his coworkers' lives. That does not give him carte blanche do stalk and shoot everyone he dislikes over the next 30-60 seconds. Everything he did after he walked back into the store (and before he called the police) was wrong, THAT is what he is being punished for.
Had he just shot the first one, and left the store to see if the other kid was shot (and needed help), then came back in and called the police, I'd hail him as a hero as well. But I think he left the store hoping to shoot kid #2 outside (apparently no luck there), so he either vented his anger at a helpless person who was down and bleeding, or he just finished off a person because he wanted to see what it felt like, or he didn't want the kid to be able to testify later on... in any event, what he did after the first shot(s) was very, very wrong. He deserved to be punished for THAT part of it. The initial shot(s) were 100% appropriate. He was NOT being punished for those first moments of his response.
This is a case where criminals, tried to rob another criminal.
I can also appreciate ansel12's points on this matter and am weighing them carefully and seriously as I add a couple of additional items to consider.
1). The murder conviction was likely celebrated by the criminal thug community of predators. They're rather dim bulbs and don't see the nuances of what happened. In their minds, I'm sure there's now a certain amount of bravado coupled with renewed fearlessness instilled by the verdict.
2). Good citizens may now be a tad hesitant to protect themselves with deadly force. Even if the intruder is killed swiftly and no further bullets are pumped into the criminal, I think law-abiding people will unfortunately be less inclined to use deadly force even when fully justified. In that respect, I think the murder conviction of the pharmacist may have a chilling effect.
He turned his back to the kid on the floor at least twice in the 38+ seconds between his first shots and his final shots. The gentleman cannot say that he felt like was in any danger from that kid on the floor. In fact, the kid in the red shirt, who ran away, was the only kid I see with a gun at all. The kid in the white shirt was mostly hiding behind the kid in the red shirt. He may have had something in the backpack, but Mr Pharmacist cannot say that he was in imminent danger of real harm after turning his back on the kid twice, leaving the store, reloading, etc.
Exactly. He was just a law-abiding citizen going on about his business when these two thugs came in and turned his life upside down.