http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43710936/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/?GT1=43001
I just read this article.
Was justice served? You have to read the whole article, not just the headline.
That's a tuff one!
I think he did cross the line with the 5 extra shots, BUT I wasn't there and don't know how scared he was. I might have done the same in his shoes.
Life sentence sounds a little stiff, he was protecting himself and others to begin with.
As much as I hate to say it, he was no longer in a self-defense situation and could have chosen not to even go back in the store if he was worried about re-endangering himself.
If the kid had been rolling around and still had a weapon it's one thing.
In my mind, it's hard to justify reloading an additional 5 rounds only to discharge them into an unconscious, used-to-be hoodlum.
This gentleman was former military and contrary to some opinions in the opinions section below the article, law enforcement/military are trained to continue shooting until the threat is eliminated. They don't keep shooting when a suspect goes down and is unconscious.
I wholeheartedly agree that the kid got what he had coming to him but the man is guilty in my mind.
I'm also left wondering, if the initial shot had killed the kid or whether the wound was survivable?
I was going to say I don't give a damn how many times he shot a thief. But, after reading the entire article I have to side with the jury. There was no rhyme or reason to go back behind the counter, get ANOTHER gun and fire five more times into the guy when he's obviously out of the fight.
Sounds like a "temporary insanity" defense if ever there was one.
It's hard to believe, unless there were some extenuating circumstances that were presented at the trial, that the guy would have gotten a life sentence for this. When so many criminals seem to get off with what appear to be light sentences for real, hard crime, it is hard for me to reconcile a citizen getting a life sentence for shooting a criminal in the act.
I think he's guilty of something, I don't know what, since he did go back and get another gun and fire five more shots into a probally dead teenager. I do not believe he should of been convicted of first degree murder though.
He acted in self defense, but probably should have held off on the other five. I dont feel 1st degree murder is justified, but do feel some punishment is warranted. I have a Vietnam veteran father very close in age to this man and also two active duty military brother n laws. All of which had some form of PTSD and have seen combat missions. I have seen my father react to robbers before, he did not shoot anyone, but he went into survival mode. He cleared a 5 foot fence chasing them without touching it.....this was in his late forties. When i got there he was in another place, his eyes glazed over. I have also seen one of my brother n laws in a situation that put him in defense mode, and had the same glazed over eyes and super strength.
My point is that when faced with a fight or flight situation people act differently. This man could have had that same eyes glazed over ardenaline rush i have seen in my own family before. PTSD and Adrenaline rushes are REAL and it can make people do some crazy things. The video cuts off on me. Was the kid still moving or twitching?
Sad thing is. You watch enough news. Oklahoma is being over run with gang violence. Gangs are watching this verdict and will be emboldened to commit more crimes. If they would allow some "Wild West" self defense by common man, we wouldnt be dealing with thugs like this. I wish he would have shot them both dead. They worry about what to do with the men coming home.....I say classify gangs as domestic terrorists and turn the military loose.
Oh, and Im on his side.
Should not have been robbing the place dont care how many times he shot him.It was self defense, i wasnt there.The teenager might have been down on the ground but still trying something.Hes dead its the teens fault.
I suppose finishing off a wounded animal isn't a legitimate argument. Personally, I could care less about the trash that got killed. Sentencing the pharamacist to life I totally disagree with. Maybe manslaughter at the most.
Was the five shots excessive, sounds like it, but I am not him. Doesn't OK have a castle doctrine?? Either way, hat ds him in was pulling out another gun after he left the store. LEO are trained to pull until the threat stops, and rightfully so. If the teen was still moving, it is possible he still felt threatened. Should have been a lesser charge if any. One less scumbag robber....... Thanks to the pharmacist!!!
Antwun Parker decided to play a dangerous game and lost, it should all be on him! I side with the Pharmasist. You pull a gun and threaten me and my co-workers and there are no rules after that point as far as I'm concerned.
He should have found another gun and put all it had into him as well. He won't have to be looking over his shoulder waiting on him to get even some day. No justice was served here. jmop
when is the last time you guys shot a deer AFTER it had stopped moving AGAIN?
how bout a turkey that you hammered and it went straight down without flopping AGAIN? ever pump another round into it just "because?"
doubtful.
i know the contexts are not identical but the fact is, you have to consciously think about getting another gun with five rounds and then discharging them into another human being.
we've all had to decide whether or not to shoot an animal we thought was mortally wounded again based on OBSERVING its actions. These are examples of the decision making involved in all of these processes (shoot/don't shoot).
if you come into my house, you're getting lit up, but im not going to continue shooting into a motionless body. scum or no scum, that ain't right.
i wouldn't say the life sentence is either, but he definitely deserves a serious sentence, imho.
military, law enforcement and citizens are given the right to carry a gun and use it in defense of ourselves. we are NOT absolved of acting responsibly when choosing to employ deadly force.
I don't like thieves, but the guy went from self defense mode to trial, jury, and punishment mode. He did this because he was mad not because he felt threatened. He got what he deserved.
Im just saying
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1s4Tr7Ag9M&feature=related
It happened in Lord of the Rings.....my man may have seen a twitch.
Quote from: VaTuRkStOmPeR on July 11, 2011, 09:23:21 PM
when is the last time you guys shot a deer AFTER it had stopped moving AGAIN?
how bout a turkey that you hammered and it went straight down without flopping AGAIN? ever pump another round into it just "because?"
doubtful.
When was the last time you ate a robber? ;D
In all seriousness, deer and turkeys don't come into your place of business seeking to do you harm and threaten your livelihood. In a hunting situation, you go onto their turf with the intent of killing the game animal. This situation is COMPLETELY different and the same rules do not even apply. I have never been threatened at gunpoint of been faced with a situation where I thought my life was at stake. Although most people get an adrenaline rush out of hunting game, it is not the same rush as being threatened. In the hunting situation, you anticipate that rush and look forward to it. The emotions running are ones of excitement and pleasure. When faced with my life and livelihood being threatened, I suspect the emotions going along with the rush would include anger, fear, disbelief... how dare you come into my store and... yeah, a whole different set of emotions. The response may seem extreme as we sit in our comfy chairs with the biggest threat of harm being that of spilling our coffee on our laps. Given a situation where your adrenaline is through the roof - fight of flight- a situation where you can taste fear in your mouth... I don't know how I would react. I do know I would want to leave no chance for the assailant to get back up and threaten me again.
I hope he is pardoned. I don't buy the argument of one shot being enough. Lethal force is lethal force in my book. If he had hooked him up to the back bumper and drug him through the streets, it would be a different story. Making sure he wasn't going to get back up... self defense in my book.
Quote from: barry on July 11, 2011, 04:05:55 PM
That's a tuff one!
I think he did cross the line with the 5 extra shots, BUT I wasn't there and don't know how scared he was. I might have done the same in his shoes.
Life sentence sounds a little stiff, he was protecting himself and others to begin with.
Emptying that many supports true fear..
Quote from: VaTuRkStOmPeR on July 11, 2011, 09:23:21 PM
when is the last time you guys shot a deer AFTER it had stopped moving AGAIN?
how bout a turkey that you hammered and it went straight down without flopping AGAIN? ever pump another round into it just "because?"
doubtful.
i know the contexts are not identical but the fact is, you have to consciously think about getting another gun with five rounds and then discharging them into another human being.
we've all had to decide whether or not to shoot an animal we thought was mortally wounded again based on OBSERVING its actions. These are examples of the decision making involved in all of these processes (shoot/don't shoot).
if you come into my house, you're getting lit up, but im not going to continue shooting into a motionless body. scum or no scum, that ain't right.
i wouldn't say the life sentence is either, but he definitely deserves a serious sentence, imho.
military, law enforcement and citizens are given the right to carry a gun and use it in defense of ourselves. we are NOT absolved of acting responsibly when choosing to employ deadly force.
but he definitely deserves a serious sentence, ::) ::)
He dont deserve nothing he didnt ask for a robber thug to come in.
But that is your opinion though
And this is mine.
I'll weigh in now. I believe he deserves some punishment. Picking a new gun, 5 more rounds in a person who is lying on the ground and has been shot in the head is, IMHO, not fear, it is now rage. He didn't ask for this, and he acted honorably, until then.
He doesn't deserve life and First Degree.
You know, I wonder if those two sweet teenagers would have shot him 6 times, and possibly killed some of his customers, and then been caught, if they would have gotten life sentences?
I would bet NOT. Some bleeding heart organization would find some super slick civil rights defense attorney to come up with a poor kid, raised on the wrong side of the tracks, Daddy left when they were three, momma was a crack head, their only 16 and dont know right from wrong, lets cut a plea deal. Those two would have gotten 10 years, parole for 15, and be right back in society even more criminally minded doing the same thing, and 4 or 5 good honest hard working people would be dead and forgotten about. I dont want to hear about it only being a kid and not knowing right from wrong....that kid knows not to crap his pants everyday....whats the difference.
Sorry fellas, I would have shot the kid, dragged him out the door by his legs while shooting at his partner. The one that got away way, was probably drinking colt 45 at a drug house laughing with his buddies, and stealing a grandmas purse 3 hours later. I think the man had every right to be mad enough to shoot him again. It was wrong no doubt, but it looked to me like he was getting shot at first. I like living and if you tried to take my life, Id probably be mad enough to do a lot worse than just shoot you 5 times. This man was wrong, but the sentence isnt justified.
that was murder and he deserves to be in prison
It would be nice to know it the robber was killed with the first shot then all they should have charged him with was shooting a cadaver. The robber knew the risks going in to rob the store and we don't know the amount of stress and fear going trough the pharmacist's mind. Some people don't have the mental capacity to handle a stressful situation such as that and act panicked and irrational for quite some time after an ordeal such as this. Maybe give the guy 30 days in jail for mutilating a corpse or destroying evidence but that's it. I know if someone comes in to my house and puts me or my family in danger and I can get to my gun, I'm shooting until they are dead!
Here's the surveillance video: http://youtu.be/DSBBlEhmWNQ (http://youtu.be/DSBBlEhmWNQ)
The " HE NEEDED KILLING" defense used to be a valid premise back in the day in rural Mississippi. I say that is applicable here as well.