Posted on 05/28/2011 11:54:51 PM PDT by TigerClaws
Sounds like something that Olbermann would say. Now even O'Reilly and the others out to bring FR down can quote you.
I find that to be highly disturbing, in an entertaining fashion.
Interesting what entertains you.
“How was the pharmacist supposed to know that the robber was “unarmed” when he was “sounded and fell to the ground” — many robbers could pull out a gun from somewhere and shoot while he is lying down.”
Uh, I think you have to see the video, I think he walked over and shot the unmoving perp in the head at close range after hesitating a moment to look at him and mumble something. I think he convicted himself with the video and the bullet embedded in the floor after passing vertically through the perp’s brain.
Maybe if he had turned and shot the guy from several feet, he might have gotten away with it. Or if the perp was moving in some purposeful way prior to the shot.
Basically, the law says you have to quit shooting when the perp falls face down and quits shooting, which would have been easy for the kid because he was unarmed.
What would I have done? If they are moving then I am shooting. The kid wasn’t moving so I would have been chasing the fast mover. After all, this wasn’t Guadalcanal and the kid was not a zombie.
I really feel bad for the pharmacist and think he is a hero who suffered just an instant of bad judgement in front of a video camera he knew was there but forgot about.
You said - “The only scumbags in this entire incident are the ones who CHOSE TO COMMIT A CRIME AND ROB A PHARMACY!!!!”
I’m sorry, but in Oklahoma when you get a concealed weapons permit, you have to take educational and proficiency classes in order to get it. And in there, they tell you that this kind of thing that the pharmacist did was murder. They warn you about not violating the law - as we have a very strong “self-defense” ethic in Oklahoma. You’ve heard that you don’t mess with Texas, well, you haven’t heard that with Oklahoma because they just don’t bother telling you about it before you’re shot here ... LOL ...
But, what they are very clear about in Oklahoma, is that you don’t go chasing down someone with a gun, after the fact, and shoot them, you don’t “finish them off” after they are down and out ... and thus in Oklahoma, we don’t violate the laws about legitimate self-defense by committing murder - as this pharmacists did.
In Oklahoma, we’re law-abiding and we don’t like robbers or murderers here ... you see.
Of course, you would have to live in Oklahoma to know that and to have taken those courses on the legalities of shooting someone here. We follow the law here in Oklahoma for both robbers and murderers.
“The American ‘criminal justice’ system is the most expensive, ineffective and counterproductive boondoggle in human history. Except, perhaps, for American public education.”
Criminals are recurring money makers for lawyer and the whole system. Catch and release means more money for public defenders, reasons for the courts systems existence.
They do NOT care about the public safety - we are taking money and lawyers here - wake up!
“In 1950 this would have never gone to trial! What universe to you live in????”
In 1950 they did not have video - for one thing. Forensic science was not well developed, for two.
However, cops are treated differently, especially if the perp is a cop killer as in a case in FL.
“The Coroner also reported that the illegal alien died of natural causes. When asked by a reporter how that could be, since there were 68 bullet wounds in his body, he simply replied: (BEST QUOTE OF THE CENTURY) . . . “When you are shot 68 times you are naturally gonna die.”
I have to admit to being one who thinks if someone is so bad you need to shoot them you should finish the job. If they are that bad, I don’t want them being able to do any further harm. I don’t see me shooting anyone that is not a real threat- burglers unless proving to be a threat to me I would hold for LEO and not shoot. I would not shoot the guy that broke into “my” apartment in the scenerio you described, he would have to further threaten me.
When I watch movies where someone shoots the really bad guy once and then ignores him I always yell at the actor to finish the job...because in the movies the bad guys are always back for more if they are able to.
I do know the difference between shooting a direct threat and shooting someone who is not or no longer a threat...but I hope if I ever have the bad luck to put it to test I can remember and not just fill someone full of holes that was not a threat or no longer a threat. I have never had to shoot anyone, but several times I have felt threatened enough to get a firearm at the ready. I was shot at repeatedly one day and the way my mind reacted to that- if I had been armed I would have returned fire until I ran out of ammo. Which would have been unfortunate because the person that was shooting at me was an idiot target practicing that had no idea how far a .22 can travel. He was a threat because he nearly shot me several times, but he was not doing it on purpose.
With all due respect, that is what some of the Freepers have essentially been saying.
The more prudent ones, the ones I agree with, have said to keep shooting to ensure death.
That is different than what the pharmacist did.
In other words, they didn't say what you posted.
Posting what you posted is detrimental to FR as I explained in my post to you.
That was my point.
It's a gross exaggeration that will be c/p by FR enemies and used against us as gospel truth.
And anything posted even remotely like what you postulated would be removed by the mods.
But O'Reilly, Matthews, Schultz, Maddow etc will not mention that.
He didn’t start this fight. Bullshit in my opinion.
The other posters were quite clear on that, even if they were aware that the perp was incapacitated, they would still take his life.
Method of taking the life of the said incapacitated individual is irrelevant.
Like this post, eyedigress, no exaggeration needed to prove my point.
You are skirting the issue.
You have proved that the reason you are here is to help bring FR down by posting exaggerated imaginary posts and ascribing them to Free Republic members.
Duly noted.
Tell me your point again.
No. People here have said as much.
The pharmacist murdered an incapacitated individual and they were defending his ability to kill the guy in such a situation and when I exaggerated it abit, by suggesting a bullet to the head, at close range, few disagreed.
I would have gotten more of a protest, if their individual attitude wasn’t that extreme.
I’m not sure why you think anybody is trying to bring down Free Republic. You still have the freedom of right to freely post.
Well, so be it and thanks for your reply. If you start a fight you had better be damn well prepared to finish it. The Duke said it best.... “life is hard, it’s harder if your stupid”
The next time that pit-chow attacks you, be sure to show mercy so he can do it again when he gets healthy.
My apologies, not you, but Syncro.
He thinks I’m a liberal trying to bring down Free Republic. :D
I’ve already defended the castle doctrinen but there are those who thought the pharmacist was within his rights to take an incapacitated individual’s life and there is no law across the US that allows that.
Some people have made it clear that they don’t think it’s relevant that the perp was already down and perfectly harmless, that his life should have been allowed to be taken with no repercussions. I simply disagree with that, is all.
Apparently, I’m a socialist hippie, who lives in a commune, because of this position.
and you will enjoy your stay at Attica, won’t you?
Get some time in the woodshop, so you’re not totally bored.
That's the same type of rationalization O'Reilly used to show that Free Republic is a hate site.No. People here have said as much.
The pharmacist murdered an incapacitated individual and they were defending his ability to kill the guy in such a situation and when I exaggerated it abit(sic), by suggesting a bullet to the head, at close range, few disagreed.
I would have gotten more of a protest, if their individual attitude wasn’t that extreme.
And is an absurd strawman argument.
I’m not sure why you think anybody is trying to bring down Free Republic.
You are new here, but I doubt if you don't know about that. Plus I have clued you in on this thread.
You can't think of any reason that leftist constitution/liberty/conservative hating would like to bring down FR?
I guess you should play dumb on that one, as you are helping them
You still have the freedom of right to freely post.
Kind of a disjointed poorly constructed sentence, but gosh thanks a lot n00b.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.