Perhaps you think it is entirely unreasonable for the jury to have come to the conclusion they did. I don’t think so at all. I know how I would have acted if someone who had just tried to rob was moving on the floor at all. For starters I wouldn’t take my eyes off him. Maybe to you it is reasonable to turn your back on someone you think is dangerous and wants to kill you, it isn’t to me.
The right to self defense is only to use the force necessary to protect yourself. I think that is reasonable to find that he went well beyond that in this case, did so with malice aforethought and murdered someone. The jury took all the evidence available to them, considered the defenses given (again if you are mad at someone, be mad at the defense attorneys) and found that what he did constituted murder 1. It was not self defense even if that is what you saw. Had you sat through the trial you may have thought so as well.
Why do you think their decision was unreasonable? Not why you wouldn’t reach the same decision, but why no reasonable person could reach the one they did.
My position is that anyone who attempts armed robbery should be executed. I am a strong supporter of the death penalty. Murderers, rapists, kidnappers, child molesters, arsonists should also face the death penalty. And not after 20 or more years of appeals, either.
Under use of the death penalty is criminal.
I don’t care about the details of this case. The druggist was the victim of an armed robbery or attempted one, and anyone assisting that crime deserves to die.
Sorry I may sound harsh but “justice” has been subverted and perverted too long in this country. It’s a legalese game now with innocent citizens doing time or being judged guilty of crimes they didn’t commit, or things they did that shouldn’t be crimes, and damn career criminals being known as “clients” by the cops. Criminals live lives of nothing but crime and this is one of the things that is ruining our country.
“Mercy to the cruel is cruelty to the innocent”.
I have said repeatedly that I am not defending the pharmacist and simply came on the thread to correct misinterpretations of the law.
Most notably my first post on the thread #294.
However, you cannot convince me that this guy is guilty simply because the jury said so and in the next breath say that O.J. is guilty even though the jury said differently. That is not a convincing argument.
I will say that I never would have left a wounded person on the floor and chased the other one down the street and then returned, turning my back on him again just to return and shoot him. That is pretty damning behavior.
Based upon the video, what do you think motivated the pharmacists action after re-entering the store?
Vengeance or sadism? (Maybe a distinction without a difference?)
Or might it have been something else entirely? Even considering that a significant interval of time passed between the initial shooting of the intruder and the subsequent shots, could he still have been acting on an adrenaline rush?
I'm not advocating a particular viewpoint one way or another (having not heard all the evidence as presented to the jury). I'm just curious about how fellow FReepers analyze this case. To a certain extent, this is reminiscent of the Bernhard Goetz case of 1984 and his remark, "You don't look so bad, here's another" when Goetz shot one of the thugs a second time.