I agree that he shouldn’t have gone back and shot the would be robber, but I can’t really feel sorry for the teen. He learned a valuable lesson: don’t rob people. I’ve gone a whole 22 years without being killed because I robbed someone and I think I’ll go a bit further. Now, what I do fear is getting shot by some teen because he wanted to rob me.
Good thing he was taken out before he had a chance to hurt someone innocent.
I liked the mother’s comment, “My baby didn’t deserve this.” Yes he did. The moment he robbing people he deserves whatever he gets.
What embarasses me most is the relativism that the NRA Laws and Lawyers and the Law have assumed, they are only actually debating whether this man should own a gun anymore… the infraction is apparently justifiable in their fucked up World… Murderers allowed with weapons is what I thought we were trying to fight? Seems Sisyphysian, this policy brought to true light.
It’s easy. If the wounds from the second series of shots show signs that his body was still pumping blood, he was still alive. That’s an easy forensics thing. I’d be surprised if the ME botched that call.
You’re more than probably right but your original post said he shot the kid in the head. If there’s a hole in the center of his forehead and his brains are JFK’d all over the floor then blood flow is not really relevant. He’s dead. I’m not defending the drugist. Maybe getting shot is a good way to knock some sense into kids. We’ll never know in this case.
I agree with you except for the part where you appeal to emotion and try to impugn anyone who seeks to question it. Questioning is ALWAYS 100% a good thing in the fight against ignorance. Even if the answer one comes to is the answer that is to be expected.
Shame on you for trying to shame people from questioning accepted wisdom.
Outside of that, I agree with you 100%, it’s murder.
I would just point out that it is possible to be shot in the head, and not have a hole in the center of your forehead.
Rather than come up with possible scenarios, can we stick to the information we actually have?
If it will placate, I agree that if the kid was already dead from the headshot, no murder charge is possible (although desecrating a corpse might be applicable). But the information that we do have is that he was still alive. Until someone can present information that this wasn’t the case, I see no point in speculation.
I can feel only admiration for someone who responds to armed robbers by killing one and chasing off the other. I honestly can’t understand how a good person could come to any other conclusion.
You’re saying “defenseless” as if he was a white bunny playing in the meadow, and not an armed robber. He didn’t shoot a defenseless person five times. He shot someone who tried to rob him five times.
How much value do you think everyone else will get out of that particular lesson? This is the last time he’s ever going to prey on innocent people, isn’t it?
I think it would have been a perfectly reasonable reaction to respond to both robbers as if they had guns, after one of them points a gun at you in the robbery attempt.