Given how he acted, I don’t think he really thought he was.
I am quite certain that many people, (American citizens) were lawfully hung for stealing horses as recently as 100 years ago, including in Oklahoma…
Your spidey-sense needs recalibrating.
Ok first off just because a man isn’t panicking doesn’t mean he doesn’t think hes in any danger. The guy was calm when he walked back in the store, that is perfectly clear. To go from that to assuming that he didn’t feel the kid was a danger is just not a leap of logic im willing to make.
No, but they should certainly expect it and it really shouldn’t be a problem for one to be killed while commiting a crime.
I’ve seen the video, i don’t see the difference between shooting him once in the chest or shooting him five times. The idea is to make sure he is dead, if he felt that required five shots thats fine with me.
This being Texas im not exactly sure if hes guilty of anything or not, or even if what he did actually constitutes a crime, or even if it does if he will be succesfully prosecuted for it or not. I’m fairly certain he would be looking at a long time behind bars on any other state though. I’m not arguing about the legality of his behavior, only about it being justified.
Eeep! Texas! Well, why didn’t ya say so?
[sung] “Lord have mercy on us all!”
[Locrian runs to border, footsteps fading, door slams] 
This incident took place in Oklahoma…
Oh well hes fucked then.
What a joke. Like the only thing I pointed out was that he walked calmly.
You can’t necessarily shoot a bazooka or RPG from inside a house. The backblast area will not be clear and could possibly burn your house down. The moment you saw them outside pointing it at your house was your time to act and kill them.
Also, we cannot see the shot robber on the floor from the video. We have no way of knowing about his condition. Some people are assuming he was unconscious. Maybe, maybe not. It’s hard to feel sorry for him either way though.
So, you’ve just put down one robber with one shot, you’ve chased robber#2 out of the store and fired off the rest of your bullets at a by now, absolutely terrified attempted robber. You then go back to the store, see robber#1 is still motionless on the floor, and instead of phoning the police, you get your spare gun and fire 5 more shots into a person lying still on the floor… and you want to argue the person who’d do that deserves anything but a pre-meditated murder charge? Get real! :rolleyes:
Britain didn’t abolish it until 1861. Sweden, 1855, and most western countries still had the death penalty for theft into the 19th century.
One lesson to take away from this is to use enough gun and shoot accurately. That way, you have a DRT robber and far fewer legal issues. If you practice engaging multiple targets, you can make that DRT robbers.
Marginal hits with .380’ are trouble. Anybody worth shooting is worth shooting right.
Assuming this is true, why does anyone stock a .380 for self-defence then? All I’ve heard is “you can’t be sure he’s down with a .380.” Well, use a .45, then!
Exactly. .380s are hide out guns. Being that he was keeping it under the counter, he should have stocked a bigger gun. As Peter H. Capstick says, “Use enough gun”.
Legally murder, but as for the robber I say man fuck the pobe. He had it coming.
What in the world is a “pobe”? Other than a city in Benin, I mean.
.380 has always been popular because small, often inexpensive, guns use it rather than for its efficacy.
Mr Pill-Counter could have used something really I’m-not-fucking-around like a 12 gauge since he had it under the counter. Tiny pistols like he chose are something to carry deeply concealed for back up to a more effective weapon. One round of buckshot COM would have left young master robber dead on the spot and pharm boy in the clear legally.
I have zero sympathy for the dead robber. I think pharm boy should have killed him; he just should have done it in a way within the letter of the law.
Hmmm…I admit to having committed the sin of not having read the entire thread (I’ve read three pages so far), but I wanted to add this before I lost it (apologies if someone else has mentioned this before me).
I find it interesting that, in the 21st century, we’re still arguing that the prospect of prison or death (either during the commission of a crime, or via capital punishment) serve as deterrents to crime.
What I mean is, people who are *determined *to commit crimes are *going *to commit crimes, regardless of the potential consequences, so claiming, as has been done in this thread, that more robbers (or other criminals) killed during the commission of their crimes = a discouraging effect on would-be robbers (and other criminals) doesn’t really wash with me. If this were true, I’d think that we would’ve long ago seen a drastic reduction in criminal activity.
I think the that more likely possibility is that there’s a mental health aspect to criminal behavior that’s not being addressed. (Note: IANA crimonologist or mental health practicioner.) For instance, I, as a more-or-less mentally stable person, would be extemely unlikely to engage in criminal activity because (a) as a general rule, I don’t have those impulses, and (b) even if I did (because it’s not necessarily impossible, right?), apart from extraordinarily dire circumstances, I wouldn’t rob someone or commit murder, and © I don’t want to go to prison or have someone kill me. That’s how stable people think, right? The thing is, I’m fairly convnced that a great many (most? all? I don’t know) criminals lack the ability to override their criminal impulses by considering the potential–and possible (i.e., criminals are usually caught)–consequences.
Having said that, I’m not shedding any tears for this young man. Yeah, I understand that he was “just” a teenager, but still, he consciously attempted to rob innocent people at gunpoint. (Who among us didn’t know, by the time we were 16, that robbing people at gunpoint–or at all–simply wan’t cool?) I can’t imagine the terror that the pharmacy workers must have felt, so I don’t blame the pharmacist for shooting the kid. Totally justifiable, no ifs, ands, or buts. What isn’t justifiable, however, is pumping five more bullets into the kid as he lay on the floor, where he was presumably no longer an *immediate *threat.
Yeah, yeah, I suppose he could have regained consciousness and reached for his weapon (or a concealed weapon), but after being shot in the head, how likely was that to happen? I mean, really? And at any rate, as others have pointed out, the pharmacist could have simply covered the guy with his gun while waiting for the cops to arrive. No, to me, what he did was clearly above and beyond simple self-defense, and I don’t think that reaching this conclusion is tantamount to feeling sorry for the would-be robber, because I sure as hell don’t.
Should the pharmacist be charged with murder? Well, I don’t know that I would charge him with first-degree murder (probably not, actually), but I don’t know that I’d give him a slap on the wrist, either. It’s really difficult to say. Imagining myself in that situation, I’d hope that after incapacitating the criminal with the first shot, I’d call the cops and let the process roll, but I can certainly imagine that I’d be so pissed/frightened/shaken up/adrenaline-rushed/whatever that I might think, “You know what, dickhead, here’s some more” and proceed to eliminate the threat (to me and to potential future victims) beyond all shadow of a doubt.
I hope I never have to find out.
Thank you Hansel. That is the way I see it too.
i lolled 
I admit that I prefer the “retired Eskimo General” definition to the OP’s “poor people” tho. It’s just got more zazz that way.
thanks for the chuckle