JYD Posted May 30, 2011 Report Share Posted May 30, 2011 It's easy to say when you're not in that situation. There's this little thing called........ adrenalin. It changes the way you act. You don't always think clearly in situations like that. The funniest part about this, is that punk kids family is suing for damages. . Give me a [expletive]ing break. Your punk kid got everything he deserved.I love how you have such a definitive and strong opinion on a situation; A. You've never been in, lmfao. B. A situation in which you were not in. "Your punk kid got everything he deserved." Were you there? Lol Smh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EastCoastNiner Posted May 30, 2011 Report Share Posted May 30, 2011 (edited) I love how you have such a definitive and strong opinion on a situation; A. You've never been in, lmfao. B. A situation in which you were not in. "Your punk kid got everything he deserved." Were you there? Lol Smh. No, but I'm not ignorant and dumb enough to think that the pharmacist had a clear mind in that situation. Now, you may say he had a clear mind because he shot at the other kid outside the store and shot the other kid who was on the ground, but I disagree with this. If this kid was white....... Also, I don't have to be there to know the kid was robbing the [expletive]ing store. Are you retarded? . Edited May 30, 2011 by EastCoastNiner 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nitro Posted May 30, 2011 Report Share Posted May 30, 2011 In that case, they had a chance to remove the threat, but they did not, and multiple Navy Seals were killed in the process. In the pharmacist's case, he removed the threat, and lived to tell the tale. Even if the kid has a bullet in his head, like he deserved, that doesn't mean the threat is removed. The threat was neutralized, which is why the pharmacist was able to chase someone out of the store, walk past the wounded robber and reload his gun. The robber had plenty of opportunities to get up and attack the guy, but didn't. Why? Because he either knew there was no sense in it or because HE HAD A BULLET IN HIS [expletive]ING HEAD AND COULDN'T DO A DAMN THING!!! No matter what way you cut it, the pharmacist had a choice of alternatives than to pump 5 more shots in a kid that was clearly incompacitated. I do understand his reasoning, which is why I don't believe he should be found guilty of first degree murder, but he should definitely be charged with something and put in jail. However, it is not surprising he was found guilty because he went way over the line of self-defense. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JYD Posted May 30, 2011 Report Share Posted May 30, 2011 No, but I'm not ignorant and dumb enough to think that the pharmacist had a clear mind in that situation. Now, you may say he had a clear mind because he shot at the other kid outside the store and shot the other kid who was on the ground, but I disagree with this. If this kid was white.......Lol What do you mean if he was white? I'm not going to quickly jump to a guilty of murder or not guilty conclusion such as yourself. There'd be somem any important questions that need to be answered. For example, in the story, my understanding was he shot the robber in the face, and then proceeded to get another hand gun and shoot him 5 more times. Now, that is not self defense, and you're a moron if you call that self defense. If someone was just shot in the face, then you get another guy, and fire more bullets, that's homicide...But, like I said, I wasn't there, so I don't jump to conclusions like yourself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EastCoastNiner Posted May 30, 2011 Report Share Posted May 30, 2011 Lol What do you mean if he was white? I'm not going to quickly jump to a guilty of murder or not guilty conclusion such as yourself. There'd be somem any important questions that need to be answered. For example, in the story, my understanding was he shot the robber in the face, and then proceeded to get another hand gun and shoot him 5 more times. Now, that is not self defense, and you're a moron if you call that self defense. If someone was just shot in the face, then you get another guy, and fire more bullets, that's homicide...But, like I said, I wasn't there, so I don't jump to conclusions like yourself. I understand you guys think he went over the line and think the threat was not necessarily removed, but was "neutralized". I understand that, but disagree with it. Pretty much, the pharmacist got screwed because he didn't kill the kid in one shot or pump multiple bullets into him right away. I'm not going to humanize the situation with the kid because his intentions were clear as day. He deserved everything he got. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reno Posted May 30, 2011 Report Share Posted May 30, 2011 Lol What do you mean if he was white? I'm not going to quickly jump to a guilty of murder or not guilty conclusion such as yourself. There'd be somem any important questions that need to be answered. For example, in the story, my understanding was he shot the robber in the face, and then proceeded to get another hand gun and shoot him 5 more times. Now, that is not self defense, and you're a moron if you call that self defense. If someone was just shot in the face, then you get another guy, and fire more bullets, that's homicide...But, like I said, I wasn't there, so I don't jump to conclusions like yourself.yeah but adrenaline and heat of the motion does stuff with your brain, do i think it was right to shoot the guy 5 additional times? no, but that's what happens when your at your breaking point, this guy is not a trained navy seal or a military combatant. These punks should have known better, its an unfortunate situation yes, but the kids got what was coming. It's sad to see, but I cant really fault the pharmacist. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JYD Posted May 30, 2011 Report Share Posted May 30, 2011 I understand you guys think he went over the line and think the threat was not necessarily removed, but was "neutralized". I understand that, but disagree with it. Pretty much, the pharmacist got screwed because he didn't kill the kid in one shot or pump multiple bullets into him right away. I'm not going to humanize the situation with the kid because his intentions were clear as day. He deserved everything he got.Deserved to be killed? Absolutely not. Deserved to be punished for his (apparent) crime? Yes. yeah but adrenaline and heat of the motion does stuff with your brain, do i think it was right to shoot the guy 5 additional times? no, but that's what happens when your at your breaking point, this guy is not a trained navy seal or a military combatant. These punks should have known better, its an unfortunate situation yes, but the kids got what was coming. It's sad to see, but I cant really fault the pharmacist.Nah dude, according to the info we've been given, he went back to reload his gun and get more bullets. That's more than an adrenaline rush - it was unnecessary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NomarFachix Posted May 30, 2011 Report Share Posted May 30, 2011 heat of the motionIt was the heatttttttttttttt of the motionnnnnnnnnnnTelling me what my heart meant moment* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EastCoastNiner Posted May 30, 2011 Report Share Posted May 30, 2011 Deserved to be killed? Absolutely not. Deserved to be punished for his (apparent) crime? Yes. Nah dude, according to the info we've been given, he went back to reload his gun and get more bullets. That's more than an adrenaline rush - it was unnecessary. Why are you putting "apparent" in parentheses? You can support the other side of the argument, but there's no argument to be made about the two punks intent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JYD Posted May 30, 2011 Report Share Posted May 30, 2011 (edited) Why are you putting "apparent" in parentheses? You can support the other side of the argument, but there's no argument to be made about the two punks intent.We've only heard one side of the story. Plus, was the robber armed? Sorry if these questions have been clearly answered. Edited May 30, 2011 by JYD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EastCoastNiner Posted May 30, 2011 Report Share Posted May 30, 2011 We've only heard one side of the story. Plus, was the robber armed? Sorry if these questions have been clearly answered. I'm not saying this in a rude way, but did you read any of the links I provided? Some of the questions are answered in those links. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NomarFachix Posted May 30, 2011 Report Share Posted May 30, 2011 this guy is not a trained navy seal or a military combatant.He's a retired air force veteran. So.. yeah. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JYD Posted May 30, 2011 Report Share Posted May 30, 2011 I'm not saying this in a rude way, but did you read any of the links I provided? Some of the questions are answered in those links.The link says that the kid was trying to rob the store, but first of all, in what context did he break in/come at them? Violently? I mean, the story is so god damn vague I have trouble convicting the guy of murder, not convicting him, saying the kid was definitely trying to rob the store or try to harm the owner, etc... He's a retired air force veteran. So.. yeah.He only flew planes BRO, didn't handle weapons. Couldn't handle the adrenaline rush man...Had 2 go back for more bullets obviously Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flash Posted May 30, 2011 Report Share Posted May 30, 2011 Maybe if that kid wasn't robbing a store it wouldn't have happened to him. Its his fault and he chose to get himself into that situation. All bets are off at that point. It kinda shocks me that people are somewhat sympathizing with this guy to be honest. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EastCoastNiner Posted May 30, 2011 Report Share Posted May 30, 2011 The link says that the kid was trying to rob the store, but first of all, in what context did he break in/come at them? Violently? I mean, the story is so god damn vague I have trouble convicting the guy of murder, not convicting him, saying the kid was definitely trying to rob the store or try to harm the owner, etc... He only flew planes BRO, didn't handle weapons. Couldn't handle the adrenaline rush man...Had 2 go back for more bullets obviously Wait, have you seen the video of the attempted robbery or no? If you have, then I have to say, you are being completely stupid with your posts. If you haven't, I can provide you with a link to the attempted robbery. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nitro Posted May 30, 2011 Report Share Posted May 30, 2011 Maybe if that kid wasn't robbing a store it wouldn't have happened to him. Its his fault and he chose to get himself into that situation. All bets are off at that point. It kinda shocks me that people are somewhat sympathizing with this guy to be honest. It's not a sympathy thing, it's the law...he went beyond the point of self-defense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fish7718 Posted May 30, 2011 Report Share Posted May 30, 2011 (edited) http://i293.photobucket.com/albums/mm69/mightymosdefinition/50laugh.gifMy friends dad got shot directly in his head, bullet to the brain, survived just fine. So lol @ you and the morons that repped you... Edited May 30, 2011 by fish7718 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guru Posted May 30, 2011 Report Share Posted May 30, 2011 (edited) My friends dad got shot directly in his head, bullet to the brain, survived just fine. So lol @ you and the morons that repped you...Lmao, that is a once in a lifetime situation. Let me shoot you in the head.... wanna bet that you won't "survive just fine"? Edited May 30, 2011 by Guru 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nitro Posted May 30, 2011 Report Share Posted May 30, 2011 It's not even about surviving...it's the idea that after he was shot he'd actually get up and attack the pharmacist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fish7718 Posted May 30, 2011 Report Share Posted May 30, 2011 Lmao, that is a once in a lifetime situation. Let me shoot you in the head.... wanna bet that you won't "survive just fine"?Who cares a small chance if any chance is a chance, I'll take my chances with 1 shot to head over 6 shots. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flash Posted May 30, 2011 Report Share Posted May 30, 2011 Who cares a small chance if any chance is a chance, I'll take my chances with 1 shot to head over 6 shots. This guy just lol'd. http://www.hecklerspray.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/50-cent-oprah.jpg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deestillballin Posted May 30, 2011 Author Report Share Posted May 30, 2011 Maybe if that kid wasn't robbing a store it wouldn't have happened to him. Its his fault and he chose to get himself into that situation. All bets are off at that point. It kinda shocks me that people are somewhat sympathizing with this guy to be honest. Ive been reading this whole thread This is hte point that needs to be made. He made a choice, there are consequences and repercussions to every choice you make in life.. I think its [expletive]ed up they are charging the pharmacist with first degree murder that's wrong, can't NOBODY say if 2 people came at you robbing you at gun point you wouldn't of gone back and done the same thing, I said it earlier Ill say it again, if you come at me with a gun kill me first because one of us is dying. Trust me if he wouldnt of been on tape reloading the gun, this would be over, he is only guilty of being caught. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NomarFachix Posted May 30, 2011 Report Share Posted May 30, 2011 What he did was excessive, and a jury of his peers found him guilty for it. I disagree with 1st degree, think it should be a lower form of manslaughter. If he thought this kid was such a threat that needed to be neutralized, why did he calmly walk by him as he laid on the ground and turn his back to him while retrieving his second gun? And Dee is right, if it wasn't on tape, nothing would have come from it. He lied on his police report, and they'd have believed the retired military vet running his little pharmacy. That probably hurt too.. his police report was crazy fabricated, lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenneral Posted May 30, 2011 Report Share Posted May 30, 2011 What he did was excessive, and a jury of his peers found him guilty for it. I disagree with 1st degree, think it should be a lower form of manslaughter. If he thought this kid was such a threat that needed to be neutralized, why did he calmly walk by him as he laid on the ground and turn his back to him while retrieving his second gun? And Dee is right, if it wasn't on tape, nothing would have come from it. He lied on his police report, and they'd have believed the retired military vet running his little pharmacy. That probably hurt too.. his police report was crazy fabricated, lol.What'd his police report say? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EastCoastNiner Posted May 30, 2011 Report Share Posted May 30, 2011 What he did was excessive, and a jury of his peers found him guilty for it. I disagree with 1st degree, think it should be a lower form of manslaughter. If he thought this kid was such a threat that needed to be neutralized, why did he calmly walk by him as he laid on the ground and turn his back to him while retrieving his second gun? And Dee is right, if it wasn't on tape, nothing would have come from it. He lied on his police report, and they'd have believed the retired military vet running his little pharmacy. That probably hurt too.. his police report was crazy fabricated, lol. I agree with you that he was stupid and not straightforward with the police report, and if they want to charge him with something surrounding that problem, then fine. However, the judge was a moron and wouldn't let the defense call certain witnesses who have been in similar situations before. One situation involved a man that was shot (Yes, Nitro, SHOT), and got up and attacked the store clerk with a weapon. Also, it's as easy for me to say the pharmacist may not have had a clear mind, just as it's easy for some of you to say he did. None of us were in that situation, so you don't know how you'd respond. I just think it's dumb that this guy would never have been tried if those punks never tried to rob the store. This pharmacist taught one of those punks a lesson, along with the rest of the country, that there will be no sympathy for ass-holes like those punks. People have too much sympathy for the criminals now a days, although I know that's not the main argument here, but rather excessive force. Also, have any of you actually watched the video? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.