How's this for a verdict?

Remove all ads!

The relevance is that your lack of experential knowledge is causing you to form faulty opinions.

What exactly are acceptable odds to you for gambling with your life?

I've told you that the opposite occurs far more often that you realize, and that is based on experential knowledge, not my guess as to how things would most likely play out in a theoretical situation that I have no grasp of or experience with. Given that, why would you still hold onto your contrary belief?

Your recommended course of action is a prescription for disaster, because once things start 'escalating' (i.e., the guy pointing the gun at you shoots you in the face) there is often no longer anything you can do about it. Quick, decisive action is really the only way to go if you're going to resist at all.

 

I agree completely. Anyone waving a gun in your face may very well intend to use it, whether you resist or not. One has to assume the worst.

 

totally true and %100 agreed, the measly £500 in the till is not worth risking your life

actually, I train the opposit.

For example (women when attacked by a man), when training self defence, we teach them to conserve their energy and lure their attacker into a false sense of security, at some point their attacker is going to have to drop the knife and unzip his trousers, that is when we teach them to use that last bit of energy to resist. if she resisted to early, she could be seriously hurt.

always remember: balance, distance and timing, the key to self defence.

 

Yes, it was. But I should have realized that you, as a Republican, lack a sense of humour. *

* Emoticon signifying another attempt at humour. **

**Emoticon signifying yet another attempt at humour. ***

***Emoticon signifying... oh, never mind. *

 

Probably because you've failed to convince me of your "greater" experience in the matter. Also my opinions do not come from guesses but from news reports and employer guidelines. Armed robberies happen all the time but rarely does anyone end up dying around here and Finland's a quiet enough place that every murder in such circumstances would certainly get quite a significant media attention.

Granted I've never been robbed myself so that bit of experience I lack. If you've been robbed and forced to fend it off with violence I'd say it's more likely to give you a biased view on the matter that's hardly relying on statistical facts either.

 

OK, I'll just chalk it up to you must have had a couple of bad days as you normally don't post such mean spirited things.

 

I've been tied up -- and not in the good way -- for the last couple of days.

I agree that the pharmacist went overboard. But he still has my sympathy. He certainly isn't guilty of first degree murder, which I believe requires a great degree of premeditation, planning, and cold calculation, which requires hours of time if not days.

I know that the subsequent shots were not self defense. And yet, I'm still glad it was the thief and not the worker who ended up dead.

As for you, Splunge, it's funny you worded it the way you did. I often tell people "I advocate the death penalty for jaywalking" in a hyperbolic, humorous effort to convey my contempt both for criminals and the gutless, permissive legal system that doesn't seem to give a damn about public safety.

Had the kid killed someone in the store, I can see him getting 2 years, because of "extenuating circumstances" -- broken home, poverty, addictions issues, poor impulse control, excuses, excuses, excuses. Two years and one month later, he re-enters the store, and the pharmacist refuses to serve him and in fact calls the cops. The kid successfully sues on the grounds of discrimination, and wins! You can't refuse service based on criminal history! The wonky way our system works, there are days I'm nit sure that scenario is really an exaggeration.

For those if you who would be fighting tooth and nail asking for compassionate treatment for the criminal, thieving teen, I merely ask you to give some of that compassion and benefit of the doubt to the pharmacist.

 

I actually didn't think it was all that mean-spirited - I think LKD got the humour, and he explained his point of view pretty well (and I get the impression you and he share similar views).

Although I will say this - you're actually correct. I won't bother you with the details, but Thursday was one of the worst days I have had in a very long time, and if my post was uncharacteristically mean-spirited, that might account for it, so for that I apologize.

 

Bear in mind that the context of the discussion of the shooting in this thread is that it happened in the US, so your gathering of data from news reports and employer guidelines in Finland is largely irrelevent to conditions here, even if it were really considered hard, applicable data in the first place. To wit, the news media tend to be of dubious reliability. 'Ivory Tower' opinions rarely have a sound application in the real world and don't impress those in the trenches. And your employer is always going to tell you to duck and cover, because that way they lessen their liability to the greatest extent possible.

Anyway, fair enough. I do hope for your sake that you continue to stay out of harm's way and don't ever have to deal with these sorts of very bad things on a more intimate level.

 

I don't get any of that rant. It seems to me that some are asking that ALL citizens respect the Rule of Law. No one is ABOVE the law, I don't care how emotional some may feel about the situation. The point is the guy willfully broke the law and so he got the verdict he deserved. The judge who sat through the trial and heard the evidence can apply the "symphathy" and other factors relating to judgment once he applies the sentence. He can even suspend the entire sentence if he sees that through the evidence and that the situation may demand it.

Spungle - I don't think there was anything wrong with your quip at all. It seems to me that there were some losing this argument and rather than address the substance of the topic, decided to zero in on your mild sarcasm for their wrath. At least that's how I see it.

 

For the record I found Splunge's post hilarious, as I find most if his attempts at humor to be successful. I think we share a similar sense of humor.

 

Hey buddy. What ya yappin' aboot.

I thought it was a clever enough post. It didnt strike me as mean. But I guess I'm way off topic by now.

 

And there you err. Murder can also be motivated out of anger, rage or fury, or joy of killing - hardly mitigating circumstances - and all of which do not require any planning or preparation.

If I run over an old granny by accident, when it was impossible for me to see her, and think: 'Oh dang that may just cost me my driving license if she tells anybody, and I rather that she don't ...!', and then turn and run her over a couple times more, that is deliberate murder without any "warm up" - or premeditation, planning - although certainly cold calculation.

Let's assume the kid had tried to car-jack the pharmacist and he, defending himself, had run him over - to then turn and run him over a couple more times. To then get a caterpillar and run him over again. To then get a steamroller and run him over some more. Get the idea?

​

In all that you wrote you forgot the elephant in the room - that he paused after he had that headshot robber lying there - and that he then went to get his guns. That is very significant cesura. He had pause to think and make a decision. The decison he made was to get more guns. He then proceeded to execute the robber. That's the prosecutor's narrative.

One can reliably divine the argument being made to the jury: When the pharmacist left to fetch more weapons he had made a decision. He had time to think. He must have been aware that the attack was thwarted, over. He must have been aware that there was more danger to him so he could leave and get more weapons from the other room. Shooting at someone lying on the floor, bleeding from the head, the gun out of his hands, basically at point blank range, that is an execution. Self defence is over. It doesn't need a lawyer to figure that out. The law, reasonably, expects all citizens to be able to distinguish that from self-defence. When the pharmacist shot the robber he did so in order to kill him. He wanted him dead. That is a world away from self-defence.

It is unpersuasive to say that this is "not really murder" because it happened spontaneously and didn't involve any planning, and that the "victim" as a lawbreaker had it coming anyway. To say this is "not really murder" is a mere gut reaction. Ultimately it is "not really murder" because you have no sympathy for the victim, but that is hardly a principled stance, much less one that ought to be enshrined in law (and indeed, it isn't), because it is arbitrary.

 

Aside from the fact that what you are referencing are works of fiction, there is another counterpoint to your example. Characters such as Charles Bronson in "Death Wish", and the Punisher, are neither heros nor superheroes. They are anti-heroes - i.e., characters who may do right, but also are deeply flawed characters who do what they do for the wrong reasons.

For those who may be unfamiliar with those characters, I'll relate another anti-hero that will probably be more familiar to all on this board - Jim Raynor from the StarCraft series. Yes, he's fighting on the side of "right", but he is a depressed, chain-smoking alcoholic, who has an obsessive desire to bring about the downfall of Arcturus Mengsk, not because he is a dictator, but because of his betrayal of Jim and Sarah Kerrigan. His actions are motivated out of revenge more than they are out of justice. I think the same can be said of the pharmacist.

That's true. I saw it firsthand in a demonstration, using toy guns. A cop gave me a toy gun, and held a second toy gun behind his back. His instructions were as follows: Keep the gun aimed at him. He told me he was going to pull the gun from behind his back and "shoot" at me. I was told to try and shoot him first, but I couldn't fire until after he made his first move. I thought it would be easy - afterall, I already had my gun out, and he had to take the gun out from behind his back first. Well, he got his "shot" out first. He repeated the demonstration with others who were there - in every instance the cop was able to "shoot" first - so it wasn't just a case of me having bad reaction speed.

Here's the issue with waiting for the other guy to make the first move. It takes about 1/8th of a second for your brain to process what you're seeing, and about another 1/8th of a second for your brain to tell your finger to pull the trigger. So from the point the cop started drawing his gun, he had about 1/4th of a second before I would fire, and it certainly takes less than that to quickly pull your hand from behind your back.

 

It does, just not with you. The reason perhaps is that people like Scott Roeder or stuff like Lynching have given have given vigilantism a bad name.

But then, curiously, I blame US conservative pop culture. I have seen American 1980s actions movies too. There the system always failed (apparently, government was the problem), and some rough justice had to be dealt out. Perhaps the influence endures.

On the other hand, I thought that influence superseded by "Law. And. Order" (with government being the solution), which even produced a presidential candidate. I guess you didn't watch the show, Snook?

Oh what a confusing country this America is.

 

I never said it wasn't murder -- I said it wasn't first degree murder. It is my understanding that that's the big difference. The time delay and the obvious decision to shoot the little bastard a few more times means it's not manslaughter, but rather second degree murder, but the lack of a loong term premedidated plan to commit the crime and then conceal his participation makes it not first degree murder.

 

"Go ahead, make my Day." Eastwood is great, btw.

Back then, for some conservatives, all those pesty constitutional rights and the Due Process of law were in the way of swift justice. Now they all walk around with the Constitution in their pockets to "prove" they embrace it. Sarah even has it for decoration on the side of her tour [vacation?] bus.



http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/56186.html

 

I have trouble comprehending what a difference the length of consideration does to the subjective intent to kill a man. I presume that premeditated murder has a broader definition than you prefer it to have.

One exemplary definition:

I don't think that wanting to kill that little bastard for 10 seconds or 10 hours makes all that big a difference. Wilful, deliberate and premeditated action can easily be seen in going and getting more guns to go in for the kill.

And re "the little bastard", thanks for proving me right in my feeling that this is about gut feeling first, and reasoning second. In plainer language, for you this is not first degree murder because you feel "the little bastard" had it coming. That loong term premedidated plan requirement is just the rationalisation.

Just pondering ... if they had a constitution up their rear, would that mean they embody it?

 

I guess we'd have to ask actually case lawyers about what it takes to get a first degree murder conviction. My understanding has always been a cold blooded, long term plan with plenty of opportunities to alter it. I see a lot of a "heat of the moment" material in this case.

And you're right in that my gut feeling is that the thief is not worthy of a great deal of sympathy. He was a criminal engaged in a criminal act. I refuse to feel too much pity for him. He's not an innocent, he's a predator, feeding on the decent people around him. He made his choices, he got a really bad consequence. There's just no way that this can all be turned back on the "evil" pharmacist.