Self Defence, or Murder?

[BlackDragon37]

http://www.kfor.com/news/local/kfor-news-pharmacy-attorney-defense-story,0,6945101.story


Surveillance video in link^^^

This should be interesting. Two suspects held up a store and only one was armed. The first suspect came in and flashed his gun, but never shot. A second suspect, wearing a mask, attempted to come in and apparently proceed to take the money. The cashier ended up drawing a pistol, and shot the unarmed suspect and chased after the other through the doorway. He then returns, apparently walks PAST the unarmed suspect who was apparently unconscious, retrieves his second side arm and comes back and shoots the kid in the abdomen five times. Now, the kid is dead.

So, is this self defence? Or is this murder?



Two arguments:

First, the kid was unarmed. After he was knocked to the ground, apparently unconscious, he poses no serious danger. So much so that the cashier walked past him almost like nothing had happened to retrieve his firearm and shoot the kid in the abdomen.

Second, when you claim self defence, they should be in the act of robbing or posing harm to you. If you are on the ground, with out a weapon, and apparently unconscious, you are no longer posing a threat. You can't get beat up by someone, see them a few days later, and shoot them. Wild analogy, but essentially the same thing.

However, you can claim the cashier had no idea if the kid had no weapon on his person. Sure. But why walk past the kid with barely any concern, only to return with a second pistol and shoot him (apparently) dead? There is conflicting ideas there. If he is a threat still, why carelessly walk past him, even turning his back for a good amount of time?

I think this is murder. What do you guys think?

 

[Psylocide]

Man. I thought i was done with college.

I would say self-defense. Here is why:

You have someone that just threatened your life(flashing a firearm) and you take action. Boom! Kid goes down, regardless of whether or not he has the gun... he was still a threat, because he was an accomplice and you have no way of knowing what he is packing.

Tricky part is... if someone is still moving, they are still a threat. The adrenaline pumping and paranoia will set in BIG TIME, and your judgement will be impaired because you just stared down the barrel of a gun. I would have done it too, and if/when this goes to court, it will be hard to convict the guy.

EDIT: OVERKILL 100 pts

 

[Freaky]

He wouldn't have gotten shot at all if he hadn't put himself in that situation. The overkill is a bit much though. Still, it's hard find sympathy for the kid.

EDIT: Oh yeah, self-defense.

 

[page]

Depends on where you live.

In Canada the law is pretty clear on these things. Self defence will only work to a point, and excessive force is a big no-no.

Excessive force is just about anything more than needed to keep you safe. If some guy comes at you with a fork and you pull out a shotgun then you're going to be in a lot of trouble. Deadly force is only allowed in scenarios where the defendant is in a life or death situation, and once an attacker has been thwarted any further aggression is at least criminal assault. Additionally, there is what is sometimes called a duty to retreat in the US; you also have to prove that you couldn't have reasonably and safely gotten away from the attacker if you're going to be using deadly force.

In fact, if my hardcore security instructor is to be believed, in the majority of cases the burden of guilt is placed firmly on the defender in Canada, and any use of weapons is big trouble, since having just about anything more than a baseball bat or golf club around is usually against the law. Handguns for self defence purposes are strictly prohibited (you can own a handgun, but it must be unloaded and locked up).

Anyway, if it had happened in Canada it would have been a clear-cut case of murder, or at least manslaughter. Probably murder, though.

 

[pineapplejuice]

muyda, but hey shouldnt rob people should he.

 

[The Landslide]

The robber, armed or not, is guilty. His friend was armed and he was using his FRIEND as a weapon to extort, and therefore he was armed by association, knew the idiocy that he was partaking in, and got his shit ruined because of it. Self defense, and the good kind.

 

[GreatOne1939]

The initial shot can be construed as self-defense. But as far as the rest I would call that a crime of passion. Whenever your life is seriously threatened that survival mode kicks in and it's either fight or flight. He chose to fight and the goal in that case is to finish off what may be a perceived threat. You can't just turn the rational side of your mind back on 30 seconds after going through something like that.

 

[IvyFanboy]

the second shot is way out of bounds. He had control of the scenario at that point. You'll notice that he casually walks up and kills him, it's premeditated. It's not as though the kid went for a gun or to lash back and was shot in defense.

Definitely murder. The guy had sooo many options to choose and going for a walk up kill is just fucked up. Do i think the kid deserved the first shot? Yes. The 2nd shot? Hell no.

 

[Hustle_Man_77]

the second shot is way out of bounds. He had control of the scenario at that point. You'll notice that he casually walks up and kills him, it's premeditated. It's not as though the kid went for a gun or to lash back and was shot in defense.

Definitely murder. The guy had sooo many options to choose and going for a walk up kill is just fucked up. Do i think the kid deserved the first shot? Yes. The 2nd shot? Hell no.

I couldn't have said that any better. Everything he did before coming back into the store was deserved. The fact that he casually walked past him then came back and killed him was just rage, not self defense.

 

[Rekano]

Moral of the story? Shoot first, Shoot again. Don't give them time of day to even think about shooting back. Fuck questions.

 

[funkpanda]

Looks like we got ourselves a clear cut case of murder.

If his defense lawyer is any good, he will make his client take a plea of voluntary manslaughter. If this case goes to trial, he wont stand a chance.

 

[Hustle_Man_77]

The only way he would get away with this is because of where he lives. Even the news lady described it as a "reliable" pharmacy lol.

 

[Plume]

Depends on where you live.

In Canada the law is pretty clear on these things. We HAVE to let the police protect us from dangers.

If you attack your attacker, you go to jail because the last attacker is the bigger meanie.

Why did you say that? Now the Americans are going to make fun of Canada again...


Edit: To make up for it, my mother's friend's son did an armed robbery with a plastic gun at 9 years old.

 

[Malice]

Damn, the cashier went B2:BBBB on dat ass.

I could see it as murder if it was someone who was trained in unarming and apprehending criminals, but your ordinary citizen is going to do what they think is right since their concern is for their safety or seize an opportunity to get away with murder. But whatever, that kid should have known better not to commit a robbery without the burner in case you need to blast someone. Now he's dead. Dumbass.

 

[page]

Why did you say that? Now the Americans are going to make fun of Canada again...


Edit: To make up for it, my mother's friend's son did an armed robbery with a plastic gun at 9 years old.

Nothing really wrong with Canada's self defence laws. Some anecdotal evidence offered up by anyone isn't going to change our crime stats, which are actually quite low, especially when compared to the US.

I don't see what your issue is, though. If someone attacks you and you can't run away, then you're within your legal rights to defend yourself as much as is necessary. The only way you can really disagree with that is on the definition of necessary; I think that once you've negated any danger to yourself or others that's it. And just because a person is all jacked up on adrenaline or whatever doesn't excuse anything. The law is based on people being responsible for their own actions, especially on bad days, and if they shoot someone when they could have not shot them, then they should be held responsible.

Also, lolamerica.

 

[Plume]

What I was trying to say is that the police will try to help you if you let your attackers do whatever they want, but if you raise the finger on your attacker, in general the police "won't be able to help you".

However, I'm not sure if it's part of any law or if it's just what most of the police officers use as an excuse.

...My anecdote didn't have any purpose, the rather low crime rate in Canada makes me glad to be here.
I simply hear many stories about the police not protecting you if you defend yourself. Basically having balls is a bad thing, be a good sheep and we'll protect you the "best" we can.

(I'm not really talking about extreme cases such as the guy from the original post's story.)

 

[The-Instigator]

Murder by far. What idiot would shoot a guy multiple times AFTER the threat was extinguished? If the guy wasn't moving and he was being watched by the same pharmacist to make sure he wouldn't pose any more threats, WHY WOULD YOU CONTINUE TO SHOOT HIM?! Fucking retard! I would love to hear the police report on this guy:

C.S.I Analyst: So in your own words, what happened?
Pharmacist: Well, these two teens entered the store, one flashed a gun and demanded the money from the register. I took out my own gun and shot one of the teens.... the other fled... yadda yadda blah blah.
C.S.I Analyst: So what did you do next?
Pharmacist: Well, I went up to the injured suspect, check for any weapons, went back for a quick chat with my other employees, came back to the suspect, and unloaded the rest of my clip into the crotch of the suspect.
C.S.I Analyst: o_O This was self defence, right?
Pharmacist: Absolutely!

XD

I hope this guy brought some roofies with him... he's gonna need to take them if he doesn't want to remember all the butt sex he'll be receiving in prison X/.

 

[page]

What I was trying to say is that the police will try to help you if you let your attackers do whatever they want, but if you raise the finger on your attacker, in general the police "won't be able to help you".

However, I'm not sure if it's part of any law or if it's just what most of the police officers use as an excuse.

...My anecdote didn't have any purpose, the rather low crime rate in Canada makes me glad to be here.
I simply hear many stories about the police not protecting you if you defend yourself. Basically having balls is a bad thing, be a good sheep and we'll protect you the "best" we can.

(I'm not really talking about extreme cases such as the guy from the original post's story.)

I don't get it. What kind of scenario are you talking about where you're defending yourself and the police show up and just stand back. A fistfight in a parking lot? Or are you suggesting that if you have a break in and call the cops the emergency operator will tell you that if you try and do anything they won't send any help. I've never heard of such a case, and I'm sure that if it had happened it would have been front page news.

 

[Plume]

I can't remember of any particular example.

Let's say that a husband gets beaten (continually) by his wife.
Finally one day he decides that he had enough. He slams her into a wall, punches her a few times in the face and leaves.
She calls the police.

What happens?
I wouldn't be surprised if he had to go to court and would do some prison.
Maybe the wife would do prison, but he would too.

I think recently there was a story about a girl doing prison because she killed her father who abused or used to abuse her.


Same thing at school, if other kids beat you up, none of the teachers will do anything.
The day that you decide to defend yourself, you and the other kid are both punished.

 

[page]

Uh, neither of those really qualify.

If a husband is in the process of being beaten up when he fights back, sure. But if he just snaps one day during dinner, slaps his wife around some and, quits the house then that's clearly not self defence. He'll probably get a lesser sentence because of the circumstances, but if he's not actually in danger at the time then there's no reason for him to be attacking. Either way, if he could have left without beating her up first then that's what he should have done. The self defence laws are very clear about not covering revenge or vigilante attacks, e.g. if the husband leaves the house but then comes back and attacks his wife he's way over the line.

Kid's in school is pretty iffy. Teachers aren't really allowed to manhandle the kids, whether they're breaking up a fight or just trying to remove someone from the class. I don't see it specifically being the fight that they won't stop, and when I was in school I still saw plenty of fights get broken up, mind that was a slightly different era, but not that different.

You may recall the Kim Joseph Walker case from years back where a man (Walker), went to the house of his 16 year old daughter's boyfriend (she was living with him) and shot him 5 times, killing him. His reasoning was that the boyfriend, James Hayward (24), was a drug dealer who had gotten his daughter addicted to morphine and Walker, fearing for her life, decided to put a stop to things himself.

Walker was convicted of murder, although the jury could have gone for the lesser charge of manslaughter. They decided that Walker had gone to Hayward's house with the intent to kill, where Walker said that he hadn't meant to kill the man, only get his daughter out safely.

Obviously this isn't a self defence case, but it still makes the point that violence, however someone justifies it, is clearly against the law, and that the use of deadly force outside of a life-or-death situation will get you brought up on some sort of murder charge. Perhaps to Walker it was worth spending 10 years (the minimum sentence, and he doesn't pose any real threat to society so he'll probably get off) of his life in jail to save his daughter, but that shouldn't change the law.