TexasCHLforum.com

...there will be another court of Supreme Justice to try that case...and all the facts will be known...as the old song goes "...He is sifting out the hearts of men before His judgement seat..." in the long run, the scales will be balanced on that one...

...he'll have a lotta time to "woulda, coulda, shoulda" himself...the jury did well...

...I don't think there's a video showing that which you ask for...I think the jury saw the video we did...where, after chasing the armed robber out, he comes by the downed robber without so much as a glance, let alone no look of alarm or fear...walked to the counter...with his back to him...(all of which would make a reasonable person believe he perceived the downed man to be no threat)...then calmly walks back and shoots him some more...I haven't read the court transcripts, either, but that video doesn't show me a man in fear of his life or safety...

...the testimony discussed in this new link nails him as a murderer...the jury did the right thing...the emotional comments about "what will we pharmacists do?" are just that...they should do what every shopkeeper being robbed is allowed to do...shoot to stop the threat...nothing is changed by this case...but once the threat has been STOPPED...don't go back and pump a few more rounds into him for good measure...
...I understand that he was upset...but if he couldn't think rationally, he shouldn't have used a gun at all...just given up the money and drugs and hoped for the best...being upset is no excuse or justification for him, for us, or for any other gun-bearing person to do murder...
...having said that...he perhaps could have benefitted by training by a professional trainer, most of which advocate stopping the threat by two or three quick shots...in case the first one might have missed and the perp just flinched...that training would have probably served him well in this case...

...had he shot them both and killed them as the robbery began, he would have been exhonerated...even if only one robber had a gun...after shooting one, and chasing the other off...he went back in and to the register area with not so much as a glance to the downed robber, loaded his gun, and walked over and pumped him full of lead...showing no startle reflex, no particular hurry, no reaction to anything he saw...the video shows us no evidence supporting the theory that the wounded robber was any kind of threat...the jury found according to the evidence...he murdered the guy on the floor...

The Annoyed Man wrote:I'm going to have to disagree with you Steve, and my position will likely be unpopular. No doubt the first shot to the perp's head was justified, and it put him down and incapacitated him. But enough time had passed between then and when the pharmacist returns to pump 4 or 5 rounds into the guy who is already down and immobile that I have to question the need, and it appears to be a premeditated act. We're taught to "shoot to stop the threat." It appears that the threat was stopped by the first shot to the head.

Yes, the perp was a dirtbag, and yes, society is undoubtedly better off without him cluttering up the gene pool; but it's not our call to make to remove him from it. Even if the perp had succeeded in pulling himself to a sitting position—which witness testimony at the time indicates did not happen—I find it hard to belief that he was still trying to act aggressively toward the pharmacist, and the follow up shots do very much seem to be an execution.

...you've got it correct and just...shame the man went ballistic...not reasonable at all...