TexasCHLforum.com

I'm not exactly sure how I feel about this. Yes the Pharmacist had the right to defend himself. However going back and shooting the "downed assailant" three more times?

I'm sure the Pharmacist was feeling a lot of rage...he was thinking "You have the nerve to come into my store and threaten the lives of myself and customers?" If this happened in your home and someone threatened the life of your family would you only shoot once? Probably not...better make sure the threat is no longer a threat and shoot again.

What do you all think?

http://www.libertyslope.com/liberty-slo ... shots.html

this is already being discussed in another thread
http://texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php? ... er#p554141" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


It's not that he "fired too many shots" its that he chased the other guy outside came back inside reloaded his gun the fired shots at basically point blank range. Rage should not enter into it if he could not control his rage he should not carry a gun period. The point is if he had not went back in just to shoot the guy he would be a free man and if I was on they jury based on what I know I absolutely would vote to convict

AndyC wrote:I support his right to have used deadly force in the initial shooting.

Once the kid was done and (as the blood-spatter seems to indicate) no longer a threat, his later actions turned it into an execution. I would have convicted him as well, despite understanding that terror and rage overwhelmed him - although I would probably have gone with 2nd degree murder (if they have such a thing there), not 1st degree, which to me means having planned it beforehand.

Agreed. The assailant was down and no longer a threat. I would have also voted to convict.

However, I would have gone with manslaughter as I could see the argument as it having been done in the heat of passion.

This is locked as a duplicate thread. Please post to the previous thread.