Interesting gun case about to be tried in Oklahoma City

Tomasello said:
Ironic from a guy with a giant revolver in his avatar.
Click to expand...

Woman, and not really. Just because I like the look of something has no baring on whether I think an act such as what was displayed is disgusting and inhumane. Good try though.
 
Tomasello said:
If your saying he should of known better because of his training then you need to understand that whether it be police or military, they are trained such that when they encounter an imminent threat and have no choice but to discharge their weapon then you shoot to kill. There is no such thing as shooting to incapacitate. Every shot is a kill shot. Now once he was obviously not longer a threat then yeah all of a sudden he "did something wrong".
Click to expand...

Cops are trained to shoot to kill as a last resort(shots fired at them, an innocents life is in danger, etc.) They're urged to shoot to disable. Personal imminent threat is a lot less broad for a cop going by the book, they cannot be initiators. NO cop will be justified in shooting an unarmed perp.

What he SHOULD of done was discharged the entire magazine at once on the dirt bag THEN he would of been all set. Unfortunately he was saving his bullets for the other criminal who got away.

Too bad.
Click to expand...

Yes, if he did empty his magazine before running off, he'd be okay. Or at least not in so much trouble. He didn't though, so what he SHOULD have done was call the cops to take the kid away.

Morcheeba said:
To add, IF it had been an officer who shot this kid in the street, then seeing him struggle to get up shot him 5 more times in the stomach ultimately killing him, kid being unarmed, the cop would face consequences.. I don't want to say WHAT charges if any he /she may get, because I know cops seem to get away with a lot more than any citizen would be allowed in the exact same situation. None-the-less, it would also be murder. There would be a wicked outcry from the community as well.
Click to expand...

Like I said, a cop has no justification killing an unarmed perp. They'd be in a ton of shit. If the same situation happened to the one that was actually armed, maybe a cop would be able to get away with more. But since the kid didn't have a weapon, that makes a world of difference.


Tomasello said:
Ironic from a guy with a giant revolver in his avatar.
Click to expand...

Yes, because using that logic, everyone who enjoys slasher flicks is obviously a hypocrite for thinking murderers should be punished. Wow, Tom. You never cease to amaze me.
 
Last edited:
Skaw said:
They're urged to shoot to disable.
Click to expand...

Clearly you watch too many movies or something. If a cop discharges his weapon, its center mass (ie a KILL shot). They don't shoot people in the leg to "disable" them. If they did then they really would be in trouble. Shooting is a last resort when deadly force is the only option. If the scum survives then all he is, is lucky. God you just ooze misinformation don't you?


Skaw said:
Yes, because using that logic, everyone who enjoys slasher flicks is obviously a hypocrite for thinking murderers should be punished. Wow, Tom. You never cease to amaze me.
Click to expand...

Your so ignorant. If you don't see the IRONY in a person upset someone was shot in cold blood when their avatar has a creepy looking dude or ugly chick (its hard to tell) with a cocked .44 magnum then after you get done looking up the word "racist" maybe you should look up "irony" and "ignoramus".



P.S. If I have mistaken my gun type, I'm sure some gun nuts traverse this site, feel free to correct me.
 
Last edited:
Tomasello said:
Clearly you watch too many movies or something. If a cop discharges his weapon, its center mass (ie a KILL shot). They don't shoot people in the leg to "disable" them. If they did then they really would be in trouble. Shooting is a last resort when deadly force is the only option. If the scum survives then all he is, is lucky. God you just ooze misinformation don't you?
Click to expand...

So, are you a cop? You're not? Then shut the fuck up. You can't even fucking read. I didn't say cops shouldn't shoot to kill. I said they're urged not to unless absolutely necessary. You have no idea what departments go through just from a bullet being fired by a cop, much less the death of someone at the hands of one - justified or not.

Your so ignorant. If you don't see the IRONY in a person upset someone was shot in cold blood when their avatar has a creepy looking dude or ugly chick (its hard to tell) with a cocked .44 magnum then after you get done looking up the word "racist" maybe you should look up "irony" and "ignoramus".
Click to expand...

And you wouldn't say that it's ironic that a person who enjoys watching movies about psychopathic killers doesn't gets upset when real life murderers get punished? Fucking hypocrite.

e: better wording

double e: more postin'.
 
Last edited:
This is what this discussion has evolved into? Seriously. Instead of paying so much attention to my avatar, not sure if it's an attempt to discredit my posts.. or something, idk, I don't know why it's relevant.

Someone holding a gun for a sinister/sexy attempt at a band shoot vs. a man executing a 14 year old in cold blood.. right, I see the relation..

To make it clear, my favorite movies aside from childish fantasy are horror, the more gore the more enjoyable for me. That doesn't change the fact that I am the biggest kind of suck, I have a super sappy soul and cry over animal abuse commercials and 3rd world donation commercials.. so thar ya go.


I agree with the DA,

Dude scores a headshot.

chases the other down the street.... Read More

realises the first one has last stand on and decides to finish him off?

this isn't a video game.

he was in no danger, should have picked up the phone and called 911
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Let's please stop the name calling.
 
Ironically I am going to agrees with Tom. The little fuck went into the store with intent to harm/threaten the old man. On the old man's property. I don't blame the old man one bit.

If anyone crosses the threshold in my house with intent to harm me or my wife and daughter, they will be shot with at least 10 rounds from a shotgun, 2 magazines from a rifle, and a few rounds from a handgun. Once they cross that threshold, they are turning into a criminal, thus giving up all of their rights. Only law abiding citizens have rights.
 




This could be a viable option in this case. I do infact believe that it is murder but i think that this would be a good case for jury nullification to take effect.
 
Jury nullification seems a bit strong for this one. It's not like they'd have to strain very hard and throw out the rulebook to acquit the guy. There's a strong case to be made that he shouldn't be imprisoned for killing a would-be robber.
 
I read the first page and glanced over the rest.

Let me explain myself here to give some background: I believe in gun rights. I have a concealed-carry permit.

This guy should go to jail.

Shooting the first guy is a justified shooting. Once he pursued the others, he became unlawful. Shooting the first guy again, is murder. I don't care if the kid was moving, unless he is pointing a gun at you, shooting him again is not a justified shooting. This is not opinion, this is something that is spelled out in every CCW course around (except maybe Texas...). I hope the guy likes prison....
 
Just watched the video. I can't believe this is even a debate. The guy should go to jail.
 
Is it me or is that Tom guy really creepy?
 
I like Tom, and I agree with him in this case.

Cheebs said it wasn't the old man's right to decide whether the kid lived or died. I disagree. The dumb shit punk walked onto the old man's property with the intent to rob and harm him if necessary. When he made that choice, he should have been ready to accept the consequences. You point a gun at someone, don't expect them to incapacitate you and call the cops, expect them to blow your miserable brains out if they get the chance.

It was the old man's choice, and he decided to kill him. Too bad for the kid, but such is life.
 
Excal, there is a difference between defending your shop and doing what that guy did. He shot the kid. If the kid had died right there, your point would be valid and I would not only end it there, but I would say that I whole heartedly agree with you.

HOWEVER, the guy did not stop there, instead he chased the other kid outside, emptying his gun. Then walked back inside, over the unconscience thief, retrieved another gun, walked to the prone kid and fired 5 shots - point blank! That is not self-defense, that is murder.

Since seeing this thread, I've glanced at several gun forums (ar15.com, etc) and even most of the hardcore gun rights activists there won't defend this guy's actions.

To be honest, judging from his actions on tape, the prosecuter could argue pre-med and go for a murder 1 charge.
 
I'm actually with alanon here. I think the shopkeep was fully justified in self-preservation in his first shot and with following the other guy out of the store.

sidebar: I wouldn't have followed the other guy when he ran out. Who knew if there was a getaway car with an automatic rifle sitting outside waiting? If the would-be robber would have been dumb enough to re-enter the store that I'm in with his friend who is laying bleeding, then woe be to him.

In the short time he came back between the running off and retrieving the second gun, he had more than enough time to formulate a single thought in his head: "motherfucker tries to enter my store and rob me? I'll end him where he stands", grabs the gun; *blam blam*, thank you ma'am.

I hope he wouldn't get charged with Murder One and would rather him face voluntary manslaughter charges, but I think there is a solid case here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top