AlaskaDarin_Has_AIDS Posted May 30, 2009 Share Posted May 30, 2009 http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dw...n1.50e6756.html Sickening Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PearlHowardman Posted May 30, 2009 Share Posted May 30, 2009 This sounds similar to President Obama and the three (3) starving teenage Somali pirates killed last month. Obama's authorization to the US Navy included having the pirates heads blown off by being shot by military snipers. Did Obama go too far? Yes. The starving teenage Somalis did not need to die. Did the pharmacist go too far? Yes. The teenage robber did not need to die. Is there any indignation or investigation or murder charges against President Obama? No. Just look the other way. As a matter of fact, let's concentrate on Bush's torture instead. Is there any indignation or investigation or murder charges against the pharmacist? Yes. He deserves it. So does Obama. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkAF43 Posted May 30, 2009 Share Posted May 30, 2009 http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dw...n1.50e6756.html Sickening Not so sure what the problem is, the guy took one shot and the teenager was lying there, it seems there was no need to go back and shoot again, if that is what the tape shows, then he deserves to be punished for that cold blooded murder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted May 30, 2009 Share Posted May 30, 2009 Not so sure what the problem is, the guy took one shot and the teenager was lying there, it seems there was no need to go back and shoot again, if that is what the tape shows, then he deserves to be punished for that cold blooded murder. I was sympathetic to the guy initially, but after finishing it I agree: coming back and unloading on the robber with a fresh gun is too much. He should be charged with at least manslaughter. (Not opinion if racism played a role, it could just as well have been simply rage/fear/adrenaline.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fingon Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 Honestly, if you try to rob someone at gun point... you forfeit your life. I have no problem with the guy shooting him again. Maybe people would think twice about sticking up places if they knew the owner had free reign to shoot them. If some guy stuck a gun in my face, i would shoot him until my mag was empty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 Not so sure what the problem is, the guy took one shot and the teenager was lying there, it seems there was no need to go back and shoot again, if that is what the tape shows, then he deserves to be punished for that cold blooded murder. The only problem here is that OwensMania is a dumbass. As much as I support a little gene pool cleanisng here and there, if someone is a direct threat to you, you have a right to defend yourself from them, not execute them. If the robber was no longer a threat, there was no longer a reason to shoot him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swede316 Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 I'll have to agree with DC Tom...If I shot someone in the head...He's done and outta the game..Now if he some how moved towards his gun or raised his gun hand...by all means finish him off, but if and only if, but that's also why you put two in the chest then one in the head. Saves you problems later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheeseburger_in_paradise Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 I'll have to agree with DC Tom...If I shot someone in the head...He's done and outta the game..Now if he some how moved towards his gun or raised his gun hand...by all means finish him off, but if and only if, but that's also why you put two in the chest then one in the head. Saves you problems later. This does bring up some interesting questions. If the first head shot was lethal, does it really matter how many more times he shot him? Is there a law against how many rounds you can pump into a carcass on your own property? This does prove one thing. Drugs don't kill people. Pharmacists do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 This does bring up some interesting questions. If the first head shot was lethal, does it really matter how many more times he shot him? Is there a law against how many rounds you can pump into a carcass on your own property? Yeah seriously. It's not like he killed him twice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 This does bring up some interesting questions. If the first head shot was lethal, does it really matter how many more times he shot him? Is there a law against how many rounds you can pump into a carcass on your own property? This does prove one thing. Drugs don't kill people. Pharmacists do. I believe most states fish and game departments have laws against"wanton waste of meat" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steely Dan Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 This sounds similar to President Obama and the three (3) starving teenage Somali pirates killed last month. Obama's authorization to the US Navy included having the pirates heads blown off by being shot by military snipers. Did Obama go too far? Yes. The starving teenage Somalis did not need to die. Did the pharmacist go too far? Yes. The teenage robber did not need to die. Is there any indignation or investigation or murder charges against President Obama? No. Just look the other way. As a matter of fact, let's concentrate on Bush's torture instead. Is there any indignation or investigation or murder charges against the pharmacist? Yes. He deserves it. So does Obama. Link Link Great job shooting the kid in the head. Going back, not so good. I'd give him two years in the pen and two years probation. JMO If he had just shot the kid in the head he should have gotten a plaque. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PearlHowardman Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 Link Link Great job shooting the kid in the head. Going back, not so good. I'd give him two years in the pen and two years probation. JMO If he had just shot the kid in the head he should have gotten a plaque. "Ruthless Slaughter" - Getting your head completely blown off by a sniper. Had Obama wanted to settle this situation peacefully he easily could have. Nope - Kill 'em! And then let's get back to talking about how bad torture by George Bush and Dick Cheney is. Is Obama ever going to release the pictures of the now headless and lifeless Somali teenagers? http://mrssatan.blogspot.com/2009/04/obama...li-pirates.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkAF43 Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 "Ruthless Slaughter" - Getting your head completely blown off by a sniper. Had Obama wanted to settle this situation peacefully he easily could have. Nope - Kill 'em! And then let's get back to talking about how bad torture by George Bush and Dick Cheney is. Is Obama ever going to release the pictures of the now headless and lifeless Somali teenagers? http://mrssatan.blogspot.com/2009/04/obama...li-pirates.html why does it make a difference?> these teen pirates had every intention of harming the captain if they didn't get what they wanted, the decision was made to recover the US hostage, and that's what they did. The big difference between the two situations is that after the pirates were shot, we didn't go back over to them and open fire again. There was no need for the pharmacist to go back and fire on someone who was laying there with a bullet wound to the head, posing no further threat to anyone. It was unjustified and the man should be punished. These two situations are not even comparable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PearlHowardman Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 why does it make a difference?> these teen pirates had every intention of harming the captain if they didn't get what they wanted, the decision was made to recover the US hostage, and that's what they did. The big difference between the two situations is that after the pirates were shot, we didn't go back over to them and open fire again. There was no need for the pharmacist to go back and fire on someone who was laying there with a bullet wound to the head, posing no further threat to anyone. It was unjustified and the man should be punished. These two situations are not even comparable. Actually the intent of the teenage Somali pirates was to exchange the ship & crew for money, not to harm the captain. But after something like 4-5 days and no progress the situation deteriorated and the ship captain nearly got killed. What was Obama doing for those 4-5 days? Perhaps, trying to appear tough in front of the world? Obama could have had this situation ended peacefully - on DAY ONE! European countries and NATO would never use military snipers to solve these situations. The two situations are similar in that people were killed "execution style" when they didn't need to be. Obama-Liberals Lesson: "Ruthless slaughter" of starving teenage Somali pirates is OK but torture to gain valuable intelligence data is not. Republicans-Conservatives Lesson: Obama-Liberals beat the living s**t out of us regarding torture but when Obama needlessly kills people we're too stupid to turn around and use it against him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Fischer Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 Actually the intent of the teenage Somali pirates was to exchange the ship & crew for money, not to harm the captain. But after something like 4-5 days and no progress the situation deteriorated and the ship captain nearly got killed. What was Obama doing for those 4-5 days? Perhaps, trying to appear tough in front of the world? Obama could have had this situation ended peacefully - on DAY ONE! European countries and NATO would never use military snipers to solve these situations. The two situations are similar in that people were killed "execution style" when they didn't need to be. Obama-Liberals Lesson: "Ruthless slaughter" of starving teenage Somali pirates is OK but torture to gain valuable intelligence data is not. Republicans-Conservatives Lesson: Obama-Liberals beat the living s**t out of us regarding torture but when Obama needlessly kills people we're too stupid to turn around and use it against him. Good luck criticizing Obama for the Somali situation. I mean, you may have 5% of a Americans on your side. Maybe you can also attack Santa Claus for breaking and entering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RI Bills Fan Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 Read past the headline people.... On the video, Ersland fires a weapon, hitting Parker in the head as he is trying to put on a ski mask. Ersland, who wears an upper-body brace, then is seen chasing the second armed man outside before he walks back behind the counter with his back to Parker, retrieves a second gun, returns to Parker and fires five more times. An autopsy determined Parker was alive after being shot in the head and died from abdominal wounds. Also... Prater says Ersland was justified in shooting Parker in the head but went too far when he returned and repeatedly shot Parker as he lay unarmed and unconscious. The first shot was self-defense. The next five weren't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheeseburger_in_paradise Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 From the 911 call... Ersland....I just shot a guy trying to rob my store. I think he'd dead... 911.........OK, calm down...Can you be sure he's dead? Ersland....Just a minute........BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG...........OK, he's dead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkAF43 Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 Actually the intent of the teenage Somali pirates was to exchange the ship & crew for money, not to harm the captain. Obama could have had this situation ended peacefully - on DAY ONE! European countries and NATO would never use military snipers to solve these situations. so how could he have handled it? by caving to the demands of thieves? Giving them what they wanted would have resulted in bigger problems down the line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 so how could he have handled it? by caving to the demands of thieves? Giving them what they wanted would have resulted in bigger problems down the line. Please stop feeding the trolls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 From the 911 call... Ersland....I just shot a guy trying to rob my store. I think he'd dead... 911.........OK, calm down...Can you be sure he's dead? Ersland....Just a minute........BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG...........OK, he's dead. I suspect what will be argued - successfully - is that this guy's military training kicked in and he was not in control... Clearly the first shot could be seen as justified but by all accounts I've seen the kid was unconscious. Even a police officer who unloaded his/her gun into a suspect in such circumstances (or probably a soldier for that matter) would be charged with murder. I guess if this dissuaded stupid kids from robbing pharmacies some good would come out of it. But it won't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts