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.