Important: We can't see the bad guy on the floor. We can't see if he is pointing his weapon at the pharmacist or reaching for it to shoot the pharmacist, etc. All we see is the pharmacist pointing his weapon DOWN at the robber and shooting. The video shows nothing of the robber once he is originally shot. Note: I assume the robber's weapon just doesn't disappear and would have to be very close to him or still in his hand, etc. Maybe the phamacist felt threatend (more than it looks like on the video). Do we know if the bad guy was really trying get up again like the pharmacist said)?
If you watch the DA discussing the case in the video provided by
Double Naught Spy The DA makes it quite clear that the Guy on the floor was
unarmed
no weapon was found at the scene, and no shots were fired by the robbers. It is also apparent (to me at least) that the store owner passed the downed suspect, in very close proximity,
twice with little more than a furtive glance. In fact the DA points out something that I had to go back to verify, but the store owner does have the weapon in his off hand at one point when he passes the downed suspect.
The only thing he has going for him is that the video does show the two robbers coming in his store and pointing their weapons directly at him
Unless you saw a different version than I did, only one robber pointed a weapon, he was the guy that ran out the door.
The other thing I find interesting is that the store owner claimed he had been shot at, but there was no evidence that the robbers ever fired. The other thing was the fact that the store had a "buzz-in" type lock on the door. It would appear that the suspect that was shot was the "face man" that got them to open the door, and the other guy was already masked, armed, and waiting out of view. The suspect who was killed spent the better part of the video trying to put on his mask. Makes me wonder why the store owner did not shoot at the obviously armed suspect first rather than the other guy.
I can see the defense in this case arguing that the initial wound, which was stated by even the DA as justified, was in fact lethal and the subsequent shots, though uncalled for, really had no effect on the end result.
That argument is pretty much out the window, The ME stated that the wound to the head was not fatal, and had that been the only shot, the robber would likely have recovered fully. The evidence also points out that the suspect was
not moving when the other shots were fired.
While the video does not look good, a jury will not be allowed to "assume" anything regarding what is not shown on the video.
While the court may instruct the jury to use only direct evidence, you can safely bet that "assumptions"
are going to be drawn.
While I feel little pity for someone who commits a crime, and is shot in the process by a victim, in this instance I feel the store owners actions were the most reprehensible of the three. I agree with the DA, This is a perfect example of what
not to do. Shooting to protect yourself is one thing, an execution is quite another.