I believe shoot them dead attitude is a danger to CCW in general since that is the fear of the libs who oppose CCW in the first place. Shoot to stop is the correct approach and in such this man went beyond what was right.
However, I don't believe that he had malice of forethought. When I went through my Idaho CCW class, the instructor who is retired military and part time cop in our town spoke of a local shooting at a store in the town next door. It was almost an identical shooting in many respects to the one in question where the robber who was armed was shot by the clerk in the heart. After he fell on the floor in his last dying breaths, he went into a seizure from lack of blood to the brain. The clerk out of fear pumped several more bullets into an essentially dead man after seeing his involuntary movements which she interpreted as an attempt to act aggressively to her once again.
In this case, the prosecution chose to not prosecute her for shooting a dead body. I believe that they should have cut this guy some slack since he probably just responded out of fear and adrenalin when he saw the creep moving on the floor and interpreted that as an attempt at aggressive actions once again. We all know that in this situation with the adrenalin rush that the brain shuts down, you have tunnel vision and react instinctively out of muscle memory and all reason and rational thought ceases. I didn't follow his trial at all, just brief news clips in the gun forums here and there, but the physiology of a shooting should have been his first defense.
I would not have held him responsible to 1st degree murder and likely would not have even voted for any criminal culpability since it was the intruders that set off his adrenalin response, they themselves were responsible for what followed.
Sadly, this is just one more example of having a lawyer that understands the physiology of shootings and an affirmative defense as well a s client that should NOT make any statements at all without express permission from his lawyer. With a good set of expert witnesses and a good lawyer and a smart client, should not this case have had a different outcome.
I have experienced an adrenaline dump twice in my life, the first from a German Shepherd that charged me and in a car accident where the other driver ran a red light right into me. In both instances I became quite disoriented and distorted in my reasoning immediately after the event and if faced with a second adrenaline dump from a moving suspect, I could easily see how the pharmacist reacted by shooting him a second time.
My goodness, if a jury can acquit that Anthony woman, why not see some room for compassion for this man. We no longer have any common sense in America and good luck finding justice from a jury of our peers in this country anymore. I believe his actions are completely understandable when you look at it through the eyes of the Adrenaline dump and the changes on physiology and psychology in such a situation. It is easy to sit back from the comfort of our own homes and criticize this man, but think of how you would react with not one, but two adrenalin dumps back to back and see how you would fare in such a situation.
I believe he more than likely just shot a corpse out of fear like the lady in my example above. He is not a murderer, he was simply under the influence of the adrenaline dumps that these creeps instigated, they are to blame for their outcomes, not him.