The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post

divemedic · June 11, 2009, 02:09 PM

Remember that the standard for a criminal conviction is "beyond a reasonable doubt." The following facts have been confirmed by the prosecution AND the defense:

1 The deceased was participating in an armed robbery
2 The deceased was shot once in the head by the shopkeeper
3 The shopkeeper left the vicinity of the deceased
4 the shopkeeper returned, and shot the deceased multiple times
5 The initial shooting was justified, the charges stem from a question of whether or not the second set of shots was, as well
6 The deceased was not armed

So the question here is whether or not the second set of shots was legally justified. The deceased is not visible on the video, and the only witness was the shopkeeper, who claims he was moving. Forensic evidence can tell you whether or not the deceased moved from the point where he fell, but the reasonable doubt, in my mind, enters when we ask if the deceased could possibly have moved his hands or arms, and whether or not a subject's arm twitching could reasonably be perceived as a threat.

I think there is plenty of room there for reasonable doubt, if the pharmacist has a good lawyer. Keeping in mind that the pharmacist is presumed innocent, and that it is the job of the prosecutor to prove BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that the defendant unlawfully killed the decedent, I think the prosecutor has a difficult case ahead of him.

ETA: As a paramedic who has seen hundreds of head injuries, and dozens of shootings (at least in the three digits) I can tell you this: A severe head injury does not cause a person to collapse and go limp. Frequently, a severe head injury causes the person to "posture." The two types of posturing are called decorticate and decerebate posturing. The decedent was very likely to have been moving after being shot, and this would not be a conscious movement, but could easily be mistaken for one.

June 11, 2009, 02:09 PM	#45
divemedic Senior Member Join Date: August 12, 2006 Posts: 1,310	Remember that the standard for a criminal conviction is "beyond a reasonable doubt." The following facts have been confirmed by the prosecution AND the defense: 1 The deceased was participating in an armed robbery 2 The deceased was shot once in the head by the shopkeeper 3 The shopkeeper left the vicinity of the deceased 4 the shopkeeper returned, and shot the deceased multiple times 5 The initial shooting was justified, the charges stem from a question of whether or not the second set of shots was, as well 6 The deceased was not armed So the question here is whether or not the second set of shots was legally justified. The deceased is not visible on the video, and the only witness was the shopkeeper, who claims he was moving. Forensic evidence can tell you whether or not the deceased moved from the point where he fell, but the reasonable doubt, in my mind, enters when we ask if the deceased could possibly have moved his hands or arms, and whether or not a subject's arm twitching could reasonably be perceived as a threat. I think there is plenty of room there for reasonable doubt, if the pharmacist has a good lawyer. Keeping in mind that the pharmacist is presumed innocent, and that it is the job of the prosecutor to prove BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that the defendant unlawfully killed the decedent, I think the prosecutor has a difficult case ahead of him. ETA: As a paramedic who has seen hundreds of head injuries, and dozens of shootings (at least in the three digits) I can tell you this: A severe head injury does not cause a person to collapse and go limp. Frequently, a severe head injury causes the person to "posture." The two types of posturing are called decorticate and decerebate posturing. The decedent was very likely to have been moving after being shot, and this would not be a conscious movement, but could easily be mistaken for one. __________________ Caveat Emperor Last edited by divemedic; June 11, 2009 at 02:16 PM.