- Joined
- Mar 25, 2008
- Messages
- 9,848
- Reaction score
- 1,835
Thanks! I'm no lawyer though, so it's really just law talk from me. I don't mean to present myself as some sort of authority on the matter.
The use of deadly force is debatable, and maybe even acceptable, in the scope of self-defense and eliminating a serious threat. But, you're arguing that the robber needed to die to be made an example to other criminals out there?
It's not the pharmacist's place to delegate an execution. You're basically advocating for vigilante justice, and this kind of reasoning would impinge upon why vigilantism is outlawed. Law enforcement and the government can't condone vigilantism because everyone else would then use their own criteria and standard for judging a particular situation. In short, letting the pharmacist off scott-free could set its own precedence for other individuals to exercise their own potentially loose interpretations of justice.
For me, at the heart of the matter, I am wondering about the motivations for the pharmacist's actions. Did he feel a pervading sense of fear? Was he acting on impulse or abject terror? Or, is he acting on anger and vengeance? Such emotions are not virtues and they shouldn't be applauded. I can more readily accept if the pharmacist felt the need to kill the robber, but if instead he wanted to kill the robber, then that's distinctly different.
--Garfield3d
See, that's the difference between me and you. I support vigilante justice.