"It's society's fault he was driven to desperation!"
"It's entirely his responsibility for making this choice!"

Why does it have to be one or the other?
All criminals are human beings. They're people. People who, because of their circumstances, have made poor choices. This is a statement that acknowledges the impact of their situation and their personal culpability.

The criminal here may have been driven to desperate acts by his situation, or he might just be a sociopathic opportunist. We can't be certain.
He may have been lured by the promise of easy money after hearing how someone else had gotten away apparently scot-free. He might feel that a few hundred or thousand bucks is worth a lot to him, but is effectively nothing for the corporation behind the counter, and that no one's really going to be hurt by his actions.
He might have been just high enough to talk himself into it, or be talked into it by someone else.
His starving family, or his kid that needs a kidney transplant, or the eviction notice that's probably coming in a few days, or the drug habit he's feeding - none of these make it "OK" to decide to commit a crime, but they're factors.

We're often very quick to picture someone who has committed a crime as nothing more than the crime itself.
It's a message I think gets a bit muddled in Eastwood's Gran Torino. We're shown how Thao is driven by peer pressure to attempt to steal the titular vehicle; he's not a criminal, but a person who made a very poor decision. A person who could potentially be rehabilitated from his "life of crime." At the same time, the gang members throughout the movie are vilified in typical "nothing more than criminals" fashion.

If this pharmacist was in violation of corporate policy by having the pistol at work (and I highly doubt CVS policy allows employees to arm themselves), then he'll probably be fired, or at least reprimanded.
I imagine he was probably "fed up" and angry about "these criminals preying on us and getting away with it." Does that make what he did right? Personally, I don't think so.
Here in Texas, I'm allowed by law to shoot someone if they're stealing my property. I don't think property is worth killing over. I do, however, think it's reasonable to use deadly force if my life or the life of a loved one is in imminent danger, or to prevent or stop a sexual assault against a loved one.
Beyond asking if he was "right" to do it, we can also ask if it was a responsible act. Unless the pharmacist saw something that convinced him the robber was preparing to shoot someone, I definitely think it was irresponsible, even if he'd fired one carefully-aimed shot that dropped the robber. The vast majority of robberies are bloodless affairs and criminals know that employees are typically trained to comply with demands. Confrontation with a firearm could have escalated the situation in an unpredictable fashion.

I'm not sure what the law is in Georgia, but here in Texas one of the clauses for use of deadly force is that the "actor did not provoke the person against whom the force was used." This clause gives me pause because it seems like displaying a gun in the first place might be considered provocation.

My pharmacist refused to fill my prescription my doc wrote for me!

The tea parties were around before Health Care Reform.

Its was about tax reform! Until the far right started to dilute the parties with stupid.

Insulting some one or a group of people you disagree with is detrimental to your cause.

Anyone who says "Teabaggers", "Liberal Wingnuts", or "Conservative Dingbats" will no longer get my ear.


Lastly the current health care system is bogus, because of bad incentives! I cannot say it enough. The whole of America is corrupted by bad incentives.

Lets take this fictive, or not so fictive example. Some one has a cancer, a rather aggressive cancer. But they are showing excellent resilience despite all of the medications, and photon beams. They are due for a treatment, but the pharmacist wont fill the prescription, because the pharmacist isn't sure he will get paid. Because of the insurance companies policy: You do not get paid until the full script is given.

Its both the pharmacists fault, and the insurance companies fault, its bad incentives and selfish tactics. The nature of a bargain is usually this: you don't pay for something until it is all received.

The insurance company is being selfish, and the Pharmacist is selfish. Bad business and bad ethics. Its not necessarily the system as a whole but the people working in the system. Its the decisions the people in the system make while faced with bad incentives.

Ill tell you all a secret: Good business is created by unselfish practices. You provide the service, and then once the service is complete you receive payment. If you do not then you take it to a Civil Court. That is good business and what the Civil Courts are for.

The question is will any of this change with the coming health care reform? Probably not. Humans will act as humans do. A few will stand up for what they think is right, given their frames of reference.

>> ^imstellar28:
1. I [will] never get seriously sick or injured.

This is a false assertion, especially when you put the implied "will" into it.

2. I already have health insurance with a no-drop clause.

This too is a false assertion.

3. I'm a millionaire. I pay for healthcare in cash.

The plan will reduce the cost of the care you receive by making sure doctors no longer have incentives to pad your bill with unneeded tests and procedures, as well as allowing group plans to negotiate prices with care providers and pharmaceutical companies.

Plus, chances are if you're a millionaire you've got insurance coverage now, especially since medical costs can easily wipe out the bank account of a mere millionaire.

4. I'm ideologically and superstitiously opposed to placing bets against my own health.

Then your irrational fears will no longer hamper you from receiving care when inevitably you encounter a problem with your health. Though I suspect they will allow groups like Christian Scientists to be able to have an exemption from mandates on a religious basis.

5. I'm a doctor, surgeon, and pharmacist. Healthcare is free for me.

6. All my friends are doctors, surgeons, and pharmacists. Healthcare is free for me.

It's not free for the provider of the benefit. Reducing their costs will mean they have more money to spend on other things, like private jets and hookers, or hopefully higher doctor salaries, higher investment in the facility, etc.

7. I don't believe in modern medicine; rather I believe in a healthy diet, exercise, and the avoidance of unnecessary risk.

Modern medicine believes in those things as well, and one of the sub-goals of this is to get more preventative care covered, so things like dieticians, personal trainers, gym memberships and the like will also be covered in some form.

6. I live on a remote farm with no physical access to healthcare.

False premise, everyone has physical access in a world where we have helicopters. Presumably if there's a large enough pool of people who only have access to medical care via medevac someone will create a HDHP product that's aimed at such a market. If not, and they earn too much to qualify for Medicaid somehow, they're going to get a subsidy to help them pay for their choice of private/public individual plans, or pay a fine.

7. I don't believe in medical intervention. If injury or disease are in my cards, so be it.

Again, I presume there will be provisions that allow exclusion on religious beliefs.

8. I rely on foreign healthcare paid in cash. Its a free vacation and is much cheaper than healthcare in the US - even with insurance.

It might make care cheap enough for you to be able to get care here. I doubt there are many people for which this statement is 100% true though.

If it's true, we should copy the system of this hypothetical other country -- presumably Canada's -- and go for a much stronger form of government involvement in health care.

9. I have a large network of friends and family. We have agreed to donate money if one of us is seriously ill. None of us need insurance.

I'm not familiar with the finest of details of the plan, but I believe that allowing the formation insurance co-ops is going to be in there. In other words, such a scheme could qualify as being insurance.

10. Health insurance is a bad investment for me because I am rarely sick or injured. The money I save on premiums goes into a high-yield investment portfolio, whose funds I will draw upon in the event of an emergency.
Please explain how health care reform helps me?

If you have enough money in the investment portfolio, it may qualify as insurance (e.g. auto insurance requirements can be satisfied by this kind of thing now). If not, I suspect there will be many private insurance products targeted at just this sort of person, since I think there are nearly 20 million people who're uninsured for exactly this reason now.

I doubt you'd get resistance from the left on things like adding provisions for people to self-insure via co-op or high-value Health Savings Account, or letting people opt out on the basis of religious beliefs. I think your second #6 would be a worthy topic if there truly were lots of people in that category, though I suspect the response would be to look into what could be done to give them physical access to care, rather than just exempting them from the relevant mandates.

"How Health Care Reform Will Help You, No Matter Who You Are"

1. I never get seriously sick or injured.

2. I already have health insurance with a no-drop clause.

3. I'm a millionaire. I pay for healthcare in cash.

4. I'm ideologically and superstitiously opposed to placing bets against my own health.

5. I'm a doctor, surgeon, and pharmacist. Healthcare is free for me

6. All my friends are doctors, surgeons, and pharmacists. Healthcare is free for me.

7. I don't believe in modern medicine; rather I believe in a healthy diet, exercise, and the avoidance of unnecessary risk.

6. I live on a remote farm with no physical access to healthcare.

7. I don't believe in medical intervention. If injury or disease are in my cards, so be it.

8. I rely on foreign healthcare paid in cash. Its a free vacation and is much cheaper than healthcare in the US - even with insurance.

9. I have a large network of friends and family. We have agreed to donate money if one of us is seriously ill. None of us need insurance.

10. Health insurance is a bad investment for me because I am rarely sick or injured. The money I save on premiums goes into a high-yield investment portfolio, whose funds I will draw upon in the event of an emergency.

Please explain how health care reform helps me?

Just for fun, I read the crawl this time.
I wonder if the juxtaposition of text with the interview is ever planned or if its mostly just random news bites...



(...)PHARMACIST WHO SHOT A WOULD-BE ROBBER ON MAY 19... 57-YR-OLD JEROME ERSLAND SHOT 16-YR-OLD ANTWUN PARKER ONCE IN THE HEAD INSIDE HIS STORE, THEN CHASED A SECOND ROBBER OUT THE DOOR... PROSECUTORS SAY ERSLAND WAS NO LONGER DEFENDING HIMSELF WHEN HE RETURNED AND SHOT PARKER FIVE MORE TIMES AFTER HE WAS ALREADY UNCONSCIOUS

NEBRASKA LAWMAKERS APPROVE BILL CHANGING STATE'S METHOD OF EXECUTION FROM ELECTROCUTION TO LETHAL INJECTION... NE HAS BEEN WITHOUT A MEANS OF EXECUTION SINCE FEB 2008 WHEN THE STATE SUPREMEME COURT RULED THAT THE ELECTRIC CHAIR AMOUNTED TO CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT... NE WAS THE ONLY STATE WITH ELECTROCUTION AS ITS SOLE MEANS OF EXECUTION

THREE SONS OF AN AL QUAEDA-LINKED CLERIC JAILED IN LONDON FOR RUNNING A CAR THEFT RING... THE MEN, ALL IN THEIR 20S, WERE SENTENCED ALONG WITH FOUR OTHERS TO PRISON TERMS RANGING FROM 2-4 YEARS. THE SCHEME INVOLVED STEALING LUXURY CARS FROM LONG-STAY PARKING LOTS, THOUGH THE MEN DENY FINANCING TERRORISM THROUGH THE SALES OF THE VEHICLES... THE MEN'S FATHER, 50-YR-OLD CLERIC ABU HAMZA, IS IN JAIL IN LONDON AND FACES EXTRADITION TO THE U.S. FOR ALLEGEDLY TRYING TO SET UP A TERROR TRAINING CAMP IN O

EXPLOSION IN A SHIITE MOSQUE KILLS 15, INJURES 50 IN SE IRAN NEAR THE PAKISTANI BORDER... IRAN'S SISTAN-BALUCHISTAN PROVINCE IS PLAGUED BY LAWLESSNESS AND IS A KEY ENTRY POINT FOR DRUGS... A SUNNI TERROR ORG CALLED JUNDALLAH IS ACTIVE IN THE PROVINCE, KILLING 11 SOLDIERS IN 2007 IN THE CITY WHERE TODAY'S BOMBING OCCURRED

AMERICAN JOURNALIST ROXANA SABERI, WHO SPENT FOUR MONTHS IN AN IRANIAN PRISON ON ESPIONAGE CHARGES, SAYS SHE INITIALLY CONFESSED TO BEING A SPY AFTER COMING UNDER PSYCHOLOGICAL PRESSURE... SABERI: "MY CONFESSION WAS FALSE AND I THOUGHT I TO (...)

(...)TO KEEP PRODUCTION QUOTAS AT PRESENT LEVELS, SAYING WORLDWIDE OIL INVENTORIES AT THE END OF LAST MONTH WERE AT 20-YR-HIGH... PRODUCTION CUTS COULD HAVE BACKFIRED ON OPEC BY BOOSTING PRICES AND MAKING IR MORE DIFFICULT FOR COUNTRIES TO PAY FRO CRUDE... PRICE OF A BARREL OF CRUDE IS CURRENTLY OVER $60, UP FROM APPROX #30 FOUR MONTHS AGO, BUT STILL FAR FROM 2008 HIGH OF $147

WHAT'S IN A NAME?... WINNING TICKET IN WED NIGHT'S $232 MIL POWERBALL JACKPOT WAS SOLD IN WINNER, SD... IT'S THE NINETH-LARGEST POWERBALL JACKPOT AND THE BIGGEST EVEN IN THE STATE. WINNER IS LOCATED IN SOUTH-CENTRAL SD AND HAS A POPULATION OF ABOUT 2,800

A TAX ON EVERYTHING?... THE PROSPECT OF A VALUE ADDED TAX (V.A.T) COULD BE GAINING TRACTION AS THE GOVT LOOKS FOR WAYS TO PAY FOR THE STIMULUS, BAILOUTS AND POSSIBLE HEALTH CARE REFORM... THE V.A.T AMOUNTS TO A NATL SALES TAX, AN IDEA THAT'S BEEN SUPPORTED BY SOME CONSERVATIVES, BUT ONLY AS A REPLACEMENT FOR THE INCOME TAX SYSTEM... HOWEVER A SR WHITE HOUSE OFFICIAL TOLD THE WASH POST IT'S "UNLIKELY" THE V.A.T. WOULD BE USED AS A NEW SOURCE OF REVENUE

>> ^Wingoguy:
You've left out a few very good, and feasible options:
1. Join the US military - get a fair paycheck, good training and plenty of educational opportunities


And fly overseas and kill poor people. Or suffer an injury and get screwed around by the VA. Or do something that you have to spend the rest of your life trying to forget. Yeah, great option.

Instead of becoming a corporate stooge, become a proxy mercenary for Corporate America.

And a poorly paid one at that.

And how much does Americorps pay?

>> ^blankfist:
Ron Paul 2012!


He's gonna be over 9000 years old then

>> ^jwray:
A dumb, uneducated poor man without family connections has four choices, roughly in order of preference:
1. Conforming to every whim of a corporation in exchange for just enough money to survive (and not enough to get an education or proper healthcare). This is better than slavery, but not a whole lot better.
2. The dole (maybe)
3. Theft
4. Starving to death

If economic shit hits the fan and #1 is not available, #2 better be available, or else #3 is inevitable. I'm not saying it's justified, but it's sure as hell inevitable.
Edit:
There is no such thing as counter-causal free will. But that is irrelevant to the criminal justice system because the only rational purpose of punishment is as disincentive to harmful behaviors. In circumstances of extreme starvation (or drug withdrawal, which is the similar psychologically) no punishment is adequate disincentive, therefore the only effective way to prevent theft in those circumstances is to prevent such circumstances through restructuring of welfare and charity programs.


Or you do as many people I know personally: move into a trailer with 4-6 of your relatives/friends. I've been spending some time hanging out with friends who live in a trailer park near Anaheim. These guys who share a trailer all work for either Aeromark or Disneyland, both of which pay pretty shitty but at least they can live.

Oh, that's right, I remember why I was over there: They also make money selling drugs. So, yeah, there's a 5th solution.

Very well said.

In reply to this comment by jwray:
A dumb, uneducated poor man without family connections has four choices, roughly in order of preference:

1. Conforming to every whim of a corporation in exchange for just enough money to survive (and not enough to get an education or proper healthcare). This is better than slavery, but not a whole lot better.
2. The dole (maybe)
3. Theft
4. Starving to death


If economic shit hits the fan and #1 is not available, #2 better be available, or else #3 is inevitable. I'm not saying it's justified, but it's sure as hell inevitable.

>> ^jwray:
...sad that society pushed the aggressor into such a state of desperation over petty sums of money.

Like it or not, that's largely true.

American society shits on people and wonders why they react negatively.

Most of the people who disagree with that assessment are white, middle-class men who have never had half the difficulty in getting a job or an education that many others in this country face from the moment of birth.

>> ^jwray:
sad that society pushed the aggressor into such a state of desperation over petty sums of money.

Yes, it's society's fault, and he clearly bears no responsibility for his own actions.

Your video, Robber surprised when pharmacist opens fire in CVS, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

>> ^Schattdaddy:
See? Guns can solve problems. Go America!


cept the robber still got the loot, the only thing the clerks actions really did was introduce thre bullets into the situation.

Lucky the dum old fuck didnt get shot or shoot someone.

The pharmacist won't and shouldn't be fired.

It's sad that he didn't hit the right spot to prevent the aggressor from getting away to strike again, and sad that society pushed the aggressor into such a state of desperation over petty sums of money.

Decent welfare is part of the price north/western Europe pays for having less violent crime and higher educational attainment than the USA.