The pharmacist will almost certainly lose his job for that. It's just like if you start shooting at the pirates they'll only up the ante, they say.

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.

See? Guns can solve problems. Go America!

>> ^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.

Amerrrrica!!! FUCK YEAH!

>> ^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.

xax gets it

>> ^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.

I'm white, but other than that, I don't fit your profile. I know what it's like to struggle, but that doesn't mean I get a free pass and can point the finger at everyone else if I decide to rob someone at gunpoint. I find that notion pretty damned disgusting. Life throws shit bricks at you, and you don't have much choice in that, but all of us have control over our own actions.

A note to the conservatives: being "left of center" doesn't mean you have to buy into this "everything is everyone else's fault, I'm a victim, and I'm entitled" bullshit, so don't think we all buy that garbage.

Society didn't push shit. Violent criminals are the worst type of lazy.

If you're a white, middle-class American man, you've been afforded more opportunities than any other class of people in the world, and to deny that is sheer ignorance.

My girlfriend used to work for the Loss Prevention department for a large high-end boutique, and she says that in most situations like this, employees are told to do whatever the gun-wielding robber wants, and to not risk injury or getting someone else injured.

There's that line during the opening sequence (payroll robbery, oddly enough) in Serenity - paraphrased, "A hero is someone who gets other people killed." He could have unwittingly hit a co-worker, or instigated the robber to fire back, hitting him or a co-worker, and either ending would give this video a very different tone, as would our comments.

Had he actually killed the robber, this would be considered a "legal, justified" shooting (a category that also includes law enforcement-related deaths where the officers involved were cleared of any wrongdoing), which make up less than 2% of all firearm-related deaths (according to a study of DC's death statistics before their handgun ban went into effect, I can't find the story now, but it's in the Washington Post's archives).

And Rougy raises a lot of great points. I'm also white, from a lower-middle-class family. Life is far from easy, however, I would be a fool to think that someone just as smart but with any other skin color had been afforded the same opportunities as I have.

Rougy, a lot of people prosper in this country as a result of one of their ancestors working hard and building wealth to pass down through the generations. Most immigrants here don't have anything to start with. I'm not sure I understand your proposed solutions. Surely, you don't mean to steal from those families with generational wealth because you're envious of the fact that some people are born into more ancestral wealth than others?

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.

>> ^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.

1) dont walk aisles
2) go to exit
3) headshot

Ron Paul 2012!

>> ^blankfist:
Ron Paul 2012!


He's gonna be over 9000 years old then

Pops needs to spend more time at the range. One shot, one kill.

And no he won't get fired, he's now a local hero (rightly so), and the company won't risk making a martyr out of him. At worst they'll offer him a fat chunk of money to quietly retire early.

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
2. If you're a pacifist, join Americorps - get job experience and money for education

I honestly don't know what's wrong with these, so please feel free to state your case. They both seem better than all the below options.



"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
5. Selling drugs"

>> ^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?

According to their website, Americorp pays you a modest salary that's enough to pay your bills.

Regarding the military, only a small percentage of the millions of serving men and women will ever kill someone, become permanently injured on the job, or spend the rest of their lives trying to forget something they've done. This isn't Vietnam. If you're concerned about those things, join the Air Force, Navy, or Coast Guard where the odds of those things happening to you are minuscule.

"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.