2 workers, 2 patrons shot to death at NY pharmacy
MEDFORD, N.Y. – A gunman shot four people inside a pharmacy in a New York suburb Sunday morning, killing everyone inside the store in what police said looked like a robbery gone wrong.There's little information at the link, but it looks like a robbery turned deadly. Two employees and two customers shot dead, police are assuming a single gunman. I like how the news calls it "a robbery gone wrong" - well, no, no it wasn't. Obviously the person who planned this had every intention of killing the folks inside the building; in their view it went right. Whether they intended to kill everyone inside, or just the employees when someone walked in is a question for the philosophers; all that matters now is that four people are dead over some money and drugs.The massacre happened at about 10:20 a.m. inside a family-owned pharmacy in a small cluster of medical offices in Medford, a middle-class hamlet on Long Island about 60 miles east of New York City.
Someone in the article mentions hoping that there's a camera so the person responsible is caught. One wonders what will happen in that case; even in a perfect storm of lucky breaks and excellent police work, even if the responsible party is apprehended and brought to trial, what then? New York doesn't employ the death penalty; the responsible party will not pay the ultimate price for the most horrific of crimes. Even if by some miracle they were caught, prosecuted to the fullest, and spend the remainder of their natural born lives in jail, there are still four people who will never see another sunset.
Carrying a firearm for protection does not guarantee anyone anything. A firearm is not a magic talisman that will ward off danger simply by existing; even if one trains and trains hard there are simply no guarantees in life. But there's a better chance than simply cowering there waiting for death; in this case it's a decent bet that *anything* would have been better than doing nothing. Hell, even my first line of defense - running like a scared rabbit - would be preferable; it's harder to hit a moving target.
Who knows what could have happened had someone in that pharmacy been armed? It's possible that one of the employees could have prevailed - the Dead Goblin Count is chock full of shootings where the store clerk stops an armed assailant. It's possible it might not have made a lick of difference - but then again, how would that be different than the outcome as it stands now? Four dead, and the killer on the loose - and armed with a willingness to kill and a winning (for the goblin) game plan.
When you take ownership of your own protection, you at least get a chance - and that's more than those four people had.
That is all.
10 comments:
Another thing that a gun carried by a law-abiding citizen does is allow a last act of vengeance against one's murderer, which when I conducted a poll on the subject met with a lot of positive response. The idea of taking your killer into Hell with you seems to bring comfort to many gun owners.
Jay: There was a camera, and they've released more details now.
"The drug fiend who massacred four people at a pharmacy coldly executed them one by one at close range before filling a backpack with pills and strolling away."
and
“They offered no resistance and did not appear to provoke the assault. They were all shot at close range.”
The store had a policy of cooperating with armed robbers, and the two customers, the pharmacist and his teenage helper were “killed for no apparent reason,” [all emphasis is mine]
Definitely not a robbery gone bad. I have more here. You're right, one armed employee or customer might have saved four lives.
The people who tell you that it's better to give the criminal what he wants never want to address the question of what you should do if what the criminal wants is to kill or hurt you, or how you can know that before it’s too late.
Jake,
I firmly believe in giving the robber what they want.
...
They rob me, they must want a 230 grain hollow point between the running lights...
Jay: We are in 100% agreement, although some days they would have to settle for multiple 90 grain doses instead.
The death penalty is barbaric and frankly, stupid.
Look at it this way - life in prison is far, far more suffering than just being killed in somewhat short order. If someone's suffering can be considered as recompense for their crimes, life in prison makes a hell of a lot more sense than the death penalty.
Mark,
I would agree with you except for two things:
1. In the absence of a death penalty, a "lifer" has no reason not to be a menace to other prisoners and guards. They can't be hauled off to solitary and they won't face the death penalty - and if they're in jail for life, what's going to happen to them? Removing the DP from the quation adds extra risk.
2. If "life" meant "until the prisoner expires", I would agree with you more. Unfortunately, it rarely means that; usually it means more "until the public furor over the prisoner's crimes subsides".
Charles Manson comes up for parole. 'Nuff said?
And, sadly, for the robber "after the first one (or, on this case, 4) the rest are free.
He really has no incentive NOT to do it again.
And it is 200g JHP, IMO that is the best thing to give him.
YMMV.
Any gun might have helped. Any. Even a lowly Jennings in .22 could have changed the situation. I'd rather go to my reward being able to say..."yeah, but I got him in the chest with my .380" than "I had no choice but to cower and wait my execution".
But then again, I am uncivilized and all that. Bitter clinger too.
Similar situation different outcome, the authorities try to vilify the person who saved lives.
Re: the story Odysseus linked to.
Ignoring for the moment the fact that he shouldn't need a permit in the first place, I can't say they're "vilifying" the guy. He did break the law, and the officers cited him for it like they're supposed to.
The County prosecutor decided not to pursue any charges. The city prosecutor "is still reviewing the citation". He may or may not pursue the unlicensed carry charge (which sounds like a misdemeanor, but I could be wrong).
This is the way the system is supposed to work. We don't want the police selectively refusing to cite people when the law was clearly broken - the decision on whether to proceed to court or drop the charge rightfully lies with the (usually elected) prosecutor.
"Vilifying" him would be if they had charged him with murder or manslaughter, or something like that. The unlicensed carry was a clear violation of the law that was not justified by immediate events, and preceded any provocation by the robbers.
I would hope that the city prosecutor drops it, or at least reduces it to a slap on the wrist (one that hopefully includes "get your dang permit!).
Heck, they didn't even REALLY need to be armed to have a chance at surviving that. Especially victim #2, 3 and 4.
They were all shot at close range, one by one, and made no resistance. That's daft sheep mentality right there(especially not offering any resistance when the first one has already been executed). Heck even without martial arts training, if the bad guy is close, a one-sided shooting match can be turned into a wrestling match. And they had numbers on him.
Post a Comment