BG killed while attempting to rob pharmacy

[Deaf Smith]

Long time ago, when I was about 14, my mother told me this...

"If you are big enough to get into jail Deaf, then you are big enough to get yourself out".

If a teacher called my mom, she didn't say, "You so-and-so, my boy is an angle, I brought him up right" and then condem the teacher. No my mother, my good and honest mother, would have looked and me and said, "Boy what did you get yourself into????"

And by golly, I must have grown up simi-right. I've never been in jail, never been even threatned with jail, never been searched by a cop, never even threated with that! I'm well known by the LEOs (in a good sense) and never had problems with other people (even though I trip over the guns here, I have so many!)

No, it's same with our children. I can say they have grown up right, but then I told them many years ago, "If you are big enough to get into jail, then you are big enough to get yourself out"!

Deaf

 

[arnisador]

If a teacher called my mom, she didn't say, "You so-and-so, my boy is an angle

Not even if it was a geometry teacher?

 

[Carol]

I was always a bit square myself.

 

[myusername]

While these questions have merit from an academic standpoint, they have no bearing on the incident. There is some usefulness in asking these questions because they can help us predict and prevent future violence, but they don't mean anything to a minimum wage employee at a pharmacy who has a gun shoved in his face.

Too often, people want to ask what could have caused this person to act in such a despicable manner, as though the causes of his actions could in some way mitigate them. There is no mitigating factor which excuses violent assault on innocent people.

I understand what you mean. I understand that you aren't trying to excuse his behavior. I'm not attacking you on this. However, too many will ask these questions as though he is the real victim. He is not.

He is a monster. He is beneath pity. He is an indefensable animal, with no regard for human life. There is much suffering in this world today, however, some people choose to try harder, and some people choose to prey on those around them. His actions determined his worth, and in my mind, he died without any at all.

You are right when you say none of us here know the life story of this man. But that is only because he chose to throw his life away before he had a chance to tell us. He didn't have to. He chose to. He chose to throw that life away when he chose to threaten the life of an innocent person. Whether that night, or some other, his actions could only result in the loss of his own life, either through death or imprisonment.

And that is no one's fault but his own. Not his abusive father's. Not the priest who touched him in church. Not the school system that failed him, or the state welfare check he didn't recieve, or the institutional racism he was a victim of, or the health care provider that denied his claim. It was his decision. It was his fault.

And yes, as sad a story as this is, at least it has a happy ending.


-Rob

Yes totally agree with your assessment of this situation and I am 100% behind your sentiments.

Though I would say I believe it has more than academic merit to ask questions of the robbers history and background when we as individual members of the public are personally digesting these news reports. I also think it is important on an individual and emotional level to prevent us from taking the easy route of burying our heads in the sand and ignoring very important social issues. If we allow this as individuals then as a society we will ignore these issues also. It can lead to further alienation and fracturing of society and a continuation of this repetitive cycle of behaviour.

The press is very good at vilifying certain groups in our society (in the UK we have Chavs, Hoodies, Junkies, Immigrants - I'm guessing that in the US you have equivilent groups that pop up all of the time in your papers as the root cause of all societies ills.) Why does the press do this? Because on the whole we as a society love it! It simplifies things for us. We have Good Guys and we have Bad Guys! On the whole the press wont ask the questions because we don't ask them either. If we don't ask the questions and the press wont ask the questions who will? Not our governments because they are effectively ruled by public opinion and the media. So what changes?

I am not suggesting we excuse the actions of this man who chose to point a gun at the innocent at all. But I am suggesting it is very unhealthy to just view this as "good guy kills bad guy" without a thought to what influenced this mans decision's to commit this act of violence. I think it right that we are all relieved at the outcome that no innocent life was taken but I personally think it wrong that we should feel joy and take pleasure in this story.

I personally believe that the only people who should see things in the terms of "good guy vs bad guy" are the police. They need to think straight down the line to be effective in their role. Either you are a good guy abiding the law or a bad guy breaking it. I wouldn't want the law having a crisis of conscience I just want them to protect society from law breakers!

However, I think it important for us to ask where he came from. I think we as individuals need to consider the impact of parenting, family dynamics, child abuse, mental illness, media representation of classes, the distribution of wealth, education, welfare, health care, criminal justice every time something like this happens. Not to mitigate a criminals actions but rather to ask the right questions in an attempt to find solutions and to prevent the further alienation of whole sections of our society. Unless we as individuals want the answers to these questions, the media and our governments aren't going to attempt to answer them for us.

 

[Thesemindz]

I am not suggesting we excuse the actions of this man who chose to point a gun at the innocent at all. But I am suggesting it is very unhealthy to just view this as "good guy kills bad guy" without a thought to what influenced this mans decision's to commit this act of violence. I think it right that we are all relieved at the outcome that no innocent life was taken but I personally think it wrong that we should feel joy and take pleasure in this story.

I personally believe that the only people who should see things in the terms of "good guy vs bad guy" are the police. They need to think straight down the line to be effective in their role. Either you are a good guy abiding the law or a bad guy breaking it. I wouldn't want the law having a crisis of conscience I just want them to protect society from law breakers!

However, I think it important for us to ask where he came from. I think we as individuals need to consider the impact of parenting, family dynamics, child abuse, mental illness, media representation of classes, the distribution of wealth, education, welfare, health care, criminal justice every time something like this happens. Not to mitigate a criminals actions but rather to ask the right questions in an attempt to find solutions and to prevent the further alienation of whole sections of our society. Unless we as individuals want the answers to these questions, the media and our governments aren't going to attempt to answer them for us.

I guess I see it as two different things.

On the one hand, I'm perfectly comfortable with seeing this as a good vs. evil situation, and I am very happy that good won.

At the same time, I'm more than willing to discuss what could have motivated the man to do evil behavior. I think it's important that we understand what factors lead to violence and what we can do to mitigate them. However, I don't think this discussion should have any bearing on the "good vs. evil" perspective.

Fine, the guy had problems. Let's look at what they were and how we can address them in others before their problems lead them to the same actions. But the guy still did an evil thing, and he paid the ultimate price. Happy ending.

I don't really think you and I are disagreeing. We both think the story ended better than it could have. We both think it's important to understand why the "bad guy" chose this course of action. The only distinction I'm making is that I think it's important not to let the second consideration, his motivation, cloud our perception of the first, his actions.

Too many people want to lose themselves in the mitigating factors because they are afraid to admit to themselves that bad people do bad things. They end up creating a sick moral equivalency between the bad guy and the good guy because after all, "the bad guy was touched by his uncle once as a child." That's sad. It's even horrific. It doesn't excuse his actions, and it certainly doesn't make the hero the villian of the tale

Like I said, I see what you're saying, and I think we agree. I just think it's an important distinction to make.

I also disagree with your statement that, 'the only people who should see things in the terms of "good guy vs bad guy" are the police." Sorry. There's a lot of bad cops out there. I'm not saying most, or casting aspersions on law enforcement in general, but giving them the sole responsibility of determing good and evil is a mistake.

As an anarchist, I have my own opinions of law and law enforcement, but all that aside, I think it is every person's responsibility to make firm judgements about right and wrong. Abdicating that authority to the government gives them the power to call truth a lie and reality fiction. It is the responsibility of all free people, first and foremost, to make decisions about right and wrong, good and evil, and not to surrender that responsibility to those in power at the moment. That's just believing that might makes right.

Falling into that trap leaves you at the mercy of the morals of whoever has a gun pointed at you at the time.


-Rob

 

[Carol]

We can also take a look at the robber. But if the robber is fair game, then so is everyone else in the picture.

Lets take a look at the forgotten victims of pharmacy robberies: the patients.

Who goes to pharmacies? People that need medication. Who needs the types of drugs that are them most popular with robbers? Often times it is people in pain...whether it is disease, recovery from surgery, chronic pain. There are BGs that have figured out that these people not only posess valuable drugs (in a handy prescription bottle that appears legal to carry), they may also make for an easy target due to their health issues.

Lets take a look further at the patients. The drugs that are often stolen by robbers are often the stronger pain medicines. A patient that needs that level of medication is a patient that has some issues. Yet, many of these patients in pain are finding it to be harder to get the meds their doctor has them take on a regular basis, because some pharmacies have decided to stop stocking them. There is only one reason why a drug stores have made the decision to not stock medication their patients need: a pharmacist or pharmacy tech's life was threatened at least once before.

Now lets take a look at who the patients depend upon for their treatment.

Pharmacists. Requires an undergrad in Chemistry or the Life Sciences. Another Bachelor's degree is appropriate as long as the student takes two semesters each of biology, microbiology, chemistry, advanced chemistry, physics, anatomy and physiology. With Lab. Oh and Calculus of two variables. Then the PCAT exam, then the attempt is made to get in to a 3 to 4 years of rigirous science just so you can go $65,000 further in debt..on top of whatever debt may have been incurred from the undergrad classes. Then you graduate with the degree....there may or may not be an extra year's residency invloved here or there....oh, but you're still not a pharmacist yet, because you haven't sat before the state licensing board to pass your exam and earn your license for that state. Then you finally earn your license, and get hired but......does the bg care? Nah. You're just the person in the way of what he wants to use and/or sell.

Of course it may not be you thats threatened, your technician, who works their butt off for you trying to keep up with patient demands and insurance regulations, all for pay that would maybe buy a pizza with one hour's salary, before taxes. Heck she might even prove to be an easier target. Maybe its her that gets covered with the muzzle instead of you.

Retailers don't randomly toss around security guards, let alone armed security guards for the heck of it. There is only one reason why a drug store would have made the financial sacrifice to hire an armed guard: a pharmacist or pharmacy tech's life was threatened at least once before.

America may sometimes have a wild wild west image, but an armed guard discharging a weapon in a line of duty doesn't mean he gets a backslap and a drink bought for him after work. He gets an investigation. Perhaps some of the LEOs here can concur about the gargantuan pile of paperwork that gets generated from discharging one's weapon in the line of duty...whether one is a LEO or an armed guard. If the guard happens to be in a larger city, the paperwork gets even larger too. The cops may not have been there at the exact moment that the life/lives were threatened, but they certainly will be after the event...interviewing the victims and reconstructing the events.

Then we can discuss the robber's life.

 

[Wishbone]

Often enough nature did. Some children have issues that no parent could cure--the large number of teenage suicides in good homes is one example. In other cases the local environment is tough to counteract. And am I the only one who ever took a philosophy course where they asked if you'd rob a pharmacy to get medicine for your dying spouse that you couldn't afford (which at today's prices of tens of thousands of dollars per dose for some medicines is quite plausible)? Jean Valjean, anyone?

So, this situation was resolved well but that doesn't mean there's a "bad guy" in every case. That's comic book thinking. There doesn't always have to be a pure evil individual involved to make it a case of self-defense. You could defend yourself against a drunken uncle--in the wrong but not necessarily Damien himself.

When I read your post at first I thought you were going to say some children have issues meaning mental disabilities that parents can not afford to handle. Which you might. But be careful when you talk about kids committing suicide who come from 'good homes'. Just because a child comes from an affluent family doesn't mean his parents care about him and spend actual quality time with him to help nurture him into a responsible adult. What appears to be good homes can be very deceiving.

Sorry for the derail.

 

[sgtmac_46]

guy tries to rob pharmacy, plainclothes security guy (retired LEO) picks his moment and puts 4 rounds into BG's chest...BG "dead right there"

article with video:
http://www.news-journalonline.com/NewsJournalOnline/News/Headlines/frtHEAD01EAST021009.htm

Good shooting!

All's well that ends well.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Sad story all round. So many hurt by this robbers actions. His Mother (Dealing with losing her son), The security guard/retired LEO (who has to live with shooting someone), The pharmacist (Who has to cope with the trauma of having a gun pointed at his head and then seeing someone shot dead in front of him) and the robber himself who lost his life. The only good thing about this story is that no one innocent got killed. The robber may be dead but everyone is still hurting. Not much to feel good about here.

Best possible outcome for the situation that he created.

You are right, however, it is sad that he chose this path that ultimately resulted in him getting himself killed.....and others must suffer for his selfishness.