Force likely to cause death or great bodily harm is justified in self-defense only if a person reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm.

1-"The shooting occurred off camera, so Parker’s posture at the time remains unclear."

No one knows for sure what happened, so you are all assuming.


"he will suffer his 'consequences', just as this boy who took NO lives did,,," oh come on, the intent was there he just got foiled.

This whole argument reminds me of the aftermath of Columbine.

The kids who did the shooting were called victims as well by the bleeding hearts about a few weeks later and wanted their names included on the memorial. That obviously really rankled some people.

The 16 year old came in with intent to rob and since they had a gun, the only assumption the pharmacist could make was they intended to kill.

He was not a trained policeman. He was a pharmacist that came in to work and was probably just thinking about getting home to his wife later. These kids came in and terrified everyone, that was clearly their intent at a minimum. He reacted to the situation that he did not plan, expect or want. And now he is going to jail for 1st degree murder. That is the deliberate killing with forethought and planning of another human being. That is the very last thing he should have been charged with.

How many here would have had a clear head at that point? He is just an average guy going to work and responding to a terrible situation. Now he is guilty of breaking the law when the kids forced his hand?

Doodoo happens. I hope this guy gets off and gets a medal from Congress.

<-----agrees with Moe (did I say that out loud???? )

<-----agrees with Moe (did I say that out loud???? )

yeah, I know, that sucks too

americans have become too bloodthirsty, ( a generalization, of course, not all americans are bloodthirsty at all )

what?...

haaaa

u know you have to pinch yourself when we agree, dontcha?