How is these even a point of debate??
Kid has a gun, threatens with a gun, insinuates he has a gun and wants to rob pharmacist.
Pharmacist has a justified shooting. At this point.
Then chases the other kid out of the store. Wrong move number one.
Then proceeds to come back in and shoot a wounded perp five more times!!
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot over?!?! Self Defense is you shoot until the threat is no longer a threat. Period. Not come back inside and administer a coup de grace to a downed, unconscious opponent.
The reason he was convicted by a jury of FIRST DEGREE MURDER is because he executed an unconscious person.
I don't care if the guy was a kid, or a crook, both or if he was the worst of the worst. You took your shot and you hit the guy, he went limp, you left the scene in pursuit of another member, then came back and shot a downed human being 5 more times!
Forget the lying to police, the news interviews, all that crap that happened after he shot the guy/kid the SECOND set of times.
He came back and executed an unconscious human being.
That is not self defense. That is not what 2A is about and I would like to think that is NOT what members of our forum are about.
I can't commend the man for anything out of this story. His actions were beyond the pale. The only way I could understand the store owner is if it was a case of temporary insanity (which frankly I think is BS 99% of the time).
I can't even fit this into executioner. The robber was unconscious on the floor for crying out loud.