Nitro

Just as it's flat-out inexcusable to shoot a man 5x after seeing he was incompacitated from a bullet already lodged in his skull. That goes beyond self-defense, which is against the law. Simple.

I rode into town on an ass...YOUR MOMMA'S ASS!!! http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ktn70fzGWA1qz97cwo1_500.gif

Just like a first degree murder charge is the consequence of pumping 5 more shots on top of a head shot into a guy who was clearly incompacitated.

http://thesportsroadtrip.com/mlbfavorites.html According to that site (which I trust for stadium rankings), of the fields I haven't been to, which include every one but new Yankee Stadium and Wrigley, I'd say... Citizens Bank Park Target Field Petco Park Comerica Park Camden Yards

It's understandable, but not an excuse for breaking the law as blatantly as he did. The kid being shot in the head is not the only evidence showing he was neutralized, but also the fact that he couldn't get back up even after the pharmacist chased the other guy out of the store, walked past him and grabbed another gun. The robber clearly posed no additional threat, and the pharmacist could have simply walked out of the store and called the cops instead of walking back in and unloading while the robber was down with a bullet in his brain. Adrenaline should not be an excuse for something so blatantly wrong.

Nope. Those analogies weren't the best, but the point I'm getting across is that you can't let things like. "It pisses me off that the man wouldn't have been tried if the kids didn't try to rob the store" cloud your judgement. What is being argued is if the pharmacist went beyond the limits of self-defense, and even though it is a scary situation and he took down a criminal, it is very clear he was far too excessive in simply protecting himself. So, even though first-degree murder is a very steep price for what he did, it is perfectly reasonable that he was still convicted. This is not a conservative vs. liberal debate like ECN is trying to make it, it's a matter of trying someone based on the current law.

Was the man shot in the head? And then was he laying on the ground as the store clerk ran someone out of the store, walked past him, reloaded his gun before unloading another 5 shots? While true, that can be applied to most situations involving criminal activity...usually there is some understandable reasoning for commiting a crime, with those people feeling their backs are against the wall. Many drug dealers wouldn't be that way if it wasn't for bad parenting, bad school systems and their neighborhoods environmental pressures to pursue that kind of lifestyle. Most psychopaths wouldn't be that way if it wasn't for [expletive]ed up genetics. I could go on and on. Basically, what I'm trying to get across is you have to be judged based upon the law, not by your subjective views of what is right and wrong. To me, it seems like your basing your opinion strongly off of how that kind of situation should be judged rather than how it is supposed to be judged based on current laws.

It's not even about surviving...it's the idea that after he was shot he'd actually get up and attack the pharmacist.

It's not a sympathy thing, it's the law...he went beyond the point of self-defense.

The threat was neutralized, which is why the pharmacist was able to chase someone out of the store, walk past the wounded robber and reload his gun. The robber had plenty of opportunities to get up and attack the guy, but didn't. Why? Because he either knew there was no sense in it or because HE HAD A BULLET IN HIS [expletive]ING HEAD AND COULDN'T DO A DAMN THING!!! No matter what way you cut it, the pharmacist had a choice of alternatives than to pump 5 more shots in a kid that was clearly incompacitated. I do understand his reasoning, which is why I don't believe he should be found guilty of first degree murder, but he should definitely be charged with something and put in jail. However, it is not surprising he was found guilty because he went way over the line of self-defense.

After the pharmacist shot the robber, he chased the other guy out of the store, walked past the wounded robber, reloaded his gun, then shot the dude to death...that goes way beyond simply defending yourself. The proper move would have been to run out of the store and call the cops while the man was incapacitated on the floor with a bullet in his brain. There was no threat after the first shot, and the pharmacist himself proved that as he walked by him and took time to reload the gun before firing off. And no, that case isn't the same AT ALL. Those herders didn't have bullets in their [expletive]ing skulls.

Because a bullet was in his head and he was laying on the ground. If he feared the robber had another gun on him he could have searched him while he was laying on the ground bleeding from the hole in his skull. And it's funny you mention the Monday morning quarterback thing when you weren't sitting in the trial 'nor have you read the depositions. Therefor, you are ill informed, and YOU, not me, came in here with such strong opinions on a case you are largely ignorant to.

He was shot in the head, the threat was removed. No need to keep firing at him while he's down. Anyway, I don't think the pharmacist should be convicted of first degree murder, but should be charged with something that requires a little jail time.

I saw it...same exact formula as the original, except the jokes weren't as funny. Still, very entertaining.

http://moviecarpet.com/iwave/images/7/o-demi-lovato-joining-the-cast-of-the-avengers.jpg

My balls hurt from jerking off so much tonight...nothing like cleaning the ol' pipes out on a warm Saturday night.

You guys get entirely way too sensitive on here. It's an internet forum.

It doesn't matter, your momentum on a layup can still carry you straight through a defender inside the circle, therefor not making it fair for the offensive player. Seriously, how often do you see charges taken on dunks in the NBA? There are some, but not a ton, it is primarily on layups.

No, but I wipe my sausage all over the pillows each time...

I love it, and each time I make sure when I have sex/jerk off I wipe myself off with the sheets and blankets....it fulfills me.

They faced Miami twice, both times before 2011. Remember, Chicago went 3-0 vs Miami during the season, and Boston went 3-1 against them...yet in those two series' Miami was 8-2. As for the Lakers, they were playing horrible basketball, and keep in mind they lost to Miami both meeting during the regular season also (if you must insist on bring the regular season into the discussion).

The key to this series is Terry/Barea. Those are the two guys who give the Mavs a scoring punch besides Dirk, and can give the team the kind of floor spacing that won't allow the Heat to suffocate slashers in the paint as badly as they did with the Bulls. Dirk will need to be stellar, but even if he does what he did against OKC, they won't win more than 1 game without the Terry/Barea combo having a big series.

http://blogs.thescore.com/tbj/2011/05/27/the-lebron-james-headband-timeline/

Last night 7 of LeBron's 8 FG's were jumpers, and the reason Wade had 9 TO's and had such a down series was because he couldn't get it into the paint. When you got teams like Miami and Chicago with players that can create a wall of defense then rotate quickly on the pass, it makes it possible to stick your man while helping stop another player from getting to the rim. The ECF for both teams is a prime example of that. At some point the team simply isn't good enough, and that's what happened to LeBron AND Wade the last few seasons, and what's happened with Dirk his entire career. MJ had Pippen, Shaq had Kobe, Duncan had Robinson and then Manu/Parker, Wade had Shaq, Pierce had KG/Allen, Kobe had Gasol....you don't win in today's league without a 2nd wheel (except for in extremely rare cases like the 2004 Pistons). If the Mavs beat the Heat, it will be because they get a huge series from someone other than Dirk along with Dirk giving them his usual production. Bottom line is team accomplishments aren't the best way to gauge a player's ability. Dirk could never take on the responsibility LeBron had in Cleveland and do as well with that situation. Don't forget that LeBron has been to two Finals' the last 5 seasons, an ECF and the semi's twice, while this is only the 2nd year since 2006 where Dirk has been out of the first round...so what exactly has Dirk proven to show he can do so much more as the 'lone star?' And Dirk is NOT being consistently doubled...I didn't get to watch the Mavs-Blazers series very closely, but in the Laker and Thunder series' he was being defended primarily with single coverage. Also, once again, none of the defenses he has faced have been as elite as Boston or Chicago's, both from an individual and team standpoint. Then why are so many people hopping back on the LeBron bandwagon, and why is he so unanymously considered the best player in the league? Why would someone like Pippen say he's better than Jordan? Bottom line is besides scoring, which LeBron has been doing at a stellar clip as well, LeBron has done EVERYTHING better than Dirk by a wide margin this post-season.

Give me a break. LeBron brought his team to the Finals as a 4th year player, including an all-time clutch performance in Game 5 of the ECF against Detroit where he scored the last 29pts or whatever of the game. In 2008 he had a 40pt game in Game 7 against the eventual champs. In 2009 he averaged 38/8/8 in the ECF against the Magic, including hitting a GW 3 and a 14pt 4th quarter in Games 2 and 5, which were the only 2 games the team won. Last year against Boston was the only time he really failed to do what could realistically be expected from ANY player in the league, and even in last year's Game 6 he had a monster 29/19/10 triple-double. Also, for the last few seasons, LeBron has statistically been the strongest clutch performer in the league. Throw the stats away if you want, but that's a fact. This post-season, which we are debating, LeBron has been every bit as reliable and dominant as Dirk has in clutch situations. Oh, and stop downplaying Dirk's teammates...yes, he's the undisputed #1 scoring option while Wade occasionally takes the role on the Heat, but he still has a future HoF player in Kidd, arguably the best scoring 6th man in the league in Terry, former All-Stars in Marion and Peja, a DPOY candidate in Chandler, and then a bunch of really solid role players in Barea and Haywood. If one of them has a bad game, they have the kind of depth to withstand it. If Wade or Bosh has a bad game, then LeBron has to go bezerk for them to win. That's absolutely ridiculous and shows you did not follow any of those series' closely...the team was not getting anything in the paint, and LeBron was not getting ANY easy points except in transition (which, except for the first few minutes of Game 1, they got none of against Chicago). He is also not a catch and shoot player or someone who makes sharp cuts off-ball, and when he does do damage offensively, it's with the ball in his hands in an iso or pick and roll, with the defense keyed in on him. LeBron is playing the same damn role he was in Cleveland...still dominating the ball, still getting up 20 shots, still having to defend the other team's best player, etc... If there was so much pressure alleviated offensively, the Heat wouldn't have had struggled so much to crack 90pts like they did against Chicago. Offensively, he is expected to do a LOT more than Dirk because not only does he have to score in volume, but also be the primary ballhandler and playmaker, which Dirk does not have to do. He's also expect to rebound more than Dirk (which he has this post-season), and be a lockdown defender unlike Dirk. The key point you are missing is that Dirk doesn't have responsibility other than to score...LeBron has to be a game-changer as a scorer, ballhandler, passer, rebounder and defender, along with being the team's closer.