Pharmacist kills gun toting robber, gets life in prison

[RudyRuetigger]

would you feel the same if that was your wife or daughter having the gun pointed at them by those sweet robbers?

no human is thinking rationally at that time, so easy to play monday morning quarterback

guy went overboard but there is no way to tell whats going through your head at that time.

and premeditated? how dumb were these jurors

[katstale]

Lots of adrenaline flowing and this causes people to react in different ways. The robbers made the choice to put their lives at risk and those of others. What happened to them next, regardless of the sequence, was ALL THEIR DECISION. We have no business judging this man for defending himself and his property as he saw fit. If more guys out there had his guts, there would be a lot less robberies.

[boscokid]

Lots of adrenaline flowing and this causes people to react in different ways. The robbers made the choice to put their lives at risk and those of others. What happened to them next, regardless of the sequence, was ALL THEIR DECISION. We have no business judging this man for defending himself and his property as he saw fit. If more guys out there had his guts, there would be a lot less robberies.

agreed - crime comes with consequences

[bettilimbroke999]

Another thing - these kids were forced into robbing the drug store by 2 older men. Those guys got caught and were convicted of 1st degree murder as well. Those kids (especially the one killed) looked like they didn't have a clue about robbing a store. The kid killed was struggling with his mask. These older adults force kids into doing crimes because they know that the kids will be able to get out of juvenile much sooner. Sad for all involved...

Mac your so liberal you're embarassing yourself, forced into robbing the store and didnt have a clue, yea fuckin right, I aint an Oklahoman inbred with a brain you need an electron microscope to see so dont try to sell me that bs like the prosecutor did in this case

How smart do you have to be to rob a store? Is there like some learning process you go through? **** no, you just walk in with a gun and demand money (in this case probably prescription drugs) and/or execute the ppl, Im already an "expert" at store robbing and I've never robbed one, this aint rocket science they teach in the classroom. As far as forced that's just fukin ridiculous, if you're a gangbanger of course you're going to be told to commit crimes bc wtf would be the point of being in a gang, same way if you're in the mafia you're going to be told to commit crimes, that's not a fuckin defense you joined up with some criminals what did you think they were gonna tell ya to volunteer at the local homeless shelter?

Look I dont care if the pharmacist went to the graveyard and dug this worthless n5555 up and shot him another 20 times, when ya go in to armed rob somebody with 2 loaded guns you can very easily be killed, that's the chance you take, if you dont want to take that chance go to fuckin school and do something other than armed robbery.

[Cap dat 4ss]

Just talked with an old roommate about this. He's got interesting perspective because he's an attorney for the City that prosecuted him.

He basically said that the prosecutors destroyed the Pharmacists credibility from day 1 and made him look a fool. I guess the Pharmacist gave too many different stories to the police, media and basically anyone else that would listen (all against the advice of his attorney.) The Pharmacist stated the kid shot first, however there was no evidence found suggesting this. He said without credibility in court you have nothing.

Also, the Pharmacist apparently had top notch legal council in this case. One of the most well respected criminal defense lawyers in Oklahoma, Irvin Box. Box brought one witness to the stand during the entire case. Thats it, just one. And it was one of the two females in the back room while this went down. The only thing she testified to was that she believed the Pharmacist saved her life. That was their entire case. So I assume their wasn't much evidence supporting the Pharmacist.

Lastly, this case obviously revolved around him going back to shoot kid the second time. It doesn't matter that he shot the kid without the gun. Had that been the only shot fired, apparently it would have fallen under the "make my day law" and self-defense so he would've been covered. Going back and shooting the kid the second time is what he was convicted of. Because he grabbed a second gun it was considered at that point pre-meditated because he knew what he was going to do with the gun.

Now, in the jurors defense, they are told not to attempt to interpret law. That is for the Supreme Court Justices. They are simply there to decide a.) whether 1st degree murder took place according to the word of the law and b.) the sentence. The Judge has to sign off on the sentence which he likely will and the appeals begin.

My stance on this is slowly changing. I think everyone involved was wrong, including the two grown men that sent the two kids in. On a side note, they've been tried and one juror refused to send them away for the maximum length of time, so those two men got reduced sentences. I think by law, the Pharmacist was guilty of 1st degree murder. I don't agree with the sentence but I understand how 12 other people could come to that conclusion.

[purecarnagge]

you can't walk out then come back and finish the guy off...had he just shot him 7 times right away and then walked out after the other kid... different story...

[whatsgood5]

Prob should have stopped with that first shot....I'm cglad that kids dead though

[bettilimbroke999]

guy went overboard but there is no way to tell whats going through your head at that time.

and premeditated? how dumb were these jurors

The fact they could get 12 jurors to unanimously agree on murder 1 in this case is an embarrassment to the state of Oklahoma, truly disgusting they found 12 ppl dumb enough to return that verdict

[bettilimbroke999]

Next headline will read guy shoots and wounds robber and then goes to call the cops, robber gets up and executes everyone in the store. Everyone will be saying well why didnt he keep shooting him, you dont just wound an armed robber then let him get up and murder you, fuckin ridiculous case, shows how disgusting our legal system is that the victim of an armed robbery gets a life sentence for killing the robber during the crime

[Doug]

The guy should get the key to the city and be elected mayor !

[Cap dat 4ss]

The fact they could get 12 jurors to unanimously agree on murder 1 in this case is an embarrassment to the state of Oklahoma, truly disgusting they found 12 ppl dumb enough to return that verdict

Bet, I feel the same way. I couldn't believe it when I read it. The flip side to it is that they did get 12 people to not only unanimously agree on murder 1 but also give the guy life in prison, after only four hours of deliberation. That speaks volumes. It may be an embarrassment to OKC or it may be the evidence was overwhelmingly against him.

[Flexin]

Poor kid coming into the store pointing a gun at everyone. That pharmacist was just out of control waiting to murder someone threatening his life. I don't give a **** that he shot him and he was on the ground, the video shows nothing. If the so called victim on the ground had a gun, he would have gladly shot the employee but no worries we have to sit back and think it out while people are threatening us.

Poor kid nothing. The kid did wrong and paid the price. Start charging kids that commit violent crimes as an adult and see if the crime rate doesn't start to go down.

As for the pharmacist, he was scared for his life with the first shot (maybe). After that any fear he had was replaced with anger. Chasing a kid that has a gun down the street with a gun isn't fear.

The so called hero left the two women alone with the robber while he played dirty hairy. He glanced over at the kid as he ran out and did nothing so he did not see that kid as a threat.

The kid didn't have a gun in his hand but it is possible he had one on him. Lets pretend that the kid did have one and pulled it out. The pharmacist went around the other side of the counter (at the other end of the store) to chase down the kid with the gun. So there was another way to his second gun. Lets not forget that. He left the store so at that point he didn't see him as a threat. He comes back in the store and rather then walk to the other side of the store and take the safe way to his second gun he walks by the threat without worrying about him. He turned his back on him. If the kid had a gun at this point. He would have run around the other side and not walked buy. Then he calmly gets his second gun and walks over to the kid, he doesn't jump back so there was no way the kid had a gun pointed at him. He also walks right up to him and bends down to shoot him. Would he have done that if the kid had a gun? I know I wouldn't lean in to give the robber a better shot.

Also he hit the kid with the first shot at 15-20 I would guess. So he is a good shot or got lucky. Lets say the kid with a bullet in his head had a gun and pulled a Rambo move and got up he still could have shot the kid from a safe distance.

Sounds to me that everyone is getting what they deserve. If the pharmacist gets a pardon then the justice system is ******.

IF he came back in the store, got his second gun and waited for the police to come then yes, self defense, no time served, pat on the back, handshake and maybe a small plaque.

James

[bettilimbroke999]

Jurors must've been democrats and just pissed off they lost 4 votes

[Flexin]

guy went overboard but there is no way to tell whats going through your head at that time. and premeditated? how dumb were these jurors

Looked premeditated to me. He went back and got the gun and walked up and finished him off. The threat is gone. He planned on finishing off the kid in the store when he walked back in. So yes they got it right.

If someone has a knife you can pretty much beat them to death in self defense as long as they have that knife. If you take the knife from them or they drop it the threat to your life is now gone. If he still comes at you, you can beat his ass but killing him at that point is a risk. And if you are now holding the knife his life is in danger, not yours. So that means if you now stab him your screwed.

James

[Extra Innings]

justice system is shameful and people in OKC have their head up their asses.

[Flexin]

Lots of adrenaline flowing and this causes people to react in different ways. The robbers made the choice to put their lives at risk and those of others. What happened to them next, regardless of the sequence, was ALL THEIR DECISION. We have no business judging this man for defending himself and his property as he saw fit. If more guys out there had his guts, there would be a lot less robberies.

He defended himself with the first gun. He committed murder with the second gun. The guy is a dumb ass. There is a very good chance the kid would have died from the first shot. He didn't need to use the 5 or 6 more bullets to finish him off. You are not defending anything once the kid is laying, unarmed, with a gunshot wound to the head. The threat was gone at that point.

It was his decision to finish the kid off. Just like they have to live with their actions he has to live with his.

To all the gun lovers out there. Its guys like that pharmacist that will end up screwing you out of the right to have them.

James

[face]

people are going to steal his shit in jail because he won't have those guns.

[Flexin]

Just talked with an old roommate about this. He's got interesting perspective because he's an attorney for the City that prosecuted him. He basically said that the prosecutors destroyed the Pharmacists credibility from day 1 and made him look a fool. I guess the Pharmacist gave too many different stories to the police, media and basically anyone else that would listen (all against the advice of his attorney.) The Pharmacist stated the kid shot first, however there was no evidence found suggesting this. He said without credibility in court you have nothing. Also, the Pharmacist apparently had top notch legal council in this case. One of the most well respected criminal defense lawyers in Oklahoma, Irvin Box. Box brought one witness to the stand during the entire case. Thats it, just one. And it was one of the two females in the back room while this went down. The only thing she testified to was that she believed the Pharmacist saved her life. That was their entire case. So I assume their wasn't much evidence supporting the Pharmacist. Lastly, this case obviously revolved around him going back to shoot kid the second time. It doesn't matter that he shot the kid without the gun. Had that been the only shot fired, apparently it would have fallen under the "make my day law" and self-defense so he would've been covered. Going back and shooting the kid the second time is what he was convicted of. Because he grabbed a second gun it was considered at that point pre-meditated because he knew what he was going to do with the gun. Now, in the jurors defense, they are told not to attempt to interpret law. That is for the Supreme Court Justices. They are simply there to decide a.) whether 1st degree murder took place according to the word of the law and b.) the sentence. The Judge has to sign off on the sentence which he likely will and the appeals begin. My stance on this is slowly changing. I think everyone involved was wrong, including the two grown men that sent the two kids in. On a side note, they've been tried and one juror refused to send them away for the maximum length of time, so those two men got reduced sentences. I think by law, the Pharmacist was guilty of 1st degree murder. I don't agree with the sentence but I understand how 12 other people could come to that conclusion.

Thats what I thought. Thanks for posting that.

James

[Flexin]

Next headline will read guy shoots and wounds robber and then goes to call the cops, robber gets up and executes everyone in the store. Everyone will be saying well why didnt he keep shooting him, you dont just wound an armed robber then let him get up and murder you, fuckin ridiculous case, shows how disgusting our legal system is that the victim of an armed robbery gets a life sentence for killing the robber during the crime

How about this headline. 2 kids attempt to rob store, pharmacist goes crazy, 2 female co workers dead.

The pharmacist wasn't alone in the store. He had to female workers in the store. He left them in the store with one of the criminals. If this guy was a threat he could have killed them.

We also found out there were 2 more outside. While dirty hairy is running down the street risking hitting an innocent person, the other two could have walked in, shot the woman and took the money and med and been gone. They also could have took out the pharmacist as he came back into the store with an empty gun.

Once he unloaded the second gun he was no longer a hero and at that point he was no better then the kids that were robbing him.

James

[Flexin]

Btw early in the thread some people said just give the money and the meds and let the cops deal with it.

I agree with that in most cases. Its not worth the fight. But in this case I disagree. The kids came in fast and seemed way to nervous. I doubt they done it before. But as nervous as they were they could have shot someone by mistake. So I don't really disagree with the first shot fired by the pharmacist.

James

[Extra Innings]

I think this sentence will be commuted or pardoned within the near future.

[RudyRuetigger]

We also found out there were 2 more outside. While dirty hairy is running down the street risking hitting an innocent person, the other two could have walked in, shot the woman and took the money and med and been gone. They also could have took out the pharmacist as he came back into the store with an empty gun.

this just proves my point that it is impossible to think logically in that situation

[Extra Innings]

I am of the opinion (it of course is logically/academically incorrect) when you enter someone's property with a weapon and threaten to kill them you lose all rights. I personally wouldn't care if this guy strung him from a rope and cut his balls off.

That's where the outrage is...criminals getting the same equal treatment under the law as law abiding citizens.

[jgray]

Jury nullification was needed here. There's no need to spend money incarcerating this guy for any length of time. He's not a danger to society..maybe criminals, but the rest of us seem safe.

Also consider the purpose of a prison sentence. One purpose of prison is to act as a deterrent to the rest of society. Do we care here? If a criminal gets killed in the act of comitting a crime, does society lose? I say no. Frankly it would be better if all armed robbery perps were to be killed in the act. We wouldn't have to worry about holding them in prison.

Another purpose is to punish the perpetrator. Here, this guy's going to work and some dudes try to rob him. Does he deserve the punishment? Really?

The prosecutor should have used his discretion to not bring this case but, after he did, the jury should have ignored the law and evidence and said to everyone, "I'm not going to send the victim to jail." Jury nullification. I'm a fan.

All that said, the guy asked for more trouble than he wanted with the subsequent shots. I just don't think the punishment fits the crime.

[bettilimbroke999]

How about this headline. 2 kids attempt to rob store, pharmacist goes crazy, 2 female co workers dead.

The pharmacist wasn't alone in the store. He had to female workers in the store. He left them in the store with one of the criminals. If this guy was a threat he could have killed them.

We also found out there were 2 more outside. While dirty hairy is running down the street risking hitting an innocent person, the other two could have walked in, shot the woman and took the money and med and been gone. They also could have took out the pharmacist as he came back into the store with an empty gun.

Once he unloaded the second gun he was no longer a hero and at that point he was no better then the kids that were robbing him.

James

You're right in that his life was being threatened by multiple robbers (all of which armed as far as he knew) as well as the lives of his defenseless coworkers, but ya cant shoot 4 ppl at a time so he had to try to eliminate the most immediate threat each time, which he did. I mean **** this was a giant fuckin reservoir dogs style takedown, 4 robbers I mean **** thats serious threats to your life if 4 armed robbers ever bust into your home to kill you I hope you dont wound one and then spend all your time focused on strip searching him for weapons before you address the other threats, I think youd be dead before you got done with the strip search but that's your reaction style mine would be offerin an all you can eat lead buffet to the other robbers. The pharmacist could've certainly been killed when he chased the other armed robber out and the other 2 armed robbers could've gone in and robbed the store and killed the coworkers, whats your point? That he should've killed them as well to eliminate the threats to his life, well yea okay perhaps thats true but he didnt even know about the other 2 as they didnt enter the store and he DID chase off the one that did enter the store so whats your point. If an armed robber is in your home....kill him, any law that suggests that that constitutes premeditated murder is fuckin ridiculous. You have no idea how youd react if 4 armed robbers busted up in your home to rob and kill your family, theyve got you outmanned and outgunned its a miracle if anyone in your home is left alive to get convicted of "premeditated murder" when one of the robbers dies without being properly armed

[Flexin]

this just proves my point that it is impossible to think logically in that situation

He had time to think on the way back to the store, and walking pass the kid bleeding on the floor, the 15 feet or more to his second gun and then the 15+ feet back to him before killing him. It is hard for normal people but he was in the military. So he should have been trained for much worse then this.

I am of the opinion (it of course is logically/academically incorrect) when you enter someone's property with a weapon and threaten to kill them you lose all rights. I personally wouldn't care if this guy strung him from a rope and cut his balls off. That's where the outrage is...criminals getting the same equal treatment under the law as law abiding citizens.

What criminal is getting equal rights under the law as what law abiding citizen?

James

[Flexin]

You're right in that his life was being threatened by multiple robbers (all of which armed as far as he knew) as well as the lives of his defenseless coworkers, but ya cant shoot 4 ppl at a time so he had to try to eliminate the most immediate threat each time, which he did. I mean **** this was a giant fuckin reservoir dogs style takedown, 4 robbers I mean **** thats serious threats to your life if 4 armed robbers ever bust into your home to kill you I hope you dont wound one and then spend all your time focused on strip searching him for weapons before you address the other threats, I think youd be dead before you got done with the strip search but that's your reaction style mine would be offerin an all you can eat lead buffet to the other robbers. The pharmacist could've certainly been killed when he chased the other armed robber out and the other 2 armed robbers could've gone in and robbed the store and killed the coworkers, whats your point? That he should've killed them as well to eliminate the threats to his life, well yea okay perhaps thats true but he didnt even know about the other 2 as they didnt enter the store and he DID chase off the one that did enter the store so whats your point. If an armed robber is in your home....kill him, any law that suggests that that constitutes premeditated murder is fuckin ridiculous. You have no idea how youd react if 4 armed robbers busted up in your home to rob and kill your family, theyve got you outmanned and outgunned its a miracle if anyone in your home is left alive to get convicted of "premeditated murder" when one of the robbers dies without being properly armed

I will tell you something. If someone comes in to rob me and I have a gun, I will use it if that threat is there. But just leaving and chasing down the others isn't a good idea because then I'm leaving my wife and kids behind. Also if you own a gun you need to know the law.

If you want to kill them, buy something that has a better chance of taking them out in the first shot. Then you don't have to worry about doing something stupid to get yourself thrown in jail.

James

[bettilimbroke999]

Jury nullification was needed here. There's no need to spend money incarcerating this guy for any length of time. He's not a danger to society..maybe criminals, but the rest of us seem safe.

Also consider the purpose of a prison sentence. One purpose of prison is to act as a deterrent to the rest of society. Do we care here? If a criminal gets killed in the act of comitting a crime, does society lose? I say no. Frankly it would be better if all armed robbery perps were to be killed in the act. We wouldn't have to worry about holding them in prison.

Another purpose is to punish the perpetrator. Here, this guy's going to work and some dudes try to rob him. Does he deserve the punishment? Really?

The prosecutor should have used his discretion to not bring this case but, after he did, the jury should have ignored the law and evidence and said to everyone, "I'm not going to send the victim to jail." Jury nullification. I'm a fan.

All that said, the guy asked for more trouble than he wanted with the subsequent shots. I just don't think the punishment fits the crime.

Absolutely, this sentence should be immediately overturned, how this even went to trial and wasted taxpayers money is beyond me. This guy is a threat to armed robbers only...if you want to protect armed robbers then throw this guy in prison

[Johnnythunder]

I dont have too much of an issue with him blasting the punk....but we cant have people unloading on others who are down and out. I think for this reason the guy should have received a few years for the 5 or 6 shots to an unarmed thug. Only because the thug was unarmed. That being said, I'm glad he took out that piece of crap.

[Flexin]

Absolutely, this sentence should be immediately overturned, how this even went to trial and wasted taxpayers money is beyond me. This guy is a threat to armed robbers only...if you want to protect armed robbers then throw this guy in prison

Really. He only killed one out of four. And he emptied two guns. Lets as the innocent bystanders of the bullets that missed if they felt any threat from this "hero". Also where did the bullet(s) that the robber fired outside go? He is a danger to many people.

James

[szk1983]

that is rediculous. That's what happens when you live in such a judicious society.

[Mac4Lyfe]

JGray - I don't know why you and others don't think this guy isn't a danger to society? He chases a robber down the street in an attempt to gun the kid down. What if he was shooting after the other kid in the street and hit an innocent bystander? He leaves his coworkers in the pharmacy alone so he had no regard for the 2 woman (why do you think 1 of the woman didn't even testify)? He has 2 guns in a freaking pharmacy. That's all you need to know. If you worked at 7/11 or the local Walmart are you going to stash 2 guns in the store? What the fuk is that about? Then he told the police and the media lies even to the extent of killing people while he was in the military. All against the advice of his lawyers. This guy was not only trigger happy but a dummy. Did you listen to him when he was interviewed? This guy had a screw loose. Why can't you see that? Yes, let's get the robbers off the street but also get the guys that are 1 step away from a happy meal as well.

Would you have a different opinion if you found out later that the 2 kids had a very sick mother who couldn't afford medicine and was on her deathbed and they tried everything to get help for her but were denied? What if the 2 guys that put them up to it forced them by putting a gun to their heads and told them to do it or they would kill them? It doesn't matter what the reason was they did the crime and put themselves in a position to suffer the punishment. BUT, the same goes for the pharmacist. He has the right to defend himself but he doesn't have the right to be judge and jury. Can he take out his guns and shoot someone stealing too? Can he run down into the street after someone who flipped him off? No, he has to obey the law as well. It goes for anyone, even the police. A robber enters your house, you have every right to defend yourself by shooting first and asking questions after but don't go out of the house then come back 30 seconds later and finish him off and not expect to go to jail. If your going to kill someone you better kill them in the first exchange.

Like I said before, a life sentence means nothing in most states. The law is made for interpretation by using wide sentencing guidelines. In Texas for instance, a life sentence can mean NO JAIL TIME all the way to 125 years. Why do you think it's such a wide margin? So that judges and prosecutors can figure out what's the appropriate punishment. We still don't know what his sentence will be. It could be commuted but I think he'll probably get 5 to 7 years of actual time which is probably appropriate. Yes, he got 1 less scum off the streets but I will make a bet with anyone here that when he gets out, he's going to kill someone else (an innocent person next time). The guy is nuts and has a bloodlust. He will kill again, you watch.

Jury nullification was needed here. There's no need to spend money incarcerating this guy for any length of time. He's not a danger to society..maybe criminals, but the rest of us seem safe.

Also consider the purpose of a prison sentence. One purpose of prison is to act as a deterrent to the rest of society. Do we care here? If a criminal gets killed in the act of comitting a crime, does society lose? I say no. Frankly it would be better if all armed robbery perps were to be killed in the act. We wouldn't have to worry about holding them in prison. Who decides who should live and who should get killed? So someone stealing a piece of gum deserves to die in the act? Remember, this kid was unarmed and defenseless. This isn't the wild, wild west.

Another purpose is to punish the perpetrator. Here, this guy's going to work and some dudes try to rob him. Does he deserve the punishment? Really? The pharmacist has to obey the law as much as thieves and robbers. He broke the law when he decided to kill an unarmed, defenseless person. Put it this way, what if someone cut in front of you in traffic and almost killed you? What if you got hit by a drunk driver?... Does that give you the right to get road rage, run after them and gun them down??? Your life was in danger just as much as this pharmacist but you both can't take the law into your hands.

The prosecutor should have used his discretion to not bring this case but, after he did, the jury should have ignored the law and evidence and said to everyone, "I'm not going to send the victim to jail." Jury nullification. I'm a fan. Ignore the law? Come on. This guy killed someone. We're going after guys who did steroids, of course we can't let him go too.

All that said, the guy asked for more trouble than he wanted with the subsequent shots. I just don't think the punishment fits the crime. We don't know the punishment just yet. I presume the punishment will fit the level that the court feels him a future threat or not. If he's no threat to society, he will probably walk but based on all the evidence this guy is a nutso and will have to spend some time behind bars.

[DwightShrute]

Absolutely, this sentence should be immediately overturned, how this even went to trial and wasted taxpayers money is beyond me. This guy is a threat to armed robbers only...if you want to protect armed robbers then throw this guy in prison

this

[DwightShrute]

how any of you guys agree with this guy going to jail is beyond me. Give your heads a shake and then you put yourself behind that counter ... the fear .. the adrenaline and you tell me you would convict him or would think you should go to jail. Shame on you guys.

I don't care if he shot him 50 more times, cut off his head and lit him on fire after he killed him.

[bettilimbroke999]

I will tell you something. If someone comes in to rob me and I have a gun, I will use it if that threat is there. But just leaving and chasing down the others isn't a good idea because then I'm leaving my wife and kids behind. Also if you own a gun you need to know the law.

If you want to kill them, buy something that has a better chance of taking them out in the first shot. Then you don't have to worry about doing something stupid to get yourself thrown in jail.

James

This I agree with, the man from the article used a .380 Kel-Tec which is not a particularly powerful gun, its one of the new superlights designed specifically for the CCW market, certainly good for self defense but not good for encountering multiple targets in an armed robbery, for example this kid survived a close range headshot that shows you that the stopping power is less than ideal as it is very hard during a tense situation to pull off a direct headshot BUT on the plus side this gun is incredible as a CCW. You see its much more powerful than the comparable in size .22 (which is just a good way to be a little too cheap with your gun and get yourself killed) so the advantage is clearly when lets say you're walking out of the casino after a big win into the parking garage at night and a guy jumps out with a knife to rob you, well do you want to have your .380 in your hand or your .45 at home or under your driver's seat bc it was too heavy and cumbersome to CC, so clearly in stopping power yes it is a mediocre gun (albeit incredibly powerful relative to its small size) but the first rule in a gunfight is make sure ya got a fuckin gun, so it easily satisfies that requirement. When you're getting stabbed for your jackpot win that .45 in your car aint gonna do ya any good.