UPDATED/Oklahoma City pharmacist / first degree murder / VID

[HGWC]

If I were on his jury I'd vote to let him off the hook. In fact, I think he should be paid for the time, effort, money, and pain that he has saved future victims, the police, and the state penal system. One successful armed robbery only emboldens the perps, and usually leads to escalated attacks. This man put a bad one down.

Sounds bloodthirsty, I know, but it's what I believe is right. Would I do the same? No, mostly thanks to the people on this forum opening my eyes to reality and the cost of such actions. In my perfect world though, the other perp with the gun and the driver would be charged for murder once caught, and the pharmacist would be rewarded for cleaning up the streets.

Perfectly understandable, but that's just vigilantism. Keep in mind that as a jurist, you might also have to sit in the court room with this kid's family and his mother. There are lots of victims in this, not just the pharmacist. I may get a lot of blood thirsty comments on this board for saying that, but the rule of law is supposed to protect everyone equally. I think the only way out for the jury within justice is to convict on a lessor charge.

[Frost]

Apparently one of the two was the getaway driver and the other was an adult who talked the teenagers into doing the robbery.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/art ... QD98G79N00

[srothstein]

I am late getting to the discussion, but there are a couple things that come to my mind.

First, we tend to use Texas law to judge things without thinking because it is what we are used to. Like most of us, I am doing so now, since I am not familiar with OK law.

Second, the video looks bad to the pharmacist. In his favor, you cannot see the robber on the floor and he might be moving. Forensics from the autopsy will mean a lot in this. But the apparent attitude from the video does not look good.

Third, court cases have rules for burden of proof. The rule is that the prosecution must prove the crime. The defense must prove the defense. The prosecution must then prove the defense does not apply. The amount of proof the prosecution must have towards the defense depends on if it is a defense or affirmative defense. In this case, the proof of the crime (shooting the robber) is easy. The prosecution will probably start addressing the self defense issue early since the robbery is also apparent. The preliminary self defense is easy to prove, but the part about the robber moving gets harder.

Fourth, statements from people involved in shootings and other critical incidents rarely match the video. Cops know this and watch their tapes before writing their own statements. The defense lawyer will be able to show this part very easily, so the differences will make little difference. Sure, the jury will consider it a little, but it will be easy to overcome. This is one of the reasons we (here on this forum) advise you to tell only the most basic facts until you talk with your attorney.

Fifth, based on the discussions here, I would guess he will have to go through at least two trials. The quality of the attorneys will make a difference, but we seem to have a hung jury in the forum. If we are representative (highly doubtful) of how his jury will react, he gets a hung jury and a retrial. The second jury may hang or find either way, but I doubt the DA will take it to a third trial if there are two hung juries.

Finally, and maybe most importantly, I want to thank all of you for the reasonable discussion and points made. It is rare in most forums to see any thread go seven pages in such a short time and have as many points of disagreement as this one, and still have everyone stay calm and not attacking people. It shows we tend to be reasonable people in the group and is one of the reasons I recommend this forum to others interested in guns.

[Fangs]

Also, although several people mentioned that he didn't look too crippled in the video, I don't think anyone's pointed out the psychological effects of his recent surgery. I spent several months on crutches last year after cutting some tendons in my foot and it's a very vulnerable feeling to know that you can't run or fight as effectively as you're used to. I know I'd be quicker to go for my gun if I was injured / recovering from surgery than if I was at 100% physically.

I'm still not saying what he did was right, I'd just personally prefer to give him a slap on the wrist instead of 1st degree murder.

[HGWC]

The preliminary self defense is easy to prove, but the part about the robber moving gets harder.

"Well, he wasn't quite dead yet. He was still moving, so, I shot him five more times, just to be sure I finished the job." He was moving. He was trying to get up. That's just not going to cut it folks. The reason this video is so disturbing is because that's what we see happening. It's difficult to imagine that this kid that's been shot in the head, that doesn't appear to be armed, that the DA has characterized as laying down and unconscious, that the pharmacist just calmly walked past with his back to him suddenly presents an immediate threat to the pharmacist's life. What the pharmacist needs to show to make a case for self defense is not that he was moving or getting up. He needs to show the jury the gun they found in the kid's belt, and he needs to tell a convincing story that the kid was reaching for it.

[HGWC]

Also, although several people mentioned that he didn't look too crippled in the video, I don't think anyone's pointed out the psychological effects of his recent surgery. I spent several months on crutches last year after cutting some tendons in my foot and it's a very vulnerable feeling to know that you can't run or fight as effectively as you're used to. I know I'd be quicker to go for my gun if I was injured / recovering from surgery than if I was at 100% physically.

I'm still not saying what he did was right, I'd just personally prefer to give him a slap on the wrist instead of 1st degree murder.

Come on. He's chasing the 1st thug out of the store. His back didn't have anything to do with it. It was either self defense against an immediate threat of life or death, or it was an execution plain and simple. I don't see a lot of room for gray area in between. If the kid had just murdered the guy's wife or daughter or something I might be hard pressed to convict him. That didn't happen here. You can't just summarily execute a 16 year old kid. He's got to have a self defense argument, or I think he's getting convicted.

[surprise_i'm_armed]

Many thanks to TexasComputerDude (page 1 of this thread),
Eric C (page 5 of this thread), and Frost (page 6 of this thread)

for the video links and newspaper links that have helped to shed more
light upon our deliberations here.

One of the news pieces mentioned that the perp was given a gun with no
bullets in it. Well it seems like he was either lying, or later found some
ammo with which to charge his weapon.

Did you see the picture of the adult on the left in the photos?
He looks like Snoop Dogg's twin.

Discussion of shooting events like this provides all of us with a "real world"
idea of how to conduct ourselves in case the need for our CHL's ever manifests
itself.

Carry 24/7 with a backup magazine or speed loader handy. Stay safe out there.

[TexasComputerDude]

Discussion of shooting events like this provides all of us with a "real world"
idea of how to conduct ourselves in case the need for our CHL's ever manifests
itself.

Carry 24/7 with a backup magazine or speed loader handy. Stay safe out there.

They've taught me to NEVER SAY A WORD TO ANYONE BUT MY LAWYER. I also learned I do not want to be a pharmacist...

[llanite]

Another lesson for the great caliber debate:

1. Even a lowly KeltTec .380 is enough to stop an argument - even against armed opposition.

2. .380 headshot didn't kill (though who knows where the placement was).

3. The weapon you have on you at the time is still better than the cannon in the cash drawer.

[bryang]

They've taught me to NEVER SAY A WORD TO ANYONE BUT MY LAWYER.

LOL, I have been following this thread all the way, too, and that is exactly the conclusion I came to...

NEVER, NEVER SAY A WORD...PERIOD!!! to anyone except, I want to call my lawyer.

Name, rank & serial number.

-geo

[Edro20]

Just a quick observation. The robber that was shot appeared to take something from his waistband (front) as the two robbers were entering the store. You can see this at about 00:12 in the video. I tried and tried to determine if it was a gun, but I could not. I wonder why the owner shot the supposedly unarmed robber first. Perhaps the robber with the backpack did have a gun. After the robber takes something out of his pants, the other robber was obviously pointing/shooting a weapon. The robber who was shot had his hands up around his head for some reason. His mannerisms look really unusual to me. Was he reacting to the gunfire? Was he spooked by the loud noise? If he had a gun and initially (reflex combined with stress) reacted to cover his ears, the shop owner may have seen a weapon and fired on him first.

I realize that I am specualting. Wildly perhaps, but the robber who was shot DID take something out of his waistband. Of that I am convinced.

[A-R]

Finally, and maybe most importantly, I want to thank all of you for the reasonable discussion and points made. It is rare in most forums to see any thread go seven pages in such a short time and have as many points of disagreement as this one, and still have everyone stay calm and not attacking people. It shows we tend to be reasonable people in the group and is one of the reasons I recommend this forum to others interested in guns.

Amen.

I am amazed and proud to be part of such a civilized forum.

[Frost]

His mannerisms look really unusual to me. Was he reacting to the gunfire? Was he spooked by the loud noise? If he had a gun and initially (reflex combined with stress) reacted to cover his ears, the shop owner may have seen a weapon and fired on him first.

I believe he pulled out a mask and put it on. He was adjusting the mask when he was shot.

[LaUser]

Maybe this was mentioned before: I think the pharmacist got in trouble because what he told the police did not match up to the video.
Rule #1: If you talk to the police, don't lie. If you get caught, you are in trouble. In this case BIG trouble.

[dicion]

Maybe this was mentioned before: I think the pharmacist got in trouble because what he told the police did not match up to the video.
Rule #1: If you talk to the police, don't lie. If you get caught, you are in trouble. In this case BIG trouble.

Actually, Rule 1 is 'Don't talk to the police _at all_ until you've talked to your lawyer'