TexasCHLforum.com

drjoker says: "...All they need to do is find one shred of evidence that was allowed by judge 1 that would've been barred by judge 2...."

Not correct. It is just not that simple.

Elmo

pcgizzmo wrote:I think this guy is 100% guilty based on the video evidence we've seen and there is one thing about Oklahoma. If your guilty they will throw the book at you if they can. I don't think he's going to get a break.

If he gets a break in the judicial system, pcgizzmo, I suspect it might come from perhaps one of these two directions.

First, depending on how the issue was handled at trial, if indeed it was pleaded by the defense, Oklahoma's counterpart of what is generally called "temporary insanity" or such, should Oklahoma have a counterpart. Any relief here would undoubtedly lead to a new trial.

Secondly, we might see some compromise in the verdict when the sentence is announced, of course assuming that the judge has some leeway, and of course Oklahoma criminal law is a mystery to yours truly, so I have no business making predictions.

Elmo

Purplehood,

I understand the coroner testified that the first shot did not kill the BG, and that he was killed by the later shots, and if the defense actually made such an argument the jury would have been instructed correctly by the court that if they found that to have been proved, along with the other elements of the crime of murder, it could/should convict the defendant of murder. This has been good law as long as our nation has existed. Furthermore, even if the jury were to find that the deceased would without any doubt have died in a few moments anyway, before the later shots, that would not avoid the murder charge.

Elmo

Deleted - double post.

Ameer wrote:What the link to the video that shows the armed robber wearing a mask was not a threat when he was shot?

A question for anyone knowing more about Oklahoma criminal law than I do, which could well be all of you.

Who most likely had the burden of proof in Oklahoma to prove the deceased was no longer a threat to the defendant when the latter shots were fired? The state? The defendant? My question itself of course assumes that this was a question which might have even been posed to the jury.

I think it is wise to not assume that all the law/cliches we receive in a Texas CHL course state the law in Oklahoma. Perhaps. But perhaps not. I, for one, must admit that I do not know, but I will bow for the moment to those who say they do. I certainly have no reason to disbelieve them.

Elmo

03Lightningrocks wrote: When a person takes it upon themselves to be judge, jury and executioner, nothing will protect them from prosecution. Not even a cop is allowed to do what this guy did. I bet a soldier would be facing charges if he made this same decision in war.

Absolutely true, Lightning. The jury in this case had to have found the facts in the case to be such that a soldier in the field facing the enemy doing the same thing would be guilty of both murder under the Uniform Code of Military Justice and violation of the Law of War.

Unfortunately for both our nation and the individual soldiers, we see more than one of these cases in our military justice system right now.

Elmo

tacticool wrote: I can understand a manslaughter conviction, but the robbers are the ones who premeditated, not the pharmacist. They're the ones who put on ski masks and threatened innocent people. They're the ones who precipitated the whole thing. Charge the other robber and the getaway driver with 1st degree murder, not the robbery victims.

You raise an interesting point here, tacticool. Take a look at this very recent article of a shooting in Chicago. One of two robbers was shot and killed by an LEO, and the second BG is charged with the felony-murder of his cohort.

I would guess, for what it is worth, that it might be a little too much to apply this legal theory to the case of our pharmacist, but I certainly would not rule it out as worth a good prosecutor's try.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi- ... 0235.story" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Elmo

drjoker wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:to pump 4 or 5 rounds into the guy who is already down and immobile.

The fact of the matter is that the kid was black and the judge was up for re-election in a black district.

It was just a matter of time until this brilliant observation surfaced here. Since when did the judge convict the murderer? The jury convicted him. I would suggest that if there is anyone out there who knows what the relevant evidence was better than even you do, it was the jury.
I hate to question your judgment again, TAM, but I must once again agree with you.

Elmo