TexasCHLforum.com

Here is an old article with video of the shooting.
http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-pharmac ... tory_title" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Here is the article on the conviction.
http://www.kjrh.com/dpp/news/state/Copy ... g_20954314" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Wow. What a miscarriage of justice.

I'm going to have to disagree with you Steve, and my position will likely be unpopular. No doubt the first shot to the perp's head was justified, and it put him down and incapacitated him. But enough time had passed between then and when the pharmacist returns to pump 4 or 5 rounds into the guy who is already down and immobile that I have to question the need, and it appears to be a premeditated act. We're taught to "shoot to stop the threat." It appears that the threat was stopped by the first shot to the head.

Yes, the perp was a dirtbag, and yes, society is undoubtedly better off without him cluttering up the gene pool; but it's not our call to make to remove him from it. Even if the perp had succeeded in pulling himself to a sitting position—which witness testimony at the time indicates did not happen—I find it hard to belief that he was still trying to act aggressively toward the pharmacist, and the follow up shots do very much seem to be an execution.

The Annoyed Man wrote:I'm going to have to disagree with you Steve, and my position will likely be unpopular. No doubt the first shot to the perp's head was justified, and it put him down and incapacitated him. But enough time had passed between then and when the pharmacist returns to pump 4 or 5 rounds into the guy who is already down and immobile that I have to question the need, and it appears to be a premeditated act. We're taught to "shoot to stop the threat." It appears that the threat was stopped by the first shot to the head.

Yes, the perp was a dirtbag, and yes, society is undoubtedly better off without him cluttering up the gene pool; but it's not our call to make to remove him from it. Even if the perp had succeeded in pulling himself to a sitting position—which witness testimony at the time indicates did not happen—I find it hard to belief that he was still trying to act aggressively toward the pharmacist, and the follow up shots do very much seem to be an execution.

And this, unfortunately, falls right in line with the anti's view of "gun nuts" being vigilantes.

The Annoyed Man wrote:I'm going to have to disagree with you Steve, and my position will likely be unpopular. No doubt the first shot to the perp's head was justified, and it put him down and incapacitated him. But enough time had passed between then and when the pharmacist returns to pump 4 or 5 rounds into the guy who is already down and immobile that I have to question the need, and it appears to be a premeditated act. We're taught to "shoot to stop the threat." It appears that the threat was stopped by the first shot to the head.

Yes, the perp was a dirtbag, and yes, society is undoubtedly better off without him cluttering up the gene pool; but it's not our call to make to remove him from it. Even if the perp had succeeded in pulling himself to a sitting position—which witness testimony at the time indicates did not happen—I find it hard to belief that he was still trying to act aggressively toward the pharmacist, and the follow up shots do very much seem to be an execution.

I agree with TAM....

Another person who agrees with TAM. We are allowed to defend ourselves, not execute people. This really is a sad one. No winners at all.

The first shot was justified, but his mistake was going back toward the robber after he was down. IIRC he said that the robber was eaching for his gun while on the floor, but that part was off camera.

As armed citizens, once an assailant is down we should take the opportunity to exit the scene and wait for law enforcement in a safe place. I have no problem with leaving a criminal to bleed to death on the floor if it keeps me safe and out of prison.

The Annoyed Man wrote:I'm going to have to disagree with you Steve, and my position will likely be unpopular. No doubt the first shot to the perp's head was justified, and it put him down and incapacitated him. But enough time had passed between then and when the pharmacist returns to pump 4 or 5 rounds into the guy who is already down and immobile that I have to question the need, and it appears to be a premeditated act. We're taught to "shoot to stop the threat." It appears that the threat was stopped by the first shot to the head.

Yes, the perp was a dirtbag, and yes, society is undoubtedly better off without him cluttering up the gene pool; but it's not our call to make to remove him from it. Even if the perp had succeeded in pulling himself to a sitting position—which witness testimony at the time indicates did not happen—I find it hard to belief that he was still trying to act aggressively toward the pharmacist, and the follow up shots do very much seem to be an execution.

...you've got it correct and just...shame the man went ballistic...not reasonable at all...

I agree with all above...I just have a hard time with the First Degree Murder part. Given all the circumstances I think they should’ve came back with the lesser manslaughter charge (four years up to life in prison) I know what he did was wrong but I could only imagine the adrenaline that was flowing.

It really gets my blood boiling thinking about this case and then to see that the Loughner scum bag in Arizona is “incompetent to stand trial”, Give me a break!

kgdotcom wrote:.I just have a hard time with the First Degree Murder part. Given all the circumstances I think they should’ve came back with the lesser manslaughter charge (four years up to life in prison) I know what he did was wrong but I could only imagine the adrenaline that was flowing.:

I agree. That is the miscarriage of justice I spoke of (obviously should have written a longer post) To be "murder" the following elements should have existed:

1.unlawful
2.Killing
3.of a human being
4.with malice aforethought

When was the "aforethought?"

steveincowtown wrote:When was the "aforethought?"

That was when he returned to the scene and shot him several more times. Premeditation doesn't require a long planning process, just time enough to think about what you are doing. The jury apparently decided that in the time between the first shots and when he came back, he decided to kill the robber.

kgdotcom wrote:I agree with all above...I just have a hard time with the First Degree Murder part. Given all the circumstances I think they should’ve came back with the lesser manslaughter charge (four years up to life in prison) I know what he did was wrong but I could only imagine the adrenaline that was flowing.

It really gets my blood boiling thinking about this case and then to see that the Loughner scum bag in Arizona is “incompetent to stand trial”, Give me a break!

and I also agree with TAM. I have no doubt the adrenaline was on full-pump with this guy, and he was probably TRIM (The Really Irritated Man). Shame he had to fire the extra shots. When I saw that video, I thought to myself, "He just screwed himself".

The Annoyed Man wrote:I'm going to have to disagree with you Steve, and my position will likely be unpopular. No doubt the first shot to the perp's head was justified, and it put him down and incapacitated him. But enough time had passed between then and when the pharmacist returns to pump 4 or 5 rounds into the guy who is already down and immobile that I have to question the need, and it appears to be a premeditated act. We're taught to "shoot to stop the threat." It appears that the threat was stopped by the first shot to the head.

Yes, the perp was a dirtbag, and yes, society is undoubtedly better off without him cluttering up the gene pool; but it's not our call to make to remove him from it. Even if the perp had succeeded in pulling himself to a sitting position—which witness testimony at the time indicates did not happen—I find it hard to belief that he was still trying to act aggressively toward the pharmacist, and the follow up shots do very much seem to be an execution.

My understanding is that the evidence shows the original perp (now vic) was just lying there not doing much of anything. This was more execution than self-defense. If I were his defense lawyer, I might've pushed for manslaughter instead of 1st degree murder, if it could be proven that the head shot would've killed him anyway. <shrug> Maybe they tried that and the evidence showed it wasn't a fatal wound. Like Lano said, "No winners at all."

Appeal Appeal Appeal.

He does not deserve murder... he deserves a medal!

Robbers deserve no mercy. Don't give them any.

Lano wrote: No winners at all.

I disagree, I think the winners were all the perp's future vicitms.

I am not saying this guy did the moral/correct thing, what I am saying is that should he really be convicted of the same crime that Charles Manson was?