UPDATE: OKC pharmacist convicted of 1st degree murder

[pbwalker]

Appeal Appeal Appeal.

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

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

So he should be judge, jury, and executioner?

I despise thieves as much as the next guy, but your statement is wrong.

[rubiconjp]

Agree with TAM too. Going back and kill the robber was wrong. Should have evacuated and wait for LE to clear the store.

[pcgizzmo]

Man, I have to agree. He was executed. The guy was down and he came back to finish him off. It's pretty obvious. If he would have done it in the beginning you could have argued for adrenalin etc.... but not after he walks out, back in, goes to the register and back over to the guy. Not good.. Not good at all...

[Skaven]

We carry concealed to STOP violent action, not to kill people. It just so happens that if killing someone is the only way to STOP them, than death is an unfortunate byproduct. The first shot was justified in the fact that he shot to STOP. The subsequent shots were meant to KILL not to STOP, and were therefore not justified. i believe that murder may have been to strong of a verdict, but I think at minimum he would be guilty of manslaughter, or a lesser murder.

[hirundo82]

i believe that murder may have been to strong of a verdict, but I think at minimum he would be guilty of manslaughter, or a lesser murder.

It would have been manslaughter if he kept just kept firing after the robber was no longer a threat. Leaving then coming back and shooting him again made it murder.

[The Annoyed Man]

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?

If he had initially reacted with 2 to COM and 1 to the head, I would agree with you and say, No, he shouldn't be convicted of the same crime. But he didn't do that. He shot him once in the head, went outside, came back inside a minute or two later, went behind the counter, reloaded, came back out from behind the counter, and executed the perp with 5 more shots to the body. That was a coup de grace. That is premeditated murder. Same as what Charles Manson did. The fact that the diseased was a dirtbag whom I wouldn't take the time to pee on if he were on fire is irrelevant. WE don't get to play judge, jury, and executioner. We just don't. That we don't get to do that is what makes us better than the piece of filth that he killed. When the pharmacist did what he did, he lowered himself to the same moral plane as the robbers. There is no reason for the court to extend him any particular mercy. In fact, if it weren't for the fact that the dead robber initiated the incident in the first place, the pharmacist might arguably deserve the death penalty. That's what we do with illegal executioners.

[RiverCity.45]

I thought we're supposed to use deadly force to stop the threat in situations like this. One the threat is stopped, the justification goes away. Coming back and unloading several more rounds into an incapacitated and no longer threatening robber is, in my view, murder. That may not be a popular sentiment, but it's my opinion in this particular case. If you haven't seen the video of the event, take a look at it. I suspect that is what sealed his fate.

[drjoker]

to pump 4 or 5 rounds into the guy who is already down and immobile.

The video did not show what the perp was doing when the pharmacist shot him 4 or 5 more times when the perp was down. The assertion was that the perp was down but NOT immobile and might have been armed. Quarterbacking something like this after the shooting from the safety of your armchair and IMAGINING what happened off camera is wrong and injustice. People should be convicted based on what there is EVIDENCE for. The fact of the matter is that the kid was black and the judge was up for re-election in a black district. Due to "politics", an honorably discharged veteran who is a hero that defended our country was convicted of 1st degree murder.

If his family is going to stage a protest, I will drive to Oklahoma.

[b322da]

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

[RiverCity.45]

Um...the video wasn't the only evidence presented. Other testimony about him being immobile was I was referring to.

2ndly, it was the jury that convicted him, not the judge, so his how his reelection bid made the jury convict him is lost on me.

[03Lightningrocks]

There is self defense. Then there is revenge. Apparently, the difference is hard for some to understand. Even in this very forum.

[Skaven]

I always wondering myself, if I was in a life or death situation, and had an adrenaline dump, would I stop after discharging. I train myself to draw, fire once, observe, then holster/fire again, repeat. But idk... I am not saying that after i disengage, I would return and unload on him, that would never be the case, i may be mad, and tenderize his side with my boot (once or twice ), but I would never fire like the pharmacist did.

[tacticool]

There is self defense. Then there is revenge. Apparently, the difference is hard for some to understand. Even in this very forum.

True. Tracking down and killing a criminal after the fact is revenge. Shooting a robber during the robbery is self defense, unless they're 100% guaranteed no risk whatsoever anymore.

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.

[03Lightningrocks]

There is self defense. Then there is revenge. Apparently, the difference is hard for some to understand. Even in this very forum.

True. Tracking down and killing a criminal after the fact is revenge. Shooting a robber during the robbery is self defense, unless they're 100% guaranteed no risk whatsoever anymore.

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.

I get and agree with what your saying but I also realize that if I pump rounds in a stopped threat, I risk being seen as having extracted revenge. In a case where the BG has caused harm to my friends or loved ones I don't mind doing the time. For material possessions I am not liking the risk/reward factor. Maybe a way of looking at it is that "Two wrongs don't make a right".

[b322da]

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