Oklahoma Pharmacist Sentenced to Life for Shooting Robber

And I disagree.

 

Are you trying to say "he wasn't looking for this fight"?

In that sense, yes, I agree, and it's in part why I think first-degree/life in prison is uncalled for.

He could've very well felt threatened still, and just flat out panicked... or his "fight or flight" instinct could've gone into super overdrive...

People tend not to think clearly under duress, and unfortunately, stuff like this happens.

 

That would be a good way to put it, thanks!

 

Let's start a poll!

 

Really messed up case. I don't really know what to think.

I've never had three guys sticking guns in my face before. I'm not making excuses for the pharmacist, but maybe he just panicked and went crazy and just wanted to make sure the guy who just stuck a gun in his face is dead.

Again we never saw the video. Life sentence is definitely too harsh for this. Shooting an unconscious guy 5 times is excessive, but does not deserve a life sentence.

 

LOL:grin:. Yeah we should because it is so important to the discussion. Three people including yourself either understood my stance within minutes or asked for clarification. It is a non issue.

 

Agree 100%. The jurors sat through the trial and viewed the video and other evidence. Let the appeals process begin.

Normally, I'm very happy when armed criminals suffer for their crimes instead of their intended victims, but the pharmacist's additional actions seem impossible to defend. I dunno about a life sentence, but he should be locked up for a very long time.

The thought of the pharmacist shooting the kid laying on the ground unconscious 5 times makes me sick to my stomach.

 

If I lived in a crime-ridden neighborhood, my initial emotional response may be similar. After all the facts have been sorted out though in a trial, opinions can change.

 

Though you could easily be shot dead when attempting armed robbery, the penalty for armed robbery is not death. And it's certainly not the decision of the person being robbed to decide the penalty should be death if he has already adequately defended himself and his property.

This seems pretty clear cut to me. He defended himself. Then, he kills the guy.

You defend yourself, then call the cops, then wait for the cops.

I would even question him running out the store to shoot at the other guy. You have one guy incapacitated and another on the run. The cops will very likely be able to find the second guy based on who the shot guy is. Sit tight and let law enforcement do their job.

The other relevent info here is the pharmacist was a fairly high ranking ex-military man. That means he should have had the training and experience to deal with stressful situations. It may not be entirely fair, but I would hold him to a higher standard than your average nerdy pharmacist who probably got picked on in Jr. High.

 

the fact that he is a retired Lieutenant Colonel makes it even less acceptable to me. My assumption would be that one so highly ranked in the ARMED forces would be less prone to panic under duress.

the only video i wish to view is of the defendant assaulting his lawyer. What was that about i wonder?

 

CaseyH, if you're just playing devil's advocate here then you should just go ahead and abandon it.

Otherwise - I don't think you're a over-the-edge gun nut (and I don't think there's anything wrong with owning guns), I think you're just very, very, very afraid of crime.

 

The other side of that coin is that if he is ex-military, he could've just been totally throw back into a PTSD situation, shoot to kill, etc.

 

apologies for the duplication

 

I get that, but charging murder seems all out of proprtion. It actually fits this case better than most, I think, because he was engaged in armed robbery, and he did get shot be someone who (initially, at least) was using deadly force to protect himself.

But, what about a more mundane example. Two guys break into a house to steal while the owners are out on vacation. While one guy is disconnecting the TV, the other guy is bringing down the jewelry from the bedroom. He slips and falls down the stairs, lands awkwardly and breaks his neck. Now, his accomplice is a murderer?

That could be. Or, it could have been totally premeditated. The guy is ex-military, works in a rough neighborhood, and keeps guns in the shop. He may well have been daydreaming about the day someone tries to rob his shop and he can teach them a lesson and put their heads on a pike as a warning to all the hoodlums around warning them not to mess with his shop.

I don't know; the article doesn't say. The jury is in the best position to say, so I guess I should defer to them -- even if from the outside it looks like they're screwing it up.

 

i considered that but dude was HIGH RANKING!!! That's got to imply some sort of mental self-control, no?

 

From your perspective I would call my self an over the edge gun nut. I don't think this make my arguments less valid or any of my statements more controversial.

Dangerous line of thinking. He is a civilian. Seems terrible to give someone who served less benefit of the doubt. Also an officer is less likely to see combat.

 

You don't know my perspective, but I'll tell you - I think people should be able to own guns without interference. I believe that not because I'm afraid of criminals, but because I'm afraid of government agents and cops.

You just sound frightened to me. That's the point I was making.

 

I hear you & generally defer to those who've served.. i'm very protective & proud of those citizens, no matter my politics.

What's dangerous is the thought of our military promoting someone one step from General who panics under fire.

 

Lt. Col. is O-5 and two massive steps from general. Most guys putting in 20 years get either O-4 or O-5 minimum in Army and USMC. Not sure about Air Force.

I am not sure why you say that then. If you think it is less paranoid to be concerned with government agents over meth/crackheads that is your option. I don't know where you see me as fearful though. I don't see you as a tinfoil hat crackpot. Oh well.

 

My bad. I got my assumption from "Scent of Woman".. Lt Colonel Frank Slade was "passed over" for General.

I'm assuming the rank is still high & represents command/responsibility of a significant amount of military persons, no?