Oklahoma Pharmacist Sentenced to Life for Shooting Robber

What about lazy poor people who spew vitriol all the time instead of working a 2nd job? Talk about a counter productive dumbass.

 

They're hard-working thugs who have a job. N/A

 

Ronny are you following me?

 

Ah, so it must not have anything to do with stealing - just whether someone has a job or not.

I guess that's one way to tackle the unemployment problem.

 

I think they key factor for him was hard working.

 

How many of you guys ever had a gun in your face, thinking that that was it and still maintained a calm manner?

I'm glad the stupid thieving punk is dead. They planned the robbery. So death is well deserved. And yes, I would have had the pharmacist's back because he was under the powerful emotion of fear. He didn't plan it, he reacted the only way he knows how.

After this one experience he'll probably know how to react the next time, but "Life" for learning how to deal with an experience most of us will never know?

Damn the judge and jury.

 

Pumping 5 more shots into him was way overboard....but I am not crying for the guy who got killed while trying to rob the store.

If he got killed in one shot, I think the story would end there.

DD

 

why do people alway have to turn this into you must feel sorry for criminals.

 

The same reason so many threads devolve into class warfare. I guess so many people agreed that a life sentence seems excessive so they had to find something to else argue about.

 

Dude found his opportunity to feel what it was like to kill someone . . . and he took advantage of it.

He is probably more of a horrible human than the robber.

Robbers > Murders

Rocket River

 

I'm not sure who's saying that.

 

Right-wing talking point. Criticizing the fact that people with money get away with crimes while poor people don't = class warfare.

Apparently, class doesn't really exist - or, if it does, it doesn't really matter or, everyone deserves the things that come with whatever "class" they're in.

--------------------------------------

Anyway, just thought I'd add my name to the agreement pile - the guy killed a man who, in all likelihood, was completely incapacitated. As such, he should be convicted - but his sentence was excessive.

 

How do you know the pharmacist "was under the powerful emotion of fear" when he pumped 5 bullets into an unconscious person? I'm guessing the jury looked at the evidence and disagrees. In fact, they disagreed to such an extent they found the pharmacist guilty of murder.

Count me in the group thinking it would have been best if the kid had been killed by the first shot. That's the kind of instant justice most of us can agree with.

Here is a link with the video.

 

Funny how you give durvasa crap for saying "OK, I guess that's legal.", then say "Possible that action (sic) were criminal". No, it is certain that the action was criminal as it was ruled so by judge and jury. Maybe think about that before trying to parse words with another poster so pedantically?

 

He talked about the first shots which all sides agree was self defense. He was not informed of the fact that deadly force was justified in such a hypothetical situation.

The question presented to the jury, which is subjective, was what I was referring to.

your logic that the judge and jury ends all debate is questionable. OJ's actions were not criminal I guess.

 

Nothing excuses breaking the law to rob a store. The robber was wrong. He didn't kill anyone. The Pharmacist did something worse in that he killed somebody.

I may not feel sorry for the victim or I might. It doesn't matter, the pharmacist still broke the law.

Saying that someone hopes a robber die is extreme. You can try all you'd like, and there is no way anyone will pass a law saying the death penalty for robbery is justified.

 

Oops. Sorry.

http://bcove.me/iqzxct9z

 

Murder.


He looked calm, cool, and collected.

 

I want to qualify my previous post by saying it based on the assumption that the robber had a 100% chance of survival after the first shot.

 

So what are we actually debating?

It seems like almost everyone agrees that first degree murder is probably too harsh considering the circumstances but I'm curious as to what choices the jury had in terms of a conviction. Were lower levels of murder even an option for the jury?