Oklahoma Pharmacist Sentenced to Life for Shooting Robber

I would have plead insanity, that was just plain weird

 

He was not operating on normal brain chemistry and he was in instinctual "Safe Mode" but that video is damning.

He checked the status of the criminal 3 times before shooting him again. Walked calmly to the phone after shooting him the second time.

Not first degree murder, but certainly murder. (again IF AND ONLY IF the criminal had a 100% chance of survival from the initial head shot)

 

That's f***ed up.

How can somebody do that so methodically and casually unless he 1) didn't see the giant head wound on the guy (how else did he think the dude got knocked out?) and/or 2) didn't realize he was unarmed (which I can see as plausible, since the guy who got away pointed a gun at him for several moments, but that is overridden by point #1)

 

I have two (semi-contradictory) thoughts on this.

(1) I think jury verdicts have a lot to do with the individuls on the jury, even apart from their race. If Horn's jury got this case, maybe they would have let him off too.

(2) Juries are given a lot of instruction by the judge as to what the evidence has to show in order to qualify as a crime. The jury interprets the evidence, the judge interprets the law. If their instruction was "the shooter had to believe his life was in danger when he returned," looking at the video, there doesn't seem to be much lattitude to think so.

 

In horror movies, I usually shout at the screen for the victim to finish the job after giving the villain a good whack in the head.

Of course, in real life, they don't return consciousness after a shot in the head.

Just a pretty bad set of circumstances. I'm betting the defendant wouldn't plea out of principle. Probably felt justified ending the villain's life.

 

Would be interesting to see what happened after the phone call. did he pace and try to burn off excess adrenaline, did he sit down and try to relax?

did he call out the other employees, point at the dead body and gloat?

My guess is he was operating on another level. Like a computer program:

-Guy still alive
-get backup gun
-shoot guy again
-call police

Mostly academic though, the first shots were justified. The last shots were not.

Yeah, that is why you have to see video before you can make judgement. The usual teaching is shoot until they are down, if down and still seem a threat, keep shooting. It is hard to argue that a reasonable person would consider this guy laying on the floor still a threat, totally subjective though.

 

Yea. . This Guy was actually INVOLVED in the activie
Joe Horn was a by stander that took it upon his self to kill him some #$$#^%$

Both are Murders

Rocket River

 

False.

 

I have no idea how I'd react if the dude got back up, but even without the video, the article made it sound conclusive that the owner shot him on the floor.

Freddy Krueger, I'd understand getting trigger happy. If it was a thug, I'd keep my distance and wait for the cops.

 

Overkill? Maybe.

One less scumbag on the streets is a good thing in my mind. Robbery now, possibly rape and murder later. Thanks for cleaning up the streets... can I get an oxy now?

 

I think we all need to put ourselves in the Pharmacist shoes.

Here is what I think happened. Two guys came in and stuck a gun in his face.

He probably panicked but still remembered he had weapons in the back. Got his gun, fricken raged thinking, THESE LIL MOTHER****ERS CHOSE THE WRONG STORE TO ROB!!!

shot one of them, the other one ran. He probably still had adrenaline pumping and feel like he has the upper hand now in the battle,, chased the guy out of the store.

Came back, sees the injured guy, probably thinking, "Stupid MotherF'er that's what you get for trying to rob me, Not so tough now lying on the floor huh?" Bang Bang Bang Bang shoots him another 5 times as some sorta victory shots and to release his anger.

Purely speculative, is that 1st degree murder, no. He probably did that out of pure rage and adrenaline than anything. Again I never had a gun pointed at me, so I have no idea.

 

Once the guy was down, there was no need to pump more rounds into him, that was excessive.

I won't cry for the guy that is dead, he and his pal started this, and that was a risk they took on.....choose to rob, you might get shot and killed.

DD

 

Those guys should not be shot, they should be drawn and quartered on national TV.

DD

 

I just can't justify 1st degree murder here.

This guy had just threatened the shop owner with a weapon (I consider him being a part of an armed robbery as being "armed" himself in that instance)... if some guy did that to me, I could see myself in "kill or be killed" mode, not thinking clearly/rationally... even if I saw the guy on the ground, I'd be terrified that he was just playing possum, etc. and would get up and cap my ass... it takes a while for those feelings to subside... you just never know how people are going to respond in those situations... unfortunately, this isn't 3rd degree murder (his intent was likely to kill him), and it's not 2nd degree... there's just no other classification for it... it's a weird circumstance... if only he hadn't gone for the 2nd gun, that seemed to seal the deal that this guy was in no danger at that point, and only looking for some personal payback.... add in the fact that he basically stood over him, while the guy lay there motionless, and shot him execution style (several times)... it just looked so... wrong.

 

2nd degree murder is generally considered to be murder with intent and malice, but not premeditation. If he did it intentionally, as you said (I agree, by the way) and was doing it to seek "payback" (again, I agree), how is that not malicious? This is 2nd degree murder, plain and simple. I don't feel too sorry for the murder victim (he placed himself in harms way and paid the price), but I think the shopkeep should do some time, too. Not life in prison, but hard time nonetheless.

 

I must have found the wrong definition for 2nd degree murder.

 

I'm with you. I had never even heard of accomplices being charged like this until today... and then soon after, I came across it again in this article [link]:

This one was in Chicago--apparently they have the same law. I'm beginning to wonder if this is the norm? Either way, I think that's crazy. Imagine growing up in a bad neighborhood and not having the greatest upbringing... all it would take is going along with the plan of some dumb friend, and you could be charged with murder if everything goes wrong. I'm definitely not finding the logic in this law.

 

If you commit armed robery, you should fully expect there is a good chance you will be shot and killed, no matter what transpires.... that is part of the basis of holding the co-robbers also liable for the murder of the dead boy.

As to whether he deserves life in prison, I don't know... didn't see the video, but I would think the tape must be bad to convict him.

 

The logic is simple... when you commit a serious violent crime, that is pre-meditated, you know or should know that you are putting yourself and others in a situation where their lives are at risk. Therefore, if someone dies, even if you did not pull the trigger, you are liable.

 

Hey look everyone... An idiot!

How exciting!!