Oklahoma Pharmacist Sentenced to Life for Shooting Robber

That's crazy. I dunno about a life sentence but the shooter does deserve to rot in jail for a good while.

 

I don't know about life in prison, but shooting an unarmed, incapacitated (I assume) thief 5 times, with the intent to kill, is a little excessive. His accomplice may have been armed, which probably led to his feeling threatened enough to kill the other man, but the fact that he had time to walk back into the store... go get ANOTHER gun... and then pump the guy full of lead... that kind of kills the whole notion that he was in any immediate danger and just reacted... seems like he was shooting out of spite at that point.

 

If you don't want to be shot to death, don't commit armed robbery.

first-degree murder is way overboard.

 

Similarly, if you don't want to risk getting convicted of murder, don't shoot an unconcious man 5 times.

 

I can see both sides on this one. I can understand him wanting to make sure the robber was dead. That's one less thief you gotta worry about. But Shooting him in the head, getting another pistol and shooting him 5 more times isn't self defense anymore. I don't know about the sentencing though. Tough call for me.

For some reason, the shooting him 5 more times part reminded me of the "Double Tap" rule from Zombieland lol.

 

Just because somebody attempted armed robbery does not give you carte blache to blow them away after it fails.

There's self defense, and then there's killing someone for the sake of killing.

This ceased being the former after dude put a slug in his dome.

 

I think we are discussing this without having the critical facts. what was the timeline. what was the situation? where was the accomplice?

Were his colleagues still hiding?

I would have to see the video.

In general though, one guy woke up intending to provide a service to the community and make money legitimately. Another guy intended to risk many peoples lives to make a small financial gain. The right person ended up dead.

 

Not sure what you mean by "after it fails" but committing armed robbery is a legal reason to use deadly force.

 

I agree that life is a little too harsh for a guy who went overboard when trouble came upon him. But, he should get something.

But, I think this was the crazy part of the case:

I think it's crazy to charge someone with murder because you commit a crime together with someone and things get out of hand and someone else shoots him. This kid didn't intend for his friend to be killed, didn't conspire to have him killed, nor even pulled the trigger to get him killed. This seems like all kind of dumb as a law. And, they've actually convicted 4 people now for the murder of this one kid, when only one pulled the trigger and it's plain that it was not in simple self-defense. How are these other 3 people responsible for someone committing a crime against them while they were committing their own crime? If it's self-defense, then it logically follows that their actions caused the boy's death. But, it wasn't self-defense.

 

Yeah this is a major double standard and logic fail. If the pharmacist committed murder, then this law is dumb. If the pharm was defending, then this law is logical even if it is harsh.

this seems to be a case of defense lawyers getting destroyed all the way around.

 

I kind of doubt the unarmed, unconscious guy on the floor with a bullet in his head posed a great threat at that point.

Like I said, just because someone *tried* to rob you, even armed, does not give you carte blanche to do whatever you want until the police arrive.

The robbery was over, the threat was neutralized, and then the shop owner decided to then kill the robber.

Sorry, but this isn't a western movie, we have a justice system to determine these things.

 

Would you agree it would have been better if nobody had died?

 

There were two alleged acts here.

The first was shooting the kid in the head ("deadly force") while he was committing armed robbery. OK, I guess that's legal.

The second was deciding to shoot the kid 5 more times while he was unconscious on the floor. Is he still in the act of committing an armed robbery after being shot down and incapacitated?

This guy isn't a hero. If the story is as reported, he's a maniac with a gun.

 

I agree but it does give you the legal right to use deadly force.

45 seconds passed between the first and second shot. Without the video or more info we don't know the situation. If he just casually walked up and smoked the guy it is different than if he was running around and scared for his life.

Subjective in any case. What is your opinion on the DA still holding 3 other people responsible for first degree murder?

 

Your diction here shows your obvious bias.

"You guess" that is legal? No it is 100% legal.

This "kid" was a violent criminal. Legally not a kid at all.

 

Did you miss this part?

Accomplice gone
timeline was almost a full minute after the first shot knocked the robber out cold.

I got zero problem with folks defending themselves, but the additional 5 shots that killed him was unnecessary and that is why the shooter was convicted.

Surely you arent so much a gun nut that you dont see where the line is.

 

I'm not sure how I feel about that. I've never heard of this kind of situation, really.

 

Of course. Even for the people not in prison their life is much worse. Probably scared to death of robbery. This can ruin lives and create severe mental problems.

Seems to be an obvious logic fail though right?