Oklahoma Pharmacist Sentenced to Life for Shooting Robber

The man had a trial by a jury of his peers. He was given due process. He can appeal his sentence. He is held accountable by the laws of Oklahoma (as are the other 3 people sentenced to murder).

These jurors saw the video. They got the evidence. All of them agreed it was 1st degree murder. Are you implying that these jurors didn't watch the video without a previous bias?

Returning fire at armed robbers = self defense. Shooting said armed robber in the head and rendering him unconscious = self defense.

Retreiving 2nd gun and shooting an unconscious man 5 times = murder.

 

45 seconds from first to second shot. This time was not spent slowly walking up to a bleeding man on the ground then blowing him away. Without the video I cannot say for sure.

 

If the kid was unarmed, then that's debatable. I didn't see the video, so I can't presume that action was 100% legal.

I didn't realize there was a legal definition for "kid".

16 year old = kid in my world.

 

It does seem weird, but like I said, I need to chew on it for a while.

 

I have said many times I would like to see the video before I would make up my own mind. do I have to blindly accept their opinion as my own? I am not the only one in the thread expressing doubt over a life sentence

His accomplice was armed. You are legally incorrect.

 

Fine. Then I "guessed" correctly and it was legal.

My point is that the law shouldn't extend to after his accomplices have left the scene and he's laying unarmed and unconscious on the floor.

 

I think the prosecutors are trying to hold other people in the party responsible for putting the kid in the situation where he could (and did) die. Almost akin to someone bullying someone else into committing suicide. They didn't force the person to commit suicide but they are responsible in some way imo.

If the kid had died due to being shot only once in self-defense, I would expect the prosecutors to try to convict the accomplices as much as they are right now.

 

You don't have to blindly accept anything. You are entitled to your opinion. I don't even think he should have gotten 1st degree murder considering the type of stress the guy was put in against his own will. However, I will believe that he did shoot an unconscious man 5 times while there was zero threat to him. Regardless of the situation, that action deserves punishment. Expect further appeals. Don't expect a video.

 

You didnt actually read the article did you?

It explains the timeline, which I already pointed out...but you still refuse to acknowledge it.

Ok, whatever....obviously you *are* that much of a gun nut. Ill drop this now cause we aint getting anywhere with it, and I dont see that changing.

And some wonder why I rarely post anything seriously in here.

 

Without more info it is hard to say at what point shooting is no longer justified for me.

all it says is he ran after the other guy and that first shot to second was 45 seconds. timeline means what else happened. What was the situation. what else was he doing. What was his body language and state of mind.

Would a reasonable person done have obviously done something else? 45 seconds is not really a huge factor. that time can go by REAL fast. Heck, I would agree in some instances a 8 second delay could be said to be the difference in self defense and murder.

Fake example but it is pretty obvious the last shot here is murder
<iframe width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/-zJlsc8GU50" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

I don't think you can connect this with his love of guns. I think this is more about one's view on how valid "an eye for an eye" type justice is. People who think an eye for an eye is ok also tend to have less sympathy for criminals regardless of the situation. They see it more black and white (racial pun not intended).

 

Well, the jury saw the video and saw fit to convict him based on it. And Oklahoma ain't exactly the most liberal state in the country.

Maybe I'm digging too deep here, but this:

makes it seem like the guy knew he was wrong.

Oh, and also...

 

I think if you started this way, people wouldn't really be arguing with you. But your first post in this thread indicates you already made up your mind without seeing video.

 

I love how they have something called a "Make My Day" law. Like that isn't a dead giveaway of the spirit of the rule.

 

The fact that a jury pulled from a state with a law like that still voted to convict him is pretty damning, IMO.

 

I disagree, but don't want to shift to that type of discussion.

Spoiler

I think people are getting butt hurt purely on some preconceived notions.

Tranlation: in my eyes, this guy was not an innocent victim.

Possible that action were criminal but certainly not to that extent. Overboard general means to me gone to far.

 

And you'd be correct, but that doesn't justify murder.


Now, let me show you how everyone else sees this:

Translation: If you commit armed robbery, it should be expected and accepted that you will be shot and killed, no matter what transpires.


I'd say my translation is more literal and more closely related to what you actually posted, than what you obviously meant. That's probably where this disagreement is coming from.

 

Well that is their own bias and nothing I wrote should indicate I felt that way.

 

/armchairlawyereventhoughtiknowivealreadyheardtheruling

I don't think he should have been given life in prison.

He initially defended himself vs. armed robbers. I certianly hope noone would consider that an illegal action.

The 2nd action, was certainly a crime, but I hardly consider his actions to be on par to those of that of someone robbing and killing someone. Sure, his actions were with the intent to kill, but he wasn't actively looking to kill. (I know that sentence is somewhat contradictory, but I'm hoping the meaning is understood) Surely, his mental state must be questioned, he was attacked, logic and compassion are not exactly key components to flight/fight response. He defended himself and overreacted, murdering one of his attackers.

 

I'd say it's not their bias, but your poor choice of words.