-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Pharmacist gets life for shooting robber
- Thread starter thebigsd
- Start date
JoeSparky
Centurion
I haven't read the link but if this is the one from OK then....
He was not charged with the ORIGINAL shooting but then when he went back, changed guns and EXECUTED the already head shot would be robber the jury decided that he was in the wrong AND I AM NOT DISAGREEING WITH THEM!
I have now read the link.... No changes to what I originally posted above!
He was not charged with the ORIGINAL shooting but then when he went back, changed guns and EXECUTED the already head shot would be robber the jury decided that he was in the wrong AND I AM NOT DISAGREEING WITH THEM!
I have now read the link.... No changes to what I originally posted above!
Last edited:
VW_Factor
Regular Member
Same as has been gone over before..
cshoff
Regular Member
I called it an "execution" when the story first broke. A perfect example of what NOT to do.
thebigsd
Founder's Club Member
I know the story has been discussed. I was thinking more about thoughts on the sentence. Fair or not?
okboomer
Regular Member
paramedic
Regular Member
I am not sure I agree with the full sentencing, I do not believe he should be charged with first degree murder, absolutely manslaughter.
OldCurlyWolf
Regular Member
There are several things wrong here. Starting with the initial charge of first degree murder. That was TOTALLY uncalled for. If I had been sitting on that jury, just the fact that the whole episode only took 43 seconds would have eliminated the First Degree charge. That charge requires premeditation.
Minimum of a hung jury, probably a not guilty on that charge. I don't have enough information to make a decision on any other charges the DA may have brought.
:cuss::cuss:
KansasMustang
Regular Member
There are several things wrong here. Starting with the initial charge of first degree murder. That was TOTALLY uncalled for. If I had been sitting on that jury, just the fact that the whole episode only took 43 seconds would have eliminated the First Degree charge. That charge requires premeditation.
Minimum of a hung jury, probably a not guilty on that charge. I don't have enough information to make a decision on any other charges the DA may have brought.
:cuss::cuss:
I concur, Murder 1 is just wrong. Manslaughter should be the charge. But if the criminal was still attempting to fight...
But it just shows what you'll get for a jury that they went along with the murder 1 conviction.
BTW the link gave me a commercial for a house?
Difdi
Regular Member
Manslaughter is what you get when your actions lead to someone's death but you didn't actually intend for the guy to die. Murder 2 is the actual appropriate charge. The pharmacist intended to kill the robber (you don't shoot someone six times for any other reason, especially when you go for a head shot with the first one), but it was in the heat of the moment. Killing in self-defense is one thing, even if you go for the kill shot right off, if you're under deadly threat yourself. But once the robber was down, the extra shots were simply an execution. Murder 2.
SouthernBoy
Regular Member
You should know that if you have to use deadly force, there is no such thing as going for the kill shot, sometimes erroneously referred to as "shoot to kill". You are firing to stop the threat. The fact that you are attempting to deliver your shots into your target's vitals is primary, and should he die from your actions is secondary to what you must do in order to protect yourself. Any shot you can manage to deliver that will result in the quickest cessation of your attacker's actions is a desirable and good shot; be it his CM or his head or whatever. And any of these can result in his death.
Last edited:
Aknazer
Regular Member
I went to a local gun meeting last month and this was brought up. First off the prosecution argued that there was 43 seconds of premed (thus murder 1). Second, you shoot to stop the threat, so if the person was still moving and he felt threatened (such as if the person was reaching for a weapon) then there is no reason to not shoot him again. Third is that the video doesn't show the robber, which means we can't tell what he was doing when he was shot again. If the threat is still moving then you should still be shooting. If it's no longer a threat, that's when you stop shooting. And from the video we can't say if the robber was still acting in a threatening way. Also OK has "stand your ground" laws (also known as "no duty to retreat" and "make my day" laws) so even though he shouldn't have gone back into the store, once he did he had no duty to flee.
Gunslinger
Regular Member
Murder 1 is outrageous. 43 seconds is not malice aforethought. He was in a state of shock during this episode and if I had been his lawyer that is the first thing I would have put forth. Nonpremeditated murder is pushing it with OK's stand your ground laws and many extenuating and probably mitigating factors that should have been presented. I don't condone what he did--based solely on the facts as entered, and can see voluntary manslaughter as being an appropriate charge. Not knowing what the judge's instructions to the jury were, it's hard to place blame on his lawyer, but there is nfw this should have been murder 1. He killed someone in the act of committing a felony. Absent that action by the dead punk, it would never have happened.
eye95
Well-known member
The sentence is appropriate to the crime. The pharmacist's actions were calculated and not in the least bit SD. He was either being vengeful or punitive with his second round of shooting. Neither motive is a legal justification for shooting. Both qualify as murder one when premeditated. The preparation he went through to be able to do the second shooting (when he clearly demonstrated that he believed he was in no further danger) leads the conclusion of premeditation beyond any reasonable doubt.
riverrat10k
Regular Member
No way murder 1. Was the robber still moving? If so, justified shooting. If not man 1, or at worst murder 2.
Gunslinger
Regular Member
Mens rea cannot be established, beyond 'all reasonable doubt,' in 43 seconds. His attorney should have clearly demonstrated his confused, in shock, frightened, non-rational state of mind. There can be no resolved aforethought action in this state, just confusion and shock and lack of full awareness. It isn't like temporary insanity--which can last a long time and still be used as a defense. It is spur of the moment incapacity to think rationally--either with benevolence or malice. I don't have all the facts nor know the judge's instruction to the jury on malice aforethought as being an absolute element of murder 1, but the verdict is a travesty of justice and will be reversed and remanded on appeal, I have no doubt.
As to his guilt, no question. Voluntary Manslaughter, maybe even murder 2--but not murder 1. He killed someone who was in the act of committing a felony, not the Salvation Army bellringer, whether he was standing or laying in a pool of his own blood. I have to conclude incompetent defense--another grounds for appeal and reversal, may be in play here.
eye95
Well-known member
Premeditation can be established in less than a second. The pharmacist walked calmly past the shot BG, turning his back on him. Clearly he thought the BG to be no further threat. He then took the time to go get the gun and shoot the BG again. That is premeditation.
Feel free to insist it isn't. I don't see any further reason to repeat the crystal clear logic.
Moving on.
On ninja edit (solely because I don't want to promote continued back and forth on premeditation and hope that folks have an authoritative definition of premeditation with which to judge this post and those that follow): http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/premeditation http://www.okcca.net/online/oujis/oujisrvr.jsp?oc=OUJI-CR 4-63
Last edited:
Gunslinger
Regular Member
http://www.cfnews13.com/uploadedfil...ctions Correctly Defining 'Premeditation'.pdf
Interesting read on premeditation from a very publicized and recent trial, Anthony's.
Interesting read on premeditation from a very publicized and recent trial, Anthony's.
Gunslinger
Regular Member
Read para three of the motion I posted above. Even though it is FL, it is commonly accepted legal practice.