Jurors reject pharmacist’s self-defense plea; convict him of murder

[We-the-People]

We-the-people did you even see the camera footage? Your argument is moot at best. The Pharmacist shoots the kid in the head runs outside to chase off the other guy. Then returns into the store walks right past the downed kid(calmly mind you) gets another gun, walks over(again he appears fairly calm and focused) stands over the kid and shoots him 5 more times. What strikes me is if you see his body language when he comes back to the assailant it looks like he is getting into an aiming stance.

Also the other employees where nowhere to be found, so his coming back was un-necessary. Even so to walk right by the assailant without so much as looking at him, getting another gun and shooting again... come on man thats not even close to self defense. Now maybe if he glanced at the assailant as he came back in and flew over the counter and then charged guns blazing.... maybe... but this guy's legal self defense ended when he stood over the kid and shot him 5 more times without cause.

Yes I've seen the video. Would I have done what he did? NO. As a juror, would I convict him of first degree (PRE MEDITATED) murder? Absolutely not, not even second degree.

I am NOT a blood thirsty individual but more of these thugs need to fall so that their fellow thugs will get a message. Crime Doesn't Pay.

Instead, they get the message "They won't shoot back, they don't want to go to jail".

FAIL

 

[BigDave]

I surely hope some views on this issue changes with time as is often the case.

The concept of feeling it was deserved or a lesson to be learned. Lesson learned here when he was shot and dropped from the get go.
The lesson learned afterwards was that one can move very quickly from victim to attacker where there was no longer an immediate threat of life or limb.

If it was Washington State Law, he would be guilty of at least Murder in the First Degree.

If he would have just returned and defended from a safe position and summons help, he would not have been in this position.

For one to think it is okay to justify his actions to the moment would excuse about every person committed of a crime and incarcerated for it.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Again the discussion has moved on to some peoples personal opinion as hypothetical jurors. I would not convict of pre-meditated murder, maybe manslaughter, I would want to send a message to people that I as a juror will always give more leeway to the one who defended himself and would not let state law or statist viewpoints get in my way.

Oh and I live in Washington, you'll have to cite the specific law according to forum rules.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

For one to think it is okay to justify his actions to the moment would excuse about every person committed of a crime and incarcerated for it.

This is a broad statement that is misleading.

It would justify those who commit "crimes" when lacking mens rea. It would not justify those with actus reus and mens rea, and that is how our original law system is supposed to operate. I wish we would go back to the orignal Blackstone legal system we are supposed to be and get rid of all this inane Benthamite thinking that has infiltrated our system and have given Cops and Prosecutors and Judges way too much authority.

 

[MikeTheGreek]

I think what he did was wrong but I don't think 1st degree was the proper finding.
Opinions?

Shooting an unconscious person 5 times, that's murder, no matter how you put it. Unless you actually believe an unconscious person is a threat.

 

[EricDailey X-NRA]

...but

Shooting an unconscious person 5 times, that's murder, no matter how you put it. Unless you actually believe an unconscious person is a threat.

My question is, if it's premeditated? Is it First Degree?

 

[carry for myself]

pre meditated means that you well pre thought of it. not citing here. so dont jump on me but pre-meditated means the crime was thought out before it was acted apon. the man shot the guy, he was unconcious. he came back into the store. looked at him. noted his un-concious state. went. reloaded *or grabbed another gun* came back. shot him 5 times.

that has pre-meditated all over it. he knew the assailent was downed. and CHOSE to get another weapon and used it.

1st degree...........not sure of.

pre meditated. YES.

 

[BigDave]

Since this occurred in Oklahoma here is their law on the issue.

§21-701.7. Murder in the first degree.

A. A person commits murder in the first degree when that person unlawfully and with malice aforethought causes the death of another human being. Malice is that deliberate intention unlawfully to take away the life of a human being, which is manifested by external circumstances capable of proof.
B. A person also commits the crime of murder in the first degree, regardless of malice, when that person or any other person takes the life of a human being during, or if the death of a human being results from, the commission or attempted commission of murder of another person, shooting or discharge of a firearm or crossbow with intent to kill, intentional discharge of a firearm or other deadly weapon into any dwelling or building as provided in Section 1289.17A of this title, forcible rape, robbery with a dangerous weapon, kidnapping, escape from lawful custody, eluding an officer, first degree burglary, first degree arson, unlawful distributing or dispensing of controlled dangerous substances, or trafficking in illegal drugs.

(click on link for full text)

And of course we have those who feel that Federal or State law does not apply, but we know better.

 

[MKEgal]

shoot until you believe the threat is for sure gone.

Perp lying on the floor (apparently) unconscious, shot in the head?
I'm pretty sure that threat is taken care of.
Might reload & get behind cover where I can keep an eye on him Just In Case, but if he's lying still on the ground & not bothering me I won't shoot him again.

I think he would have been OK, until he decided to shoot the robber laying on the floor who was bleeding, incapacitated and unarmed.

If the facts are as presented in the article, I would have voted to convict of first-degree murder...
leaving the store, coming back, getting another gun, and shooting the unconscious man, who had long since stopped being a threat, clearly was no act of self-defense.

Ditto.

Criminals show no mercy for us, why should we for them?

I don't think that was a mercy killing.
A mercy killing would be one to the brainstem, not 5 to the abdomen.
If you want to not show mercy, let the robber lie there waiting for an ambulance.
Don't shoot, don't give first aid.
(Well, you shouldn't do that anyway since it's disturbing evidence.)

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Since this occurred in Oklahoma here is their law on the issue.

§21-701.7. Murder in the first degree.

And of course we have those who feel that Federal or State law does not apply, but we know better.

You made a statement about Washington law, nice duck.

And I (if I am the some you are talking about) don't say the law matters, I believe more strongly in jury nullification.

To be more clear on my statements they come from the belief the guy was dead on the ground, that the pharmacist had already killed him justifiably.

 

[BigDave]

You made a statement about Washington law, nice duck.

And I (if I am the some you are talking about) don't say the law matters, I believe more strongly in jury nullification.

To be more clear on my statements they come from the belief the guy was dead on the ground, that the pharmacist had already killed him justifiably.

Under Washington State it would have be illegal as well, I quoted Oklahoma law because it occurred there.
And now you want to modify your position LOL, SVG you have more twist and turns they Hwy 101 LOL and if you would have thought that way to begin with I know you would have said so from the get go, don't BS me :lol:

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Under Washington State it would have be illegal as well, I quoted Oklahoma law because it occurred there.
And now you want to modify your position LOL, SVG you have more twist and turns they Hwy 101 LOL and if you would have thought that way to begin with I know you would have said so from the get go, don't BS me :lol:

No I didn't modify, I clarified. I made my statement from the understanding he was already dead as has been talked about. Even so as a jurist I still wouldn't have convicted him of pre-meditated murder.

To be even more clear on this, he killed the guy who tried to make him a victim, and then came back and shot at his dead body. The killing was justified in my mind no matter what he did after the fact. Want to charge him for mutilating a corpse try it.

Even if he wasn't dead, as a juror, there is still reasonable doubt in my mind that he didn't do this out of emotion or anger. Still not pre-meditated murder in my mind. And is why I said I might possibly or probably convict him of manslaughter, I also stated none of us here have all the details the jury does, including myself.

BigDave wrote:

If it was Washington State Law, he would be guilty of at least Murder in the First Degree.

This is why I asked for the cite. Like I said nice duck though. :lol:

 

[BigDave]

YADA YADA YADA move on ! :lol:

 

[We-the-People]

Ahhhh what did the JURY SEE.

If they only saw the highly publicised video that we've seen, well then they could not determine, nor could the police or prosecutor, whether the downed felon was dead or alive, conscious or not, reaching for something that could be perceived as a threat....yadda yadda.

We also have no clue what they were presented as the rest of the evidence and I'm pretty sure we all understand that a lot of the TRUTH doesn't get to the jury. So today's juries are operating at a disadvantage, based upon a judges descisions as to what facts they should or should not be given access to.

Not sure about local law where he was but in most jurisdictions "First Degree Murder" requires premeditation. Acting in the heat of the moment, after having just been assaulted and your life placed in dire threat of it's loss......that's NOT premeditation.

Premeditation is when you plan it out.

ALSO....did they catch the other Perp (following a lot of stories and can't recall in this instance). If so, was HE charged with first degree murder? According to the posted OK law he is apparently guilty of first degree.....he and the dead felon planned (i.e. premeditated) the robbery and since someone died during it's commission it looks to me like he falls under the OK law.

 

[BigDave]

Premeditation is when you plan it out.

You mean when he walked past the perp on the floor with out a care, except for obtaining another gun or reload and then walk up to and straddle and shoot him dead, no, no premeditation there ROFLMAO

 

[EricDailey X-NRA]

No

I remain uncertain that the video proves premeditation.

 

[BigDave]

I remain uncertain that the video proves premeditation.

Yeah it takes some longer then others :lol:

To lighten things up a bit these pictures were added, not depicting anyone in general just the statement.

 

[eye95]

Premeditation does not require planning. It can form in an instant. If you decide to kill, and then kill 1/2 second later, that is premeditation.

 

[We-the-People]

You mean when he walked past the perp on the floor with out a care, except for obtaining another gun or reload and then walk up to and straddle and shoot him dead, no, no premeditation there ROFLMAO

OK Uniform Jury Instructions for Murder in the First Degree.
http://www.okcca.net/online/oujis/oujisrvr.jsp?oc=OUJI-CR%204-63

The defense to Malice Aforethought (apparently the turning ponit of this case) is that the victim (That would be the Pharmacist not the punk robber) was UNDER DURESS which, if you've ever been on the wrong end of a gun you should know all too well. Here is the US Legal defintion (tried to find OK specific but they don't make it easy)
http://definitions.uslegal.com/m/malice-aforethought/

Considering that, in criminal trial, the standard that must be met is BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT...I do not see how that level of certainty can be posible to ascertain.

BEYOND A REASONBLE DOUBT.....Hmmmm was he under duresss? Well there is absolutely no doubt that he was under duress when the perps came in and pointed a gun at him. So when did the duress end? How long would it take you to mentally get back from the fight or flight mode that the body goes into? It's certainly more than the few seconds that transpired in this incident.

Oh and what of the other punk? The one that actually had the gun and fled...He turned states witness. YUP....got himself a DEAL and will be in some sort of juvenile facility until he turn.....NINETEEN. Meanwhile, the law abiding citizen who was just minding his own business is now sentenced to life?

And they call it a "Justice" system!

 

[BigDave]

A good video and report from the prosecutor and his reasoning for filing charges.

http://www.news9.com/video?C=116601...oCatNo=default&clipId=3804065&redirected=true

Prosecutor states that if the first round that had been fired would have killed him instead of knocking him unconsciousness we would not have been here because at that point he was a threat.

It also appears his sentencing is July 11th.