Oklahoma pharmacist sentenced to life for killing would-be robber

Recommended Videos

EclipseoftheDarkSun

New member
Sep 11, 2009
230
0
0
Definitely murder. He walks back in and barely seems to look at the kid he's shot until he's gotten his other gun (can't tell if he's reloading or getting a second gun from that footage, though it doesn't take long) and is standing over him, so it doesn't seem credible that he would consider him to be a threat at that point. I think he was just worked up and gave into his rage.
 

Treblaine

New member
Jul 25, 2008
8,682
0
0
CM156 said:
Quaxar said:
Wait, they tried to rob a pharmacy with what I assume was a knife and people say it's okay to shoot one of them in the head for that?
Good ceiling cat, you have an odd sense of defense.
From what I've seen, at least one of the kids had a gun. And I think you, to a degree, should be allowed to "one-up" your attacker.

If someone pulls me aside and threatens me with their bare fists, I should be allowed to, say, grab a sharp object to protect myself. If they start with a sharp object, I should be allowed to pull a gun. And if they pull a gun, I should be allowed to pull... two guns. It's rather odd to demand people play on the same level as their attackers. Within reason, of course. I'm not saying I get to threaten someone who insults me with a pistol.
Actually in most test cases only the Police can "one up" without at least facing charges. Self defence for civilians demands a "proportional" response unless you want to expect some sort of charges. Always remember that when the law becomes involved they will hear BOTH sides of the story and the self evident facts are what matters.

So if someone threatens you with fist and you pull a knife, when the report gets to the district attorney's office all that they see is:

"Guy A wields a knife - a deadly weapon - while Guy B waved his puny fists"

Yeah, Guy A gets charged, Guy B walks. Unless there are other circumstances like Guy-B is a heavyweight boxer, he has already delivered considerable injury, or has a gang of accomplices to deliver a beating or they are invading your property.

That's the key thing here: "multiple assailants", in this case even if they had knives he was right to draw a gun though would only be justified to shoot if they advanced in spite of "brandishing" of a gun. Now these robbers had guns, charged in like rambo with guns drawn and aimed. He is justified to shoot to kill at the first opportunity as with a gun aimed at him he is a millisecond away from being killed themself.

The CCTV is critical here yet it is incomplete, if the Jury are the only ones who saw it in its entirety then their decision should be gone with.

But Life sentence seems so disproportionate due to the lack of premeditation.
 

aei_haruko

New member
Jun 12, 2011
282
0
0
ajh93 said:
aei_haruko said:
ya know, my dads a phamasist. and I think that This guy was right. why is it that he should be punished for simply defending himself, yeah the guy on the floor and all, but why? Why should we care about a guy who would've done as bad or worse to the pharmasist? Why? People who are defending themselvs are portrayed as bullies by people. so ya know what? I don't think he should be punished for fighting crime...
he defended himself with one bullet,that completely incapacitated the robber.there was no longer a threat,he was bleeding on the fucking ground,not moving at all,and if there is no threat,guess what?YOU JUST MURDERED SOMEONE.
I disagree, I think that if we let people who murder their own children go, l just can't see how it's murder. Like is he really going to b missed that much? SOme kid who robs pharmacies? Maybe dealing meth later? Spreading misery around etc... Lets say eventually the kid shoots somebody. So? Whats so bad about killing somebody who would logically kill somebody later, by the way, I'm playing devils advocate, I enjoy philosophical debate, Of course what he did was wrong, but I want to see how well people can make a moral point.
 

jpoon

New member
Mar 26, 2009
1,995
0
0
Simon1 said:
jpoon said:
Damn, that sucks. I would say it lies in self defense but he took it too far. The idiot who died absolutely got what he deserved though...
The douchebaggery of this statement is incredible. The robber, who probably was being just a stupid teenager, (And also a bit of a complete moron for BEING a robber) was killed in cold blood when he was no threat to anyone after being shot once already. And you say he deserved to die.

jpoon, you are a complete and utter disgrace to humanity, and should be ashamed of yourself for thinking that anyone "deserves" to be coldly executed when they were completely disabled, and no threat.
Hah, damn you are a touchy fella, aren't you? The kid got what he deserved, unfortunately for him he made a dire decision in attempting to robbing someone. I normally would be all for supporting the pharmacist but I said earlier he took it too far. It would have been fine shooting him once to protect his own life, I'm all for that. I would shoot the shit out of someone that tried to rob my house and I would expect no less if I tried to rob someone.

If you play with such high stakes you had better expect to lose something damn important, in this morons case he lost his life. I'm fine with this, the kid would've likely grown up to be a felon anyways...not a biggie.
 

chaos order

New member
Jan 27, 2010
764
0
0
i dont think he should have gotten murder in the first degree, maybe second. although if he was shot in the head he was probably dead when he hit the floor or those 45 seconds after the first shot. the last 5 could have just been him beating a dead horse
 

Zon Mundhenk

New member
Jul 13, 2011
2
0
0
My father is a pharmacist.

On August 2, 1976, two wasteoids just like this one walked into his drugstore, emptied the till, emptied the narcotics safe, and shot my father in the chest with a .357

He survived, minus one lung, his spleen, a kidney, and 1/3 of his liver. Oh, and five pints of blood.

Just for maximum irony, my grandmother and aunt, his mother and sister, were both working in the emergency room when Dad came in. He required an immediate thoracotamy, because the defibrillator was still years off, and his heart had to be kept beating manually while his superior vena cava was patched in the ER.

I was six, and trying to scam pre-dinner cookies from my mother when Grandma called. The Call. To this day, I see her, in her painting clothes, in our old kitchen, I see her knees buckle, her face turn from sunburnt to gray.

I have a disembodied memory of Mom carrying us into the hospital, the cameras on us...it was a Very Big Deal at the time.

After almost two months, dad came home...and he was never the same.

The guy that did the shooting served seven years. When he got out, he picked up where he left off and was killed by a pharmacist in California. His accomplice served four, and died of a heart attack last year after living a life with, one assumes, all his vital organs intact.

That pharmacist shouldn't have been tried for murder. He should have shot both of those idiots fifteen times a piece and been given a medal. For every cop I hear whining about how he worries about not coming home...there's a pharmacist thinking it in silence who doesn't have a TV show or a medal or a monument, because for some reason, pharmacists are disposable.
 

CM156_v1legacy

Revelation 9:6
Mar 23, 2011
3,997
0
0
Treblaine said:
CM156 said:
Quaxar said:
Wait, they tried to rob a pharmacy with what I assume was a knife and people say it's okay to shoot one of them in the head for that?
Good ceiling cat, you have an odd sense of defense.
From what I've seen, at least one of the kids had a gun. And I think you, to a degree, should be allowed to "one-up" your attacker.

If someone pulls me aside and threatens me with their bare fists, I should be allowed to, say, grab a sharp object to protect myself. If they start with a sharp object, I should be allowed to pull a gun. And if they pull a gun, I should be allowed to pull... two guns. It's rather odd to demand people play on the same level as their attackers. Within reason, of course. I'm not saying I get to threaten someone who insults me with a pistol.
Actually in most test cases only the Police can "one up" without at least facing charges. Self defence for civilians demands a "proportional" response unless you want to expect some sort of charges. Always remember that when the law becomes involved they will hear BOTH sides of the story and the self evident facts are what matters.

So if someone threatens you with fist and you pull a knife, when the report gets to the district attorney's office all that they see is:

"Guy A wields a knife - a deadly weapon - while Guy B waved his puny fists"

Yeah, Guy A gets charged, Guy B walks. Unless there are other circumstances like Guy-B is a heavyweight boxer, he has already delivered considerable injury, or has a gang of accomplices to deliver a beating or they are invading your property.

That's the key thing here: "multiple assailants", in this case even if they had knives he was right to draw a gun though would only be justified to shoot if they advanced in spite of "brandishing" of a gun. Now these robbers had guns, charged in like rambo with guns drawn and aimed. He is justified to shoot to kill at the first opportunity as with a gun aimed at him he is a millisecond away from being killed themself.

The CCTV is critical here yet it is incomplete, if the Jury are the only ones who saw it in its entirety then their decision should be gone with.

But Life sentence seems so disproportionate due to the lack of premeditation.
A bit late, but yes, I do understand how the law works now.

However, if a very strong looking guy tries to attack you with his bare hands, it's not an even match. What I'm saying is you should be allowed to pull a more powerful weapon and state that you don't want any trouble in the matter and attempt to leave. If they attack you, they admit they are willing to face you if you have, say, a gun. That's just my views on the matter anyways.
 

Zon Mundhenk

New member
Jul 13, 2011
2
0
0
Y'know, it's nice to have the luxury of debating the legal niceties of a thing when you're not under attack.

This guy probably didn't make the decision a lawyer or cop would have. But he's not a lawyer or cop. He's a pharmacist; a medical professional. It's his job to know organic chemistry, make sure your medications don't lethally interact, help you figure out the correct dosing of cold medication for your 3 year old, deal with your 78 year old aunt who's out of Xanax (and will be incredibly apologetic for her behavior about 2 hours after the refill comes through), spot phony prescriptions for "Roxys", fix the pharmacy bathroom, teach the new diabetics how to use their glucose meters, give annual flu and pneumonia vaccines, argue with your insurance company until they fill your medication, etc., etc., etc...

They do NOT spend a lot of time thinking about the hair splitting legalities of defending themselves from armed human waste that wants the Oxycontin supply. Nor should they.

They should shoot to kill without apology.
 

Blow_Pop

Supreme Evil Overlord
Jan 21, 2009
4,863
0
0
Initially it was self defense. However once he came back and shot the guy again it is then murder. And why would you shoot someone again that you had already shot in the head? Most head shots are fatal........
 

EclipseoftheDarkSun

New member
Sep 11, 2009
230
0
0
Zon Mundhenk said:
Y'know, it's nice to have the luxury of debating the legal niceties of a thing when you're not under attack.

This guy probably didn't make the decision a lawyer or cop would have. But he's not a lawyer or cop. He's a pharmacist; a medical professional. It's his job to know organic chemistry, make sure your medications don't lethally interact, help you figure out the correct dosing of cold medication for your 3 year old, deal with your 78 year old aunt who's out of Xanax (and will be incredibly apologetic for her behavior about 2 hours after the refill comes through), spot phony prescriptions for "Roxys", fix the pharmacy bathroom, teach the new diabetics how to use their glucose meters, give annual flu and pneumonia vaccines, argue with your insurance company until they fill your medication, etc., etc., etc...

They do NOT spend a lot of time thinking about the hair splitting legalities of defending themselves from armed human waste that wants the Oxycontin supply. Nor should they.

They should shoot to kill without apology.
Yeah, but not walk back into the store and pump bullets into someone who's lying on the ground apparently out of it, given that he wasn't even apparently looking at the kid as he walked back in.
 

Help824

New member
Sep 20, 2010
17
0
0
CM156 said:
Shooting someone who is trying to harm you = OK by me. Go for the head.

Shooting someone on the ground who no longer poses a threat = Not cool, bro.

Really, at least where I live, if someone is running from your home, you aren't allowed to shoot them. But if they are an imediate threat, then you are allowed to. Oh well.

No sympathy for the robber though.
I agree with this point. I would says that mabye some jail time for the killing of the second robber is to be merited, but not life.
 

Floppertje

New member
Nov 9, 2009
1,056
0
0
it's not really all that complicated or blurred here... shooting a guy who is threatening your life is self-defence (although that CAN be blurred) but shooting someone who is unconscious is not self-defence because he poses no threat. that's just murder. also, how does a bullet to the head render the first robber unconscious? that would kill most people...