Oklahoma pharmacist sentenced to life for killing would-be robber

[Arsen]

It's arguable, but several details are missing:

- Was the robber who was shot already dying?
- Was the robber capable of further posing a threat to the man?
- Did the robber give him reason to believe he was going to try to attack him while on the ground?

You could likewise argue something in terms of psychology, adrenaline, etc. We can sit here all we want and type on the internet saying "once the threat is no longer there he should have walked away" but we obviously haven't been in such a dilemna. We'd have to BE that person to truly understand.

Even then, the man who was killed technically created all the events which transpired.

Edit - Wait, let's all think logically for a second. The intent of survival in some circumstances calls for you to KILL your attacker. Some people don't understand that this line blurs during such incidents.

 

[natster43]

He deserves to be in jail for that. There is a line between self defense and straight up murder, and he passed that line by five shots.

 

[teebeeohh]

what i never get is why whenever a situation arises where both the robber and the guy in the store have guns people always assume that the robber has the intention of killing people while the clerk just has it for self defense. Isn't the threat of shooting someone way more effective and a lot less messy?

also all pharmacist i know are greedy fucks who happily sell overpriced placebos and cough drops to sick people to line their pockets. One in prison makes the world a better place.

 

[Nightvalien]

Shooting someone that's coming to rob you that's all right in my book, but in the ground he should have knee capped him not straight out killed the guy, then again i prefer to make others suffer than execution so i guess it comes down to choice.

 

[Craorach]

Self defence ends when they are no longer a threat to you.

Self defence should not be a "defence" unless your life or well being is in actual danger. General rule of any armed robbery is to immediately hand over anything that is wanted. Things are utterly unimportant and generally covered by insurance.

 

[bombadilillo]

What a tool. You stop having the right to self defense the moment you are not under threat. You dont get to shoot a fleeing opponent, or an unconscious one.

The way you know this is clear cut is that it happened in fucking Oklahoma. They don't mess around there, he would be fine if it was anything less then psychotic.

 

[Nurb]

It's arguable, but several details are missing:

- Was the robber who was shot already dying?
- Was the robber capable of further posing a threat to the man?
- Did the robber give him reason to believe he was going to try to attack him while on the ground?

You could likewise argue something in terms of psychology, adrenaline, etc. We can sit here all we want and type on the internet saying "once the threat is no longer there he should have walked away" but we obviously haven't been in such a dilemna. We'd have to BE that person to truly understand.

Even then, the man who was killed technically created all the events which transpired.

Edit - Wait, let's all think logically for a second. The intent of survival in some circumstances calls for you to KILL your attacker. Some people don't understand that this line blurs during such incidents.

It wasn't "heat of the moment", he had already chased off the other robber, came back, the guy was obviously unconscious considering the bullet he took in the head (but still alive I guess), got another gun, TOOK THE TIME TO LOAD IT, stepped over and shot him five times. It shows he wanted to make sure the kid was dead, so it's not defense, and that's what people have a problem with. If he shot him on the ground immediately after the first round, then it'd be "heat of the moment" and being fearful for his life, but this doesn't seem to be the case given the amount of time between the initial robbery and pumping bullets into an unconscious person after returning to the store.

 

[Kopikatsu]

Interestingly, what that Pharmacist did was exactly was a police officer told my grandmother to do when we were having problems with someone trying to break into the house.

The officer said if they do get in, shoot them. Then keep shooting them until you're sure they're dead. Because if they aren't dead, even though they broke in and were on your property when you shot them, they can still sue you for everything you own...and win.

Maybe that's why...?

 

[LokiSuaveHP]

If someone came into a store and pulled a gun on you, and you shot them. You chase their buddy out of the store, come back and you see him still moving? This person had no qualms about whipping out a gun on you for drugs, and for all you know they may be reaching for something to shoot at you again. I think I may have done what this guy did as well, the threat was not neutralized.

On the other hand, it's hard to disregard the politics involved. Southern state, black guy gets shot and possibly executed by white guy, and we just had a very public outcry against a woman who people said got away with murder last week.

I could see how this guy may be guilty, but I would have needed more evidence to convict him. There is nothing on those cameras that could conclusively state that this guy executed the other dude. Don't we need to have anything past a reasonable doubt to convict anymore?

 

[Arafiro]

Maybe I'm a bad person but I really don't care. A robber is killed, and nothing of value was lost.

Exactly.
It's a damn shame that this guy got convicted.

 

[Zorak the Mantis]

It's tough to say, he definitely was out of line in shooting the kid the second time, there was no threat presented after the first shot. Hell, I'll shoot a man if he threatens me with significant force, but once he's incapacitated there is absolutely no need to finish him off.

 

[dashiz94]

Why didn't his lawyer plead temporary insanity?

I have literally zero experience with guns being pointed at me, nor with owning guns. But it seems to me that it's not such a stretch to say that while my heart was racing from having my life threatened like that and my adrenaline was pumping from having "won" that engagement and having successfully defended my co-workers... I have no idea what I'd do.

Break down and cry?
Victory-dance?
Catatonic state?
Kiss whomever I saw first?
Shoot the attacker five more times?

They all seem plausible to me. However outwardly calm that person seems, there's no telling what's going on in his head. Maybe the robber did twitch and he calmly and efficiently took care of the situation because he was scared shitless.

Looks like temporary insanity to me. I'm sure that having a gun stuck in your face can do that to a man. Sure, he shouldn't have shot the downed kid again. Nobody is arguing that he should have, I hope. But sentencing him to life? Two years on probation with mandatory counselling or some such seems a lot more just to me.

TL;DR Odd legal defence, imo.

...

The kid was on the ground, bleeding, and unconscious. With a bullet in his head. He's not going to pull a zombie move and rise up and attack him. It's not a plausible defense. It's murder.

 

[bombadilillo]

It's arguable, but several details are missing:

- Was the robber who was shot already dying?
- Was the robber capable of further posing a threat to the man?
- Did the robber give him reason to believe he was going to try to attack him while on the ground?

You could likewise argue something in terms of psychology, adrenaline, etc. We can sit here all we want and type on the internet saying "once the threat is no longer there he should have walked away" but we obviously haven't been in such a dilemna. We'd have to BE that person to truly understand.

Even then, the man who was killed technically created all the events which transpired.

Edit - Wait, let's all think logically for a second. The intent of survival in some circumstances calls for you to KILL your attacker. Some people don't understand that this line blurs during such incidents.

5 Bullets to the chest of a man you already shot in the head is objectively overkill. High emotions do not excuse events. Period. How do you know this guy didnt unleash years of aggression towards teenage shoplifters in this one moment? We can't know. So there are objective rules set up for this stuff already. And he went WAY over the line. End of story. Crimes of passion are still crimes.

 

[bombadilillo]

Maybe I'm a bad person but I really don't care. A robber is killed, and nothing of value was lost.

Exactly.
It's a damn shame that this guy got convicted.

A piece of shit gun nut getting his kicks with his chance to kill somebody is in jail for life. Fucking awesome. This douche is the reason we cant have reasonable gun laws.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

Maybe I'm a bad person but I really don't care. A robber is killed, and nothing of value was lost.

Exactly.
It's a damn shame that this guy got convicted.

A piece of shit gun nut getting his kicks with his chance to kill somebody is in jail for life. Fucking awesome. This douche is the reason we cant have reasonable gun laws.

Right, because this happening means that "Gunz r badd!". Again, we don't know all the facts of the case. I don't sympathize with either party. But to say he is a gun nut (Firstly, where's your evidence of that) and that this is the reason we can't have reasonable gun laws is a bit out there.

 

[bombadilillo]

Maybe I'm a bad person but I really don't care. A robber is killed, and nothing of value was lost.

Exactly.
It's a damn shame that this guy got convicted.

A piece of shit gun nut getting his kicks with his chance to kill somebody is in jail for life. Fucking awesome. This douche is the reason we cant have reasonable gun laws.

Right, because this happening means that "Gunz r badd!". Again, we don't know all the facts of the case. I don't sympathize with either party. But to say he is a gun nut (Firstly, where's your evidence of that) and that this is the reason we can't have reasonable gun laws is a bit out there.

No idiots like this are bad and somebody is dead and a piece of shit is in jail because he thought he could do whatever he wanted with his guns.

My point is that if people werent fucking morons like this we could have no gun laws at all.

 

[Pandaman1911]

First shot? Self defense. Other shots? Not so much. Enjoy prison, buddy.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

Maybe I'm a bad person but I really don't care. A robber is killed, and nothing of value was lost.

Exactly.
It's a damn shame that this guy got convicted.

A piece of shit gun nut getting his kicks with his chance to kill somebody is in jail for life. Fucking awesome. This douche is the reason we cant have reasonable gun laws.

Right, because this happening means that "Gunz r badd!". Again, we don't know all the facts of the case. I don't sympathize with either party. But to say he is a gun nut (Firstly, where's your evidence of that) and that this is the reason we can't have reasonable gun laws is a bit out there.

No idiots like this are bad and somebody is dead and a piece of shit is in jail because he thought he could do whatever he wanted with his guns.

My point is that if people werent fucking morons like this we could have no gun laws at all.

Where did it say that the defendant thought he could do "whatever he wanted" with his guns? According to the link in the OP, he claimed that he thought the guy was still a threat. Weather that is valid or not was for the jury to decide. I doubt he enjoyed it.

And there will always be a need for laws, guns and otherwise. If there were no crime, there would be no need for laws. But there will always be, so there will always be a need for law.

Also, no need to use naughty words

 

[Saltyk]

It was self defense up until the point where he went back into his store grabbed a different gun and shot the kid while he was unconscious on the ground. I'm all for self defense an the right to own guns, but it doesn't mean you get to execute criminals.

I totally agree with you. Everything was okay until he started pumping bullets into a defenseless person. He crossed a line. If the robber died from the initial gunshot, he would get no sympathy from me. So, honestly, I don't care that he died. But the fact that the pharmacist went back an killed him execution style is just wrong. Would the robber have survived a shot to the head anyway?

A gun is for self defence and Nothing eles what so ever.

What about hunting? And sport? Target practice? I think we agree about guns are great for self-defense, but I'd just like to point out that there are other uses for them, which are completely fine as well.

 

[Naeo]

The first shot was completely justified. Someone points a gun at you with apparent intent to use it, you are completely justified in shooting them first to preserve yourself. You have reason to believe they are a threat. But, the time lapse between when he chased the guy out of the store then got the second pistol should have been more than enough time to see that the guy he shot was no longer a threat. So at that point, shooting any more is clearly either ignorance of the situation--in which you're at the very least guilty of negligent murder--or simple malevolence. And since he seemed relatively calm when walking over and shooting him again, I think it's the latter. You're kind of not allowed to take the law into your own hands, so if you end up doing something like this, where self-defense is just in the moment, you've decided to take it upon yourself to punish the person responsible however you see fit. This, clearly, is not a good thing, since if everyone were allowed to do it we'd have the death penalty for a lot more things. So yeah, I think he's absolutely guilty of murder at the point where he walks over to the kid and shoots him five more times. At that point, the threat was neutralized, and there was no reason to act further; if the kid were already dead, this would make the guy a total asshole, but if he were still alive, as he indeed was, this makes it murder.

Also, to the few people throwing out the possibility of "temporary insanity": that almost never gets used because it's a shoddy defense. If the defense is going to make that claim, they can't just stand up and say "well he went temporarily crazy"--professional psychologists/psychiatrists are brought in to analyze the defendant to give an opinion on whether or not he truly is capable of temporary insanity. It's my understanding that this kind of thing usually gets shot down at this point in the process, or the point where their opinions are presented in court. Lastly, if it's a successful plea, the defendant is usually sentenced to some amount of psychological counseling or is committed for a period of time. But mostly, the insanity defense doesn't work hardly ever--usually when the person is actually mentally unstable--and if you use that defense, you kind of can't use any others since msot others rely on some clarity of mind/control of self in a situation.