Oklahoma pharmacist sentenced to life for killing would-be robber

[Phasmal]

One shot is self-defence. Five shots to an unconcious person is murder. No matter what.

 

[SUPA FRANKY]

What he did was over the top. But I guess if someone put me in a situation like that, my adrenaline would probably take over.

But seriously, how can you kill kids like that? Kids that are even incapacitated. Even if it was self defense, he still went too far.

 

[Music Mole]

First shot self defense, emptying a magazine into an unconscious man. Not okay.

 

[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.

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

The part where he felt like he could shoot an unconscious person 5 times, thats the part where he does what he wants. Watch the video. Hes not in a shootout, he calmly walks up and shoots the guy then turns his back on him. Sure is acting like hes a threat.

 

[David Hebda]

He tried to rob him, I'm glad he killed the fucker, and I'm sad he got life, would have been different ifen I was on the jury, he gave the scum justice, the state failed to give him his


EDIT: Justice would have been a big shinny metal

 

[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

The part where he felt like he could shoot an unconscious person 5 times, thats the part where he does what he wants. Watch the video. Hes not in a shootout, he calmly walks up and shoots the guy then turns his back on him. Sure is acting like hes a threat.

I saw the video. But you've yet to establish that shooting the kid is what he wanted to do. He claimed that the kid was still a threat. I wouldn't LIKE shooting someone in the head in self defense, but I would do it in a heart beat. I'm willing to give it the benefit of the doubt, but just barely.

 

[David Hebda]

If there were no crime, there would be no need for laws.

If there were no laws there would be no crime

 

[Stall]

Glad the OP mentioned that the pharmacist returned after 5 minutes and poured like 5 bullets into the already unconscious robber. Without that little, tiny facet of information, it's easy for threads about this story to become total trollfests.

He tried to rob him, I'm glad he killed the fucker, and I'm sad he got life, would have been different ifen I was on the jury, he gave the scum justice, the state failed to give him his

He tried to rob the pharmacist yes, and he defended himself. But the pharmacist crossed the line when he basically executed the robber well after the adrenaline from the initial attack would have worn off, since IIRC, the medical examiner testified that the initial shot that incapacitated the robber probably wouldn't have killed him. There's a clear difference between self defense and this.

 

[bobknowsall]

Murder is murder. Just because a (formerly) innocent man kills a guilty man, it doesn't change that fact.

actually, had he left it at that [shooting Robber 1 in the head] and then called the cops, he would of still been in the right.

shooting the guy five more times is an entirely different matter.


Temporary Insanity or not, he should of stopped when there was no longer a danger.

Yeah, that first shot would have been grand under the pretense of self-defence.

But Christ, five more shots on a prone, headshot teenager?

As a rough rule of thumb, if one would cringe at the thought of doing the same thing in a video game, then one can be fairly sure that this was a bad thing indeed. And unloading on helpless targets is something I wouldn't do in Hitman, let alone real life. :S

 

[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.

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

The part where he felt like he could shoot an unconscious person 5 times, thats the part where he does what he wants. Watch the video. Hes not in a shootout, he calmly walks up and shoots the guy then turns his back on him. Sure is acting like hes a threat.

I saw the video. But you've yet to establish that shooting the kid is what he wanted to do. He claimed that the kid was still a threat. I wouldn't LIKE shooting someone in the head in self defense, but I would do it in a heart beat. I'm willing to give it the benefit of the doubt, but just barely.

The kid was unconscious, thats an uncontested fact. Which is why the guy got convicted. "A threat" is his weaksauce defense trying to justify what he did. He wanted to do it because he didnt have to and he did it. Its simple. He was casual about it. He didnt HAVE to do anything to an unconscious kid with a bullet already in his head.

 

[fundayz]

It's not that it has NO value, it's that it has LESS value. His mistake was trying to rob someone with a freaking gun! That's a pretty damn big mistake. No sympathy for those who want to deprive someone of their property without due process of law. The kid had no good reason to try to rob someone at gunpoint.

Your lack of ability to understand appropriate response to a crime is downright frightening. If you think death is an appropriate consequence to attempted robbery then you have some serious issues.

Also, this was a minor and a teenager. People make mistakes.

He tried to rob him, I'm glad he killed the fucker, and I'm sad he got life, would have been different ifen I was on the jury, he gave the scum justice, the state failed to give him his

EDIT: Justice would have been a big shinny metal

/facepalm

So you seriosuly think that the death sentence should be the penalty for attempted robbery by a minor? Because that's exactly what you said.

 

[smallthemouse]

I knew exactly what most of the responses in this thread would be before I read any.

90%
"He was illegally trying to take something that did not legally belong to him which is breaking the law and that is illegal and against the law! FILTHY CRIMINAL. COMPLETELY justifiable to shoot him in the head, only once you shoot him like six or seven more times is it MAYBE ok to send the killer to jail for a day. Anywayz wana talk about what guns you like best? I usually sleep with my super semi automatic m52012 green edition under my pillow, but I wish the government would hurry and legalize concealed nuclear missile licenses so I can finally be safe in case that baby in the stroller points his lollipop at me in a threatening manner!

10%
"Couldn't he have just maybe not shot him? Or just given him the money, called the cops, and avoided anyone dying in the first place?"

 

[Red Albatross]

This is really a tough one. He originally shot the guy in self-defense, and then essentially executed him later. But what do you charge him with? 1st degree murder? Would you consider that premeditated? Or is it 2nd degree where he could still be considered to be running on the adrenaline and shock of the situation?

Personally, I would have plead innocent. The prosecution would have to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the first shot was not or would not have been fatal. Considering the first shot was a head shot, that would have been monumentally difficult to prove. But, all this is worthless, since the sentence has already been handed down. Personally, I think life is a bit harsh. These two worthless wastes of oxygen came into the store with the intent to rob and possibly harm the people working there, the pharmacist defends himself, and later, takes out some aggression on the maybe-already-dead body of the robber that was initially shot. Was it right? No, it wasn't. Should he be charged with something? Absolutely. Maybe assault with a deadly weapon, maybe abuse of a corpse. I don't know about murder.

 

[Stall]

Considering the first shot was a head shot, that would have been monumentally difficult to prove.

If I recall correctly, the medical examiner actually testified and said the initial shot probably would not have killed the robber, and he might have been able to survive had the pharmacist called 911 after the attack.

Real life isn't like video games-- headshots aren't a for sure kill, you know.

 

[Nurb]

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?

Then, in a scene recorded by the drugstore's security camera, he went behind the counter, got another gun, and pumped five more bullets into Parker as he lay on the floor unconscious.

There was plenty of evidence. The video showed the guy was unconscious while the other was being chased away outside, the pharmacist came back and took the time to get another gun and shoot him multiple times with the intent to kill.

Being better than a criminal means acting like it, and while I support use of guns in defense, this goes way beyond that.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

It's not that it has NO value, it's that it has LESS value. His mistake was trying to rob someone with a freaking gun! That's a pretty damn big mistake. No sympathy for those who want to deprive someone of their property without due process of law. The kid had no good reason to try to rob someone at gunpoint.

Your lack of ability to understand appropriate response to a crime is downright frightening. If you think death is an appropriate consequence to attempted robbery then you have some serious issues.

Also, this was a minor and a teenager. People make mistakes.

I believe you are trying to quote me on this. Very well.

What I'm saying is that if you pull a gun on someone, you must be prepared for the same to happen to YOU. If the pharmisist had, say, killed him in one shot, I wouldn't have cared. The kid had a gun from my understanding. What the guy did the first time was OK. Shooting someone who is trying to rob you is fine by me. Shooting someone who cannot fight back is not. But I still don't feel sorry for the kid. I don't feel sorry for EITHER party.

Being a minor is not carde blanche to do whatever you please, without consequence. When I was 12 I knew that pointing a gun at someone and demanding money was just asking for trouble.

If there were no crime, there would be no need for laws.

If there were no laws there would be no crime

I disagree. There is such a thing as a crime against the natural order and nature as a whole, which exist without man-made rules and regulations. But I suppose that can only exist if there are natural laws. Ah, w/e.

 

[bombadilillo]

It's not that it has NO value, it's that it has LESS value. His mistake was trying to rob someone with a freaking gun! That's a pretty damn big mistake. No sympathy for those who want to deprive someone of their property without due process of law. The kid had no good reason to try to rob someone at gunpoint.

Your lack of ability to understand appropriate response to a crime is downright frightening. If you think death is an appropriate consequence to attempted robbery then you have some serious issues.

Also, this was a minor and a teenager. People make mistakes.

I believe you are trying to quote me on this. Very well.

What I'm saying is that if you pull a gun on someone, you must be prepared for the same to happen to YOU. If the pharmisist had, say, killed him in one shot, I wouldn't have cared. The kid had a gun from my understanding. What the guy did the first time was OK. Shooting someone who is trying to rob you is fine by me. Shooting someone who cannot fight back is not. But I still don't feel sorry for the kid. I don't feel sorry for EITHER party.

Being a minor is not carde blanche to do whatever you please, without consequence. When I was 12 I knew that pointing a gun at someone and demanding money was just asking for trouble.

If there were no crime, there would be no need for laws.

If there were no laws there would be no crime

I disagree. There is such a thing as a crime against the natural order and nature as a whole, which exist without man-made rules and regulations. But I suppose that can only exist if there are natural laws. Ah, w/e.

Actually, the kid who got killed did not have a gun.

And the other guy who ran away was convicted of 1st degree murder and sentenced to life as well. Does that satisfy your justice?

Does the fact the the one who was shot 6 times DID NOT HAVE A GUN or point it at someone as you said bother you? Just wondering, no flame meant.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

It's not that it has NO value, it's that it has LESS value. His mistake was trying to rob someone with a freaking gun! That's a pretty damn big mistake. No sympathy for those who want to deprive someone of their property without due process of law. The kid had no good reason to try to rob someone at gunpoint.

Your lack of ability to understand appropriate response to a crime is downright frightening. If you think death is an appropriate consequence to attempted robbery then you have some serious issues.

Also, this was a minor and a teenager. People make mistakes.

I believe you are trying to quote me on this. Very well.

What I'm saying is that if you pull a gun on someone, you must be prepared for the same to happen to YOU. If the pharmisist had, say, killed him in one shot, I wouldn't have cared. The kid had a gun from my understanding. What the guy did the first time was OK. Shooting someone who is trying to rob you is fine by me. Shooting someone who cannot fight back is not. But I still don't feel sorry for the kid. I don't feel sorry for EITHER party.

Being a minor is not carde blanche to do whatever you please, without consequence. When I was 12 I knew that pointing a gun at someone and demanding money was just asking for trouble.

If there were no crime, there would be no need for laws.

If there were no laws there would be no crime

I disagree. There is such a thing as a crime against the natural order and nature as a whole, which exist without man-made rules and regulations. But I suppose that can only exist if there are natural laws. Ah, w/e.

Actually, the kid who got killed did not have a gun.

And the other gun who ran away was convicted of 1st degree murder and sentenced to life as well. Does that satisfy your justice?

Does the fact the the one who was shot 6 times DID NOT HAVE A GUN or point it at someone as you said bother you? Just wondering, no flame meant.

If this is the case, do you have a link? Because were it so, I very much doubt that the guy would have shot the person who did not have a gun. But if that's the case, I still say it's stupid to go with someone who has a gun to rob a store

I knew exactly what most of the responses in this thread would be before I read any.

90%
"He was illegally trying to take something that did not legally belong to him which is breaking the law and that is illegal and against the law! FILTHY CRIMINAL. COMPLETELY justifiable to shoot him in the head, only once you shoot him like six or seven more times is it MAYBE ok to send the killer to jail for a day. Anywayz wana talk about what guns you like best? I usually sleep with my super semi automatic m52012 green edition under my pillow, but I wish the government would hurry and legalize concealed nuclear missile licenses so I can finally be safe in case that baby in the stroller points his lollipop at me in a threatening manner!

Hyperbole much?

10%
"Couldn't he have just maybe not shot him? Or just given him the money, called the cops, and avoided anyone dying in the first place?"

Dear reader, I wish this could have been the case. But as many people have pointed out, these are stupid, impulsive teenagers. This guy has no proof that doing so would not have resulted in HIM getting shot and killed if the teens panicked.

Here's one of the first rules of gun usage: If you are holding a gun, you better be ready to use it. If you see someone holding a gun, it's safe to say they plan on use of it.

 

[Red Albatross]

Considering the first shot was a head shot, that would have been monumentally difficult to prove.

If I recall correctly, the medical examiner actually testified and said the initial shot probably would not have killed the robber, and he might have been able to survive had the pharmacist called 911 after the attack.

Real life isn't like video games-- headshots aren't a for sure kill, you know.

Oh, I'm quite aware that they're rarely immediately fatal, especially with smaller calibers and the rounded nature of the skull.

What I was trying to say, however, is that if I were a juror, the medical examiner would have to prove to me that the first shot absolutely did not or would not kill the robber before I would be willing to convict the pharmacist of murder and essentially destroy ANOTHER life by putting him in prison. That would be very, very difficult to prove, because of things like blood loss, response time, possibility of edema or hemorrhage, etc., and I'm actually researching this case a little more extensively because I'd like to know how the prosecution got around that.

Edit: added details for clarity.

 

[frizzlebyte]

Definitely outside the "self-defense" definition. However, I think that there should have been mitigating circumstances that came into play here, to lessen the sentencing.

I mean, the idea of people absolutely losing their crap when threatened is nothing new. The Norse had Berserkers, who were known for getting into such a frenzy during battle that they would cut down even the men from their own side.

And in the American Revolution, there was a battle, I can't remember the name, where the Patriots were in such a frenzy after the battle that they killed the British prisoners.

While I am not trying to justify this guy's actions, I do think that psychology tells us that this guy might not have been totally compos mentus when he shot the guy.