Oklahoma Pharmacist found guilty for killing in self-defense

[ItsTime]

His crime was not being a cop, had he been, he would have got two weeks vacation.

With pay.

 

[steve005]

that guy should get a firing squad, this is insane. I've heard people say things like "if someone breaks in and you shoot them, make sure they die, just so they can't sue you", but I don't agree, it's not worth it

 

[nate895]

that guy should get a firing squad, this is insane. I've heard people say things like "if someone breaks in and you shoot them, make sure they die, just so they can't sue you", but I don't agree, it's not worth it

Not to mention these two idiots didn't break in. They walked into a building that is open to the public. Yes, they had nefarious intent, but forcing one off the property and knocking the other out was enough.

 

[ghengis86]

In thus particular instance:

First shot = self defense

Next four, after significant time had passed and his life was nolonger in danger = murder

I think getting the other gun confirmed the premeditation
portion of first degree murder.

If he would have fired multiple rounds to begin with, and the suspect(s) died, self defense would probably apply and this guy walks.

You can't shoot someone in the back while they're fleeing, just like you can't 'finish off' a wounded perp (unless of course you are a pig). Sounds like he watched too many movies

 

[squarepusher]

In thus particular instance:

First shot = self defense

Next four, after significant time had passed and his life was nolonger in danger = murder

I think getting the other gun confirmed the premeditation
portion of first degree murder.

If he would have fired multiple rounds to begin with, and the suspect(s) died, self defense would probably apply and this guy walks.

You can't shoot someone in the back while they're fleeing, just like you can't 'finish off' a wounded perp (unless of course you are a pig). Sounds like he watched too many movies

eh, its still just a matter of seconds. If you imagine the adrenalin pumping through his system, although I agree it was a bad decision, I believe it could be considered "heat of the moment" even when he came back the second time. Theres a big difference between someone planning to murder someone (like say an ex wife), than a few seconds after being robbed. I expect there to be an appeal

 

[nate895]

eh, its still just a matter of seconds. If you imagine the adrenalin pumping through his system, although I agree it was a bad decision, I believe it could be considered "heat of the moment" even when he came back the second time. Theres a big difference between someone planning to murder someone (like say an ex wife), than a few seconds after being robbed. I expect there to be an appeal

A few seconds is enough time for it to be considered premeditated. If he had kept the first gun, you could make a fairly reasonable argument for second degree. However, he went back, and specifically got out a second gun and did the deed. That gave him more than enough time to calm down and do the right thing.

 

[Travlyr]

How one can call shooting an unarmed, unconscious person "self defense" is simply beyond my ability to comprehend, let alone shooting them four times. This might have been second degree murder under present law, but it still was cold-blooded murder. He clearly intended on killing his victim. The only thing that could be up for debate here is whether he premeditated it. By the evidence presented (that he went back and got a second gun), I'd still have to lean heavily in favor of first degree murder.

Is he more guilty or less guilty than these guys?

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?294228

 

[nate895]

Is he more guilty or less guilty than these guys?

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?294228

Just as.

 

[ghengis86]

eh, its still just a matter of seconds. If you imagine the adrenalin pumping through his system, although I agree it was a bad decision, I believe it could be considered "heat of the moment" even when he came back the second time. Theres a big difference between someone planning to murder someone (like say an ex wife), than a few seconds after being robbed. I expect there to be an appeal

I'll agree there is a difference. But it matters what one can prove/disprove in court. And to me, a few seconds is <10. Maybe he did have shit lawyers though? You would think they could get at least 2nd degree murder or manslaughter or a plea deal (or maybe I have been watching too many movies!).

I wonder what sentencing will be like?

 

[Pericles]

...

You can't shoot someone in the back while they're fleeing, .....

unless you are in Texas at night, and you are protecting life or recovering property.

Texas takes a really dim view on murder, rape, and theft. In the daytime, you can't shoot them if they drop the stolen property and flee.

 

[LibertyEagle]

How one can call shooting an unarmed, unconscious person "self defense" is simply beyond my ability to comprehend, let alone shooting them four times. This might have been second degree murder under present law, but it still was cold-blooded murder. He clearly intended on killing his victim. The only thing that could be up for debate here is whether he premeditated it. By the evidence presented (that he went back and got a second gun), I'd still have to lean heavily in favor of first degree murder.

Wow. No way.

Moral of the story. Store owners should have guns that will kill with one shot.

 

[ghengis86]

Wow. No way.

Moral of the story. Store owners should have guns that will kill with one shot.

I think all guns are capable of one shot kills; store owners on the other hand...

 

[LibertyEagle]

I think all guns are capable of one shot kills; store owners on the other hand...

Correction. Bigger guns. Shotguns, if necessary.

 

[ghengis86]

Correction. Bigger guns. Shotguns, if necessary.

Now you're talking. Though you do have to aim shotguns at close range with something like buck shot. Takes time for the lead to spread.

 

[Eryxis]

I'm a pharmacist and just got robbed myself... i have heard about this case and like most people think the second gun is the issue. I don't think there is any issue with killing robbers in the act especially with controlled substances involved, and I'm sure the pharmacist would have gotten off without much issue.

 

[affa]

thread title is incredibly misleading.

based on the OP's explanation of events, this was murder.

as for the premeditation part, he had plenty of time to get his wits about him. If he shot and killed him right away, that's one thing.

Perhaps think of it this way -- if you got attacked, and broke someone's neck subduing them, that's self defense. If you knocked a guy out, then chased another guy down the street, then came back to the unconscious guy and snapped his neck, that's murder. So is getting another gun and unloading four shots into him.

Self defense requires an active threat. Unless you're America, or a cop.

 

[ronaldo23]

but we really don't know the circumstances of the second 3 shots...you can't ascertain 100% from the cameras whether the downed person played a threat or not to the pharmacist...

the pharmacist may not have done it out of cold blood- he could have seen the man twitching in the directions of his pockets which he perceives as a threat to his safety, and he probably assumed the man was armed as well. With all that adrenaline he could have rapidly fired 4 shots. Heck, even the medical examiners disagreed about the circumstances

"Dr. Andrew Sibley, the state's interim chief medical examiner, said the robber, Antwun "Speedy" Parker, "almost certainly" was alive after the first shot and "very possibly" was unconscious. But, he told The Oklahoman, the robber still could have been making involuntary movements "that could have been perceived as a threat." Sibley said the robber could have been moving and even groaning while unconscious. He pointed out that the robber's vocal cords weren't hit...

Sibley, of Tulsa, said any movement at all could have been considered a threat. He said, in such cases, a shooter's adrenaline will kick in. Sibley said police officers sometimes shoot multiple times when facing a threat."

http://www.newsok.com/fourth-doctor...article/3487323?custom_click=headlines_widget

I'm just not convinced the pharmacist shot him out of cold blood, and the fact that it's first degree murder makes no sense...

At best it's inconclusive whether the last three shots were out of cold blood or as a response to a perceived threat in the heat of the moment (even though we know in retrospect the downed man did not pose a threat)

 

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

wow. No way.

Moral of the story. Store owners should have guns that will kill with one shot.

awp

 

[BamaAla]

Strangely enough, I found myself thinking about this case the other day; I had watched the video on some news channel after it first happened and was wondering if it was ever resolved. I can't say, from my armchair, what I would have done in that jury deliberation room, but its very possible, probably probable, that I would have hung it. It walks like murder and quacks like murder, but I don't think I could have gone along with murder in the first.

 

[t0rnado]

The jury made a horrible decision. If the pharmacist owned the property, he had every right to shoot the thieves as many times as he wanted to as long as they were on his property.