Oklahoma Pharmacist found guilty for killing in self-defense

[ronaldo23]

From 2009, a pharmacist in Oklahoma City was found guilt of 1st degree (aka premeditated) murder after defending his store from a robbery.

Oklahoma has has 'castle laws,' allowing you to use deadly force to defend your house or place of work from robbery and invasion. Two teens came into his pharmacy... one has a gun while the other was not visibly armed (later confirmed to be unarmed, but lets just go with what was visible). The pharmacist backs up as the teens move in demanding money. The pharmacist then pulls a gun from under the register and neutralizes the unarmed teen. The armed teen flees the scene immediately and the pharmacist chases him out into the streets. When its clear the armed attempted robber has gotten away the pharmacist returns, examined the unconscious teen for a bit, then goes to the register. He pulls out a second gun, returns to the downed teen, and fires four more shots into him before calling the police to report the robbery. The details of the case are murky, as to whether the unarmed man twitched or posed some kind of threat to him or whether the pharmacist just shot him 3 more times out of cold blood even if the unarmed man was no longer a threat (the pharmacist refused to take the stand in trial, though I am assuming if he did it could have helped clear his name, so he probably had shittty lawyers)

He was found guilty of 1st degree (premeditated) murder for firing the other four shots, with the prosecution claiming it was out of cold blood and the man no longer posed any sort of a threat to him (though they certainly don't have any evidence to prove this). Thoughts on what he did and the verdict of the case? Personally I think he should have walked off free, but I'm surprised he didn't take the stand to try and clear his name.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303654804576347891729253696.html?mod=WSJ_WSJ_US_News_6

 

[Humanae Libertas]

God forbid you defend your life, just let the crooks blast you. That's the pacifist way!

 

[squarepusher]

well, he came back and 'finished the guy off' on the floor unconscience, apparently not knowing there was a camera?

There was no self defense here.

 

[Dr.3D]

I would suspect the pharmacist was trying to protect himself from being sued by the downed attempted robber.

 

[TheNcredibleEgg]

I don't see how can be convicted of 1st degree murder. He clearly did not plan this out.

Perhaps manslaughter. Heat of the moment type offense.

 

[RM918]

We'd call it murder if cops did it, property invasion or not - 'finishing him off' is not self-defense unless he still posed a threat.

 

[angelatc]

(...the pharmacist refused to take the stand in trial, though I am assuming if he did it could have helped clear his name, so he probably had shittty lawyers)

Or he had something in his past that the prosecutors would have brought up. Not sure how serious it would be though - I'm guessing they don't pass out pharmacy licenses to convicted felons.

 

[cindy25]

it makes me wonder if he knew them before the robbery; why else would he shoot someone unconscious?

 

[pcosmar]

it makes me wonder if he knew them before the robbery; why else would he shoot someone unconscious?

To avoid being sued when he recovered.

Though "finishing him off" is not self defense.

 

[AFPVet]

We'd call it murder if cops did it, property invasion or not - 'finishing him off' is not self-defense unless he still posed a threat.

Exactly. Once there is no immediate threat, you must cease fire.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Exactly. Once there is no immediate threat, you must cease fire.

Yes...I would be spitting mad if a cop did this (and they have, see "Oscar Grant).

This was not self defence in any way, it was murder.

 

[devil21]

How did the prosecution prove that he wasn't already dead from the first wound? I still think the charge sucks and just goes to show that the criminals that wish to hurt other people are coddled by the system. He should have just unloaded on him the first time and left it at that.

 

[Anti Federalist]

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

 

[Pericles]

Exactly. Once there is no immediate threat, you must cease fire.

That ^ Coming back to robber 1 after chasing down robber 2 is over the top. Understand how it can happen, but you have to control yourself.

 

[squarepusher]

Although I still can't see how he was convicted to 1st degree murder. His own store was invaded and robbed, its not like he planned it. Once the one robber was down, I think it was wrong for him to come back to kill him, however it was surely a heat of the moment decision, 1st degree seems horribly decided. I expect an appeal.

 

[Dr.3D]

I have to wonder what happened to the rest of the rounds in the first pistol if he only shot it once in the shop and then had to get a second one to shoot the first guy again. Was it only a single round pistol? Was it partially loaded. How many rounds total were fired in this incidence? Was the assailant dead after the first round?

Of course we will never know all of these questions unless we get a copy of the proceedings to see if they were even brought up.

 

[nate895]

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.

 

[nate895]

Although I still can't see how he was convicted to 1st degree murder. His own store was invaded and robbed, its not like he planned it. Once the one robber was down, I think it was wrong for him to come back to kill him, however it was surely a heat of the moment decision, 1st degree seems horribly decided. I expect an appeal.

One need only prove some form of premeditation. Seconds worth of premeditation is enough to convict someone of first degree. I am not sure, but the fact that he went back and got the second gun and shot someone while they were unconscious with that second gun puts in the first degree category as far as I can see.

 

[Travlyr]

That ^ Coming back to robber 1 after chasing down robber 2 is over the top. Understand how it can happen, but you have to control yourself.

I just wish the police knew this.

 

[low preference guy]

the thread title is misleading. it was not an act of self-defense