Oklahoma Pharmacist found guilty for killing in self-defense

[Bman]

I have a few problems with this verdict.

1.) How do you prove the robber wasn't dead after the first shot?
2.) How do you validate that the store owner no longer perceived the target as a current threat, if the robber was still alive?

These guys came into a store and attempted armed robbery. How am I to know if the guy is armed or not? Would I be required to go roll the guy over to make sure he isn't lying on a gun?

 

[Mary Microgram]

What's so bad about this is, had it been a police officer or (U.S. soldier in Iraq) who shot someone, it would be a whole different story. Here in Vegas cops shoot to kill, often murdering innocent children and people with mental disorders...and remain on the police force.

 

[acptulsa]

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.

Our laws governing self-defense aren't that closely tied to property ownership. And it's pretty clear that the guy was down for the count.

And though it's not exactly germaine to the case, so it isn't talked about much, there's undoubtedly the issue of how the first gun got empty. Oklahoma's law on self-defense is closely tied to the threshhold--once the intruder is out the door, your right to shoot evaporates. You don't get to step out the door after him and spray the neighborhood with hot lead. That sort of thing is liable to piss a jury off, and not without reason.

They guy is getting an example made of him, but he had to go over the top to do it. They've made it clear that if he had only shot the guy once, he'd have walked.

 

[LibertarianBrit]

Substitute "modern England" with "USA" and "Tony Martin" for "Jerome Ersland":

"There is in any society an implied contract between state and citizen. We give up part of our right to self defence - only part, I emphasise - and all our right to act as judge in our own causes. We resign these matters to the state and obey its laws. In exchange, it maintains order more efficiently and more justly than we could ourselves. In modern England, the state has not broken this contract. If it had simply given up on maintaining order, that would be bad enough - but we could then at least shift for ourselves. No, the state in this country has varied the terms of the contract. It will not protect us, but it will not let us protect ourselves. If we ignore this command, we can expect to be punished at least as severely as the criminals who attack us. That is what the Tony Martin case is all about. This is not just a matter for the country. The towns have it just as bad, if not worse. If you are a victim of crime anywhere in this country, you are in it alone and undefended. Call for the Police, call for a home delivery pizza - see which arrives first." - Sean Gabb

 

[acptulsa]

The defense avows that he wasn't dead after the first shot. And this is creating a controversy, with competing facebook groups and a petition drive to get his life sentence commuted. I suspect that the prosecutors are beginning to regret going for Murder One.

 

[qh4dotcom]

Good verdict in my opinion. The last 4 shots fired were not self-defense. Maybe not first degree murder.

Another point you guys missed...the pharmacist did not have to come back into the store after chasing the other teen out until the police arrived.

 

[acptulsa]

Maybe not first degree murder.

That's the controversy. There's a petition drive underway to get him a relatively short sentence, or to get a potential life sentence commuted.

If I had been on the jury, I don't think they'd have gotten their unanimous conviction on first degree murder. I know 'premeditated' can be defined a number of ways. But it isn't like this guy went stalking the dead man looking for his chance. He traded an empty gun for a full one. And he did it minutes after meeting the guy for the first time, and being put in fear for his life in the process.

Interesting petition drive. No one's arguing he should get off, but just that life is too much.

 

[qh4dotcom]

That's the controversy. There's a petition drive underway to get him a relatively short sentence, or to get a potential life sentence commuted.

If I had been on the jury, I don't think they'd have gotten their unanimous conviction on first degree murder. I know 'premeditated' can be defined a number of ways. But it isn't like this guy went stalking the dead man looking for his chance. He traded an empty gun for a full one. And he did it minutes after meeting the guy for the first time, and being put in fear for his life in the process.

Interesting petition drive. No one's arguing he should get off, but just that life is too much.

He's 59 so even if he doesn't get life in prison, he'll probably be in his seventies or eighties by the time he gets out.