Giving the guy life is completely ridiculous. He was working at his job, and he had two guys come in and threaten his and his co-worker's lives. He shoots the guy and now we're sending him to prison for life. Let's protect the criminals even more should we?
Was he wrong in going back a second time to shoot him? Probably. But I don't know how I would act in that situation, and we really don't know what shape the kid was in on the floor. Maybe he was still alive but barely. What if he was packing heat in his pocket or something? Oh snap, now we are talking about a dead pharmacist! Bottom line is when these guys decided to rob a store and point guns at people, they should realize that a very real consequence is that they are going to die. From what we know about this pharmacist he was an upstanding citizen in our society, not hurting anyone until someone
Even if he used a coup de grace defense, I wouldn't buy it. He wasn't the alpha male for all of 5 seconds.
"Hyperbole is the greatest thing ever" Redsland
And for all we know, the 16 year old was an honor student who needed the money to pay for his mother's surgery. Point is we don't know, so it's useless to make assumptions.
In Oklahoma, like most states, teenagers charged with first degree murder are tried as adults. In Oklahoma 13 year olds are required to be tried as adults if charged with 1st degree murder:
Thus the kid's age would have made zero difference in a legal sense.
Without getting into legal definitions though, JayStubbs brought up his age to point out that this "punk" was someone who would not be held to the same standards in many cases as someone who was an adult.
When people say that I donít know what Iím talking about when it comes to sports or writing, I think: Man, you should see me in the rest of my life.
I will say that if Oklahoma has a law that makes anyone involved in an armed robbery in which someone was killed, eligible to be tried for first degree murder, than it might be possible for these kids would be tried as adults, even if they never fired a shot. Regardless, SeaRay has a good point.
But you are correct about my main point. The owner clearly saw that this was a teenage kid, and shot him five times in cold blood. That is more heinous than shooting someone who was in their 20's or older, imo.
The kid that attempted to rob that store, though young, still made that decision to commit a felony. I don't know that the pharmacist needed to shoot the kid over and over, but if he felt threatened, then he acted in self defense. If that kid had gotten his hands on all of those pharmaceutical products, he could have sold them on the streets and those who purchased the illegal substances from him could have killed several more people. Who is to say that if the kid gets away with all those drugs that the person he sells them to doesn't get behind the wheel of a car under the influence of said substances and cause an accident, killing themselves or others?
Everything you mentioned in the 1st paragraph was well within the pharmacists rights.
It's the racing out of the store, coming back into the store, grabbing a second gun and shooting a barely conscious human being 5 times that was illegal. Once the pharmacist came back in, he was in no danger of being killed. Even if he could make the argument that he didn't know if the kid had a gun, or would attack him, when he went to the back room and grabbed a 2nd gun, he clearly became the aggressor. Once he does that, he goes from defending himself to killing a person.
I think the big question here is this:
Does this pharmacist deserve a life sentence? That's what the jury came back with. I say no way although I do think he should serve about 5 yrs .
Please chime in. Is a life sentence appropriate?