Oklahoma Pharmacist gets Life

[Puffy]

The video at end shows the whole incident, including the shooting obviously. So be warned.

I think I am torn. I think going back and shooting the helpless kid was wrong. I mean the Pharmacist comes back into store, walks right by kid, turns his back to kid, goes and gets another gun, hurries back and then shoots kid 5 more times while kid is down and obviously wounded (originally shot in head). If he still felt threat then why turn your back to kid?

The original shooting was obviously, IMO, ok. But the threat was over. Does walking past kid and going and grabbing another gun make this premediated and thereby First Degree Murder? What I learned in law school says yes. But should we take anything else into account (stress, anxiety of having gun pointed at him, etc.).

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/oklah...bber-gets-life

[muddie]

How the hell is premeditated murder derived from a situation where the victim (the pharmacist) didn't even know the assailant 10 minutes prior the shooting? I believe first degree murder is a stretch.

Having said that, I too am torn on this one.

[Puffy]

It became premediated, muddie, when he walked past him and got second gun and then shot him again. The first shooting was clearly self-defense and/or in defense of others.

But he actually had to think about going back into the store, walking behind counter and then pulling trigger 5 more times. The 30 second time difference between first and second shots is what made "premeditated"

[Reds Nd2]

It became premediated, muddie, when he walked past him and got second gun and then shot him again. The first shooting was clearly self-defense and/or in defense of others.

But he actually had to think about going back into the store, walking behind counter and then pulling trigger 5 more times. The 30 second time difference between first and second shots is what made "premeditated"

Yep and when he exited the store in pursuit of the other robber, he was no longer the victim but the agressor. Had he been shot at this point, I think the robber would have a legitimate claim of self defense.

[Joseph]

Thats harsh. I dunno what to think really. Guy shouldn't be going up for life IMO, but he went too far. However were it me, the kid would have gotten more than one shot alright.

[Sea Ray]

I'd give him a minimal sentence like less than 5 years. Sure technically he's guilty but I wouldn't want to be judged for life on how I'd react under that kind of pressure. As for the armed robber who got killed, that's a chance you take. Sorry, bud...

[Captain Hook]

The Pharmacist was sitting there doing his job when two punks with guns run into his store trying to rob him while likely threatening his life.Now knowing this I can't really say that I'd feel sorry if anything bad happened to the punks.Considering that nothing like this has ever happened to me I can't say for sure how I would've reacted.I can tell you that if I came away with a lifetime sentence I'd be pretty mad about it.

[Hoosier Red]

The Pharmacist was sitting there doing his job when two punks with guns run into his store trying to rob him while likely threatening his life.Now knowing this I can't really say that I'd feel sorry if anything bad happened to the punks.Considering that nothing like this has ever happened to me I can't say for sure how I would've reacted.I can tell you that if I came away with a lifetime sentence I'd be pretty mad about it.

It's a small difference but the gun wasn't pointed at him. It was pointed at two female co-workers who ran back to the back of the store. The pharmacist brought his gun and fired on one of the would be robbers. He then chased after another one, came back, grabbed a 2nd gun, and killed the robber.

No matter how heinous the robber's actions, viglante justice leaves a lot of grey area that as a society we don't wan't to go down.

Had he shot the robber the first time, then called police, he would have been well within his rights.

I wouldn't have taken any joy in finding him guilty, but I'd find him guilty none the less.

[Captain Hook]

It's a small difference but the gun wasn't pointed at him. It was pointed at two female co-workers who ran back to the back of the store. The pharmacist brought his gun and fired on one of the would be robbers. He then chased after another one, came back, grabbed a 2nd gun, and killed the robber.

No matter how heinous the robber's actions, viglante justice leaves a lot of grey area that as a society we don't wan't to go down.

Had he shot the robber the first time, then called police, he would have been well within his rights.

I wouldn't have taken any joy in finding him guilty, but I'd find him guilty none the less.

I actually agree with you.I just think that considering the circumstances getting life is a bit harsh.What he did was wrong but he was put in a situation where someone could easily make a poor decision.You never know how your mind would react to something like what he went through unless you've been there before.It's very difficult to judge this guy imo.

[foxfire123]

I can't voice an opinion since I don't have some facts I would need to do so. Like: Has the guy been robbed before--possibly multiple times? Has he been harrassed by local punks on a reguar basis? Are their gang problems in the area? Etc.

Overreacted, maybe, but were there extenuating, ongoing circumstances that made him snap?

[oneupper]

Guy possibly thought, that if left alive, the robber and/or friends might come back for him at a later date. Dude needs to get a better lawyer.

[Red in Chicago]

The kid got what he deserved.

[JayStubbs]

I understand wanting to defend yourself against armed robbers, but this man's actions after he fired the first shots have nothing to do with defending yourself. They are very similar to the actions of a sociopath who has no concern for human life.

There is absolutely no reason, other than to kill in cold blood, for the man to leave the store to go after the first robber. None whatsoever. If he was traumatized by having just been robbed at gun point, he would not run after the suspects, he would have kept shooting aimlessly, or simply froze. The action of leaving the store is a clear and deliberate act of a man who knows exactly what he is doing. He is going to take another person's life.

When he calmly walks back into the store, walks past the injured robber (who clearly is not a threat, or else he would have shot or attacked the owner at this point), goes gets his second gun, and then calmly walks up to the injured robber and shots him in cold blood, he only re-enforces this notion that he wanted to kill these kids, and that he was not under any stress or trauma.

And I don't care if and how many times he had been robbed before, that doesn't justify what he did. One robber had run away, and the other lay defenseless on the ground. The reasonable action was to call the police. He chose to kill instead.

Those are the action of someone who has no concern for human life, and deserves to be locked up for the rest of his life, imo.

[hebroncougar]

Sorry, I clear the guy. HIS life was placed in danger because of the robbers. I think he showed concern for human life, and that is potential victims of the punks in the future. I have zero problem with what he did.

[Eric_the_Red]

Sorry, I clear the guy. HIS life was placed in danger because of the robbers. I think he showed concern for human life, and that is potential victims of the punks in the future. I have zero problem with what he did.

Do you really think his mindset was to kill this kid to save potential future victims? And even if he did think that, since we does that excuse killing someone? Feels like that Tom Cruise movie "Minority report"- executing justice on others for their future actions.