Oklahoma Pharmacist gets Life

[MrCinatit]

Death Wish and Walking Tall might make for entertaining movie fare, but are not in real life.

[JayStubbs]

One thing to add is that these "punks" were 16 years old.

There is a reason why we don't try 16 year olds as adults. They lack the maturity to fully understand the morality and consequences of their actions. 16 year olds do lots of stupid things that they wouldn't do when they are adults and which they regret later. As a society, we choose not to hold them fully responsible for their actions.

This doesn't excuse these teenagers from armed robbery, but it does add a different perspective than if they had been adults, and I think it makes the actions of the owner even more heinous. He killed an injured, defenseless kid.

[Sea Ray]

Originally Posted by JayStubbs

One thing to add is that these "punks" were 16 years old.

There is a reason why we don't try 16 year olds as adults. They lack the maturity to fully understand the morality and consequences of their actions. 16 year olds do lots of stupid things that they wouldn't do when they are adults and which they regret later. As a society, we choose not to hold them fully responsible for their actions.

This doesn't excuse these teenagers from armed robbery, but it does add a different perspective than if they had been adults, and I think it makes the actions of the owner even more heinous. He killed an injured, defenseless kid.

If that 16 yr old had shot and killed someone that day, it's very likely he would have been tried as an adult

[Hoosier Red]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[KronoRed]

No problem at all with him shooting the 1st guy or even chasing the other, getting the second gun and then finishing the already shot guy off is way over the line.

[BuckeyeRed27]

It's a tough one and it's always hard to judge people in high pressure situations like this, but I think I would have found him guilty too. He didn't have to shoot the robber a second time.

[WMR]

If he had finished the kid off before he gave chase, he's probably fine.

Going back into the store, retrieving a 2nd gun, and THEN shooting the prone robber almost necessitates a finding of premeditation.

I'd be interested to see what sort of strategy his defense put forth... he very possibly/likely? could have been suffering shock... He was just in a gun battle after all.

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by JayStubbs

One thing to add is that these "punks" were 16 years old.

There is a reason why we don't try 16 year olds as adults. They lack the maturity to fully understand the morality and consequences of their actions. 16 year olds do lots of stupid things that they wouldn't do when they are adults and which they regret later. As a society, we choose not to hold them fully responsible for their actions.

This doesn't excuse these teenagers from armed robbery, but it does add a different perspective than if they had been adults, and I think it makes the actions of the owner even more heinous. He killed an injured, defenseless kid.

At 16 years old you have the know with all to understand what robbing someone with a gun can lead to.

And while I haven't watched the video, I am not sure that his age makes a difference in the heinousness of the act. If the "kid" had been 18 or 19, it wouldn't have changed much and I doubt the shooter asked. Plenty of 16 year olds could be confused for 18 or 19.

[Nathan]

Originally Posted by JayStubbs

One thing to add is that these "punks" were 16 years old.

There is a reason why we don't try 16 year olds as adults. They lack the maturity to fully understand the morality and consequences of their actions. 16 year olds do lots of stupid things that they wouldn't do when they are adults and which they regret later. As a society, we choose not to hold them fully responsible for their actions.

This doesn't excuse these teenagers from armed robbery, but it does add a different perspective than if they had been adults, and I think it makes the actions of the owner even more heinous. He killed an injured, defenseless kid.

Are you saying that anyone, as long as they are >18 can commit any cold blooded crime and claim "Well.. I'm just 16. I'm just an immature punk, and I will probably regret this later" and get by with something like this? No. They knew damn well what they were doing, and knew it was illegal. There is NO justification for those boys' actions. NONE!

That being said....

[JayStubbs]

Originally Posted by Nathan

Are you saying that anyone, as long as they are >18 can commit any cold blooded crime and claim "Well.. I'm just 16. I'm just an immature punk, and I will probably regret this later" and get by with something like this? No. They knew damn well what they were doing, and knew it was illegal. There is NO justification for those boys' actions. NONE!

That being said....

The way the law is set up, if you are under 18 you are tried as a juvenile. That means that you will go to a juvi hall until you are 18 if convicted. After 18, you will be released.

However, at the discretion of court, anyone under 18 can be tried as an adult if it has been concluded that the suspect was mature enough to understand the consequences and morality of their actions. This happens with most homicides and violent crimes, especially for repeat offenders.

In neither case are the action of the suspect justified, they are just treated differently if the suspect is under 18.

So the answer to your question is, no, if you are under 18, you can't just commit any crime and expect to get away with it because you are underage.

[JayStubbs]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

At 16 years old you have the know with all to understand what robbing someone with a gun can lead to.

And while I haven't watched the video, I am not sure that his age makes a difference in the heinousness of the act. If the "kid" had been 18 or 19, it wouldn't have changed much and I doubt the shooter asked. Plenty of 16 year olds could be confused for 18 or 19.

I think it really is a case by case basis.

I know plenty of 16 years olds that are not mature enough to truly understand the morality and consequences of robbing someone with a gun, real knuckleheads, while I know plenty of others that are.

[Nathan]

Originally Posted by JayStubbs

The way the law is set up, if you are under 18 you are tried as a juvenile. That means that you will go to a juvi hall until you are 18 if convicted. After 18, you will be released.

However, at the discretion of court, anyone under 18 can be tried as an adult if it has been concluded that the suspect was mature enough to understand the consequences and morality of their actions. This happens with most homicides and violent crimes, especially for repeat offenders.

In neither case are the action of the suspect justified, they are just treated differently if the suspect is under 18.

So the answer to your question is, no, if you are under 18, you can't just commit any crime and expect to get away with it because you are underage.

That is the key here. I'm not sure if the other boy was caught or not, but if he was (or will be), I'm 99.9% sure he was (or will be) tried as an adult. I still don't understand why you think a 16 doesn't know the moral ramifications of committing a crime. Just because you are 16 doesn't mean you don't know right from wrong.

[Captain Hook]

Originally Posted by Hoosier Red

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.

[RedsManRick]

If there's a case for temporary insanity, this would seem like the case for it.

[Redlegs23]

Originally Posted by JayStubbs

One thing to add is that these "punks" were 16 years old.

There is a reason why we don't try 16 year olds as adults. They lack the maturity to fully understand the morality and consequences of their actions. 16 year olds do lots of stupid things that they wouldn't do when they are adults and which they regret later. As a society, we choose not to hold them fully responsible for their actions.

This doesn't excuse these teenagers from armed robbery, but it does add a different perspective than if they had been adults, and I think it makes the actions of the owner even more heinous. He killed an injured, defenseless kid.

He definitely should have checked that kid's ID before shooting him.

Seriously, this is completely irrelevant. If I'm looking down the barrel of a gun and that person is past puberty you better believe I'm pulling the trigger. If the "kid" were 7 or something you have a point, but 16? Really?