Oklahoma Pharmacist gets Life

[dabvu2498]

Originally Posted by RedsManRick

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

That's a tough call, legally. But it's certainly mitigating circumstances when it comes to sentencing, I would think.

[Redlegs23]

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

[Newport Red]

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.

[JayStubbs]

Originally Posted by Redlegs23

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

If the kid the owner murdered had a gun, the owner would have been dead way before he even got his second gun. If you watched the video, the owner calmly and very cooly walked past the injured 16 year old. There is no way that the 16 year was a threat, or that the owner considered him a threat. He executed him in cold blood.

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.

[JayStubbs]

Originally Posted by Nathan

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.

Some 16 year olds do and some don't. That is why the law is set up the way it is.

[JayStubbs]

Originally Posted by Redlegs23

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?

The first shots, absolutely.

However, after that the owner had plenty of time to see that the kid he had shot in the head was just a kid. He was wearing his school backpack and when I first saw the video I thought he was around 13.

[Sea Ray]

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:

http://www.act4jj.org/media/factsheets/factsheet_49.pdf

Thus the kid's age would have made zero difference in a legal sense.

[Hoosier Red]

Originally Posted by Sea Ray

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:

http://www.act4jj.org/media/factsheets/factsheet_49.pdf

Thus the kid's age would have made zero difference in a legal sense.

The whole issue of age is really nothing, but the 16 year old didn't shoot anyone. I don't know Oklahoma's penal code well enough to know if all 16 year olds are tried as adults for the crime he actually committed.

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.

[JayStubbs]

Originally Posted by Hoosier Red

The whole issue of age is really nothing, but the 16 year old didn't shoot anyone. I don't know Oklahoma's penal code well enough to know if all 16 year olds are tried as adults for the crime he actually committed.

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.

Thanks.

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.

[mr. red]

Originally Posted by JayStubbs

Thanks.

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.

If someone came into your place of employment, pointed a gun at you AND said that if you did not comply with their demands, that you would be killed...you wouldn't eliminate that threat with deadly force?

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?

[Hoosier Red]

Originally Posted by mr. red

If someone came into your place of employment, pointed a gun at you AND said that if you did not comply with their demands, that you would be killed...you wouldn't eliminate that threat with deadly force?

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?

No one is absolving the kid of responsibility.
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.

[hebroncougar]

Originally Posted by JayStubbs

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.

You can assume that all you want, when someone points a gun at you. For me, I'll be shooting back if I have the means. I don't care why he's pointing the gun, point is, he is.

[Sea Ray]

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?

[hebroncougar]

Originally Posted by Sea Ray

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?

No way. The guy was put into the position by someone POINTING A GUN AT HIM AND TRYING TO ROB HIM.

[Hoosier Red]

Originally Posted by Sea Ray

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?

What range of options are available for a murder?
Without knowing that, I'm not sure. I'd certainly be in favor of a lighter sentence than would otherwise be assumed with a murder charge.