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/oklahoma-pharmacist-who-killed-armed-robber-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"

[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.

[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.

[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...

[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?

[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.

[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.

[hebroncougar]

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.

No I don't. But I do know none of this happens if these two punks don't walk into his store waving and threatening him and other people with guns.

[Eric_the_Red]

No I don't. But I do know none of this happens if these two punks don't walk into his store waving and threatening him and other people with guns.

Or if the pharmacist doesn't repeatedly shoot an already wounded man.

As odd as this sounds, it reminds me of the great "Who's fault was it?" debate over BP and Yadier/Carpenter after the fight. I guess my opinion on this case is similar- two wrongs don't make a right, or a single fault. Both sides severely erred in judgement.

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

[dabvu2498]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Deepred05]

Shouldnt the kid who got away be charged with mureder also?

[Redsfaithful]

I'd give him a decent prison sentence, but life is ridiculous. We throw years around like they are nothing in this country. It's a heavy thing to take most (or all) of a man's life away from them, and I really am not sure enough judges see it that way. Very rarely do I think anyone should go to jail for 20+ years.

But that's also presupposing we'd work on rehabilitating people in prison and making it so they could do something with themselves on the outside, along with dealing with whatever issues caused them to end up in prison, but lol that's never going to happen.

[Sea Ray]

Shouldnt the kid who got away be charged with mureder also?

Who did he kill?

[Puffy]

Who did he kill?

No one.

He is talking about Felony Murder but, depending on the State, it usually does not apply in these instances. The person that got killed was a co-conspirator, thus Felony Murder does not apply. It usually only applies to innocent victim during commission of crime. Again, this depends on state law

[919191]

No one.

He is talking about Felony Murder but, depending on the State, it usually does not apply in these instances. The person that got killed was a co-conspirator, thus Felony Murder does not apply. It usually only applies to innocent victim during commission of crime. Again, this depends on state law

That rule was used a few years ago near my home. A disgruntled employee of a car garage burned the shop down. The structure collapsed on a firefighter and killed him. The guy was convicted of murder with the felony murder rule.