The pharmacist in Oklahoma City who shot at two masked gunmen trying to rob him was just convicted of first degree murder. I wonder how many people now, will be afraid to defend themselves when threatened by armed criminals?

must be a little more to it whats up.i am not afraid are you.

I did a search on "oklahoma city pharmacist murder" and got several news stories. It appears that he was not charged with murder for defending himself against the robbers. He was charged with murder because, after he had stopped the robbery, and one of the robbers had run off, he walked over to the wounded robber that was lying on the floor and emptied his gun into him.

They said that went beyond "self defense".

__________________
I always take precautions

Yes the proverbial putting a cap in his, well you get the rest, goes above and beyond the call of self defense. Once they're down, and surrendered, you can't just continue to pump bullets into them. That's why he got a murder charge. As far as self defense, umm no, it won't bother me.

__________________
Vaya con Dios

I would concurr in that assessment.

__________________
Forum consigliere

I watched the store security video tape that was shown at the trial.
The pharmacist started with a "Judge" revolver and shot twice at the two robbers at less than 10 feet, hitting one in the forehead with buckshot, dropping him.
He ran out of the store and emptied the revolver at the fleeing robber, missing everything, including the two bystanders in the street.
He then returned into the store, walked past the fallen robber who was out of sight behind a counter, opened a drawer to get a .380, walked back to the fallen robber, and shot five shots from right over him.
IMHO, that tape pretty much told the story; the story he told newspapers and police was wildly different, claiming he had both guns at once, and was firing wih both hands. He was not put on the stand at trial.
The other robber pled guilty to murder, since someone died during his armed robbery.

__________________
Science plus Art

more to the (hollow) point "take two of these and DONT call me in the morning"

__________________
it just needs more voltage

None . . . who know the facts and understand the dynamics of the case . . . .

I would appeal and plead temporary insanity plus get a better lawyer. Of course "I" wouldn't have done what he did and I wouldn't use a "Judge" for self defense either. The Judge is not a good shotgun and not a good revolver yet everyone who owns one loves it. Probably because they have never gotten in to a gun fight with one.

?????? What would a "better" lawyer have done differently??????? BTW you cannot change your plea on appeal

__________________
Forum consigliere

The shooting is shown from three angles here:

LiveLeak.com - Raw Surveillance; Pharmacist Shoots Armed Robber, Was Charged With Murder

Nothing graphic, but you can see why the jury came to the conclusion it did.

I suppose he could have made a case that the downed robber still posed a threat, but the nonchalant way he strolled past him on the way to get his second gun makes that a little hard to believe.

He would have been fine if he had stayed in the store and called the cops after shooting the first guy.

__________________
“What you got, ain’t new.”

This sure 'nuff looks like a murder to me, and I really can't imagine what a "better" lawyer might have done for this guy. Seems to me like he screwed himself, pure and simple. As the saying goes, "you can't make chicken soup out of chicken . . . ." Defense attorneys pretty much have to play the cards they're dealt, and this one wasn't dealt a good hand.

As to an appeal, most people just don't understand what happens on appeal. Appeals courts review the trial record to look for procedural errors or errors of law. They generally don't re-weigh the evidence, and they don't hear testimony or conduct trials. The defendant doesn't enter a new plea or get to change his old one. I'd say, absent a major blunder on the part of the trial judge (and that seems unlikely as, legally, this is a pretty run-of-the-mill murder case) this guy is probably going away for a very long time.

From a quick uneducated glance at Oklahoma law it looks like 1st Degree Manslaughter just about perfectly depicts the incident. Am I reading the below correctly?

"When perpetrated unnecessarily either while resisting an attempt by the person killed to commit a crime, or after such attempt shall have failed."

If anyone knows that address how to send that guy care packages in the prison mail I will be happy to send him stuff. While I understand the law, I applaud the fact that some scumbag won't be right back out on the streets in a few months. But I'm sure they will lock this guy away for a short stretch of forever. Sometimes the law hardly seems right to me.

We have that same sayin' down here 'cept it is chicken salad Nobody eats chicken soup down here if it's got chicken and juice in a bowl with rice it's called gumbo.

__________________
Forum consigliere

According to news reports, the jury was allowed to consider this as a lesser included charge, but they opted for murder instead. Not to second guess a jury, but it looks like they felt he had time and did in fact premeditate the killing before he shot the guy five more times. Bad decision on his part. And by the way, Caj, I truly do LOVE that gumbo!

In Rural Texas we have the "He Just Needed Killin' Laws" that cover situations like this.

I once worked a case where a man found his Doper next door neighbor in his garage stealing tools.
He kicked him out, but didn't call the police.
A while later, the good citizen man came back out to mow his lawn with his P226 in a holster. Doper comes over to "whip his ***". Man whips out P226 and shoots Doper three times in the chest, Doper flops to ground, Man shoots Doper three more times in the back.

We talked the DA into giving the Good Citizen Man 10 years Defered Aduciation Probation so that he could keep his guns, just couldn't buy any while on the Defered Probabtion.

Doper had fought Police on numerous occasions, history of family violence, tons of drug arrest and had kidnapped his eldery grandparents at gun point one time. A real Scum Bag Doper.

In the Plea Hearing before the Judge, the judge looked at me on the stand and ask "What do you think about the way he shot the deceased?" I looked at him (a former high school classmate) and said, "Your Honor, it looks like what we had was three up, three down, end of an inning to me." The Judge declared a recess till the laughing was over. Everybody knew the Dead Doper. That's how things are handled in Rural Texas.

Rule 303

I have given serious thought to moving to Texas.

"In all the confusion, I forgot to count - did I fire five or six times.Well, do you feel lucky...punk? Well do ya?"

I guess the pharmacist just got done watching Harry Callahan and was under the influence of what justice should be..and not what is, unless your in Texas (God Bless Texas)

After reading the news coverage since day one, I think some of the lies that he told early on shot his credibility and anything he or his attorney said was not accepted.
I don't agree with the 1st degree murder conviction and the life sentence. Many people, not in the process of being robbed, have committed murder and have been sentenced to much shorter terms.
I think he should have been convicted of manslaughter and sentenced accordingly.

__________________
Mighty 90's,Trying 4 a 100!

Well, maybe if he would have been using a Taurus Public Defender he would have a better outcome. Personally, I think his lawyer should have told him to use a Smith. Another good reason not to buy one of those Taurus ugly guns, he had to get his backup to finish the job.

__________________
Vaya con Dios

The guy deserves a medal. If somebody runs into a store pointing a gun, they deserve what ever comes to them.

Judge says to defendent.... Why did you shoot him 6 times?? Defendent : Its all my gun held....

Not to defend the guy, but I lost a friend in 1984 that shot a man in the line of duty. He knew the man was down for the count and directed his attention to the man's accomplice. The downed individual regained some movement and began reaching for a gun while on the ground. He got the gun before the officer could see or reach him. My friend caught a bullet in the neck fired by a wounded subject on the ground.

In the Oklahoma case, I would say manslaughter would be more correct than homicide.

They should give the pharmacist a break, Im sure it was a gun malfunction

Question for the legal eagles here:

Would the Heat of the Blood be a factor here? Often times things become more intense under pressure of the moment. Heat of the Blood is often used in domestic shootings.

I never understood how the forensic guys(without seeing any proof in the video) could prove "beyond a shadow of a doubt" that the perp was unconscious and not a threat, but he wasn't dead when he was shot the second time. If he was dead then it would not be murder to "finish off" a corps?

And that is why I never get selected to jury duty. I think they can see it in my face. I don't even have to be asked questions. But then I don't play poker either. I would love be the guy that says, "We the jury find the defendant not guilty and move to have today granted as a local holiday celebrating him making the streets one crackhead safer for all of us..."

That's what I was thinking a lawyer could have done differently was to convince the jury it wasn't premeditated, which I thought usually required a more significant time period than the heat of the moment involving a crime being committed against a person. I suppose the guy just appeared way too calm and deliberate in the video. Heck... I get more agitated when the paperboy throws my Sunday edition under the car than that guy looked when he strolled over to the kid and unloaded.

Shoulda said "He made a move and I feared for my safety."

...it works all the time...

I would have given the store owner a pass or not-guilty.

Yea, he apparently did "off" the perp on the ground but they started the encounter. Had it been the other way around little would have been added to the gunmen if caught. This is why I really do not trust the legal system or juries.

And if that is the fact, then they were right.

FWIW, unless you can demonstrate that the jurors violated their oaths (as was/is common in some areas, unfortunately) I do not disagree with a jury's verdict nor its sentence (where juries impose sentences).
It's too easy to second guess.
That's why, on appeal, they don't say the jury made a mistake. If there is a mistake in the trial, it is the judge's.
(Cajunlawyer knows about the phrases, "the quick-thinking officer," and, "the learned judge".

__________________
and what his trumpet saith

Did he not know his actions were on camera?

Premeditation can, in theory, be formed in an instant - there's no set period of time required. I didn't follow the news reports and so am only guessing, but I would assume the defense did try to argue there was no premeditation, that he killed the guy in the heat of the moment. The jury was allowed to consider the issue and, if they thought the evidence supported it, could have found no premeditation and convicted him of manslaughter. Again, only surmising here, but I think you're right about the defendant's apparent attitude. The fact that the bad guy was unarmed when he was shot on the floor probably didn't help either. It looked like the pharmacist took all the time in the world to saunter over to the counter, get another gun and shoot the guy (I won't call him a "victim"). Legally, there was plenty of time for premeditation, and it's apparent the jury thought that was the case. That was the jury's decision, not the judge's. Juries decide the facts after they hear the evidence and they decide whether to convict and what to convict for. That is not a decision the judge makes.

I have a lot of respect for juries, actually. When I tried cases as a lawyer, that was not so much the case but after 15 years of God-knows-how-many jury trials both civil and criminal on the bench, I can think of only one case where I got a verdict I disagreed with. Juries generally take their service very seriously - more so than many of the lawyers - and the decisions they have to make are often very difficult for them. I talk to every jury after every trial, and they are emotionally drained. I never bad mouth juries any more. It's tough duty, especially for people who aren't used to being "in the system."

What he did was fine... until he went from self-defense to murder. No excuse. Good verdict.

__________________
<><

The extra rounds in the perp were probably uncalled for . . . but I personally don't have a problem with him doing it. I agree that when you endeavor to commit armed robbery, all bets are off on your well being. Frankly, being a crook can be a dangerous way to make a living.

__________________
- Change it back -

The thoughts/opinions of some of the above posters are, frankly, very scary. Wow!

Be safe.

I'll drink to that. The pharmicist is the only person alive that knows for certain whether the robber on the floor was still a threat. Since a split second of time and being a better shot was the only differences that put the robber down instead of the pharmicist, I really don't care what his demeanor was when he administered the coup de grace. A store keeper killed an armed robber...end of story. The downed robber is not visible in the video, so if I'm on the jury, that's all the reasonable doubt I need to vote not guilty.

The reality that the punk would have been right back out on the streets again in no time scares me a whole lot more.

At the risk of offending some here, if all I have been able to ascertain regarding this case is correct, the man commited murder. Premeditation is inferred, at least to me, when he retrieved the second gun and shot the guy on the floor. We as responsible advocates of our 2nd amendment rights constantly talk about how we are responsible, law abiding and so forth. As I see this, the man commited murder. YMMV

Clearly Murder.

That’s why it’s so important to do it right the first time with as many rounds as possible from as large of firearm as possible.

And it shows why doing the right thing after a good shoot is as important as what you do before. He went from good shoot to murder. Not very smart.

Emory

Nobody would be dead, no-one shot...

If the two punks stayed at home.

The only "Victim" here is the pharmacist. He didn't plan his day around shooting someone to death.

The two perps put him in that position. They stayed out of his store, didn't' threaten his life .... They would still be fine.

Instead, their choices put him in a untenable position.....not of his choosing. He didn't ask for this...he just responded.

__________________
Non gratum anus rodentum

I have to agree with Gizamo. The man was minding his "business".
They came in looking for trouble and got more than they could handle.

I think they started it, and he finished it. I feel sorry for the phamacist not the "bad guys".

There is allot more I can say but it won't change anybody's mind, one way or the other.

__________________
JIM
NRA Pistol Instr

Never, Never, underestimate the power of adrenalin. It can save your butt, and it can make you over react. Macho statements even under a stressful situation just might come back to haunt you. What did they say during the 2nd.world war.."Loose Lips Sink Ships" In the 60's the proprietor would have probably been given a award...Not now. Times change...But that was in the 60's the perp was probably denied mothers milk or something.....Misunderstood I'm sure ???????

You nailed it.

Not too long ago the government identified really bad people and paid cash dead or alive for them. Today you kill a person that presents deadly force and your likely the one in trouble and having to explain yourself. Usually to people that were never in that situation of have zero concept of the basic principal of who started it and made all the bad decisions.

It matters little if your a Dr. or a Border Patrol agent. Criminals have a LOT more rights than they deserve.

Speaking of BP agents the guy acted exactly like charlie askins. In charlies day you got away with it and probley got a accomination. In todays world both would be cell mates. We are in a nanny sistem. Now if the pharmacist would have wept and fell apart that he was so scared the poor misfortuned. misunderstood miscrant was going to wake up and harm him and that he was ashamed of himself that out of fear he shot him, he probley would have got off, or very little time.
Do not gloat if you win!

I feel that it was murder. The shooter went from crime victim to criminal.

That said, my sympathy doesn't go to the deceased but to the shooter and his family. Their lives have been changed forever.

Tough choices...


Be a victim of two potential murderers and lay Down and die...or make a decision to be judged by Twelve....

Or carried by Six.

Again, he was not lookin for this. They came for him.

__________________
Non gratum anus rodentum

Guilty as found, fry him.