I am not sure if whe went too far. Almost dead can lift up and pull a trigger but completely dead cannot.

 

True but if he had enough time to go pick up a second gun then he could have restrained the guy on the ground, patted him down and secured the scene. Frankly the shots to the abdomen were murder. He disabled and stopped the assailant with the first shot and the rest were to kill not to defend.

 

From what is written, he never checked to make sure the person no longer had a weapon. He plainly grabbed another gun and fired 5 rounds into the abdomen. That's beyond self defense. If you can see a person lying on the ground enough to aim and hit them 5 times, you have the time to see if there is still a threat.

 

Unfortunately, if what is written is correct, this pharmacist is indeed a murderer. After the head shot, with the bad guy on the ground, the best thing would've been to disarm the BG, and get the customers to safety. Even putting ONE more round into him without first attempting to disarm him would have been questionable. But 5? That makes two bad guys.

 

Then we have a lot of murdering cops!

They triple tap automatically, is that overkill when the first shot is justified?

He did what he should have done, that guy will not rob anyone else!:thumb:

Watching the video of the shooter he sounds mentally challenged-If I was him ( a disabled veteran) I would bring PTSD and a "flashback" from military action.

 

I do not think that it should be an issue.

The guy did not choose to put himself in that position. He was put there but two dumbasses who tried to rob his pharmacy.

Deadly force is deadly force. If he was justified pulling the trigger the first time, he was justified in pulling the trigger the next five times. Is it not taught in pistol defense classes that you pull the trigger until the bad guy stops moving?

All bets were off after the first shot was fired in self defence.

The shop keep (pharmacist) did what he had to do to protect the life and property of those around him.

So, he finished off the POS. Good riddance.

Hopefully the grand jury will no bill him.

 

I do not think that it should be an issue.

The guy did not choose to put himself in that position. He was put there but two dumbasses who tried to rob his pharmacy.

Deadly force is deadly force. If he was justified pulling the trigger the first time, he was justified in pulling the trigger the next five times. Is it not taught in pistol defense classes that you pull the trigger until the bad guy stops moving?

All bets were off after the first shot was fired in self defence.

The shop keep (pharmacist) did what he had to do to protect the life and property of those around him.

So, he finished off the POS. Good riddance.

Hopefully the grand jury will no bill him.

Amen. But even if he avoids criminal chrages, he'll be sued into poverty by the family. The lawyers will tell the jury about what a "good kid" he really was...driven to the streets by a corrupt "system", a troubled economy, and the perception "that he had no choice but to resort to crime".

 

This guy is toast.

There was no imminent danger or risk of great bodily harm.

He removed that risk when one guy ran from the store and he incapacitated the other.

At that point he was not in risk.

He could have walked away at that point.

He retrieved a second gun, went back to the guy and shot 5 times.

The coroner said those were the shots that killed him.

Thats murder in the 1st gang.

Maybe he can get a good job working in the hospital wing of the local prison.

He'll be there for a long time.

 

yup Im all for self defence but when when they've been shot 5 times after being shot in the head Excessive!!!

 

Dead is not excessive! in a armed robbery, it is the way it needs to end.

This poor boy just needed something for a head ache" and got it!

 

He didn't go too far, but he did make the mistake of being caught at it.

 

Yep he should have put the rounds in the perp immediately after the first one. It would have then been a non-issue.

 

Morally I don't see anything wrong with what he did. The ******* shouldn't have tried to rob his story.

But legally... he's screwed.

 

I think he did what was right. There was a threat, he took care of business. Any self respecting person, I hope, would react similarly to protect him/her self, as well as their business and customers/employees.

I'm hoping he gets off no problem!

 

Reread what is above and think about it. As stated by myself, VCGTV, etc., the threat was taken care of when he fired the round into the perps head. When you leave the scene then return and execute the person, its murder.

 

This is a tough call, but he should be charged with something. I think, however, that charging the pharmacist with 1st degree murder is going too far.

IF it is proven (as the surveillance video suggests) that the pharmacist shot one robber, went away and then later came back and pumped five more bullets into the guy even though he was still on the floor and without a gun (i.e. no obvious threat), then I would call that overkill and pre-meditate attempted murder.

I agree with the DA there that the matter of timing around the shooting is the key issue here. If the pharmacist had shot the robber six times all in a row, it would clearly be self-defense. Delaying the shooting with no apparent further threat from the perpetrator is something else, but not self-defense after the second shooting.

It's one of those tough calls that will give a jury much to think about. I'm glad I'm not on that jury.

 

One thing is for sure, that punk will not rob anyone else.

 

I would like to know what calibre firearm was used by the pharmacist? If the guy who was shot in the head was to live, it would be on the publics dime, whether he was incarcerated or turned into a vegitable or quadrapalegic. Bottom line IMHO, armed robbers have no rights once they bring out a weapon, thats a serious threat to personal safety and property. I agree 5 shots was a little much, he should have had a larger calibre weapon like a .45 handgun, one shot to the head and game over.

 

No such thing as excessive deadly force in a self defence situation.
For all this guy knew the guy could have been reaching in his jacket for another weapon.
(this would be MY story)
If you are being confronted with a gun you have two choices, they are die or kill.

I hope he gets let off, I for one would hang the jury till the apocalypse if need be.
The man did nothing wrong, he was confronted with a deadly situation and he used deadly force to rectify the situation.

 

For all this guy knew the guy could have been reaching in his jacket for another weapon..

This is not mentioned in the story.

No matter how you roll it based on the story, he executed the guy after subduing him. If he had time to go outside, then change weapons, he had time to see if the perp was out or not. He was out for blood at this point.

 

i tryed to post the video....but it wont play for some reason...

 

Excessive? Maybe. Out of line? Absolutely not.

My 0.02 Ameros of course.


SOLIDUS

 

Oh for sure , 2nd degree Man or 1st but not 1st Degree murder , I hope gets sometime but hopefully no more than 6 months if any, but I still dont agree with shotting him when hes down,

 

IMHO you CAN NOT murder a criminal. They are scum who upon committing a crime lost the Constitution and its protections.

 

Your job is to protect you and those around you. As the story says he shot someone on the ground with no weapon on them. If this store owner felt threatened he would have moved himself and his customers to the back and called the cops after the dude was shot in the head and laying on the ground. First degree no, but second hell yes. If a cop did this we would be ripping him a new one right now.

 

I don't feel sorry for the Robber, now he won't get to prey upon anyone else, it's too bad that tape showed up.
Maybe they can find where the Pharmacist had a deprived childhood and let him off, but he will be screwed because criminals have all of the rights.

 

WOW! That's quite a quip from a self professed L.E. Firearms instructor. I too, was an L.E. Firearms instructor, and I understand what it's like to deal with street vermin day in and day out. But your statement indicates that you condone this type of behavior with deadly force in the guise of self defense.

As much as I abhor those who live outside of the law, I view with equal disdain, those who feel they are above it. The pharmacist went too far. As much as I can understand your personal point of view, I worry that conveying it in such a forum while wearing an L.E. Firearms instructor tag is less than appropriate.

My original question though, since I have been out of the Legal loop for a few years, is whether or not he had sufficient time to "premeditate" his actions with the second weapon. Did not the course of events happen quickly enough that he was still at some state of reactionary response and therefore, not even eligible for a 1st degree charge?

 

They showed the video on tv here. He did go too far. There were several seconds between the time the robber went down from the first bullet to the head and the pharmacist walking over to him and shooting another 5 rounds. Oklahoma concealed carry is different than other states. You have the right to defend yourself only as long as you are in imminent danger and feel threatened. When the suspect was laying on the ground unconscious he is no longer considered a threat (by the law). Now the pharmacist's lawyer can and probably will argue that he continued to feel threatened and was under physical and mental stress at the time causing him to feel in danger. That will have to come out in court. However, if you had seen the video, you would also question if he went too far according to Oklahoma law. I am not saying it is right or wrong. I am speaking only from the Oklahoma stand your ground law. (concealed carry)

ETA: After reading the rest of the posts... I am left to question something. Someone mentioned him running out of the store and coming back in to shoot the robber again? That was not shown in the video we saw on TV last night. What they showed on the news was him shooting, then about 5(?) seconds later walking over and calmly shooting the man while he lay on the ground. I guess the TV news edited the video heavily b/c it did not show him leaving and re-entering the store at all. How confusing.

 

This is interesting ... look at all of the surveillance videos on the Web when you type "pharmacist shooting video" into Google:

http://video.google.com/videosearch...rls=en-us&q=pharmacist shooting video&oe=UTF-8&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wv#

This would be a good compare-and-contrast with this latest Oklahoma City pharmacy shooting controversy.

Here is the latest news coverage form the local ABC station there. See the surveillance video in the upper right-hand corner of the page:

http://www.koco.com/news/19591573/detail.html

Edit: Sorry guys and galls, the goofs at KOCO-TV posted the weather forecast under the pharmacy shooting headline. I'm still looking for this video.

OK, here is a report from KOCO-TV with the actual surveillance video:

http://www.koco.com/video/19584268/index.html

 

I’m not sure what to feel in this case. I think the pharmacist went too far based on the news article. However, it’s impossible to determine who’s at fault as we don’t know how many rounds were fired during the first engagement.

Was the gun empty and he grabbed the second one to find that the bad guy was moving or twitching somehow? Got scared and shot him again? Or did he casually strut back into the store, grab a gun and finish the bad guy off? There’s a lot that can be said for the pharmacists body language in the video that will be revealed in court, if it goes that far.

I don’t feel bad for the bad guy because you place your bets and take your chances. That night, he lost. Big time. Though I think it was excessive.

I’ve been robbed multiple times. I’ve stuck up for my employees when the robber was being rude, if my company I worked for would have allowed me to carry, they’d be dead. You cannot possibly begin to even fathom what it feels like to be staring down the business end of a handgun, no matter what size it is. That is, until it happens to you. You are completely powerless, you have no rights. That person of questionable moral background has complete, 100% control over what you do, when you do it, if you live, if you die. It’s even worse when you know your gun is locked up in your car, 20 feet away through a brick wall. After a few robberies, I told one kid that if he didn’t have the gun, I’d beat his ass. When that happens, you’ve got every emotion except love and sympathy going through your head. If I would have been so ****ed off… Would I have chased a guy who had a 12 ga out of the store? Would I have told a guy that was hold a gun to my face that I’d kick his ass? Would I have chased a crack head who hit a mechanic in the head with a beer bottle? No and hopefully the jury realizes that in times of extreme stress, people do things that they wouldn’t do with a clear mind.

Note: I have not watched the video.

 

... No and hopefully the jury realizes that in times of extreme stress, people do things that they wouldn’t do with a clear mind.
...

Really.

Most everyone seems to be watching this like it was the next episode of CSI. "Yes, your honor, we impassionately watched the video and we know that the proper course of action is this and that so we happily condemn the man and look forward to the next episode."

In my book, the criminal get to go to the back of the line. Compassion is for victims.

 

He did render aid, he put him out of his misery.:thumb:

 

Two lessons here...
First, empty your gun into this BG right away
Second, if you don't want to get shot, don't rob stores....idiot

 

He should have learned to double tap. Problem solved.