Self defense or Murder? - UPDATED VIDEO LINK

[Bliz]

What he did was wrong but the punishment is way out of line with my idea of justice. The guy killed someone that very likely intended to kill him. He crossed the line when he shot him the second time... but he isn't a threat to society and there is no social interest in him being in prison for the rest of his life. It wasn't planned and innocent people are in no danger with him living in their neighborhood.

Well, it does say he's eligible for parole. I don't believe anyone thinks he will actually serve time in prison for the rest of his life. Just a question of how quickly he becomes eligible.

[Chachie]

Perhaps. I have little sympathy too, but I am not entirely without compassion. Those kids are likely without fathers or have absent fathers and in a very poor environment without structure. I'm not going to excuse their actions certainly, but I also am not going to say they're soulless garbage unworthy of redemption either. I would not give the pharmacist life, but he would do significant prison time.

CB- If they were shoplifting or vandalizing, I'd agree with you. They were using deadly force for armed robbery. That's pretty soulless.

However, I do think the storekeeper should do very significant prison time. The first shot was self-defense. The next 5 shots were murder.

[TimmySmith]

Well, it does say he's eligible for parole. I don't believe anyone thinks he will actually serve time in prison for the rest of his life. Just a question of how quickly he becomes eligible.

A rule of thumb is people become eligible after 1/3 of a sentence, so if the guy is 59, he should be eligible in about 4-5 years.

I could not find him guilty of murder unless I knew for sure that the first shot did not kill him. That would be my burden of proof. Even then, a life sentence is a bit extreme.

[twa]

Make sure they are dead from the start....a lesson learned

[Pick6]

The guy he shot didn't have a weapon. So he was the least of the two threats and the old man came back and shot him on the ground. Cops have to stop shooting once the suspect hits the ground. I think the biggest issue here was coming back into the store, going to the back of the store, and coming back to finish the job. That shows some intent of vengance, not I am threatened by this person.

[twa]

The guy he shot didn't have a weapon. So he was the least of the two threats and the old man came back and shot him on the ground. Cops have to stop shooting once the suspect hits the ground. I think the biggest issue here was coming back into the store, going to the back of the store, and coming back to finish the job. That shows some intent of vengance, not I am threatened by this person.

Musta missed on the vid where he searched him before he shot him

I agree his actions demonstrate a agitated and disturbed state of mind brought on by a crime threatening deadly force,but attempting to hold him to a standard of trained LEO's seems unfair.

a bad day at work alltogether

[Bliz]

Musta missed on the vid where he searched him before he shot him

I agree his actions demonstrate a agitated and disturbed state of mind brought on by a crime threatening deadly force,but attempting to hold him to a standard of trained LEO's seems unfair.

a bad day at work alltogether

If you disagree with over a century of American jurisprudence so strongly, perhaps you should petition your legislator to broaden self-defense.

His agitated state of mind, the fact of the robbery, the timing, every bit of it goes into the determination. And a jury of his peers found enough to convict him. I'm sure at least a few people in that room went in with a mindset not to.

[twa]

it's already pretty broad here

I'll put my trust in my aim and my peers while I take care of my business

add

btw how long was slavery supported by American jurisprudence?

[Larry]

Musta missed on the vid where he searched him before he shot him

Musta missed the law that says it's only murder if I shoot an unconscious, unarmed, person after searching him.

[Big Blue Joe]

If you disagree with over a century of American jurisprudence so strongly, perhaps you should petition your legislator to broaden self-defense.

Since it was a state law that the pharmacist was convicted of, I'm not really sure what twa's petition would accomplish. But regardless, doesn't the legal standard for self-defense vary from state to state?

[Pick6]

Musta missed on the vid where he searched him before he shot him

I agree his actions demonstrate a agitated and disturbed state of mind brought on by a crime threatening deadly force,but attempting to hold him to a standard of trained LEO's seems unfair.

a bad day at work alltogether

Okay, I said that, because he wasn't brandishing a weapon, like the other suspect in the red shirt. I really don't know how you can defend a guy, who goes and gets another gun, and comes back to the front of the store to finish the job. I don't think it deserves life in prison, but he should get at least the minimum for manslaughter.

[Da'uud]

he had a clear shot from the phone if dude tried to make a move... didn't have to do that.... that being said I don't think he should get more than 10 years

[twa]

Okay, I said that, because he wasn't brandishing a weapon, like the other suspect in the red shirt. I really don't know how you can defend a guy, who goes and gets another gun, and comes back to the front of the store to finish the job. I don't think it deserves life in prison, but he should get at least the minimum for manslaughter.

I can defend him because his mental state was effected by events beyond his control and not of his choosing...he didn't go to work to shoot the punk

the minimum for manslaughter is more reasonable

[Larry]

I don't think it deserves life in prison, but he should get at least the minimum for manslaughter.

I lived in Oklahoma, a few years back. Still have friends there. And a few of them said that the fact that the guy's been lying more often than Fox News, between the shooting and the trial, really didn't help him win many friends on the jury.

Things like claiming to have military experience and awards, that he doesn't have.

Now me, I don't think that things like that ought to be a factor in a trial.

OTOH, I can also see the argument that, when the accused's defense is "I thought that unconscious man on the floor was a threat", then the accused's credibility certainly is a factor.

Edit: And, supposedly, the DA offered the guy a plea deal to a lesser charge, and the idiot turned him down. Apparently the guy thought that he would get acquitted.

[Bliz]

add

btw how long was slavery supported by American jurisprudence?

Good grief.

Since it was a state law that the pharmacist was convicted of, I'm not really sure what twa's petition would accomplish. But regardless, doesn't the legal standard for self-defense vary from state to state?

Yes, it does vary state to state. But I'm pretty sure that even in Texas this wouldn't qualify. So if twa thinks it's such an injustice, act locally to make sure the good people of Texas are not subjected to such harsh rules

[Larry]

Yes, it does vary state to state. But I'm pretty sure that even in Texas this wouldn't qualify

Well, now, remember. There's places in the US where "He needed killin" is considered a legal justification.

(Granted, I'm pretty certain that Oklahoma is one of those places, though. They just didn't think it applied in this case.)

[scruffylookin]

Absolutely this was a murder unless it could have been proved that the first shot was fatal.

Otherwise the guy calmly walked back to the store, went around the counter and then CALMLY walked to the guy and shot him over and over. There was nothing in the killer's behavior prior to delivering the multiple shots to indicate he saw the guy try and get up or make a move or anything.

He looked like a guy who felt that because the guy tried to rob his store, he had a right to execute him.

[TimmySmith]

Absolutely this was a murder unless it could have been proved that the first shot was fatal.

The defense does not have to prove the first shot was fatal, they merely need to imply that it was or could have been. Then the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove it wasn't fatal. I'll assume they covered this in the trial. It sounds like the pharmacist did not help himself any step of the way.