OKC pharmacist convicted of murder in killing robbery suspect

[skymiles 3]

Do you agree with the verdict? If not, why?

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20066839-504083.html

[wsd 0]

If he was no longer a threat you can't keep shooting him.

[Glitch 0]

I voted yes, but ONLY because he went back to the perp afterwards and finished him off (I can only assume so that the perp wouldn't be able to testify against him...). Killing him outright during the holdup, no problem. Killing him afterwards if the perp was trying to cause more harm (ie reaching for his weapon), no problem. Calmly emptying the gun into him as he lies helpless on the floor... problem.

YMMV.

Randomly f'n thingies up since before I was born...

[mirage62 0]

Although he claimed the guy was moving and you can't see what happens on the video...I'd have to say he could have most likely not shot him again.

The entire thing was on video so shooting him to keep him from testifying against him doesn't seem to hold water.

I have zero sympathy for crooks and killing him doesn't bother me one little bit but the threat looks over and he wasn't carrying a gun (I believe)

Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little

[wsd 0]

I watched the video, yeah he was an asshole for going back and finishing him off, he was not a threat and you can tell from the calm manner in which the pharmacist acted.

[diverborg 0]

Edited after watching video...

I'm going to assume the jury had more evidence than that video based on photographs and forensics of perhaps the offenders position when he was finished off. Edited again... found out the dead kid was unarmed.

Given the circumstances though if he unnecessarily went back to ensure the kid was dead, manslaughter would have been a more appropriate conviction. This guys lawyer must've sucked. Murder in any degree seems a tad extreme for a situation that began as self-defense from two armed robbers regardless of the final outcome.

[oldwomanc6 52]

Quote

I watched the video, yeah he was an asshole for going back and finishing him off, he was not a threat and you can tell from the calm manner in which the pharmacist acted.

I would say that his calm manner doesn't say anything about the threat or lack thereof. People act in different manners, some are calm during and then melt down. Some are more evidently agitated during and then calm down afterwards.

lisa
WSCR 594
FB 1023
CBDB 9

[wsd 0]

I was referring to turning his back, leaving the store, returning, turning his back, retrieving another handgun and slowly walking over to finish him off.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Given the circumstances though if he unnecessarily went back to ensure the kid was dead, manslaughter would have been a more appropriate conviction. This guys lawyer must've sucked.

See, you were doing so well until you took a little detour and started not knowing what the fuck you were talking about.

Oh, and no, I'm not just "standing up for lawyers". You really don't know what you're talking about.

[diverborg 0]

LOL, not gonna disagree with you, my only knowledge of criminal law comes from watching Law and Order. I did serve jury duty once, but it was a civil trial.

I understand you're a lawyer, so from a legal perspective do you feel a murder charge is more appropriate than manslaughter?

The reason I wonder is because have a relative that served 11 years on a manslaughter charge for a situation that seemed less ambiguous than this one. But he probably just had a "real good" lawyer.

[nanook 1]

Agree big time. If the Armed Service can't do this, no way in hell should some civilian be able to do it.

_____________________________

"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln

[scruffy 0]

From Okahoma Penal Code TITLE 21 § 1289.25:

"A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked...has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself"

Turning your back and walking away from someone pretty much ends any argument that you believed a treat to your life existed. I didn't read anywhere in there about it being acceptable behavior to go get another gun and put 5 pills in a wounded assailant, in fact that only demonstrates malice and thereby satisfying the criteria for 1st degree murder in Oklahoma.

The jury got it right.

Peace, love and hoppiness

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

From Okahoma Penal Code TITLE 21 § 1289.25:

"A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked...has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself"

Turning your back and walking away from someone pretty much ends any argument that you believed a treat to your life existed. I didn't read anywhere in there about it being acceptable behavior to go get another gun and put 5 pills in a wounded assailant, in fact that only demonstrates malice and thereby satisfying the criteria for 1st degree murder in Oklahoma.

The jury got it right.

1st degree? I am not so sure about that. Admittedly the decision was made when he went for the other gun, but is that not part of the entire event. If that was premeditated then isn't the space between 3rd degree (manslaughter) and 1st degree getting a bit thin?

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

1st degree? I am not so sure about that. Admittedly the decision was made when he went for the other gun, but is that not part of the entire event.

That's why there are juries.

There may be an appeal on grounds (among other things) that the evidence could not have sustained a conviction for 1st degree, but only, at the most, 3rd degree. I'd predict that the appellate courts will probably reject that argument.

[piisfish 140]

Quote

I didn't read anywhere in there about it being acceptable behavior to go get another gun and put 5 pills in a wounded assailant,

maybe he was already dead and the pharmacist wanted to kill him just a bit more....

scissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM

[shropshire 0]

The kid got what he deserved and so did the Pharmacist.

Defense - O.K .. Summary justice - not

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[jclalor 12]

What is up with all the armed Pharmacist lately?

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

What is up with all the armed Pharmacist lately?

Can you blame them for being armed? Their entire clientelle uses drugs.

[usedtajump 1]

Wonder if he ever refused to give a lady the morning after pill?

The older I get the less I care who I piss off.

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

What is up with all the armed Pharmacist lately?

They sell some pretty popular recreational drugs, particularly OxyContin. I'm guessing they get a lot of drug addicts and/or dealers robbing them.

[DougH 270]

It was a bad shot.

The Pharmacist after defending himself with a good shot, went and shot the kid when he was down on the ground. He got the verdict he deserved.

The kid, unarmed or not, would still be alive if he didn't take part in an armed robbery. The kid got what was coming to him.

"The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall"
=P