[Mbodell]

Codo, on Jun 21 2009, 10:40 PM, said:

So, I strongly disagree with the view that the first shot was okay. But I accept that this is American reality, because all Americans seem to agree with the first shot.

I agree. I think there would be an interesting ethical debate about the first shot. I'm not sure I agree the first shot is justified, but I'm not sure I disagree. I'd need more information, because for me it would come down to weighing was it just property at risk, or was the safety and lives of those in the pharmacy also at risk and if so, to what degree. But running outside after someone and the later shots are clearly wrong.

[mike777]

Again it helps to hear both sides before deciding. For instance it seems the robbers pointed a gun at the head of the pharmacist. In the heat of the moment did he think there was a second gun, movement or threat, I dont know.



"So, I strongly disagree with the view that the first shot was okay. But I accept that this is American reality, because all Americans seem to agree with the first shot."


It is interesting that some posters think it was ok to fire the first shot and others thought it should be against the law.


video


http://www.youtube.c...h?v=YHshsgpsxFg

[Gerben42]

My assessment is that the judge will rule that the pharmacist was not in his normal state of mind when he shot the robber again. I know I wouldn't be. People who would be able to think after they just shot someone like that scare me.

Otherwise, agree with Codo. Somehow this whole episode does not show much confidence that the legal system will catch the guy and compensate the pharmacist for his material loss as well as his psychological damage.

What's more interesting is a case where the robber dies some time after being shot, and the pharmacist might have saved him by taking quicker action of some sort (first aid, might have called an ambulance more quickly, fill in the gaps).

[vuroth]

I agree that, by American law, the first shot was probably ok.

By American law, I think the other 5 shots COULD be ok, but probably are not. If he turned his back on the teenager and walked/ran away, he obviously didn't think he was a threat. Certainly, the teenager on the ground COULD have still been a threat, but I agree that the story seems a bit fishy.

If the teenager was truly still a threat after having been shot, maybe a second shot could have become reasonable at some point. Even if you accept this, it doesn't explain the next 4 shots.

V

[helene_t]

Codo, on Jun 22 2009, 07:40 AM, said:

So, I strongly disagree with the view that the first shot was okay. But I accept that this is American reality, because all Americans seem to agree with the first shot.

I dunno.

First, saying that the first shot was not a legal offense is not the same as saying it was "OK".

Second, we don't know the circumstances. Had he reason to feel threatened?

[Lobowolf]

He's guilty of something, for sure. The question is whether it is murder or a lesser offense. The other five shots are not "ok" per American law, but there may be a question as to whether they constitute murder. With respect to Gerben's post, the state of mind of the pharmacist will be a jury question.

[jdonn]

It seems horribly dangerous to me to let him off for murder due to his state of mind after what happened. That seems to give a free pass to anyone to kill anyone who tries to commit a crime against them.

[mikeh]

Nice touch... now he's a cripple in fear for his life because the kid he shot in the head is talking and apparently capable of some limited movement. Some cripple... able to pull one of his loaded guns, accurately shot a kid in the head at a moment of stress, and to pursue a fleeing robber out of the store and then to return, select another of his guns and fire 5 shots at point blank range into the semi-conscious (at best) teenager.

Do we all like the 'brace' he's wearing in the photos from court? I wonder if he was wearing that brace, in that manner, when he shot the kid?

And what is this about not telling how many guns he owned? Sounds like he is worried that maybe revealing the full extent of his arsenal may make him look less sympathetic.

Americans and their love of guns. Especially, and oddly, a lot of christians and their guns... do any of them truly believe that Jesus would have shot and killed this kid? Really?

I can see the old testament horror of a diety advocating shooting defenceless kids, but are christians not supposed to be new testament believers? Whose god was in that store saving the pharmacist and mandating the killing of the would-be robber? The pharmacist seems to think it was his christian god, and, apparently, many agree with him. Isn't that a sick religious belief structure?

Up here, the advice of any responsible police officer would be to give the kids what they want, and let the police deal with it.... not to begin acting like Charles Bronson. What if he had missed his first shot... the bullet would likely have exited the store, perhaps killing an innocent bystander. Would that have been worth it?

[blackshoe]

Helene, if two people came into your store and said "This is a robbery. Give us all your money" wouldn't you feel threatened?

If one (or both) of the robbers "waved a gun in the pharmacist's face" then the threat, it seems to me, is even greater.

"Loaded" is an assumption. Probably correct, but it doesn't matter. Proper gun safety procedure is to assume all guns are loaded until proven otherwise. Anyway, what difference does it make how many guns were in the store? Maybe there was one by every cash register. So what?

Given the positions of the two robbers when the first shots were fired, it doesn't seem likely the pharmacist was aiming at the guy who had the gun, which makes no sense to me. Most likely he was "spraying and praying", which is typical of people who don't really know what they're doing. Either that, or he took a couple of shots at the gun-toter, missed, and switched to the other guy — who for all he could know, also had a gun.

Gerben: I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think the judge gets to make that determination on his own. It would be part of Erslan's defense, presented to the jury, and the jury would decide. Maybe I'm wrong.

[helene_t]

blackshoe, on Jun 22 2009, 06:03 PM, said:

Helene, if two people came into your store and said "This is a robbery. Give us all your money" wouldn't you feel threatened?

I don't know the circumstances.

One extreme: The robber had a gun (or pretended to have one), while he was distracted for a second the pharmacist managed to get his gun and shoot the robber a fraction of a sec before he would (or thought he would) otherwise have been short himself.

Other extreme: The robber appeared to be a harmless moron. The pharmacist slowly picked up his gun and aimed it at the robber while the robber was standing at some five meters distance with open mouth, stottering "don't shoot", then the pharmacist shot him.

I suppose what happened was somewhere in between.

[luke warm]

mikeh, on Jun 22 2009, 11:45 AM, said:

I can see the old testament horror of a diety advocating shooting defenceless kids, but are christians not supposed to be new testament believers? Whose god was in that store saving the pharmacist and mandating the killing of the would-be robber? The pharmacist seems to think it was his christian god, and, apparently, many agree with him. Isn't that a sick religious belief structure?

you're right

[blackshoe]

helene_t, on Jun 22 2009, 12:17 PM, said:

I suppose what happened was somewhere in between.

Did you watch the surveillance video?

It is not entirely clear to me that what we're told by the talking head that we're seeing is what the video actually shows in all aspects, but it is clear that one of the robbers was brandishing what appears to be a gun, and the pharmacist did get his own gun and start firing in the general direction of both robbers. It does not look to me like the one who had the gun shot back - he simply ran. But my point was that the mere act of walking into a store and stating that you're robbing the place is a threat. You postulate that the threat may not be credible. That's a straw man.

[Lobowolf]

I don't remember whether the felony-murder rule applies to criminals working in concert. My recollection is that it does, but I don't practice criminal law. The gist of the rule is that even if you didn't kill someone yourself, if you're involved in an inherently dangerous felony (armed robbery certainly qualifies) during the course of which someone dies, you're on the hook for murder. For instance, if the if the robber who got away had killed the pharmacist, the unarmed robber could be charged with murder. The upshot it, unless there's an exception when it's a "non-innocent" party who dies, the robber who got away could be charged with murder here, too. There may be an exception, though, based on a rationale that the one who was shot put himself in danger by going in on an armed robbery.

[Winstonm]

Lobowolf, on Jun 22 2009, 04:12 PM, said:

I don't remember whether the felony-murder rule applies to criminals working in concert.  My recollection is that it does, but I don't practice criminal law.  The gist of the rule is that even if you didn't kill someone yourself, if you're involved in an inherently dangerous felony (armed robbery certainly qualifies) during the course of which  someone dies, you're on the hook for murder.  For instance, if the if the robber who got away had killed the pharmacist, the unarmed robber could be charged with murder.  The upshot it, unless there's an exception when it's a "non-innocent" party who dies, the robber who got away could be charged with murder here, too.  There may be an exception, though, based on a rationale that the one who was shot put himself in danger by going in on an armed robbery.

Oklahoma statute law added a few years ago that it was legal to defend your home with deadly force; then another bill made that action legal at work and in some other settings.

So far, two other men have been arrested in connection with this robbery and charged with murder - as you correctly state, the fact that someone died during the commission of this robbery makes this a murder charge for anyone involved in committing the crime.

[onoway]

sooo Some guys try to rob a store, but run away without hurting anyone. They could be convicted of murder.
Someone else shot a wouldbe robber, left the scene, then returned and searched out a new weapon so he could shoot the unconscious injured man five times in the belly, and he may well walk off scott free.
Bizarre

[mike777]

onoway, on Jun 22 2009, 06:16 PM, said:

sooo  Some guys try to rob a store, but run away without hurting anyone. They could be convicted of murder.
Someone else shot a wouldbe robber, left the scene, then returned and searched out a new weapon so he could shoot the unconscious injured man five times in the belly, and he may well walk off scott free.
Bizarre

Actually someone was seriously hurt before anyone ran away...


Again we do not know if the guy was unconscious or what, your facts be correct or incorrect.

Again he may have reached for a second gun to protect himself from the armed guy coming back, again you seem to assume facts that at this point are guesses....

At the very least make the state prove that your set of facts are in fact true. We do not know any of this from the video.
1) Was the guy unconscious or a threat, I dont know.
2) Did the guy grab the second gun with the intent "(so could shoot)" the guy on the floor no matter what? I dont know.

[Winstonm]

Quote

2) Did the guy grab the second gun with the intent "(so could shoot)" the guy on the floor no matter what? I dont know

I am fairly certain, though, that he did not grab the gun in order to offer it up as a sacrifice for his sins - although he did pony up his guns later to pay his attorney's fees.

[Winstonm]

jdonn, on Jun 22 2009, 11:42 AM, said:

It seems horribly dangerous to me to let him off for murder due to his state of mind after what happened. That seems to give a free pass to anyone to kill anyone who tries to commit a crime against them.

You have just reached the core issue in belief systems: rightness or wrongness does not depend on the what, but on the who. (Or maybe not The Who but The Doors: People are strange.)

[mike777]

Winstonm, on Jun 22 2009, 06:37 PM, said:

jdonn, on Jun 22 2009, 11:42 AM, said:

It seems horribly dangerous to me to let him off for murder due to his state of mind after what happened. That seems to give a free pass to anyone to kill anyone who tries to commit a crime against them.

You have just reached the core issue in belief systems: rightness or wrongness does not depend on the what, but on the who. (Or maybe not The Who but The Doors: People are strange.)

Yes, just to repeat, drive drunk as a skunk and kill someone with your expensive car...if famous football player only get 30 days in jail.

[Lobowolf]

jdonn, on Jun 22 2009, 11:42 AM, said:

It seems horribly dangerous to me to let him off for murder due to his state of mind after what happened. That seems to give a free pass to anyone to kill anyone who tries to commit a crime against them.

See also: Battered Woman's Syndrome and the "cultural defense."