-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
Oklahoma City pharmacist update - charged w/ murder
- Thread starter sleeplessknight
- Start date
?
The one shot that hit the kid in the head, rendering him unconscious on the floor didn't count?
+1 for that statement! the only problem is you'd never be on the jury. The first question you're gonna get asked during selection is going to deal with this issue.
W
wolf223
there is no gurantee that one head shot will kill instantly. i haven't watched the video yet, but shooting someone in the head is no guarantee unless they have been pronunced dead... i.e. not breathing, no twitching, all life saving attempts have been exhausted and the heart is no longer pumping blood to the vital organs. even with that, especially if they are on drugs... they can get right back up and keep fighting because their brain doesn't know they are dead yet... the brain can survive a couple-few minutes w/o oxygen too. -generally speaking...
None of which disagrees with what I said or has anything to do with what is seen in the video. Sigh.
Just watch the video. Please.
Last edited:
Garys
NES Member
Tactically you might be right, but medically you are wrong. The key indicator if a person is going to survive penetrating trauma of any type is their respiratory effort. Numerous studies have shown that respiratory effort, even without palpable pulses is a better predictor than pulses or anything else. That's the criteria we use for resuscitation of trauma patients, not twitching, which is purely reflexive or pulse or blood pressure.
The head shot victims I've seen who have survived have all been walking and talking at the scene, one didn't even know he'd been shot.
The way I see it, the pharmacist gave the perpetrator, the prescribed amount of lead!![[mg]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/036.gif "Machine Gun [mg]")
I think the general complaint is that it was an overdose [sad2]
I wonder how long it will be before that place gets robbed again.
![[thinking]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/010.gif "Thinking [thinking]")
Well, clearly the pharmacist went further than he "needed to" with 20/20 hindsight, but frankly, I hope the jury is able to put themselves in his position and realize that "reasonable" after the fact and "reasonable" at the time are not the same thing...
I am sure a MA jury would have him executed without trial, but I don't think murder is the right charge here nor would I be upset if the Jury let him off entirely...
I can't say I would do the same, but neither do I think he is the sort of person we need in prison... The dead guy is the sort of person we need dead and whatever mistake was made that cost him his life that day was his fault...
So, the Felony Murder charge goes to the perp...
I am sure a MA jury would have him executed without trial, but I don't think murder is the right charge here nor would I be upset if the Jury let him off entirely...
I can't say I would do the same, but neither do I think he is the sort of person we need in prison... The dead guy is the sort of person we need dead and whatever mistake was made that cost him his life that day was his fault...
So, the Felony Murder charge goes to the perp...
I believe that the laws throughout our nation are most likely in disagreement with you.
It's not the amount of lead in this case, but the timing of it... Which yes, by the letter of the law, looks like he F'd up...
Unless the wounded perp was reaching for a gun of course and "coming right at us"...
![[wink]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/002.gif "Wink [wink]")
W
wolf223
true...
maybe he twitched, had almost non-palpatble radial pulse w / a respiration rate of 4 to 5 per minute... it can happen, right?
![[grin]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/041.gif "Grin [grin]")
my original argument was for the whole head shot thing...
Agree completely. If he'd fired those 5 shots right at the beginning of the encounter then there would have likely been no legal problem.
DA says the perp was unarmed.
Last edited:
I hope that his co-workers, the ones who he was defending along with himself can at least back up his statements of being fired upon.
Regardless of my previous statement, if someone points a gun at me such as in this situation, bodily harm is only moments away and deadly force is justified. As far as shooting him when he's down, grey area... Put yourself in his shoes, these guys just came in wielding guns, his adrenaline is going and $hit happens. Unfortunately under these circumstances he's probably going to be paying for it. Who knows though, the camera had a blind spot, maybe the perp (not child) was getting up and going to attack?
Regardless of my previous statement, if someone points a gun at me such as in this situation, bodily harm is only moments away and deadly force is justified. As far as shooting him when he's down, grey area... Put yourself in his shoes, these guys just came in wielding guns, his adrenaline is going and $hit happens. Unfortunately under these circumstances he's probably going to be paying for it. Who knows though, the camera had a blind spot, maybe the perp (not child) was getting up and going to attack?
Garys
NES Member
true...
maybe he twitched, had almost non-palpatble radial pulse w / a respiration rate of 4 to 5 per minute... it can happen, right?
my original argument was for the whole head shot thing...
Even by that standard, it's more defensible to approach the guy at ready gun and remove the weapon from his reach. Isn't that why some PDs require their officers to hand cuff even apparently dead suspects?
I think it's hard, but maybe not impossible, for an attorney to paint a picture whereby a sympathetic jury might find a reason to acquit. I'd guess that they are going to spend a lot of time and money on jury selection.
I was thinking about this a little more (admittedly sarcastically, but...)
First, there should be some sort of civilian equivalent of "excessive force". Murder isn't the right charge here...
Second, liberals are keen on "collective rights" (the right of society over the rights of the individual)...
So which is better for society?
The idea that perps know that pharmacies are not for robbing and you might end up dead even if unarmed and injured?
OR
The idea that people using force to defend their business, lively-hood, home, and co-workers will be punished severely for using force against you?
The answer is clear - the liberals must choose the first - its for the children...
First, there should be some sort of civilian equivalent of "excessive force". Murder isn't the right charge here...
Second, liberals are keen on "collective rights" (the right of society over the rights of the individual)...
So which is better for society?
The idea that perps know that pharmacies are not for robbing and you might end up dead even if unarmed and injured?
OR
The idea that people using force to defend their business, lively-hood, home, and co-workers will be punished severely for using force against you?
The answer is clear - the liberals must choose the first - its for the children...
I'm really surprised at the responses here. Shocked even. This is a great example of why I hate the herd mentality of many gun owners. There is a seeming need to defend all other gun owners, no matter how wrong or immoral their actions.
This isn't even a close case of "should he have shot the perp?" I am not second guessing, it is not hindsight-- it was an outright execution. Now, you may support executing unconscious perps, but I certainly don't.
It has nothing to do with whether he "deserved it" or "got what was coming". If the pharmacist had a 20 round magazine and unloaded the entire thing at point blank range during the robbery, I'd give him a medal. I'd give him a medal if he reloaded and shot 20 more times while there was an active threat.
That's not what happened.
What happened was he neutralized one threat with a bullet to the head and neutralized the second threat by chasing him away. Robbery is over. The unconscious perp on the floor does not have a gun and never had one. Yes, if the perp on the floor got up and made a move, fine, shoot him again. But he didn't. The pharmacist showed he didn't consider him a threat anymore by turning his back to him and walking away to look for his second gun. When he found it, he returned and executed the perp.
I must say I'm not impressed with anyone's moral character that applauds that.
This isn't even a close case of "should he have shot the perp?" I am not second guessing, it is not hindsight-- it was an outright execution. Now, you may support executing unconscious perps, but I certainly don't.
It has nothing to do with whether he "deserved it" or "got what was coming". If the pharmacist had a 20 round magazine and unloaded the entire thing at point blank range during the robbery, I'd give him a medal. I'd give him a medal if he reloaded and shot 20 more times while there was an active threat.
That's not what happened.
What happened was he neutralized one threat with a bullet to the head and neutralized the second threat by chasing him away. Robbery is over. The unconscious perp on the floor does not have a gun and never had one. Yes, if the perp on the floor got up and made a move, fine, shoot him again. But he didn't. The pharmacist showed he didn't consider him a threat anymore by turning his back to him and walking away to look for his second gun. When he found it, he returned and executed the perp.
I must say I'm not impressed with anyone's moral character that applauds that.
Haven't seen much of anything in this thread that amounts to "applause"...
I've seen (and posted) "he F'd up", and some sarcastic internet tough guy posts, but for the most part the theme seems to be "he F'd up, but what to do with him?"
For my part the issue is whether he's a threat to society fitting a murder conviction?
I don't think first degree murder is the right charge either. I'm not a lawyer, so don't really know the difference between the degrees of manslaughter, but he deserves some jail time. If I were emperor, just on the face of it from the facts as I know them, I'd give him 5 years.
If I were emperor, I'd decree that we will have an election and a constitution that made being an emperor subject to the death penalty
![[laugh]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/012.gif "Laugh [laugh]")
I'd have to see a lot more info to decide whether or how much time is warranted - I think we toss around imprisonment as a punishment far too lightly when our goal with any government punishment should be to safeguard society from future bad acts of the person in question...
Did he actually say the guy was on the ground unconcious? You can't even see the perp in the video. As for him having a weapon vs not having one if you're being robbed at gunpoint I would assume any participating members had a weapon, even if not drawn. He may not be right by the letter of the law but I certainly won't loose any sleep over it. You participate in an armed robbery you can expect to end up dead IMO.
F
Finalygotabeltfed
"Oklahoma City pharmacist update - charged w/ murder"
How can you murder a dead man?
How can you murder a dead man?
According to the DA, the perp wasn't dead when he was shot 5 times. He was unconscious.
In other threads here, some folks have said things like "anyone who attacks me will die" or that old favorite "dead men tell no tales."
Well, that's effectively what the victim did here. He made sure that perp died, by walking up to the prone and immobile perp and shooting him an additional 5 times. So, how's that working out for him? Not so well, I'd say.
Dead men may not tell any tales, but there will be witness that you don't see (in this case, video), and forensic evidence. You have to stop shooting after the threat is over. One extra bullet after that can turn a justifiable homicide into a murder one charge. This case is a prototypical example of that. The shot(s) fired in the initial encounter were legally justified; the extra 5 were not.
At best, the victim will spend his life savings defending himself. At worst, he'll die in jail.
Don't make the same mistake. Don't tell yourself "dead men tell no tales." Don't post it here. Don't say it to your friends. Don't even think it.
Your goal in a defensive shooting is to stop the attack. The perp may die as a result, but that is not what you are trying to achieve. Once the threat is over, stop shooting, take cover, and call the police. If the victim in this case had done that, he wouldn't be facing this horrible legal jeopardy.
Well, that's effectively what the victim did here. He made sure that perp died, by walking up to the prone and immobile perp and shooting him an additional 5 times. So, how's that working out for him? Not so well, I'd say.
Dead men may not tell any tales, but there will be witness that you don't see (in this case, video), and forensic evidence. You have to stop shooting after the threat is over. One extra bullet after that can turn a justifiable homicide into a murder one charge. This case is a prototypical example of that. The shot(s) fired in the initial encounter were legally justified; the extra 5 were not.
At best, the victim will spend his life savings defending himself. At worst, he'll die in jail.
Don't make the same mistake. Don't tell yourself "dead men tell no tales." Don't post it here. Don't say it to your friends. Don't even think it.
Your goal in a defensive shooting is to stop the attack. The perp may die as a result, but that is not what you are trying to achieve. Once the threat is over, stop shooting, take cover, and call the police. If the victim in this case had done that, he wouldn't be facing this horrible legal jeopardy.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,555
- Likes
- 33,621
The charge increases the stakes; makes it easier to have high/no bail set; and increases the chance the defendant will plead out even if he feels he is not guilty.
Similar threads
