Oklahoma City pharmacist update - charged w/ murder

[SecondAmdFirst]

Years ago he would have been cleared because the scumbag stuck a gun in his face. Another example of criminals having more rights.

 

[M1911]

Murder in most districts has an element of state of mind. His intent was clearly self defense not revenge or profit. Thus in most areas this would be manslaughter. Your local laws may be different.

Huh?

When the first shots were fired, he was clearly defending himself. There was a clear threat.

When the final shots were fired, who was he defending himself against? The prone, immobile, and unarmed perp? How could his intent be to defend himself when there was no longer a threat?

 

[JackDaniels]

From the link above:



Press reports are always questionable. My comments are based on the shaky assumption that the article above is correct.

If Parker was indeed unconscious on the floor, he was no longer a threat. You can't shoot someone who is no longer a threat. The first shot was legally justified. The 5 additional shots were not.

One shot fired after the threat has ended can change a justifiable shooting into murder one.

The threat doesn't end until your would be murderer is no longer alive.

 

[terraformer]

The threat doesn't end until your would be murderer is no longer alive.

Negative.

 

[cekim]

Negative.

Legality and reality are unfortunately not in agreement here...

As a matter of reality, the threat of reprisal is very real. As a matter of law, it is not.

Tomato, tomahto... Let's fire pistols at ten paces...

 

[M1911]

The threat doesn't end until your would be murderer is no longer alive.

Sorry, but the US courts do not agree with you, and if you act on that presumption you can very easily turn a legal defensive shoot into a murder one conviction (life in prison without parole in MA).

 

[JackDaniels]

Sorry, but the US courts do not agree with you, and if you act on that presumption you can very easily turn a legal defensive shoot into a murder one conviction (life in prison without parole in MA).

I don't care who doesn't agree with me. There are laws and then there is what is the effectual truth. The two are not, especially in this case, one and the same.

 

[HooVooLoo]

I don't care who doesn't agree with me. There are laws and then there is what is the effectual truth. The two are not, especially in this case, one and the same.

Sheesh, Jack! Are you trolling this one just to be argumentative? There are laws and there is what is the effectual truth?

If your "murderer" is down on the ground and helpless, cannot move, is bleeding, has no weapon, then what you suggest is cowboy justice, like a drumhead trial.

Jack, I'm sorry and I sympathize with your emotions, but even I recognize that it is WRONG to shoot a defenseless person in the back, execution-style, no matter what his/her previous crime may have been. The threat has been stopped, and therefore you cannot just then decide that he is still a threat and become a murderer by ending his/her life.

WTF is wrong with you? Been watching too many Eastwood films?

 

[JackDaniels]

Sheesh, Jack! Are you trolling this one just to be argumentative? There are laws and there is what is the effectual truth?

If your "murderer" is down on the ground and helpless, cannot move, is bleeding, has no weapon, then what you suggest is cowboy justice, like a drumhead trial.

Jack, I'm sorry and I sympathize with your emotions, but even I recognize that it is WRONG to shoot a defenseless person in the back, execution-style, no matter what his/her previous crime may have been. The threat has been stopped, and therefore you cannot just then decide that he is still a threat and become a murderer by ending his/her life.

WTF is wrong with you? Been watching too many Eastwood films?

Nothing wrong with me. There is one less thug on the street that could victimize one of your loved ones just as easily as one of someone elses loved ones. This one ended in the best interest of the innocent and law-obiding part of society. If you want this type of scum still breathing and attacking the good people in society, perhaps we should ask WTF is wrong with you.

Cowboy justice? This POS should have been lynched if he was found alive, anyway. What does it matter if it comes from a judge or a pharmacist? The ends justify the means. Too bad I'm not on the jury.

 

[HooVooLoo]

Nothing wrong with me. There is one less thug on the street that could victimize one of your loved ones just as easily as one of someone elses loved ones. This one ended in the best interest of the innocent and law-obiding part of society. If you want this type of scum still breathing and attacking the good people in society, perhaps we should ask WTF is wrong with you.

Cowboy justice? This POS should have been lynched if he was found alive, anyway. What does it matter if it comes from a judge or a pharmacist? The ends justify the means. Too bad I'm not on the jury.

Well, as I typed above, I sympathize with your emotions. But I simply cannot agree with your intellectual approach to this situation. Even if you DO have the drop on a scumbag like this, to execute someone (or murder, if you will) is just completley wrong in every sense of the word "wrong". If we as a society were to allow drumhead justice to pervade our way of life, then NOBODY is safe from an unfair trial.

You know, the "law-abiding part of society" would not agree with you, either. Killing a person who is face-down or whatever on the pavement, who has no ability to defend him/herself, is dishonorable. These days we call it, plain and simple, pre-meditated murder.

 

[GSG]

As a matter of reality, the threat of reprisal is very real. As a matter of law, it is not.

Great point.

 

[JackDaniels]

Well, as I typed above, I sympathize with your emotions. But I simply cannot agree with your intellectual approach to this situation. Even if you DO have the drop on a scumbag like this, to execute someone (or murder, if you will) is just completley wrong in every sense of the word "wrong". If we as a society were to allow drumhead justice to pervade our way of life, then NOBODY is safe from an unfair trial.

You know, the "law-abiding part of society" would not agree with you, either. Killing a person who is face-down or whatever on the pavement, who has no ability to defend him/herself, is dishonorable. These days we call it, plain and simple, pre-meditated murder.

This is not based on emotion. This is based on cause and effect. Your statement is based on emotion. Making the point of honorable vs. dishonorable is perfect proof of that.
My point is based on necessity and that the effect of the action, however dishonorable, gruesome, or emotionally disturbing to you, is perfect reason to perform the action. If you believe that executing someone is wrong, and that is your political stance on the death penalty, then fine. We disagree.

But, I believe in the death penalty. And to me, executing someone is not "wrong in every sense of the word", as you state. Executing the type of scum that assaults law obiding citizens with a gun, threatens their life, and robs them, is right in every sense of the word, regardless of whether or not the direction that their face is pointing in a manner that satisfies your emotional needs of honorability. And, if it were done more often, we would have a safer society for those who make their living honestly. Therefore, it cannot possibly be wrong.

The effect of this man's actions benefits everyone, except for the one who chooses to harm everyone else. It has to be a good deed. If that is not the definition of a good deed, then I don't know what is.

 

[HooVooLoo]

By your reasoning, then, I would guess that you feel it should be OK for you to go into a prison and shoot every prisoner dead who has ever killed someone else.

Either way, we'll have to agree to disagree on this particular point of your form of justice.

 

[M1911]

The laws in our nation do not give you the right to decide who lives and who dies. The laws give you the right to stop an attack. Once the attack stops, you are not allowed to become judge, jury, and executioner. You may not like it, but that is the law.

 

[JackDaniels]

By your reasoning, then, I would guess that you feel it should be OK for you to go into a prison and shoot every prisoner dead who has ever killed someone else.

Either way, we'll have to agree to disagree on this particular point of your form of justice.

Walking in and shooting up the place is not the proper way to do it. But, public executions on a certain day in a certain place is fine with me.