1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Oklahoma pharmacist once called hero, now convicted murderer in attempted robbery

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by usmarine0352_2005, May 27, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. usmarine0352_2005

    usmarine0352_2005 Well-Known Member



    What an in-justice.

    You and your armed partner attempt to rob a pharmacy and you get shot by an employee. You weren't "murdered".....you were killed in the commission of a felony.

  2. elcaminoariba

    elcaminoariba member

    First degree? Not hardly. This alone will help the appeal.

    Would it have been too hard to equal out the jury? In a case involving violence, I just don't think a man can get a fair trial when the jury is stacked against him like that.

    This guy gets life in prison, and yes he went too far in a moment the armed robbers started, but again the armed robbers started it, and several arizona swat team members will never be charged for TRULY making themselves judge, jury, and executioner against that man the other day who was in his OWN home, committing no crime. 70 rounds from machine guns by those who violently invaded a man's home, who never even fired in defense of his own home, and they'll never be charged, while this pharmacist finishes life in jail. Just plain wrong. Justice? Not in america anymore.
    Last edited: May 27, 2011
  3. azmjs

    azmjs member

    Called a hero by whom? The Ku Klux Klan? He murdered an unarmed youth in cold blood.
  4. usmarine0352_2005

    usmarine0352_2005 Well-Known Member


    Even though he got a 2nd gun......would it have mattered if he had shot him again with the same gun?

    And who knows if someone is really "stopped"?

    Would you leave a bad guy on the ground thinking, "I think he's down, maybe?"

  5. usmarine0352_2005

    usmarine0352_2005 Well-Known Member


    Cold blood?.......what?....... he was a part of a violent robbery that involved a gun.

    You realize that that in a commission of a violent felony where someone is hurt/murdered an un-armed co-conspirator will be charged with the same crime?

    So if the robber who had was armed had shot and killed an employee, both the shooter and the un-armed robber would be charged with murder.

    Just because a person isn't armed doesn't mean they aren't just as dangerous or liable.

  6. azmjs

    azmjs member

    A person who is unconscious and unarmed may be liable but is not dangerous.
  7. usmarine0352_2005

    usmarine0352_2005 Well-Known Member

    How would he know he's un-armed?

    Just because he didn't have a gun in his hand at the moment doesn't mean he didn't have one in his waistband....he was robbing a store at the time and his partner had a gun, it wouldn't be a far assumption to think he might have a gun on him too.

  8. elcaminoariba

    elcaminoariba member

    Thank you.
  9. Davek1977

    Davek1977 Well-Known Member

    Without getting into the legal aspect, I firmly believe anyone committing a violent felony should accept being shot and killed as a potential consequence. As far as this being "first degree" murder, which typically indicates a planned, calculated murder....no way. That should be the FIRST issue addressed in any appeal. Ultimately, they brought the fight to him. Had no one attempted to rob thew store, no one would have gotten hurt. I don't agree necessarily with exactly how it played out, but not being there or knowing what was going on in HIS head, I'm not comfortable condemning or praising him. All I know is that he faced a difficult situation, and is now paying the price for how others perceived his actions, right or wrong. One thing is for certain though....that criminal's days of robbing people are over for good now that he is unable to victimize anyone else ever again.
  10. Owen Sparks

    Owen Sparks member

    I can hear the whiny liberal voices now...

    "But human life is always of more value than mere property"

    I guess it all depends on whose property it is.
  11. elano

    elano Well-Known Member

    Crap. So is the moral of the story:
    Do not shoot someone if they do not have a weapon in their hand?

    I don't want to end up the same fate as this guy.
  12. RhinoDefense

    RhinoDefense Well-Known Member

    Some people simply need killing. This criminal was one of them. Big deal. I love it when scum and bullets meet.
  13. 3Stars

    3Stars New Member

    Not weeping for the guy who got axed at all.

    But from what I read, the pharma put a round in the guy's head, chased the other guy out the door, then went back for a different gun and put five more rounds in the guy on the floor.

    If that's how it went down, I find that hard to defend.
  14. Dire_effects

    Dire_effects Member

    Fantastic. What a horrible precedent this sets/follows.
  15. Davek1977

    Davek1977 Well-Known Member

    I wouldn't worry too much about precedent....few self-defense shootings are going to involve a man emptying a 2nd gun into a criminal who no longer indicates he is any sort of threatI have no sympathy for the man shot, but can't defend the shooter's actions in this particular case either. Its unfortunate for him it turned out this way, but his actions weren't exactly standard operating procedure for anyone who has taken a self-defense course or two. had he shot him, and held a gun on him until the police arrived...or shot him again after some sort of threat was perceived, I wouldn't doubt his choices in any way. However, standing over a prone criminal who seems to be incapacitated and not making any current threats or actions, and emptying your gun into him is pretty hard to justify. Again, i wasn't there, and ahve no sympathy for the shooter's "victim" but this is ar from a clearcut case of a "good shoot". IMO, it doesn't qualify as FIRST degree murder, but also don't necessarily believe this guy was in the right, either. He WAS a hero, UNTIL he stood above that man and emptied his gun. Until that point, he did nothing wrong, and SHOULD have been praised as a hero. His own actions brought his hero status into question though. As far as the question of wheter or not he was armed....its pretty easy to check someone shot in the head and unconscious for a weapon, and doing so seems like a more prudent course of action than emptying your revolver into him on the off chance he MIGHT be armed. I was taught to only shoot when there was a clear and present threat, no the possibility someone might be a threat. I see gangbangers on a frequent basis, and have no doubt whatsoever they are "dangerous"....that doesn't give me the right to shoot them preemptively though. If you aren't being immediately threatened, you can't shoot (or RESHOOT someone based on some idea they MIGHT be a threat.
  16. Lex Luthier

    Lex Luthier Well-Known Member

    It seems to me that after knocking the perp down, and bootheel brake on his gun hand would render him unable to continue his mission. Would a broken wrist have been acceptable? It illustrates a focussed technique in disarming and controlling the perp, without the revenge factor of emptying the mag. Just sayin'.
  17. rbernie

    rbernie Well-Known Member

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page