Oklahoma Pharmacist found guilty for killing in self-defense

[ronaldo23]

From 2009, a pharmacist in Oklahoma City was found guilt of 1st degree (aka premeditated) murder after defending his store from a robbery.

Oklahoma has has 'castle laws,' allowing you to use deadly force to defend your house or place of work from robbery and invasion. Two teens came into his pharmacy... one has a gun while the other was not visibly armed (later confirmed to be unarmed, but lets just go with what was visible). The pharmacist backs up as the teens move in demanding money. The pharmacist then pulls a gun from under the register and neutralizes the unarmed teen. The armed teen flees the scene immediately and the pharmacist chases him out into the streets. When its clear the armed attempted robber has gotten away the pharmacist returns, examined the unconscious teen for a bit, then goes to the register. He pulls out a second gun, returns to the downed teen, and fires four more shots into him before calling the police to report the robbery. The details of the case are murky, as to whether the unarmed man twitched or posed some kind of threat to him or whether the pharmacist just shot him 3 more times out of cold blood even if the unarmed man was no longer a threat (the pharmacist refused to take the stand in trial, though I am assuming if he did it could have helped clear his name, so he probably had shittty lawyers)

He was found guilty of 1st degree (premeditated) murder for firing the other four shots, with the prosecution claiming it was out of cold blood and the man no longer posed any sort of a threat to him (though they certainly don't have any evidence to prove this). Thoughts on what he did and the verdict of the case? Personally I think he should have walked off free, but I'm surprised he didn't take the stand to try and clear his name.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303654804576347891729253696.html?m od=WSJ_WSJ_US_News_6

[Humanae Libertas]

God forbid you defend your life, just let the crooks blast you. That's the pacifist way!

[squarepusher]

well, he came back and 'finished the guy off' on the floor unconscience, apparently not knowing there was a camera?

There was no self defense here.

[Dr.3D]

I would suspect the pharmacist was trying to protect himself from being sued by the downed attempted robber.

[TheNcredibleEgg]

I don't see how can be convicted of 1st degree murder. He clearly did not plan this out.

Perhaps manslaughter. Heat of the moment type offense.

[RM918]

We'd call it murder if cops did it, property invasion or not - 'finishing him off' is not self-defense unless he still posed a threat.

[angelatc]

(...the pharmacist refused to take the stand in trial, though I am assuming if he did it could have helped clear his name, so he probably had shittty lawyers)


Or he had something in his past that the prosecutors would have brought up. Not sure how serious it would be though - I'm guessing they don't pass out pharmacy licenses to convicted felons.

[cindy25]

it makes me wonder if he knew them before the robbery; why else would he shoot someone unconscious?

[pcosmar]

it makes me wonder if he knew them before the robbery; why else would he shoot someone unconscious?

To avoid being sued when he recovered.

Though "finishing him off" is not self defense.

[AFPVet]

We'd call it murder if cops did it, property invasion or not - 'finishing him off' is not self-defense unless he still posed a threat.

Exactly. Once there is no immediate threat, you must cease fire.

[Anti Federalist]

Exactly. Once there is no immediate threat, you must cease fire.

Yes...I would be spitting mad if a cop did this (and they have, see "Oscar Grant).

This was not self defence in any way, it was murder.

[devil21]

How did the prosecution prove that he wasn't already dead from the first wound? I still think the charge sucks and just goes to show that the criminals that wish to hurt other people are coddled by the system. He should have just unloaded on him the first time and left it at that.

[Anti Federalist]

His crime was not being a cop, had he been, he would have got two weeks vacation.

[Pericles]

Exactly. Once there is no immediate threat, you must cease fire.

That ^ Coming back to robber 1 after chasing down robber 2 is over the top. Understand how it can happen, but you have to control yourself.

[squarepusher]

Although I still can't see how he was convicted to 1st degree murder. His own store was invaded and robbed, its not like he planned it. Once the one robber was down, I think it was wrong for him to come back to kill him, however it was surely a heat of the moment decision, 1st degree seems horribly decided. I expect an appeal.

[Dr.3D]

I have to wonder what happened to the rest of the rounds in the first pistol if he only shot it once in the shop and then had to get a second one to shoot the first guy again. Was it only a single round pistol? Was it partially loaded. How many rounds total were fired in this incidence? Was the assailant dead after the first round?

Of course we will never know all of these questions unless we get a copy of the proceedings to see if they were even brought up.

[nate895]

How one can call shooting an unarmed, unconscious person "self defense" is simply beyond my ability to comprehend, let alone shooting them four times. This might have been second degree murder under present law, but it still was cold-blooded murder. He clearly intended on killing his victim. The only thing that could be up for debate here is whether he premeditated it. By the evidence presented (that he went back and got a second gun), I'd still have to lean heavily in favor of first degree murder.

[nate895]

Although I still can't see how he was convicted to 1st degree murder. His own store was invaded and robbed, its not like he planned it. Once the one robber was down, I think it was wrong for him to come back to kill him, however it was surely a heat of the moment decision, 1st degree seems horribly decided. I expect an appeal.

One need only prove some form of premeditation. Seconds worth of premeditation is enough to convict someone of first degree. I am not sure, but the fact that he went back and got the second gun and shot someone while they were unconscious with that second gun puts in the first degree category as far as I can see.

[Travlyr]

That ^ Coming back to robber 1 after chasing down robber 2 is over the top. Understand how it can happen, but you have to control yourself.

I just wish the police knew this.

[low preference guy]

the thread title is misleading. it was not an act of self-defense

[ItsTime]

His crime was not being a cop, had he been, he would have got two weeks vacation.

With pay.

[steve005]

that guy should get a firing squad, this is insane. I've heard people say things like "if someone breaks in and you shoot them, make sure they die, just so they can't sue you", but I don't agree, it's not worth it

[nate895]

that guy should get a firing squad, this is insane. I've heard people say things like "if someone breaks in and you shoot them, make sure they die, just so they can't sue you", but I don't agree, it's not worth it

Not to mention these two idiots didn't break in. They walked into a building that is open to the public. Yes, they had nefarious intent, but forcing one off the property and knocking the other out was enough.

[ghengis86]

In thus particular instance:

First shot = self defense

Next four, after significant time had passed and his life was nolonger in danger = murder

I think getting the other gun confirmed the premeditation
portion of first degree murder.

If he would have fired multiple rounds to begin with, and the suspect(s) died, self defense would probably apply and this guy walks.

You can't shoot someone in the back while they're fleeing, just like you can't 'finish off' a wounded perp (unless of course you are a pig). Sounds like he watched too many movies

[squarepusher]

In thus particular instance:

First shot = self defense

Next four, after significant time had passed and his life was nolonger in danger = murder

I think getting the other gun confirmed the premeditation
portion of first degree murder.

If he would have fired multiple rounds to begin with, and the suspect(s) died, self defense would probably apply and this guy walks.

You can't shoot someone in the back while they're fleeing, just like you can't 'finish off' a wounded perp (unless of course you are a pig). Sounds like he watched too many movies

eh, its still just a matter of seconds. If you imagine the adrenalin pumping through his system, although I agree it was a bad decision, I believe it could be considered "heat of the moment" even when he came back the second time. Theres a big difference between someone planning to murder someone (like say an ex wife), than a few seconds after being robbed. I expect there to be an appeal

[nate895]

eh, its still just a matter of seconds. If you imagine the adrenalin pumping through his system, although I agree it was a bad decision, I believe it could be considered "heat of the moment" even when he came back the second time. Theres a big difference between someone planning to murder someone (like say an ex wife), than a few seconds after being robbed. I expect there to be an appeal

A few seconds is enough time for it to be considered premeditated. If he had kept the first gun, you could make a fairly reasonable argument for second degree. However, he went back, and specifically got out a second gun and did the deed. That gave him more than enough time to calm down and do the right thing.

[Travlyr]

How one can call shooting an unarmed, unconscious person "self defense" is simply beyond my ability to comprehend, let alone shooting them four times. This might have been second degree murder under present law, but it still was cold-blooded murder. He clearly intended on killing his victim. The only thing that could be up for debate here is whether he premeditated it. By the evidence presented (that he went back and got a second gun), I'd still have to lean heavily in favor of first degree murder.

Is he more guilty or less guilty than these guys?

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?294228

[nate895]

Is he more guilty or less guilty than these guys?

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?294228

Just as.

[ghengis86]

eh, its still just a matter of seconds. If you imagine the adrenalin pumping through his system, although I agree it was a bad decision, I believe it could be considered "heat of the moment" even when he came back the second time. Theres a big difference between someone planning to murder someone (like say an ex wife), than a few seconds after being robbed. I expect there to be an appeal

I'll agree there is a difference. But it matters what one can prove/disprove in court. And to me, a few seconds is <10. Maybe he did have shit lawyers though? You would think they could get at least 2nd degree murder or manslaughter or a plea deal (or maybe I have been watching too many movies!).

I wonder what sentencing will be like?

[Pericles]

...

You can't shoot someone in the back while they're fleeing, .....

unless you are in Texas at night, and you are protecting life or recovering property.

Texas takes a really dim view on murder, rape, and theft. In the daytime, you can't shoot them if they drop the stolen property and flee.

[LibertyEagle]

How one can call shooting an unarmed, unconscious person "self defense" is simply beyond my ability to comprehend, let alone shooting them four times. This might have been second degree murder under present law, but it still was cold-blooded murder. He clearly intended on killing his victim. The only thing that could be up for debate here is whether he premeditated it. By the evidence presented (that he went back and got a second gun), I'd still have to lean heavily in favor of first degree murder.

Wow. No way.

Moral of the story. Store owners should have guns that will kill with one shot.

[ghengis86]

Wow. No way.

Moral of the story. Store owners should have guns that will kill with one shot.

I think all guns are capable of one shot kills; store owners on the other hand...

[LibertyEagle]

I think all guns are capable of one shot kills; store owners on the other hand...

Correction. Bigger guns. Shotguns, if necessary.

[ghengis86]

Correction. Bigger guns. Shotguns, if necessary.

Now you're talking. Though you do have to aim shotguns at close range with something like buck shot. Takes time for the lead to spread.

[Eryxis]

I'm a pharmacist and just got robbed myself... i have heard about this case and like most people think the second gun is the issue. I don't think there is any issue with killing robbers in the act especially with controlled substances involved, and I'm sure the pharmacist would have gotten off without much issue.

[affa]

thread title is incredibly misleading.

based on the OP's explanation of events, this was murder.

as for the premeditation part, he had plenty of time to get his wits about him. If he shot and killed him right away, that's one thing.

Perhaps think of it this way -- if you got attacked, and broke someone's neck subduing them, that's self defense. If you knocked a guy out, then chased another guy down the street, then came back to the unconscious guy and snapped his neck, that's murder. So is getting another gun and unloading four shots into him.

Self defense requires an active threat. Unless you're America, or a cop.

[ronaldo23]

but we really don't know the circumstances of the second 3 shots...you can't ascertain 100% from the cameras whether the downed person played a threat or not to the pharmacist...

the pharmacist may not have done it out of cold blood- he could have seen the man twitching in the directions of his pockets which he perceives as a threat to his safety, and he probably assumed the man was armed as well. With all that adrenaline he could have rapidly fired 4 shots. Heck, even the medical examiners disagreed about the circumstances

"Dr. Andrew Sibley, the state's interim chief medical examiner, said the robber, Antwun "Speedy" Parker, "almost certainly" was alive after the first shot and "very possibly" was unconscious. But, he told The Oklahoman, the robber still could have been making involuntary movements "that could have been perceived as a threat." Sibley said the robber could have been moving and even groaning while unconscious. He pointed out that the robber's vocal cords weren't hit...

Sibley, of Tulsa, said any movement at all could have been considered a threat. He said, in such cases, a shooter's adrenaline will kick in. Sibley said police officers sometimes shoot multiple times when facing a threat."

http://www.newsok.com/fourth-doctor-gives-new-twist-in-oklahoma-city-pharmacists-murder-case/article/3487323?custom_click=headlines_widget

I'm just not convinced the pharmacist shot him out of cold blood, and the fact that it's first degree murder makes no sense...

At best it's inconclusive whether the last three shots were out of cold blood or as a response to a perceived threat in the heat of the moment (even though we know in retrospect the downed man did not pose a threat)

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

wow. No way.

Moral of the story. Store owners should have guns that will kill with one shot.

awp :)

[BamaAla]

Strangely enough, I found myself thinking about this case the other day; I had watched the video on some news channel after it first happened and was wondering if it was ever resolved. I can't say, from my armchair, what I would have done in that jury deliberation room, but its very possible, probably probable, that I would have hung it. It walks like murder and quacks like murder, but I don't think I could have gone along with murder in the first.

[t0rnado]

The jury made a horrible decision. If the pharmacist owned the property, he had every right to shoot the thieves as many times as he wanted to as long as they were on his property.

[Bman]

I have a few problems with this verdict.

1.) How do you prove the robber wasn't dead after the first shot?
2.) How do you validate that the store owner no longer perceived the target as a current threat, if the robber was still alive?

These guys came into a store and attempted armed robbery. How am I to know if the guy is armed or not? Would I be required to go roll the guy over to make sure he isn't lying on a gun?

[Mary Microgram]

What's so bad about this is, had it been a police officer or (U.S. soldier in Iraq) who shot someone, it would be a whole different story. Here in Vegas cops shoot to kill, often murdering innocent children and people with mental disorders...and remain on the police force.

[acptulsa]

The jury made a horrible decision. If the pharmacist owned the property, he had every right to shoot the thieves as many times as he wanted to as long as they were on his property.

Our laws governing self-defense aren't that closely tied to property ownership. And it's pretty clear that the guy was down for the count.

And though it's not exactly germaine to the case, so it isn't talked about much, there's undoubtedly the issue of how the first gun got empty. Oklahoma's law on self-defense is closely tied to the threshhold--once the intruder is out the door, your right to shoot evaporates. You don't get to step out the door after him and spray the neighborhood with hot lead. That sort of thing is liable to piss a jury off, and not without reason.

They guy is getting an example made of him, but he had to go over the top to do it. They've made it clear that if he had only shot the guy once, he'd have walked.

[LibertarianBrit]

Substitute "modern England" with "USA" and "Tony Martin" for "Jerome Ersland":

"There is in any society an implied contract between state and citizen. We give up part of our right to self defence - only part, I emphasise - and all our right to act as judge in our own causes. We resign these matters to the state and obey its laws. In exchange, it maintains order more efficiently and more justly than we could ourselves. In modern England, the state has not broken this contract. If it had simply given up on maintaining order, that would be bad enough - but we could then at least shift for ourselves. No, the state in this country has varied the terms of the contract. It will not protect us, but it will not let us protect ourselves. If we ignore this command, we can expect to be punished at least as severely as the criminals who attack us. That is what the Tony Martin case is all about. This is not just a matter for the country. The towns have it just as bad, if not worse. If you are a victim of crime anywhere in this country, you are in it alone and undefended. Call for the Police, call for a home delivery pizza - see which arrives first." - Sean Gabb

[acptulsa]

The defense avows that he wasn't dead after the first shot. And this is creating a controversy, with competing facebook groups and a petition drive to get his life sentence commuted. I suspect that the prosecutors are beginning to regret going for Murder One.

[qh4dotcom]

Good verdict in my opinion. The last 4 shots fired were not self-defense. Maybe not first degree murder.

Another point you guys missed...the pharmacist did not have to come back into the store after chasing the other teen out until the police arrived.

[acptulsa]

Maybe not first degree murder.

That's the controversy. There's a petition drive underway to get him a relatively short sentence, or to get a potential life sentence commuted.

If I had been on the jury, I don't think they'd have gotten their unanimous conviction on first degree murder. I know 'premeditated' can be defined a number of ways. But it isn't like this guy went stalking the dead man looking for his chance. He traded an empty gun for a full one. And he did it minutes after meeting the guy for the first time, and being put in fear for his life in the process.

Interesting petition drive. No one's arguing he should get off, but just that life is too much.

[qh4dotcom]

That's the controversy. There's a petition drive underway to get him a relatively short sentence, or to get a potential life sentence commuted.

If I had been on the jury, I don't think they'd have gotten their unanimous conviction on first degree murder. I know 'premeditated' can be defined a number of ways. But it isn't like this guy went stalking the dead man looking for his chance. He traded an empty gun for a full one. And he did it minutes after meeting the guy for the first time, and being put in fear for his life in the process.

Interesting petition drive. No one's arguing he should get off, but just that life is too much.

He's 59 so even if he doesn't get life in prison, he'll probably be in his seventies or eighties by the time he gets out.