OKC Pharmacist Defends Self, Gets Called Racist

[PepePeru]

The DA in the video i saw the other day seems to think that his right to lethal force ceased after he's shot the bad guy, otherwise he'd not been charged.

The DA stressed that the initial shot is not why this guy was being charged.

[Cats Cats Cats]

Remember, he has no legal duty to retreat from his home or place of business.  It's different from being threatened on a city street.

This guy obviously wanted the bad guys dead, not injured.  He certainly committed homicide.  The question is, in the eyes of the law, was this justifiable homicide?

This is a really interesting legal question, actually.  At what point does a property owner's right to lethal force cease?  When he's shot the bad guy, or when he's shot the bad guy dead?

I think a jury is going to find that once lethal force is justified in the eyes of the law, there isn't a line between 1 shot or 6.

If I somebody went into his store and came after him with a baseball bat and he shot them it would be justified.  If the person with the baseball bat was unconscious on the floor and you shot them 5 more times after a few minutes then that would be crossing the line.  If the guy ran right back in the door and started shooting I could buy it.  But taking your time and shooting somebody that is unconscious is pretty hardcore.  The only thing that I think might save him is the fact that it appears that his employees were still inside.  Otherwise it would be waaaay over the top.  To go back in and make sure the guy was dead instead of going somewhere else to call the police.

[Cats Cats Cats]

Remember, he has no legal duty to retreat from his home or place of business.  It's different from being threatened on a city street.

This guy obviously wanted the bad guys dead, not injured.  He certainly committed homicide.  The question is, in the eyes of the law, was this justifiable homicide?

This is a really interesting legal question, actually.  At what point does a property owner's right to lethal force cease?  When he's shot the bad guy, or when he's shot the bad guy dead?

I think a jury is going to find that once lethal force is justified in the eyes of the law, there isn't a line between 1 shot or 6.

It stops when the threat stops.  If the person was shot in the head and unconscious I would say that then the threat was eliminated.  It would also be wise to keep a gun tracked on the robber or at least move the gun in case the robber regained consciousness and tried to attack again (which is very unlikely given the headshot but the man is no Doctor).

[Townsend]

I have no legal expertise.

Is there anything to be said about acting in the heat of the moment?

Could defense be that he was not in the right state of mind?  Temporarily not thinking due to having a gun in his face and just recently shot someone?

I'm sure his thought process was changed after just shooting at someone much less hitting them.

[Renaissance]

Agreed.  I haven't looked at the model jury charge, but my expectation is that the jury will have to answer the following question:

Could a reasonable person in the same situation believe his or her life to still be in danger?

I think the answer is probably "yes," given that the robber was threatening him with a loaded weapon.  Who's to say the incapacitated robber doesn't regain consciousness, roll over, and squeeze off a round before passing out again?

I'm not taking sides here, I'm just saying I'll be very surprised if a jury of 12 Oklahomans agrees that the actions of the pharmacist were unreasonable and amount to premeditated murder.

[custosnox]

Remember, he has no legal duty to retreat from his home or place of business.  It's different from being threatened on a city street.

This guy obviously wanted the bad guys dead, not injured.  He certainly committed homicide.  The question is, in the eyes of the law, was this justifiable homicide?

This is a really interesting legal question, actually.  At what point does a property owner's right to lethal force cease?  When he's shot the bad guy, or when he's shot the bad guy dead?

I think a jury is going to find that once lethal force is justified in the eyes of the law, there isn't a line between 1 shot or 6.

The new stand your ground law states that no reasonable person should be expected to retreat from a threat.  It does not dictate if you are in your home or buisness.  So you do not have to exhaust options to retreat.

Agreed.  I haven't looked at the model jury charge, but my expectation is that the jury will have to answer the following question:

Could a reasonable person in the same situation believe his or her life to still be in danger?

I think the answer is probably "yes," given that the robber was threatening him with a loaded weapon.  Who's to say the incapacitated robber doesn't regain consciousness, roll over, and squeeze off a round before passing out again?

I'm not taking sides here, I'm just saying I'll be very surprised if a jury of 12 Oklahomans agrees that the actions of the pharmacist were unreasonable and amount to premeditated murder.

unless I missed it, the kid that got shot never had a gun.  The one that got away is the one that had it. 

[Renaissance]

The new stand your ground law states that no reasonable person should be expected to retreat from a threat.  It does not dictate if you are in your home or buisness.  So you do not have to exhaust options to retreat.

unless I missed it, the kid that got shot never had a gun.  The one that got away is the one that had it. 

If the kid on the ground didn't have a gun from the beginning . . . the pharmacist may have issues.

Also, if they get the other guy, he'll probably get arraigned on felony-murder charges.

[TUalum0982]

my question is this...Let's say the first shot to the head is the one that proved fatal, how then is it still first degree murder? The shots thereafter would not have killed him, therefore it would not and should not be considered first degree murder right?  From what I have read, the first shot was him trying to protect himself, the shots after weren't harmless but can the coroner prove the first shot to the head was the fatal shot?  If so I think the DA is going to have a hard time getting a first degree murder charge to stick

  I personally think the pharmacist was in the wrong when he shot the guy 5 more times, but I have never been in his shoes so I don't know how I would react after my life was just threatened by some young punks and I was defending myself. 

If I were on that jury, I would find him not guilty of first degree murder, and guilty of some lesser charger and give him probation.  I don't think the DA will convince a jury of 12 Oklahomans that this guy is a cold blooded killer, good luck.

[Cats Cats Cats]

They said that he would not have died from the head wound.

But if he was going to die from the head wound anyway and the guy then shot him 5 more times he still would be in trouble.  If he shot him in the head and ran up and shot him 5 times he would probably not be in trouble.

[mr.jaynes]

So I suppose it is official: self defense is illegal in the state of Oklahoma!

[Cats Cats Cats]

So I suppose it is official: self defense is illegal in the state of Oklahoma!

It isn't illegal.  The point is shooting somebody that is passed out with no weapon 5 times isn't self defense.

[Red Arrow]

Like the rest of you, I wasn't there. I can imagine the pharmacist wanting to make sure there was no chance of a hidden weapon,  etc.

Hopefully he didn't have time to think that he may wind up supporting that "kid" for the rest of his life if he lived.

[cannon_fodder]

Again:

We do not know if the robber was unconscious.

If he was unconscious, we do not know if he was involuntarily moving.  We do not know if the business owner knew he was unconscious.

We know the robber was not armed, we can not impart that knowledge to the business owner.
- - -

If there is an ounce of life, it is murder.  It doesn't matter if the person would have died the next second, by shooting him an additional 5 times the business owner depraved the robber of that one second of life.  Which is murder just as much as shooting a healthy person.  And who is to say that perhaps the person would have lived against all odds?  So that is a legal non-issue.

(I have no medical knowledge of this case.  Was the initial fatal or not fatal . . . I have no idea)

- - -

For self defense the question is:  would a reasonable person in a similar situation feel they were under an imminent threat of harm from the robber?

If yes, then there is no crime in using deadly force (or additional deadly force).

If no, we have to proceed to fit the homicide into the categories I set forth before.  Personally, I think it would be manslaughter:

OUJI-CR 4-95

MANSLAUGHTER IN THE FIRST DEGREE

BY HEAT OF PASSION - ELEMENTS

No person may be convicted of manslaughter in the first degree by heat of passion unless the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt each element of the crime. These elements are:

First, the death of a human;

Second, caused by the defendant(s);

Third, the death was not excusable or justifiable;

Fourth, the death was inflicted in a cruel and unusual manner;

Fifth, when performing the conduct which caused the death, defendant(s) was/were in a heat of passion.

OR

Fourth, the death was inflicted by means of a dangerous weapon;

Fifth, when performing the conduct which caused the death, defendant(s) was/were in a heat of passion.

______________________________

Statutory Authority: 21 O.S. 1991, § 711(2).

OUJI CR 4-95

What I want to know is why the other robber was not charged with Felony Murder?

OUJI-CR 4-64

MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE

BY FELONY MURDER - ELEMENTS

No person may be convicted of murder in the first degree unless the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt each element of the crime. These elements are:

First, the death of a human;

Second, the death occurred as a result of an act or event which happened in the defendant?s commission/(attempted commission) of a/an

[robbery with a dangerous weapon]

. . .

OUJI CR 4-64

Was there a death?  Yes.  Would it have occurred absent the robbery?  No.  Hence, felony murder.

[Conan71]

They said that he would not have died from the head wound.

But if he was going to die from the head wound anyway and the guy then shot him 5 more times he still would be in trouble.  If he shot him in the head and ran up and shot him 5 times he would probably not be in trouble.

Unless you've read a different article on this than I have, they never said he wouldn't have died from the head wound, just that he was still alive after that shot. 

For all we know, the kid could have been grazed by the head-shot and was stunned but moving around.  For certain, the pharmacist would have still been amped up on adrenaline.  As per our justice system, a jury will get to decide if this was unreasonable deadly force or not.

[swake]

Again:

We do not know if the robber was unconscious.

If he was unconscious, we do not know if he was involuntarily moving.  We do not know if the business owner knew he was unconscious.

We know the robber was not armed, we can not impart that knowledge to the business owner.
- - -

If there is an ounce of life, it is murder.  It doesn't matter if the person would have died the next second, by shooting him an additional 5 times the business owner depraved the robber of that one second of life.  Which is murder just as much as shooting a healthy person.  And who is to say that perhaps the person would have lived against all odds?  So that is a legal non-issue.

(I have no medical knowledge of this case.  Was the initial fatal or not fatal . . . I have no idea)

- - -

For self defense the question is:  would a reasonable person in a similar situation feel they were under an imminent threat of harm from the robber?

If yes, then there is no crime in using deadly force (or additional deadly force).

If no, we have to proceed to fit the homicide into the categories I set forth before.  Personally, I think it would be manslaughter:
OUJI CR 4-95

What I want to know is why the other robber was not charged with Felony Murder?
OUJI CR 4-64

Was there a death?  Yes.  Would it have occurred absent the robbery?  No.  Hence, felony murder.

Actually, the other robber has been charged with murder, but has not yet been charged as an adult (he's 14). Also, the two adults that got these kids to commit the crime and gave the 14 year old the gun have been charged with murder.