TexasCHLforum.com

pcgizzmo wrote:I think this guy is 100% guilty based on the video evidence we've seen and there is one thing about Oklahoma. If your guilty they will throw the book at you if they can. I don't think he's going to get a break.

If he gets a break in the judicial system, pcgizzmo, I suspect it might come from perhaps one of these two directions.

First, depending on how the issue was handled at trial, if indeed it was pleaded by the defense, Oklahoma's counterpart of what is generally called "temporary insanity" or such, should Oklahoma have a counterpart. Any relief here would undoubtedly lead to a new trial.

Secondly, we might see some compromise in the verdict when the sentence is announced, of course assuming that the judge has some leeway, and of course Oklahoma criminal law is a mystery to yours truly, so I have no business making predictions.

Elmo

srothstein wrote:So, from what I have read in the papers and here, the pharmacist may have one real hope. I think the changing of judges without declaring a mistrial may be the best chance for a new trial. Other than that, unless the coroner testified the robber was moving like the pharmacist claimed, I think the verdict will stand.

Like someone else, I would like to see the video that shows the robber wasn't moving when he was shot again. All the video I found was inconclusive, so I have no reason to doubt he was moving, especially if the coroner testified he was still alive at that point.

...I don't think there's a video showing that which you ask for...I think the jury saw the video we did...where, after chasing the armed robber out, he comes by the downed robber without so much as a glance, let alone no look of alarm or fear...walked to the counter...with his back to him...(all of which would make a reasonable person believe he perceived the downed man to be no threat)...then calmly walks back and shoots him some more...I haven't read the court transcripts, either, but that video doesn't show me a man in fear of his life or safety...

Sentenced to life in prison, *with* the possibility of parole.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43710936/ns ... ?GT1=43001" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

...he'll have a lotta time to "woulda, coulda, shoulda" himself...the jury did well...

Purplehood wrote:

b322da wrote:Purplehood,

I understand the coroner testified that the first shot did not kill the BG, and that he was killed by the later shots, and if the defense actually made such an argument the jury would have been instructed correctly by the court that if they found that to have been proved, along with the other elements of the crime of murder, it could/should convict the defendant of murder. This has been good law as long as our nation has existed. Furthermore, even if the jury were to find that the deceased would without any doubt have died in a few moments anyway, before the later shots, that would not avoid the murder charge.

Elmo

That blows my contention out of the water. Thanks for the clarification. I thought he was already dead after the first shot.

I, too, had read months ago that the coroner said the first shot had killed him. However wrong of him to do so, I didn't think there was any way the pharmacist could have been convicted of murdering that kid when he put those 5 extra rounds in him. The coroner must have changed his opinion.

Despite him having come back to shoot him again, i really have to disagree with both the charge and the sentence...

how can the jury recommend life sentence? i just cant make sense of it, the criminal truly has more rights than joe stand-up citizen

FastCarry wrote:Despite him having come back to shoot him again, i really have to disagree with both the charge and the sentence...

how can the jury recommend life sentence? i just cant make sense of it, the criminal truly has more rights than joe stand-up citizen

This is what happens when a person crosses the line and moves from self defense to revenge. The criminal didn't have more rights than us "Joe Stand up Citizens". One ended up dead... and the other criminal ended up up with life in prison. The system has worked. "Joe Stand Up Citizen" does not pump rounds into a human being that is laying passed out on the floor.

The intent was there. Premeditation only takes a second. However, I thought there was some legal loophole because they had previously said the coroner reported that the first shot had already killed the BG. If that is not true or the coroner changed his mind the pharmacist is guilty. But, life? Due to the circumstances and stress he had just gone through I don't think I could have given him life.

Like is so often said here, except by the lawyers on the board, "I am not a lawyer". Having said that, I think a jury is sometimes given limited choices to choose from. I am not sure what happened here, but it may have been a case of let him walk or find him guilty of first degree. I could be wrong, and it would not be the first time today, so the more edumacated amongst us can correct as warranted.

I'm not real sure why some posters here want to think the pharmacist was convicted based on some kind of accident or quirk in the law. Think folks!!! You pump rounds into a person who is no longer a threat, you need removed from society. There was NO reason to do that other than a complete lack of respect for human life. I am surprised the pharmacist hasn't already killed someone. I can't imagine what a vindictive person like that would do to my prescription if I made him mad.

It was no mistake. MOST folks believe cold blooded killing is wrong when it is not needed for self defense. I hope it is the belief of most of the posters on this forum too. Face it... this hot head got mad about being robbed and lost control of his temper. Thank god he is off the street. He is just as dangerous as guys who rob places. I sure am glad I never cut that guy off in traffic. An unstable person like that would shoot out my windows for sure.

One more thought. Scenario for you fellow CHL's. I am in Wal-Greens messing around. I hear gun shots coming from the pharmacy. I manuever into position to figure out what is going on. By this time, Mr. "tough guy with a gun" has returned and all I see is him pumping rounds into a person laying on the floor. I am going to unload on him. All I know at this point is I am watching a person being shot who does not appear to be doing anything but laying on the floor.

I am not saying I would play batman and do this, but hearing gunfire, I might decide this qualifies as a reason to put on my cape. I sure would hate to learn that some nut was walking around the wal-greens blasting folks and I did nothing to stop him.

03Lightningrocks wrote:One more thought. Scenario for you fellow CHL's. I am in Wal-Greens messing around. I hear gun shots coming from the pharmacy. I manuever into position to figure out what is going on. By this time, Mr. "tough guy with a gun" has returned and all I see is him pumping rounds into a person laying on the floor. I am going to unload on him. All I know at this point is I am watching a person being shot who does not appear to be doing anything but laying on the floor.

I am not saying I would play batman and do this, but hearing gunfire, I might decide this qualifies as a reason to put on my cape. I sure would hate to learn that some nut was walking around the wal-greens blasting folks and I did nothing to stop him.

You might do that on his very first shot also....you don't know until you are there.

03Lightningrocks wrote:One more thought. Scenario for you fellow CHL's. I am in Wal-Greens messing around. I hear gun shots coming from the pharmacy. I manuever into position to figure out what is going on. By this time, Mr. "tough guy with a gun" has returned and all I see is him pumping rounds into a person laying on the floor. I am going to unload on him. All I know at this point is I am watching a person being shot who does not appear to be doing anything but laying on the floor.

I am not saying I would play batman and do this, but hearing gunfire, I might decide this qualifies as a reason to put on my cape. I sure would hate to learn that some nut was walking around the wal-greens blasting folks and I did nothing to stop him.

I don't think he was convicted because of a loophole. I thought he might have been acquitted due to the possibility that the first shot had killed the BG and you can't kill someone twice. If the BG was still alive then this pharmacist is guilty, guilty, guilty. What I am surprised about is the life sentence.

03Lightningrocks wrote:I'm not real sure why some posters here want to think the pharmacist was convicted based on some kind of accident or quirk in the law. Think folks!!! You pump rounds into a person who is no longer a threat, you need removed from society. There was NO reason to do that other than a complete lack of respect for human life. I am surprised the pharmacist hasn't already killed someone. I can't imagine what a vindictive person like that would do to my prescription if I made him mad.

It was no mistake. MOST folks believe cold blooded killing is wrong when it is not needed for self defense. I hope it is the belief of most of the posters on this forum too. Face it... this hot head got mad about being robbed and lost control of his temper. Thank god he is off the street. He is just as dangerous as guys who rob places. I sure am glad I never cut that guy off in traffic. An unstable person like that would shoot out my windows for sure.

Listen to the man. Getting one's windows shot out is no laughing matter.