Oklahoma Man Convicted Of Murder For Shooting Robbery Suspect
I’m usually pretty much a law and order guy but this conviction seems proper to me.
To summarize the story, two armed teens entered a pharmacy and tried to rob it. They threatened the clerk on duty but the pharmacist/owner had a gun and shot one of them. The other fled the scene. The pharmacist chased the 2nd suspect to no avail.
Now up until this point I think what he did was proper. He was defending himself and his employee. Might not have been smart to chase the 2nd suspect but it was not illegal.
But then he returned to the store, got a second gun and shot the already wounded and *uncounscious* suspect 5 more times, killing him.
Now I understand the need to defend yourself and others but it hardly seems that an unconscious and disarmed suspect is a threat. If the owner wanted to stand over him with a gun until police arrived, fine. But shooting is just out of bounds.
Video of the shooting can be seen here
What do you think dear readers ?
I’m guessing some will question him shooting at all, perhaps some will say his conduct was proper the whole time, but I won’t know for sure until you comment.
15 Responses to “Oklahoma Man Convicted Of Murder For Shooting Robbery Suspect”
Wow, he shot and killed a guy for literally hundreds of dollars. He very likely put the other customers in much more danger. What a gun-happy jerk, and now a convicted murderer. Is it really worth it to play big-man hero for literally hundreds of dollars?
Well the first shooting I can understand, the men were armed and threatening his staff.
The 2nd shooting, out of bounds.
Patrick — I understand that’s how you feel, how you draw your boundaries of propriety. I feel differently.
I think that the guy would have been better off to just give the theives the money, because it would have put the other people in the store at much less risk. It’s not like the kids actually wanted to kill someone. They wanted the money. This pharmacist was extrordinarily irresponsible to escalate the situation further when he could have just told the clerk to give the little snots the cash.
“What do you think, dear readers?”
I don’t know how any sane person could think anything other than what you said you think, Patrick. Self-defense is self-defense; it’s not murder. There is no possible justification that *I* can come up with other than that this was cold-blooded murder.
I’m sure glad he was convicted.
Kathy
Roro,
Actually, I agree with you on that. I didn’t say in my first comment because I was giving a narrow answer to Patrick’s specific question. Since this man WAS convicted of murder for shooting the teen five more times, it’s a moot point in practical terms, but I do agree with you — in fact, it’s the first thing I thought when I read that the pharmacy owner had shot the teen — my first thought was: Why? Did he threaten the owner in any way?
I really don’t think that self-defense should allow a person to kill simply on the basis that someone comes into a store and demands money. That’s not self-defense. Self-defense comes if your life or your immediate physical safety is threatened.
Long-winded way of saying you’re right, but in this particular case it stopped being an issue when the owner came back and executed the guy.
Patrick’s analysis is spot on legally. Remember that the robbers were armed. It cannot be assumed that they intended no harm and only wanted money. We cannot know what mayhem was or was not in their heads.
While it may have been wise to try giving them money first to see if they went away is ok to speculate as hindsight, but in the heat of the moment reacting to armed criminals by taking defensive action is within the definition of defense of self or others.
The subsequent shooting of a person then disarmed and defenseless? Open and shut murder.
To clarify, I am not sure I would have shot the suspects myself, but at the same time it is at least plausable in robbing a pharmacy they were also after drugs and we don’t know the history.
I give the owner the benefit of making his choice on the first shooting.
2nd was completely out of bounds
I don’t know what I’m going to do now, Elijah. After reading your comment, I think you’re right (as to the wisdom, not the legality, of the first shooting). But roro’s thoughts still make sense to me as well.
This does not happen to me often. What do I do?
Kathy
I really don’t see how anyone could see the second shooting as legal. Maybe not care but that’s a different story. RoRo is stating her thoughts as to the morality of the first shooting which is entirely understandable. Sometime tho peoples morality and the legality are not the same. Personally I find the first shooting both legal and within bounds of my morality. While some may see it as shooting someone over “literally hundreds of dollars” I feel that is a situation such as this you are confronting someone who is using a threat to the lives of you and others to get what they want. I do not want to leave my life in the hands of someone who would do that. This was not someone who just demanded money. It was someone who (in Texas anyway) had already committed a felony assault by pointing a gun at someone. Unless you wait until you get shot you can’t have a much clearer case of self defense. In many states you also don’t need self defense as a reason to shoot someone. You are allowed to protect lives, property, and in Texas I believe it is still on the books, to prevent someone from fleeing a felony.
[...] Oklahoma Man Convicted Of Murder For Shooting Robbery Suspect – The Moderate VoiceThey threatened the clerk on duty but the pharmacist/owner had a gun and shot one of them. The other fled the scene. The pharmacist chased the 2nd suspect to no avail. Now up until this point I think what he did was proper. He was defending himself and his employee. [...]
[...] Oklahoma Man Convicted Of Murder For Shooting Robbery Suspect – The Moderate VoiceThey threatened the clerk on duty but the pharmacist/owner had a gun and shot one of them. The other fled the scene. The pharmacist chased the 2nd suspect to no avail. Now up until this point I think what he did was proper. He was defending himself and his employee. [...]
Actually, legally, I agree with both tidbits and Patrick. I disagree from a moral perspective. I understand that that’s just me, and it’s the reason I don’t think it’s safer to have guns around. Guns are around to shoot people, even if they’re just stupid punk-ass kids. The owner — even during his first shooting — greatly escalated the situation to a horribly dangerous level for everyone involved, and he did so for what almost certainly very little money. I know thinking about the stupid kid with the gun, and his safety, is not really the hip thing to do here, but yeah, I wish he hadn’t gotten hurt (let alone murdered afterwards), even though it was his fault that the whole thing happened. I wish he had been arrested and prosecuted and sent to jail. Unhurt. I wish the owner hadn’t had a gun, and I think the situation would have been far better for *everyone* involved — the owner, the clerk, the theif, anyone else around — if he hadn’t had one.
[...] Oklahoma Man Convicted Of Murder For Shooting Robbery Suspect – The Moderate VoiceThey threatened the clerk on duty but the pharmacist/owner had a gun and shot one of them. The other fled the scene. The pharmacist chased the 2nd suspect to no avail. Now up until this point I think what he did was proper. He was defending himself and his employee. [...]
I am so tired of living in Oklahoma, this is such an embarassment. But, he will be eaten alive when he gets to Big Mac. (MacAlister State prison)
The second shooting seems irrational – to the person viewing from his laptop computer, insulated from imminent danger, with no reference point for violent crime, aside from what he or she has seen on television. If you’ve never truly experienced a life or death situation, the fight or flight instinctive drive, or the adrenalin the body releases in these situations, you’re simply not competent to judge. This is one situation where the law fails you. This is not only my opinion as a citizen but as an attorney.
If you decide to engage in robbery or break into someone’s home or threaten another with grievous bodily harm, you’ve effectively surrendered your right to be alive.
You should be ashamed to be from Oklahoma: the jury should have acquitted.