Self defense or murder?

[<3frosty]

http://www.kfor.com/news/local/kfor-news-pharmacy-attorney-defense-story,0,6945101.story


Surveillance video in link^^^

This should be interesting. Two suspects held up a store and only one was armed. The first suspect came in and flashed his gun, but never shot. A second suspect, wearing a mask, attempted to come in and apparently proceed to take the money. The cashier ended up drawing a pistol, and shot the unarmed suspect and chased after the other through the doorway. He then returns, apparently walks PAST the unarmed suspect who was apparently unconscious, retrieves his second side arm and comes back and shoots the kid in the abdomen five times. Now, the kid is dead.

So, is this self defense? Or is this murder?



Two arguments:

First, the kid was unarmed. After he was knocked to the ground, apparently unconscious, he poses no serious danger. So much so that the cashier walked past him almost like nothing had happened to retrieve his firearm and shoot the kid in the abdomen.

Second, when you claim self defense, they should be in the act of robbing or posing harm to you. If you are on the ground, with out a weapon, and apparently unconscious, you are no longer posing a threat. You can't get beat up by someone, see them a few days later, and shoot them. Wild analogy, but essentially the same thing.

However, you can claim the cashier had no idea if the kid had no weapon on his person. Sure. But why walk past the kid with barely any concern, only to return with a second pistol and shoot him (apparently) dead? There is conflicting ideas there. If he is a threat still, why carelessly walk past him, even turning his back for a good amount of time?

I think this is murder. What do yall think?

[kaphwan]

Murder.

No question about it. Can't really claim you weren't compos mentis when you've had all that time to premeditate it.

[<3frosty]

There is a video in the link, in case yall dont see my edit.

I think it is understandable by the body language of the cashier that he felt no danger from the kid on the ground. He not only runs out of the store, exposing his back to the fallen suspect, but then chases after the other suspect for an amount of time i havent figured out yet. He then casually walks PAST the fallen suspect, apparently unconscious, only to retrieve his other handgun and then fire five shots into the abdomen of the suspect.

You can't claim that the cashier felt threatened if he pays no mind to the fallen suspect when he first gives chase after the other and then returns and casually walks past the suspect on the ground to just get his other gun.

[Otacon305]

Murder is such an ugly word. I prefer the term "self offense". And so what? It's common knowledge that robbery isn't the safest recreational activity, and tends to piss off the victims. It's too bad the other guy didn't get what he deserved too. The cashier should have shot that one guy in the spine instead. Paralyze him for life. That would have taught him a lesson, but hey, one less scumbag on the streets now.

[<3frosty]

Murder is such an ugly word. I prefer the term "self offense". And so what? It's common knowledge that robbery isn't the safest recreational activity, and tends to piss off the victims. It's too bad the other guy didn't get what he deserved too. The cashier should have shot that one guy in the spine instead. Paralyze him for life. That would have taught him a lesson, but hey, one less scumbag on the streets now.

Do you deserve to be killed for armed robbery when you did not kill anyone yourself? Let alone fire your weapon? :|

I agree that pain should be inflicted. But not murder.

[D3adcell]

Murder. There was no reason to shoot the guy in the chest 5 times. If you are going to shoot him to make sure he stays down shoot him in the knee caps or something, or don't even shoot him, he could have held him down or something while waiting for the police to get there.

[Greg]

I'm all for defending yourself but if the kid is lying on his back unconscious and you shoot him it is no longer self defense. Although you do have to wonder what was going through that dudes mind being in a situation like that he could have not been thinking clearly. I'm not saying that's an excuse since he didn't seem rushed but it's something to think about.

[frosty]

Yeah, shooting someone while down is a bitch thing to do. Threatening someone's life is something worthy of killing a person over, for sure, but when they have been disabled and clearly pose no threat, especially once you 've had the time to assess the fact that they never posed a threat to begin with, then it's simply murder.

robbing people and pissing them off still in no way justifies murder. the dude did deserve to get shot, but only the one time. coming back and finishing the job was where he crossed the line and stooped below their level. he now is a criminal just like them, only he now is a worse type of criminal. he now deserves a worse punishment than they would have gotten.

[Otacon305]

he now deserves a worse punishment than they would have gotten.
So shoot him too.

Or fire him out of a high speed catapult, straight into a brick wall.

Whatever, just kill people.:thumbl:

[<3frosty]

Ersland said he shot one of the robbers in the head then grabbed a second gun to pursue the other robber.

The injured teen was trying to get up, Ersland said, so he emptied his gun into the would-be robber’s chest.

The other robber and getaway driver drove away before Ersland could reach them, he said.

http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-pharmacist-faces-murder-charge-in-shooting/article/3372941?custom_click=lead_story_title


This is the entire video and a good story about the situation. The cashier was a disabled Army vet.

Adds a little doubt. Obviously the only account of the situation will be from him in regards to the downed suspect. Where did the DA/other news crew get their information that the suspect was unconscious...

[Fillibuster]

Hazy, hazy situation no doubt. If it had all occurred in a short amount of time, than no doubt it would be self defense. Coming back and finishing the job, well that is murder.

[Rizon]

When he took the kid down the first time, that could be classed as self defence.

However coming back, grabbing another gun and putting another 5 holes in him kinda classes it as murder.

I've always worked on the princaples of disarm and disable. Which that kid was clearly.

[kaphwan]

There is a video in the link, in case yall dont see my edit.

No chance in hell I could bring myself to watch that movie.

Iraqi spy being beheaded and the beheaded head vomiting after it's no longer attached to his spine, sure, but I've got too many close friends around that age that get into more trouble than they should :-/

[Paz]

He tried robbing the store... fuck him.

First shot should have been between the eyes... also, I would have chased down the guy who fled and blown his skull apart as well.

Sorry if I don't feel like wasting time and money in a legal battle, and then, if convicted, paying for the guy's sentence.

The initial shot is self-defense, anything else is murder, but I am okay with that.

[Viper]

No chance in hell I could bring myself to watch that movie.

Iraqi spy being beheaded and the beheaded head vomiting after it's no longer attached to his spine, sure, but I've got too many close friends around that age that get into more trouble than they should :-/

It's safe to watch. Remember this was shown on regular TV. You don't actually see him getting shot as the gun is always off camera when firing as is the robber (except for the very first shot but that just looked like he fell since you couldn't even see the store owner).


He won't get murder 1. That would require the store owner to intend to kill him prior to the attempted robbery. Murder 2 or even just manslaughter is what he may get convicted on.

If the DA does get him on Murder 1 then the store owners attorney is a dumbass.

[D3adcell]

Why did he go back for another gun anyways? He really thought once he went back into the store and got the other gun they were still going to be there?

Plus if he only fired one shot while in the store the gun should have still had plenty of shots in it, did he just suck and miss the others so he has to shoot the kid in the chest to feel good about himself? I don't get it.

[Soda Jones]

If you commit robbery you forfeit your right to live.

That being said, if the suspect is already (partially) incapacitated, it is up to the discretion of the defender on how far to carry out opposing action.


Bottom line, the thief made the decision to steal in the first place, therefore he is at fault for his own outcome as he was in direct control of whether or not the situation would occur in the first place.

[<3frosty]

Why did he go back for another gun anyways? He really thought once he went back into the store and got the other gun they were still going to be there?

Plus if he only fired one shot while in the store the gun should have still had plenty of shots in it, did he just suck and miss the others so he has to shoot the kid in the chest to feel good about himself? I don't get it.

He went back for the other gun to fire it into the chest of the kid. He makes no action to resume chase.

Also, id assume the pistol was probably a six shot. He might have shot enough times while giving chase to empty his clip. I cant tell when the first shot is fired so i doubt i can tell when any other shots are fired. Also, he hit the kid in a tense situation from across the room in the head. Id say he is a decent shot standing still. On the move shooting is usually a different thing entirely.

[Otacon305]

He should've came back with a ten gauge shotgun and blown the guys head off.

[Paz]

Then pissed on his remains, then thrown in a few WP grenades.

[Gummy]

murder.
That kid shouldn't have been there in the first place.

Basically it's his fault for getting murdered.

[Sweaty S0cks]

Murder.

Even if the kid was getting up he could have kicked him in the face or something. Pitty the camera doesnt show if he was moving or not.

[Broly]

I'm with Soda and Paz (first post anyway, lulz) on this. You do something that puts you in the wrong (ethically speaking) and you deserve whatever kind of punishment the one you have wronged chooses to deal. I'm not the biggest fan of every part of the law, but it's easy to tell the difference between right and wrong. Oklahoma has the same Castle Doctrine and stand-your-ground law as my state. I don't believe the pharmacy owner will be charged with anything given the situation and his history as an army vet. His decision, in his mind, at that time, was the best option. I would have to agree. Justice is served. Let it be another lesson to anyone else thinking about trying something similar.

[Paz]

http://www.inert-ord.net/usa03a/usa3/m15m34a.jpg

[Black Dragon37]

First shot = Soul Crush. Next 5 shots = Critical Finish.

[Bryan]

I treasure life, and all of it's beauty, but I completely support the first round that was shot, whether the kid was unarmed or not. And even if you don't support my opinion, the first round that was fired well within the boundaries of the law.

If I were this pharmacist, and some punk fuckers came into my pharmacy waving a gun around making demands, I wouldn't know their intention, and I would do all that I could to prevent them from killing me when I gave them the drugs or cash that they wanted. If I could say with any certainty that someone so stupid as to come into a place of business and rob and gun point wouldn't actually shoot me, then I would just give them what they wanted in the interest of preserving life. But what I would not do is lay down and be a victim to those who have no idea what it means to work for a living. I would not stand back as these scumbags took my livelyhood, when there is a very huge chance that they would take my life as well. There isn't an armed robbery union, and armed robbers don't get insurance from that occupation. It's very dangerous work, and I don't know about the rest of you, but even when I was 16, I knew better.

However, I do feel that shooting the downed kid an additional amount of times after that time frame is worthy of a charge of murder. We'll see how it works out.

[Jonny Royal]

Otacon is a good guy

[Nate]

That was strait up murder. The kid was defenseless. He probably thought he had a weapon concealed or something, but he didn't need to shoot him 5 times! He could have at least shot him in the leg or something to prevent him from running away. That guy is definitely going to jail.

[Travis]

How is this a question? Of course it's fucking murder. That man should be in prison.

The first shot was fine by me. But when he walks past the kid twice while he's on the ground, gets another gun, and then shoots him 5 times? That's murder.

[Otacon305]

"Self offense".

It's called using proportional force, and it's the american way. Somebody eggs your house, you kill their dog. Somebody tries to hold up your store, you shoot them 5 times after they're down. Somebody robs you, you kill their whole family. Somebody levels a pair of skyscrapers with airplanes, you flatten a couple countries. We need to send these people a message.

[frosty]

Ok, well the next time you misspell a word on the forums remind me to blow your fucking head off. It's the american way, right? well, if you're too ignorant to realize fighting fire with fire doesn't work.

reigning down punishment that is 10 times more severe than the crime will only create bloodlust from those who you punished (or their friends/relatives) and further create more tension. your bush era mindframe is the exact reason our country is hated by the entire planet... it failed us for the past decade and it will only fail in the future. no matter if it's on a national or personal level, punishments should always be fair and just. if you attack me, I have no right to attack your neighbor, or to attack you then shoot you in the back 5 times while you're on the ground.

there are places in the world where the government actually does shit like that, and we tend to call the leaders of those nations dictators. execution over disagreeing with your government, possessing drugs, religious intolerance, all these things are right in line with your suggestion of punishing extra hard so nobody else has the balls to commit the crime.

We are a free and just nation. as a soldier who's job it is to protect those freedoms, you should not have such a mindset of unjust punishments.

[Otacon305]

Well, duh. You fight fire with napalm. Or thermite plasma.

It wasn't a mistake. It wasn't like "Oops, I slipped and fell into this store with my gun out, then accidentally demanded the money instead of asking for directions". It was intentional and premeditated.

[Paz]

The kid was defenseless.

Most irrelevant statement in this thread.

How is this a question? Of course it's fucking murder. That man should be in prison.

The first shot was fine by me. But when he walks past the kid twice while he's on the ground, gets another gun, and then shoots him 5 times? That's murder.

That's what happens when you try and rob!

[Otacon305]

Saying that guy didn't deserve it is like a proctologist saying "What the fuck! I'm staring into assholes all day!"

[D3adcell]

I treasure life, and all of it's beauty, but I completely support the first round that was shot, whether the kid was unarmed or not. And even if you don't support my opinion, the first round that was fired well within the boundaries of the law.

If I were this pharmacist, and some punk fuckers came into my pharmacy waving a gun around making demands, I wouldn't know their intention, and I would do all that I could to prevent them from killing me when I gave them the drugs or cash that they wanted. If I could say with any certainty that someone so stupid as to come into a place of business and rob and gun point wouldn't actually shoot me, then I would just give them what they wanted in the interest of preserving life. But what I would not do is lay down and be a victim to those who have no idea what it means to work for a living. I would not stand back as these scumbags took my livelyhood, when there is a very huge chance that they would take my life as well. There isn't an armed robbery union, and armed robbers don't get insurance from that occupation. It's very dangerous work, and I don't know about the rest of you, but even when I was 16, I knew better.

However, I do feel that shooting the downed kid an additional amount of times after that time frame is worthy of a charge of murder. We'll see how it works out.

I agree with you.

If the first shot had been a headshot and blew his brains out, it would have been fine by me. But the follow up 5 to the chest....too much unnecessary force.

[frosty]

It wasn't a mistake. It wasn't like "Oops, I slipped and fell into this store with my gun out, then accidentally demanded the money instead of asking for directions". It was intentional and premeditated.

A mistake can be premeditated. Committing any crime is a mistake. Some mistakes are more severe than others, but as long as you aren't threatening or taking a life (which this dude was not, though his friend with the gun was), you deserve to be given chance to reconcile that mistake. The dude was unarmed. His friend was armed. The clerk had plenty of time to assess the fact that the person on the ground was no longer a threat, so the following 5 shots were then nothing more than vengance, which is both wrong and illegal. He was no longer in any danger, so he should have allowed the crook to suffer the just legal punishment he surely had coming to him rather than ending his life on the spot. Robbery is not a crime worthy of murder, especially when it isn't even YOU being robbed, just the store you work for. Insurance would have handled paying for all that was taken if they did manage to get away (which they didn't).

The dude did deserve the first shot. Getting shot is something that should come with the territory of robbing people. But getting shot, nearly killed, then shot 5 more times in the back while you lay helpless on the ground is just fucked up. Everyone reaches a point in their lives when they do things that they aren't proud of. The dude was spared a second chance at life when the first bullet missed it's mark. That should have been the end of it. He should have recovered, went to jail, and then he would have had his second chance to make shit right and quit being a crook. The store clerk took it upon himself to play god (as he was no longer defending himself) and take the man's second chance from him out of nothing more than vengeful spite. That is where he stooped lower than those who robbed him, and that is why he should be thrown in prison for murder.

[Otacon305]

So the guy who was robbing the store made a premeditated mistake and deserved a second chance, but the cashier doesn't?

[masteratt]

http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-pharmacist-faces-murder-charge-in-shooting/article/3372941?custom_click=lead_story_title
Wow, apparently the kid didn't die from the headshot and those 5 shots were probably to 'put him to rest'?
I dunno.

All I know is if I was injured and suffering from a head wound, I wouldn't mind being 'put the rest'.
Must be hell to get shot in the head and suffer the pain of it so maybe that kid was saying "just end my pain"?
Who knows, we need a more detailed report I think.

Anyway, I'm trying to find a way not to say "well he did an armed robbery with a friend so he should have expected this" but I can't.
It is a country where almost anyone has a gun and when you agree to do something like this, you should realise chances of you getting shot is VERY high and if you don't realise that...Well, um....You will when bullets start hitting you.

For some reason my instinct isn't to call for the head of the cashier at all.
Being a vet he probably just missed killing people and so he should be sent to some kind of psychiatrist to recover from his blood-lust (that's if he just shot the kid 5 times for the hell of it) and then back to his day job he goes.

Is it self-Defence? No.
Is it murder? No.
Is it a "Fuck you, you little punk!"? Yes.

The way I see this news overall though is pretty simplified: Accomplice of an armed robber gets shot. :shrug:

[curryking1]

Committing any crime is a mistake.

False wording, charged with ambiguity.

A mistake literally means doing something wrong, but a mistake also implies one didn't intentionally do something. It's just like how people improperly use the word 'accident' to describe a traffic collision; it implies no one was at fault.

To complete tear apart the notion of crime == mistake is a simple hypothetical scenario like this: I purposely throw my garbage out of my car window and onto the street.

If one wants to argue a the crime is a mistake in the situation when you are caught--because you are now liable to pay money or serve time you otherwise might not have had to--then the crime itself does not decide whether or not a mistake was made.

Instead it will be a personal appraisal after the fact. One would have to evaluate the merit and conditions that resulted from their action/inaction. It could be a mistake for a student to be arrested in an unruly protest maybe because s/he might have to withdraw from studying which s/he values greatly but for a protester in Burma one may feel s/he has accomplished something in spite of, or even because of, being arrested.

These parties have not been charged and will not have their situations reviewed on the fact that all crimes are mistakes--although a 'mistake' can be part of the circumstances a.k.a. the situation to be reviewed, but it is not part of the crime itself--but that all crimes are not permitted.

[Negativity]

Odd. Maybe I'm drunk, but it doesn't even seem like he fired five rounds.

Argh, tough question, but damn stupid kid.

I think murder, but it should be without repercussion for the fairness of it. I still the it was a murderous act.

Edit: Murder does not imply 'wrong'.

[JasonXe]

Before he gets sent off to prison, he should do all us youtubers a favor.

Dude: *Yells* "I Did Not Murder Him" (in robotic voice & repeat 30 times)

idk, if im going out then im making sure i'll be on million of youtube clips.