DrDawkinstein Posted July 11, 2011 Share Posted July 11, 2011 (edited) http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43710936/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/?GT1=43001 An Oklahoma pharmacist has been sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of parole for first-degree murder in the shooting death of a teenager who tried to rob the south Oklahoma City pharmacy where he worked. I dont really care that he pumped 5 shots into the kid. Actually, I liked that he did. The robber had it coming. You want to attempt the crime, you get whatever comes to you... Edited July 11, 2011 by DrDareustein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajzepp Posted July 11, 2011 Share Posted July 11, 2011 I'm sorry, but someone threatens your well-being, you have every right to take whatever measures possible to preserve your life. I don't understand verdicts like this. If someone ever came onto a floor of the hospital I was working in, you can bet your arse I'd do whatever I had to in order to remove the threat. To think that I would be sentenced to LIFE for protecting myself and my coworkers (and patients) is just unfathomable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SageAgainstTheMachine Posted July 11, 2011 Share Posted July 11, 2011 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43710936/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/?GT1=43001 I dont really care that he pumped 5 shots into the kid. Actually, I liked that he did. The robber had it coming. You want to attempt the crime, you get whatever comes to you... I agree with you. But our legal system, fortunately, isn't based on people "getting whatever comes to them." When you shoot an unconscious defenseless person 5 times, that's murder no matter what the circumstances were. Having said that, he should have received the lowest degree of murder, and a life sentence is truly ridiculous. I'm sorry, but someone threatens your well-being, you have every right to take whatever measures possible to preserve your life. I don't understand verdicts like this. If someone ever came onto a floor of the hospital I was working in, you can bet your arse I'd do whatever I had to in order to remove the threat. To think that I would be sentenced to LIFE for protecting myself and my coworkers (and patients) is just unfathomable. Would you continue firing headshots after the threat was removed, though? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted July 11, 2011 Share Posted July 11, 2011 But our legal system, fortunately, isn't based on people "getting whatever comes to them." Fixed. Too bad the pharmacist didn't get them both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booster4324 Posted July 11, 2011 Share Posted July 11, 2011 We already talked about this one. The pharmacist coldly and calmly walks behind the counter, grabs a new gun and then unloads several shots into the unconscious robber. In addition he lied to the police about what happened. He had every right to defend himself, yet he had no right to play judge, jury, and executioner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 Didn't read the specifics of the case, but how do they know he was unconscious and not dead after the first shot? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booster4324 Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 Didn't read the specifics of the case, but how do they know he was unconscious and not dead after the first shot? Heck, the defendant argued that he was alive. His contention was is that the guy on the ground was still a threat. Smarter argument would have been he was dead I suppose. Then it is just corpse mutilation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrDawkinstein Posted July 12, 2011 Author Share Posted July 12, 2011 I agree with you. But our legal system, fortunately, isn't based on people "getting whatever comes to them." When you shoot an unconscious defenseless person 5 times, that's murder no matter what the circumstances were. Having said that, he should have received the lowest degree of murder, and a life sentence is truly ridiculous. Would you continue firing headshots after the threat was removed, though? I agree it was murder, but there needs to be a new degree of murder. Somewhere between self-defense and the full thing. Call it "finishing what some dumbass started". It sucks when trouble comes to you. He definitely shouldve received the lightest sentence possible. We already talked about this one. The pharmacist coldly and calmly walks behind the counter, grabs a new gun and then unloads several shots into the unconscious robber. In addition he lied to the police about what happened. He had every right to defend himself, yet he had no right to play judge, jury, and executioner. That's the best way Ive seen that side of the argument put. But we've all seen the movies. If you dont finish him, he slowly pulls a gun and shoots you while you are waiting for the police. Maybe thats a little far for real life, but again, who put who in what position? Didn't read the specifics of the case, but how do they know he was unconscious and not dead after the first shot? Good question Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 Heck, the defendant argued that he was alive. His contention was is that the guy on the ground was still a threat. Smarter argument would have been he was dead I suppose. Then it is just corpse mutilation. If the defendant argued that he was alive, then he and his counsel are idiots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booster4324 Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 (edited) If the defendant argued that he was alive, then he and his counsel are idiots. During Ersland's trial, his lawyer, Irven Box, claimed the shooting was self-defense. He said Parker was still moving and was still a threat. "He eliminated the armed robber," Box said in court. Link Oh and the one shot, was unarmed. Edited July 12, 2011 by Booster4324 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 Link Oh and the one shot, was unarmed. I actually kind-of agree with that. If I ever have to face down two armed people alone, I'll do my best to make sure one of them is going down and NOT getting back up, and worry about the legality afterwards. I'm not splitting my attention in two directions if I can help it. I'm also not going to casually switch guns and put five in his head when he's laying on the ground, either. Never mind the whole uber-practical-if-macabre observation that it's a waste of ammo...if you have the time to do that, you almost certainly have no need to, which is probably why the guy was convicted, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 I'm amazed how many people are upset here. I'm also surprised by the life sentence though. I figured 20 years ballpark. You never know how you might react but it sounds like he pretty well decided he was killing a robber the first chance he got. As much as robbery sucks, it doesnt give you free reign to pump a half dead guy full of a half dozen more bullets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booster4324 Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 (edited) I actually kind-of agree with that. If I ever have to face down two armed people alone, I'll do my best to make sure one of them is going down and NOT getting back up, and worry about the legality afterwards. I'm not splitting my attention in two directions if I can help it. I'm also not going to casually switch guns and put five in his head when he's laying on the ground, either. Never mind the whole uber-practical-if-macabre observation that it's a waste of ammo...if you have the time to do that, you almost certainly have no need to, which is probably why the guy was convicted, too. He is armed and twitches, I unload the full clip. Not the case here though. Edit - assuming I have another clip that is. Otherwise a mere 3-4 shots to the head. Edited July 12, 2011 by Booster4324 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SageAgainstTheMachine Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 Fixed. Too bad the pharmacist didn't get them both. Think about this. It's one thing to say that the kids have to accept the consequences of their actions. It's another thing entirely to say it's too bad the other one didn't die. Robbing a store is a stupid and downright nasty thing to do, but you're wishing death upon him? Come on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 Think about this. It's one thing to say that the kids have to accept the consequences of their actions. It's another thing entirely to say it's too bad the other one didn't die. Robbing a store is a stupid and downright nasty thing to do, but you're wishing death upon him? Come on. Seriously. at that point what crime isn't death.... Speeding? A lot of good people have done dumb things when desperate. It's not this mans job to go kill Em all. It really seems like he was waiting for his chance to kill and jumped on it and tried to play the victim after. The killing is closer to a crime of opportunity than a crime of passion or justice in my head- but I may be reading to much in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bowery4 Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 To me the fact that the guy did get charged and convicted is a good thing sort of, I think there is such a thing as over kill. I also think his sentence is a bit excessive but, hey he didn't need to kill him so he shouldn't of. It is really just that simple. As for the crayons idiocy, the drug companies in the US (and racism) are one of the biggest reasons SOME drugs are illegal. Your response to this tragedy is as stupid as most of your shock and be awed by your ignorance responses to most things. Just last week in Thailand where I live, they showed on TV a guy goes into a car dealership and is upset at the owner. So he starts screaming at the guy and he pulls out a gun. The owner turns around and runs towards the back (office), when he turns the guy takes 2 shots at him running away. One of the shots hit him in the butt, the other misses. The owner goes to his office and gets his gun. The guy runs after shooting and is trying to get on his motorcycle and drive away. The owner shoots and hits him, no return fire no reaching for his gun, he is just trying to leave. He cowers behind his bike and the owner takes more shots. a few hit him but he is still just trying to get out of there. Then he pops up a little higher above his bike and the owner scores a head shot and puts him out. IMO murder in the 2nd or at least manslaughter. The police here decided he should just be let go, no charges. Believe me, this is the kind of thing that make you wonder if you want to stay in a place (this happened kind of near my house). I am upset at this one because I know the police are probably taking protection money from the owner guy and people give payola for the carry permit here. Thai police make dog dew for a salary and often pad the coffers; the real reason people become police is to get the extra money involved. I have to say the US justice system far from perfect is at least better than this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajzepp Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 (edited) Would you continue firing headshots after the threat was removed, though? Probably not. Although I can't rule out a short bout of temporary insanity based on the fact that someone just threatened my life I wonder what the outcome would have been if he had simply subdued the threat and then left it alone. Also, I think if you're dumb enough to threaten someone, then you can't assume the person will answer the threat with equal or lesser force. I think you're pretty much giving up that right, and if they go complete ape-sheeat on ur arse, you are just out of luck. Edited July 12, 2011 by ajzepp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chandler#81 Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 Think about this. It's one thing to say that the kids have to accept the consequences of their actions. It's another thing entirely to say it's too bad the other one didn't die. Robbing a store is a stupid and downright nasty thing to do, but you're wishing death upon him? Come on. Sagacious one, me thinks you're thinking to calmly. No one really knows how they'll react to a sudden life or death situation. Should you be confronted with this AND you know where a gun/equalizer is located and accessible, it's a new dynamic in a fast unfolding event. There are many accounts of someone emptying a clip in self-defense-usually with far less penalty. Probably not. Although I can't rule out a short bout of temporary insanity based on the fact that someone just threatened my life I wonder what the outcome would have been if he had simply subdued the threat and then left it alone. Also, I think if you're dumb enough to threaten someone, then you can't assume the person will answer the threat with equal or lesser force. I think you're pretty much giving up that right, and if they go complete ape-sheeat on ur arse, you are just out of luck. This. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 Think about this. It's one thing to say that the kids have to accept the consequences of their actions. It's another thing entirely to say it's too bad the other one didn't die. Robbing a store is a stupid and downright nasty thing to do, but you're wishing death upon him? Come on. Sorry, but if you stick a gun in someone's face with no provocation and for no reason other than to victimize the person, you are nothing but a vile animal who should be put down as quickly as possible. This is what happened in Long Island recently when the pharmacist being robbed didn't have the chance to defend himself. The fewer violent felons alive in the world, the better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booster4324 Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 Sorry, but if you stick a gun in someone's face with no provocation and for no reason other than to victimize the person, you are nothing but a vile animal who should be put down as quickly as possible. This is what happened in Long Island recently when the pharmacist being robbed didn't have the chance to defend himself. The fewer violent felons alive in the world, the better. That guy has obfuscately smoked marijuana. /crayonz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts