TexasCHLforum.com

What the link to the video that shows the armed robber wearing a mask was not a threat when he was shot?

...had he shot them both and killed them as the robbery began, he would have been exhonerated...even if only one robber had a gun...after shooting one, and chasing the other off...he went back in and to the register area with not so much as a glance to the downed robber, loaded his gun, and walked over and pumped him full of lead...showing no startle reflex, no particular hurry, no reaction to anything he saw...the video shows us no evidence supporting the theory that the wounded robber was any kind of threat...the jury found according to the evidence...he murdered the guy on the floor...

Oklahoma City pharmacist’s supporters seek pardon; attorneys begin appeal

Read more: http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-pharmac ... z1NqoVaGVm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

...the testimony discussed in this new link nails him as a murderer...the jury did the right thing...the emotional comments about "what will we pharmacists do?" are just that...they should do what every shopkeeper being robbed is allowed to do...shoot to stop the threat...nothing is changed by this case...but once the threat has been STOPPED...don't go back and pump a few more rounds into him for good measure...
...I understand that he was upset...but if he couldn't think rationally, he shouldn't have used a gun at all...just given up the money and drugs and hoped for the best...being upset is no excuse or justification for him, for us, or for any other gun-bearing person to do murder...
...having said that...he perhaps could have benefitted by training by a professional trainer, most of which advocate stopping the threat by two or three quick shots...in case the first one might have missed and the perp just flinched...that training would have probably served him well in this case...

I am amazed any group would stand behind this guys actions. There is no way of defending what this guy did without appearing to favor vigilante justice.

Ameer wrote:What the link to the video that shows the armed robber wearing a mask was not a threat when he was shot?

A question for anyone knowing more about Oklahoma criminal law than I do, which could well be all of you.

Who most likely had the burden of proof in Oklahoma to prove the deceased was no longer a threat to the defendant when the latter shots were fired? The state? The defendant? My question itself of course assumes that this was a question which might have even been posed to the jury.

I think it is wise to not assume that all the law/cliches we receive in a Texas CHL course state the law in Oklahoma. Perhaps. But perhaps not. I, for one, must admit that I do not know, but I will bow for the moment to those who say they do. I certainly have no reason to disbelieve them.

Elmo

b322da wrote:

03Lightningrocks wrote: When a person takes it upon themselves to be judge, jury and executioner, nothing will protect them from prosecution. Not even a cop is allowed to do what this guy did. I bet a soldier would be facing charges if he made this same decision in war.

Absolutely true, Lightning. The jury in this case had to have found the facts in the case to be such that a soldier in the field facing the enemy doing the same thing would be guilty of both murder under the Uniform Code of Military Justice and violation of the Law of War.

Unfortunately for both our nation and the individual soldiers, we see more than one of these cases in our military justice system right now.

Elmo

Yep. Lots of folks call it "mercy killing." Once a target is down, you are required to stop aggression to the target and continue in the battle. If the battle has stopped, you are required to render aid to the downed target(s). Of course, the rules of engagement vary from unit to unit. Case in point, a lot of spec op units (Delta, SEAL, SWCC, RECON) shoot to kill, and we are taught to fire until the target is definately NOT going to get back up. Not exactly written anywhere, but you can read between the lines however you wish. Usama was no doubt shot twice. One in the chest, and one in the head to make SURE he was dead.

snatchel wrote:

b322da wrote:

03Lightningrocks wrote: When a person takes it upon themselves to be judge, jury and executioner, nothing will protect them from prosecution. Not even a cop is allowed to do what this guy did. I bet a soldier would be facing charges if he made this same decision in war.

Absolutely true, Lightning. The jury in this case had to have found the facts in the case to be such that a soldier in the field facing the enemy doing the same thing would be guilty of both murder under the Uniform Code of Military Justice and violation of the Law of War.

Unfortunately for both our nation and the individual soldiers, we see more than one of these cases in our military justice system right now.

Elmo

Yep. Lots of folks call it "mercy killing." Once a target is down, you are required to stop aggression to the target and continue in the battle. If the battle has stopped, you are required to render aid to the downed target(s). Of course, the rules of engagement vary from unit to unit. Case in point, a lot of spec op units (Delta, SEAL, SWCC, RECON) shoot to kill, and we are taught to fire until the target is definately NOT going to get back up. Not exactly written anywhere, but you can read between the lines however you wish. Usama was no doubt shot twice. One in the chest, and one in the head to make SURE he was dead.

I bet Usama had those two holes in him before he ever hit the ground.

P.S. Thanks for your service.

b322da wrote:Who most likely had the burden of proof in Oklahoma to prove the deceased was no longer a threat to the defendant when the latter shots were fired? The state? The defendant? My question itself of course assumes that this was a question which might have even been posed to the jury.

I am no expert on any of this, especially if there is anything different in OK, but there are some general rules I know.

The prosecution must prove the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. In this case, it means they must prove that the pharmacist killed the robber, that the robber was a human being (yeah, generally a given but it really is an element of the offense), and that there was malice aforethought. No one really contended the act of killing, and no one contended the humanity of the robber. So the critical point is if there was malice aforethought (and yes, that is the term OK law uses - I found that much). My opinion is that this was proven sufficiently by showing he came back in and reloaded/switched guns before the second shooting. That might be debated.

Then the defense must prove any defense they claim. In Texas, some defenses must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt while others only need the preponderance of the evidence. Some defenses may even be alleged and the prosecution required to disprove. This is the critical point where we don't know enough Oklahoma law to say what evidence is needed and who has the burden.

If the defense were to allege the second round of shots was still self-defense, they would need some evidence to show that the threat still existed. A jury would be the initial factor in deciding how much evidence that is. The pharmacist making the claim may be believed and sufficient for one jury, while another would want more. Then the prosecution would get a chance to disprove any claims the defense made. Int his case, the coroner would show if the robber was moving when shot the second time. After all this evidence is presented, the jury decides which side had more evidence and how good it was and makes a ruling.

One of the grounds for an appeal may be the lack of sufficient evidence to prove guilt. The appellate judges may then review the evidence (and I think they take it in the light most favorable to the defense but I am not sure) to see if it really was sufficient or not. I, again, am not sure but pretty confident that they tend to give a lot of deference to the jury decision because the jury is the only one who gets to weigh the credibility of the various witnesses.

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. From my brief review of the OK statutes, the pharmacist really needed the Texas "heat of the moment" clause to lower the offense and it does not exist there. He might be able to get probation or shock probation but I don't see much hope for him, at least the way the media is reporting it.

srothstein wrote:

b322da wrote:Who most likely had the burden of proof in Oklahoma to prove the deceased was no longer a threat to the defendant when the latter shots were fired? The state? The defendant? My question itself of course assumes that this was a question which might have even been posed to the jury.

I am no expert on any of this, especially if there is anything different in OK, but there are some general rules I know.

The prosecution must prove the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. In this case, it means they must prove that the pharmacist killed the robber, that the robber was a human being (yeah, generally a given but it really is an element of the offense), and that there was malice aforethought. No one really contended the act of killing, and no one contended the humanity of the robber. So the critical point is if there was malice aforethought (and yes, that is the term OK law uses - I found that much). My opinion is that this was proven sufficiently by showing he came back in and reloaded/switched guns before the second shooting. That might be debated.

Then the defense must prove any defense they claim. In Texas, some defenses must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt while others only need the preponderance of the evidence. Some defenses may even be alleged and the prosecution required to disprove. This is the critical point where we don't know enough Oklahoma law to say what evidence is needed and who has the burden.

If the defense were to allege the second round of shots was still self-defense, they would need some evidence to show that the threat still existed. A jury would be the initial factor in deciding how much evidence that is. The pharmacist making the claim may be believed and sufficient for one jury, while another would want more. Then the prosecution would get a chance to disprove any claims the defense made. Int his case, the coroner would show if the robber was moving when shot the second time. After all this evidence is presented, the jury decides which side had more evidence and how good it was and makes a ruling.

One of the grounds for an appeal may be the lack of sufficient evidence to prove guilt. The appellate judges may then review the evidence (and I think they take it in the light most favorable to the defense but I am not sure) to see if it really was sufficient or not. I, again, am not sure but pretty confident that they tend to give a lot of deference to the jury decision because the jury is the only one who gets to weigh the credibility of the various witnesses.

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. From my brief review of the OK statutes, the pharmacist really needed the Texas "heat of the moment" clause to lower the offense and it does not exist there. He might be able to get probation or shock probation but I don't see much hope for him, at least the way the media is reporting it.

Or...that the pharmacist "reasonably" thought so.

What is the difference between shooting a guy once and killing him, and shooting a guy once, killing him and continuing to fire? He is dead both ways and it was legally justified to shoot him in the first place.

The only valid charge I could conceive of is something along the lines of desecration of a corpse.

I don't support the act and am relatively sure that I would not do the same, but don't understand why it became anything other than a justified killing.

Deleted - double post.

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

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 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.