I think we're going to see a new DA in Oklahoma County next election.

[batonrougesooner]

At least I hope so. I will definitely donate to his opponent's campaign.

Instead of murder he should be charged with desecration of a corpse.

http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-pharmacist-faces-murder-charge-in-shooting/article/3373149?custom_click=lead_story_photo

[Crucifax Autumn]

A_R218cr5Bg

Now that's desecrating!

But yeah...I'd have to agree unless his opponent was caught on tape diddling young boys!

[def_lazer_fc]

i thought it was a pretty cut and dry case of the DA ****ing up when i first read the headline. but then theres the shooting in the head followed by opening 5 rounds into the chest. a bit excessive i know, but then again, i cant help but think what i would do in that situation. tough situation no doubt

[AlbqSooner]

Unless the felony murder law has changed, the accomplice and getaway driver could be charged with murder despite the reservations expressed by the DA. One engaged in the commission of a felony, in which someone is murdered, can be charged with murder along with the shooter. Seems to me if they charge the robbery victim with murder they could sustain similar charges against the victim's accomplices.

As far as charging the pharmacist, until you have looked down the barrel of a firearm pointed at you, you have no idea what your response will be. When you are looking at it pointed at you, a small caliber pistol can look like a five inch diameter rocket launcher. The adrenalin can cause you to do things you might not otherwise.

[Dio]

I thought the "file lots of trumped up charges for publicity's sake" era ended when Macy left office. Now all Prater needs is an incompetent hack in the lab to back him up.

That DA from the Duke Lacrosse case thinks Prater's full of ****.

[olevetonahill]

That Vid sucked ,
The article said the Vic had a wound to his arm. when he came back in the 1st perp was trying to get up, Vic had no way off knowing if the downed perp still had a weapon or not.
Seems Like Self Defense to me.
Unless there's better Vid somewhere or the 2 women workers testify against the man.

[SoonerJack]

They should give Ersland a medal.

[Condescending Sooner]

They can still plea bargain. Emptying a gun in an unconscious perp laying on his back is excessive IMO.

[olevetonahill]

They can still plea bargain. Emptying a gun in an unconscious perp laying on his back is excessive IMO.

Article said the Perp was trying to get up .
so I dont think he was unconscious .

[sooner_born_1960]

I think the DA is going to have a hard time proving the perp wasn't trying to get up. The number of bullets employed to ensure he didn't get up is irrelevant.

[Harry Beanbag]

They can still plea bargain. Emptying a gun in an unconscious perp laying on his back is excessive IMO.

I agree. That video could be a huge problem for Mr. Ersland.

[TUSooner]

Unless the felony murder law has changed, the accomplice and getaway driver could be charged with murder despite the reservations expressed by the DA. One engaged in the commission of a felony, in which someone is murdered, can be charged with murder along with the shooter. Seems to me if they charge the robbery victim with murder they could sustain similar charges against the victim's accomplices.
That's what I thought. It seems like the DA is making a promis, not stating the law.


As far as charging the pharmacist, until you have looked down the barrel of a firearm pointed at you, you have no idea what your response will be. When you are looking at it pointed at you, a small caliber pistol can look like a five inch diameter rocket launcher. The adrenalin can cause you to do things you might not otherwise.
That is tough. I mean, shooting a defenseless anybody is pretty, well, indefensible. But how can you nail a guy for 1st degree murder for finishing what someone else started? I predict a very pleaded down charge or a jury's acquittal. You're the defense attorney, Albq. How about an insanity-type plea. Couldn't you plausibly argue that he thought he was "doing the right thing" at the time?

[Taxman71]

I don't think Prater lets this goes to trial. PR-wise, it is a lose-lose situation if it goes to jury verdict and his DA days may be in jeopardy. If it does, expect a circus. Jury selection will be absolutely crucial in this case with opposite sides being very outspoken.

I agree that Prater HAS to charge the accomplices (when they are caught) with felony-murder.

[Lott's Bandana]

Gee, pharmacists lead an exciting life, don't they?

[batonrougesooner]

Any sort of conviction or plea by the pharmacist would be an injustice to the pharmacist in my opinion. Like already stated, he just finished what others started. He didn't go looking for this fight.

The thing that strikes me is that the perp already had a GSW to the head. Not likely to make a meaningful recovery regardless if he was "alive" or not when he finished him off. He was most likely going to die anyway. Not worth a first degree murder charge. And if his wound was such that only grazed him or maybe hit him in the jaw vs. the calvarium and he was moving or able to get up, the further shots were still necessary. Notice the police are never charged for filling a guy full of holes when one or two would have sufficed. Nor should they be.

Prater is sending a message, intentional or not, to all small business owners and home owners as well. Protect yourself and your property at your own risk. Very bad decision on his part in my opinion.

This is an instance where I would wholeheartedly welcome jury duty.

[olevetonahill]

Gee, pharmacists lead an exciting life, don't they?

They have access to all the Good stuff :D

[Jello Biafra]

one less dirtbag that can possibly kill me or my family.....


this v (below link) happened litterally 15 minutes after i left the store...i say fugg em....with a stick

http://newsok.com/crimetracker-briefs/article/3370495?custom_click=rss

[OUDoc]

I think the jury will find him not guilty, then the DA looks like the good guy to the kid's family and the pharmacist will be vindicated.
It seems wrong to charge him however. It also seems weird to plug 5 more shots into a dead kid.
Strange case.

[Oldnslo]

How about an insanity-type plea. Couldn't you plausibly argue that he thought he was "doing the right thing" at the time?

Snot the law in OK. He'd have to show that at the time, he didn't know right from wrong. Plus, by pleading insanity, he'd essentially be conceding the elements of 1st degree murder. I don't think he needs to do that. Ain't no way there are going to be 12 unanimous beyond a reasonable doubt votes.

[Lott's Bandana]

The article says d00d just had back surgery and couldn't flee.

He sure high-tailed it after the perp after plugging his buddy.


Why did he need a second gun? Did he empty the first one during the initial exchange?







I just wanted to somehow work in the word, "perp".

[Harry Beanbag]

The article says d00d just had back surgery and couldn't flee.

He sure high-tailed it after the perp after plugging his buddy.


Why did he need a second gun? Did he empty the first one during the initial exchange?







I just wanted to somehow work in the word, "perp".


His second gun was The Judge, he probably just wanted an excuse to shoot it.

[Taxman71]

No doubt the videotape is the basis of this entire thing....without and it would have just been the pharmacist's word against noone's. However, the defense counsel (Irvin Box) will point out that the video is not conclusive as to the movement and condition of the victim. The most damaging part of the video is how calmly the pharmacist (likely due to being a war vet) returns to the store, reloads, shoots the victim, then calls police seemingly calm.

[Jello Biafra]

bottom line is this...we need to take back this world. if we have to do it one dead "perp" at a time, so be it. you don't want to die? don't walk into a place of business waiving a weapon. period.

these people know (most likely) noone will be stupid enough to defend a place of business and there is better than a 50% chance the "perp" doesn't want any witnesses and will kill anyone who has seen their face.

i know door kick ins happen all of the time but it is far more likely someone will rob a store than a residence...why? FEAR. I will empty 10 clips in someone who walks in the front door of my house demanding money.

[OhU1]

The most damaging part of the video is how calmly the pharmacist (likely due to being a war vet) returns to the store, reloads, shoots the victim, then calls police seemingly calm.

If proven this could be the "moment of reflection" necessary to convict on first degree planned homicide. I might be persuaded that the pharmacist though apparently calm was rattled enough to not be capable of forming 1st degree intent. Another possibility is that the pharmacist's senses were skewed by adrenaline and having tunnel vision he still believed he was in danger at the time he fired the 2nd volley of shots.

I have no regard for the deceased criminal and wish more would meet his fate. But you do not have a legal right to "finish the job". I can see other plausible legal defenses though. I feel bad for the man that he was put in this position by these thugs when all he did was go to work to make his living.

[ADs_Agent]

Vigilante justice cannot be tolerated, if the 16 year old was unconscious than Mr. Ersland murdered him, if the perp was getting up he's fully justified. That being said, unless he gets a jury full of low income African American females, he'll be cleared of charges most likely.

[Dio]

It was right at one minute from the time the thugs came in the door until Ersland fired the shots Prater says he's filing charges on. Is that enough time to premeditate a "murder", especially with all the other crap going on?

[TUSooner]

Snot the law in OK. He'd have to show that at the time, he didn't know right from wrong. Plus, by pleading insanity, he'd essentially be conceding the elements of 1st degree murder. I don't think he needs to do that. Ain't no way there are going to be 12 unanimous beyond a reasonable doubt votes.

I was speculating that he might argue that he "didn't know right from wrong" at the time. And I'm not sure he'd have to admit 1st degree; he'd have a hard time not admittng the facts shown on video, but I'd think he could still maintain other defenses, like self defense. I defer to you, though, since you are a famous OK media lawyer. ;) We don't see many (any) OK insanity cases down here in the CTA5, in fact, we hardly ever see any arguments about insanity unless they are crudely made by the prisoner long after conviction.

[TUSooner]

***I will empty 10 clips in someone who walks in the front door of my house demanding money.

Girl Scouts beware! Stay on the porch and tone down your sales pitch. Or go to the back door.



lame :O

[Taxman71]

Did the pharmacist empty his Kel-Tec into the victim at the end of the video or was it the Taurus Judge? It helps him if it was the Judge because he got that gun before he walked outside after the accomplice. If it was the Kel-Tec, it could give the impression that he was thinking clearly enough to use the same gun (the Kel-Tec) to finish off the victim instead of the higher caliber Judge already in his possession.

In hindsight, I watch way too much CSI.

[Jello Biafra]

Vigilante justice cannot be tolerated, if the 16 year old was unconscious than Mr. Ersland murdered him, if the perp was getting up he's fully justified. That being said, unless he gets a jury full of low income African American females, he'll be cleared of charges most likely.

is it really vigilante justice? you are defending peoples lives here. how would ANYONE in that store know that they were not going to be killed if they just handed over there cash and drugs?

why was the dude MILES from his home....like the other side of town...

i am sick and tired of the ones committing violent crimes having any rights at all. I have a tough time with this all the time. If i am sitting at a stop light with my kids and a dude walks up and rips the door open and demands i get out....if i shoot him dead, will i end up in prison because my weapon is not registered and because i didnt drive off instead of shooting him and and and.....

[Jello Biafra]

Girl Scouts beware! Stay on the porch and tone down your sales pitch. Or go to the back door.



lame :O

cmon dude. seriously. some of us worry about this shiit...door kick ins happen all of the time. are you willing to risk your family with your inaction?

[TUSooner]

cmon dude. seriously. some of us worry about this shiit...door kick ins happen all of the time. are you willing to risk your family with your inaction?

I think I know where you get the name "jello." Did you even see the "lame" and the :O ? Its a ***ing joke. <shakes head sadly>

btw - I have a firearm and am willing to use it if my home is attacked. just sayin.

[OUMallen]

The adrenalin can cause you to do things you might not otherwise.


Yup. That's why I think he'll get manslaughter. Kinda like a spouse killing a spouse when catching them cheating.

[OUMallen]

It was right at one minute from the time the thugs came in the door until Ersland fired the shots Prater says he's filing charges on. Is that enough time to premeditate a "murder", especially with all the other crap going on?

There's no time limit on premeditation. It really just means your action was voluntary, and the action you performed was potentially lethal, and you knew it was potentially lethal.

[Condescending Sooner]

Article said the Perp was trying to get up .
so I dont think he was unconscious .

That's what the pharmacist said, but the evidence says otherwise. The evidence indicates that the kid wasn't moving after the initial shot.

[def_lazer_fc]

I think I know where you get the name "jello." Did you even see the "lame" and the :O ? Its a ***ing joke. <shakes head sadly>

btw - I have a firearm and am willing to use it if my home is attacked. just sayin.

no, he gets the name from the dead kennedy's singer of same name. the guy is a blow hard. somehow made a career of regurgitating michael moore books. and this is coming from a "liberal". :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[Jello Biafra]

I think I know where you get the name "jello." Did you even see the "lame" and the :O ? Its a ***ing joke. <shakes head sadly>

btw - I have a firearm and am willing to use it if my home is attacked. just sayin.

i saw it...obviously i didnt pay enough attention to it though...

*curtsey*

my apologies :D

[Jello Biafra]

no, he gets the name from the dead kennedy's singer of same name. the guy is a blow hard. somehow made a career of regurgitating michael moore books. and this is coming from a "liberal". :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

mmhmm zero clue.....

possible he is doing that now...but, when i was listening to him, micheal moore was a fat arsed pimply faced punk still getting beat up by girls in high school.


i picked the monicker because there is no one else i could possibly think of when you want the truth spoken. he was a shock jock before shock jocks were even around. if you were a retard and acted like a retard he will call you retard instead of learning impaired or special needs or whatever.

[Jello Biafra]

That's what the pharmacist said, but the evidence says otherwise. The evidence indicates that the kid wasn't moving after the initial shot.

good. i'd like to think i would have had pity on him...but, i can't say for certain i would.

[sooner_born_1960]

That's what the pharmacist said, but the evidence says otherwise. The evidence indicates that the kid wasn't moving after the initial shot.

You must be privy to some evidence we haven't seen.

[Turd_Ferguson]

You must be privy to some evidence we haven't seen.^^^^what I was thinking

[C&CDean]

Yeah, pick me for this jury.

Let's see, two worthless POS thugs come into dude's place of business, start shooting the place up demanding money and drugs, and dude starts shooting back, hitting one POS in the punkin. POS goes down, dude chases the other out the door, dude comes back in, grabs another gun and pumps POS full of holes?

Not guilty your honor. On all charges.

The second the POS walked in the door to rob the place, all bets are off. It wouldn't matter to me if he shot him 20 times, spit on him, then dropped trou and pissed all over the corpse. The POS knew the risks/rewards for robbing somebody.

The really ****ed up thing about this whole deal is what I saw on the news last night. 600 people at this punk's funeral, all dressed like wannabe pimps, demanding "justice, alls we be wantin' is some justice."

**** you. Justice was served. Case closed.

[TUSooner]

i saw it...obviously i didnt pay enough attention to it though...

*curtsey*

my apologies :D

And do pardon my tragic unhipness about the name.

Still, I don't think I'll peddling my cookies on your street, just to be safe. :D

[TUSooner]

Yeah, pick me for this jury.

Let's see, two worthless POS thugs come into dude's place of business, start shooting the place up demanding money and drugs, and dude starts shooting back, hitting one POS in the punkin. POS goes down, dude chases the other out the door, dude comes back in, grabs another gun and pumps POS full of holes?

Not guilty your honor. On all charges.

The second the POS walked in the door to rob the place, all bets are off. It wouldn't matter to me if he shot him 20 times, spit on him, then dropped trou and pissed all over the corpse. The POS knew the risks/rewards for robbing somebody.

The really ****ed up thing about this whole deal is what I saw on the news last night. 600 people at this punk's funeral, all dressed like wannabe pimps, demanding "justice, alls we be wantin' is some justice."

**** you. Justice was served. Case closed.

Do NOT say that on voir dire! :rolleyes:

Since I'm so "refined and civilized" I can't say I agree 100%, but I would certainly go into the case as a juror with those thoughts, and I wouldn't necessarily give them away on voir dire, either. My keen moral refinement also prevents me from saying that it would be fine with me if a tanker truck full of highly flammable liquid just happened to roll into the funeral party and explode into a huge ball of flesh-roasting flames.

[OUMallen]

Yeah, pick me for this jury.

Let's see, two worthless POS thugs come into dude's place of business, start shooting the place up demanding money and drugs, and dude starts shooting back, hitting one POS in the punkin.

Police affidavit says there is no evidence at all the perps shot any rounds either inside or outside.



POS goes down, dude chases the other out the door, dude comes back in, grabs another gun and pumps POS full of holes?

Not guilty your honor. On all charges.

The second the POS walked in the door to rob the place, all bets are off. It wouldn't matter to me if he shot him 20 times, spit on him, then dropped trou and pissed all over the corpse. The POS knew the risks/rewards for robbing somebody.

The really ****ed up thing about this whole deal is what I saw on the news last night. 600 people at this punk's funeral, all dressed like wannabe pimps, demanding "justice, alls we be wantin' is some justice."

**** you. Justice was served. Case closed.


People like you are the reason we all have laws by which to abide. It's not that you're not smart; you clearly reason things out. It's that your perspective is myopic and you, evidently, don't value life as much as we, as a society, have decided to do so.

[Pricetag]

This is just like the Birmingham police thing. People have trouble considering the actions of both parties separately.

I have no pity for the kid that died. None.

That being said, there is a line between defending yourself and executing someone. The clerk had every right to defend himself, but no right to execute the robber if he was no longer a threat. If he did this, it was definitely just as much a crime as the robbery.

[Dio]

Police affidavit says there is no evidence at all the perps shot any rounds either inside or outside.

So, pointing a gun at me does not give me the right to defend myself?





People like you are the reason we all have laws by which to abide. It's not that you're not smart; you clearly reason things out. It's that your perspective is myopic and you, evidently, don't value life as much as we, as a society, have decided to do so.

The perspective that says I should be able to expect a peaceful work or home environment, and defend myself if someone violently invades that, is far less myopic than the view that punk-*** lowlifes have the ability to threaten me or kill me, and I have to sit and wait for our benevolent government to do something about it. Maybe if the pharmacist had given the thug a strongly worded letter, he would gain your non-myopic approval? And I wonder, does your "enlightened" societal protection of life extend to the unborn?

[C&CDean]

Police affidavit says there is no evidence at all the perps shot any rounds either inside or outside.

You seem to have all the evidence on this one all wrapped up. Inside source? Guess a lot?


People like you are the reason we all have laws by which to abide. It's not that you're not smart; you clearly reason things out. It's that your perspective is myopic and you, evidently, don't value life as much as we, as a society, have decided to do so.

This is the biggest pile of steaming horse**** I've seen on here in a while. What people like you don't seem to understand or even care about is the fact that these POS chose to put their lives in danger. These POS chose to commit a felony. These POS chose to live a life that completely doesn't value life as much as I, or society has decided to.

In short, your perspective is all ****ed up. And you call me myopic. Meh.

[Pricetag]

That surveillance video doesn't prove anything one way or the other. We don't see any movement from the fallen robber, but he is completely out of frame, so it doesn't prove he wasn't moving. On the other hand, the body language of the clerk during the second shooting does not seem to me to indicate that he felt threatened.

[sooner_born_1960]

This is just like the Birmingham police thing. People have trouble considering the actions of both parties separately.

I have no pity for the kid that died. None.

That being said, there is a line between defending yourself and executing someone. The clerk had every right to defend himself, but no right to execute the robber if he was no longer a threat. If he did this, it was definitely just as much a crime as the robbery.

I might argue that as long as the scumbag was breathing, he was a threat.

[Condescending Sooner]

It's pretty easy to tell from blood evidence whether someone is moving or not. The kid was not moving after the initial shot.

I have mixed feelings on this, but I will lose no sleep because the kid is dead.

I also don't understand why the pharmacist felt the need to lie about a lot of the circumstances.

[Turd_Ferguson]

It's pretty easy to tell from blood evidence whether someone is moving or not. The kid was not moving after the initial shot.again, were you there?

[C&CDean]

Yeah, it's kinda weird how we've got a poster on this board who knows every minute, gory detail on how this deal went down.

[Turd_Ferguson]

Wow. A "Supporter" bailed the Pharmacist out. Pharmacy owner say's people are dropping off money for defense fee's. Hell, yeah.

[OUMallen]

So, pointing a gun at me does not give me the right to defend myself?






The perspective that says I should be able to expect a peaceful work or home environment, and defend myself if someone violently invades that, is far less myopic than the view that punk-*** lowlifes have the ability to threaten me or kill me, and I have to sit and wait for our benevolent government to do something about it. Maybe if the pharmacist had given the thug a strongly worded letter, he would gain your non-myopic approval? And I wonder, does your "enlightened" societal protection of life extend to the unborn?

Actually, I'm pro-choice based on constitutional reasons. I think the power is reserved to the states and the federal government shouldn't legislate morality.

But no, the point is, if the kid is lying on the ground, bleeding from the head, with no weapon, and there's no threat to your life at that point, you aren't allowed to go kill the kid for fun or because you're angry. I'm not saying murder 1 is the right thing here, but I am saying he's got a got shot at being convicted of manslaughter: a premeditated murder that is mitigated by the circumstances.

Did the kid deserve to DIE? Well, I guess you can debate that all day long. But be happy society decided for all of us that PEOPLE are more important than PROPERTY. Someone waves a gun in my face, you bet I'm firing away. But that's not exactly what we're talking about...

Deano, question: how do you feel about trap guns? Let's say you own a lakehouse you're rarely in...do you think it should be lawful to set up a shotgun that fires at a thief that opens up your garage door?

[OUMallen]

Wow. A "Supporter" bailed the Pharmacist out. Pharmacy owner say's people are dropping off money for defense fee's. Hell, yeah.

Haha, that IS pretty awesome.

[OUMallen]

This is the biggest pile of steaming horse**** I've seen on here in a while. What people like you don't seem to understand or even care about is the fact that these POS chose to put their lives in danger. These POS chose to commit a felony. These POS chose to live a life that completely doesn't value life as much as I, or society has decided to.

In short, your perspective is all ****ed up. And you call me myopic. Meh.

I don't care if the kid is shot in the head in the middle of it- I wish he would have been killed so that we could all avoid the messy aftermath (he died anyway...). That's the risk he undertook. I do care if he's no longer a threat that the pharmacist, at his leisure and in no immediate danger, decided to go finish the job for fun or out of anger.

What if a cop did this? Eye for an eye? Are you looking for justice? I missed the part where the perps fired ONE round, or where they stood above an injured person that might have survived and finished the job. They robbed a store and waved a gun and threatened. The pharmacist lawfully reacted out of fear for his life. The pharmacist apparently then went beyond that and killed someone that didn't appear to be a threat. Who did the wrong thing here?

My perspective is an accurate depiction of the law. Your perspective is someone that thinks you can kill unarmed, injured people that pose no threat to you anymore carte blanche regardless of the state of the law. I'll stick with mine, you stick with yours, just be aware that you can be, and are, wrong in the eyes of the law.

[Vaevictis]

The robber that died was unarmed. The DA is alleging that he was disabled. And he has a video that, if you watch it, suggests that the pharmacy employee thought so, too. He walks by him pretty casually, turns his back on him, grabs a gun, comes back and empties it.

If the DA can prove the facts, I think that under the law, that's murder. You don't get to kill someone who's no threat to you anymore. Self-defense requires that you actually be threatened, right?

(It's not that I feel sorry for the guy who died, he shouldn't have been doing what he did. But at the same time, I don't think we can let people go around killing folks who have ceased to be a threat.)

[Dio]

I still say one minute, under duress, is not enough time to premeditate jack ****. Good thing we have all these lawyers to make the world a safer place for criminals, one thug at a time. :rolleyes:

[XingTheRubicon]

The problem I have is a guilty verdict for murder leveled against Martin Riggs the Pharmacist, probably aides future thieves. If you've got more and more innocent people hesitating when being robbed because they are worried about "is he dead, is it murder" then you're putting the wrong people at risk.

Now if he shoots the perp in all 4 limbs and then disembowels him and plays jump rope with his small intestines then yeah, he should get at least 30 days in county. I don't have a lot of sympathy for maggots.

[batonrougesooner]

I think whether or not the pharmacist was completely justified in his actions should be beside the point when the whole event is considered. This to me should be less about legal theory and more about the practicalities of the situation. These guys made a decision to rob this place with a gun. Decisions that may very well have consequences that were originally unintended by the perps. Roll the dice and take your chance. Regardless, it's not worth ruining the pharmacist's life over. That's what pisses me off the most. These guys initiate a crime and it's the victim who is facing jail. Nothing about that is justice.

[OUMallen]

I still say one minute, under duress, is not enough time to premeditate jack ****. Good thing we have all these lawyers to make the world a safer place for criminals, one thug at a time. :rolleyes:

You apparently don't even know what "premeditation" is considered in most every state under the law. It's easy for you to criticize what you don't understand. You can either keep an open mind and learn something, or you should just go back to the funny pages and leave the law to the lawyers and those that care. Your choice. But don't insult those of us that have taken up the profession. I don't even practice criminal law, but for you to insult everyone in one braod stroke is ridiculous.

I'm not sure what you do for a living, but I'm willing to bet there are those in your profession that do it crappily/immorally.

[OUMallen]

I think whether or not the pharmacist was completely justified in his actions should be beside the point when the whole event is considered. This to me should be less about legal theory and more about the practicalities of the situation. These guys made a decision to rob this place with a gun. Decisions that may very well have consequences that were originally unintended by the perps. Roll the dice and take your chance. Regardless, it's not worth ruining the pharmacist's life over. That's what pisses me off the most. These guys initiate a crime and it's the victim who is facing jail. Nothing about that is justice.

Is justice killing an unarmed and incapacitated person who no longer poses no threat to you?

[Okla-homey]

Okay, here goes. While said pharmacist is indeed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury of his peers...I heard some stuff at the OKC court house today that, if proven, equals murder in the first degree in OUr great state.

To wit, the way I heard it, the kid was shot in the head in self-defense. That's fine. Afterwards, he's lying flat on his back with his arms outstretched, and thus he had been neutralized as a threat. The head shot was not a mortal wound, but he wasn't getting up either.

Now, the kid was a bad seed, has a long juvenile record and would probably have ended up dead or in the penitentiary had he made it to 18, but..."he needed killin'" is not a defense recognized under Oklahoma law.

If it's proven beyond a reasonable doubt that our pharmicist did in fact take the time retrieve a different gun from his office, then proceeded to plug this kid five times in the trunk as he lay there drooling and bleeding, that equals premeditated, deliberate taking of the life of another unmitigated by any colorable claim of self-defense. And that my friends, is murder one.

Now, with all that said, I suspect it's very likely that at least one Oklahoma County person on the jury won't see it that way, and that's all he needs to dodge the murder rap.

Just my opinion mind you. But that's how I see it.

[XingTheRubicon]

http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/706/sledgehammer4.jpg (http://img8.imageshack.us/my.php?image=sledgehammer4.jpg)

[batonrougesooner]

Is justice killing an unarmed and incapacitated person who no longer poses no threat to you?

It's an unfortunate consequence of a situation the pharmacist did not initiate nor seek. Like I said, it's not worth ruining the the pharmacist's life over.

[TUSooner]

Homey provides another pithy, lawyerly analysis from the SO Bar Assn. from a man at the courthouse, no less. Srsly.
The key legal point that our politicized emotions overlook is well stated:


"He needed killin" is not a defense recognized under Oklahoma law.

[TUSooner]

I think whether or not the pharmacist was completely justified in his actions should be beside the point when the whole event is considered. This to me should be less about legal theory and more about the practicalities of the situation. These guys made a decision to rob this place with a gun. Decisions that may very well have consequences that were originally unintended by the perps. Roll the dice and take your chance. Regardless, it's not worth ruining the pharmacist's life over. That's what pisses me off the most. These guys initiate a crime and it's the victim who is facing jail. Nothing about that is justice.

I think that pretty much sums it up. Legally, the elements of 1st degree murder all seem to be there, maybe in trumps, but, dang....he shouldn't go to jail for life, and I assume OK has a "life means LIFE" sentence. I keep asking myself why he had to fire those extra shots, and the only answer I get is "rage."

As maybe the most un-trial lawyer on the SO, I say his lawyer must give the jury an option besides self-defense and guilty of 1st degree or even manslaughter.
What option?

[Jerk]

This may come as a shock but I understand legally why Prater is charging the guy.

But I don't understand why he is charging the guy.

It just doesn't seem to be the thing to do if you're an elected official in a very red state who wants to serve another term.

Oh well. It's too bad that the first shot didn't kill Antwun dead right there on the spot.

Box is representing my wife's family in another case so I don't have to about being called to this jury.

[Jerk]

Give the pharmacist a misdemeanor ticket for using a kel-tec .380 and call it a day.

[Vaevictis]

Maybe we've found one of those rare politicians who puts doing their job the right way over getting re-elected.

A rare breed to be sure, but maybe it's not totally extinct.

EDIT: By certain definitions of "the right way," eg, vigorously enforcing the letter of the law.

[AlbqSooner]

I have not lived in Oklahoma since 1987, so I really don't know the temper of the potential jurors there. However, this case is VERY triable to a jury in my opinion. As a few have said, it would be difficult to constitute a jury of 12 people who would be willing, unanimously, to convict the pharmacist of anything.

I am not speaking from the standpoint of the legality, or not, of the victim's actions. I am speaking in terms of what a jury is willing to buy into.

As far as cooly firing additional shots after the ersatz robber was incapacitated, I defended a man who, after having a sawed off 12 gauge placed under his chin pushed the shotgun aside while drawing his own pistol. He fired 4 shots at point blank range and the other guy, of course, went down, probably mortally wounded. My client then walked over, looked down and fired 2 additional shots into the guy. The DA did raise that as unmitigated murder. The jury did not buy it and found my client NOT guilty. One juror told me that the thing the jury understood was my client's answer to my question, "Why did you fire those other two shots after he was already down?" His answer: "Sir, I did not want him to get up." The jury understood that. Unless Oklahoma jurors have changed in the past 20 or so years, this case is VERY triable from the defense standpoint.

[Jerk]

. Unless Oklahoma jurors have changed in the past 20 or so years, this case is VERY triable from the defense standpoint.

I can tell you for certain that this ain't Berkeley.

[Vaevictis]

go go jury nullification.

I hear that in some jurisdictions (most?) that a judge won't let a defense lawyer directly appeal to the jury to nullify. If so, that's bull****.

[Jerk]

go go jury nullification.

I hear that in some jurisdictions (most?) that a judge won't let a defense lawyer directly appeal to the jury to nullify. If so, that's bull****.

I agree. It's one way for the populace to tell the government that one of its laws is bullsh*t.

[olevetonahill]

You apparently don't even know what "premeditation" is considered in most every state under the law. It's easy for you to criticize what you don't understand. You can either keep an open mind and learn something, or you should just go back to the funny pages and leave the law to the lawyers and those that care. Your choice. But don't insult those of us that have taken up the profession.Even tho we dont read contracts we sign , then come here and Cry about not getting our money back I don't even practice criminal law, but for you to insult everyone in one braod stroke is ridiculous.

I'm not sure what you do for a living, but I'm willing to bet there are those in your profession that do it crappily/immorally.

Fixed :P

[Dio]

You apparently don't even know what "premeditation" is considered in most every state under the law. It's easy for you to criticize what you don't understand. You can either keep an open mind and learn something, or you should just go back to the funny pages and leave the law to the lawyers and those that care. Your choice. But don't insult those of us that have taken up the profession. I don't even practice criminal law, but for you to insult everyone in one braod stroke is ridiculous.

I'm not sure what you do for a living, but I'm willing to bet there are those in your profession that do it crappily/immorally.

I know, I know, "Law, Law, Law"- I'm just saying the law is crap, if this guy goes away for murder 1.

And FWIW, I've seen some of your "brilliant" lawyer brethren that literally could not balance their own checkbooks- 'cause plus and minus is real hard. Put that in your funny papers.

[47straight]

Okay, here goes. While said pharmacist is indeed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury of his peers...I heard some stuff at the OKC court house today that, if proven, equals murder in the first degree in OUr great state.

To wit, the way I heard it, the kid was shot in the head in self-defense. That's fine. Afterwards, he's lying flat on his back with his arms outstretched, and thus he had been neutralized as a threat. The head shot was not a mortal wound, but he wasn't getting up either.

Now, the kid was a bad seed, has a long juvenile record and would probably have ended up dead or in the penitentiary had he made it to 18, but..."he needed killin'" is not a defense recognized under Oklahoma law.

If it's proven beyond a reasonable doubt that our pharmicist did in fact take the time retrieve a different gun from his office, then proceeded to plug this kid five times in the trunk as he lay there drooling and bleeding, that equals premeditated, deliberate taking of the life of another unmitigated by any colorable claim of self-defense. And that my friends, is murder one.

Now, with all that said, I suspect it's very likely that at least one Oklahoma County person on the jury won't see it that way, and that's all he needs to dodge the murder rap.

Just my opinion mind you. But that's how I see it.


So what did you hear that wasn't in the news article or on the tape?

[sooner_born_1960]

I'll be interested in seeing this evidence that the kid wasn't trying to get up. The tape doesn't seem to show anything.

[Okla-homey]

So what did you hear that wasn't in the news article or on the tape?

Pretty solid evidence the kid wasn't trying to get up.

[Condescending Sooner]

Yeah, it's kinda weird how we've got a poster on this board who knows every minute, gory detail on how this deal went down.


Do you people actually think the DA would say on TV that the kid wasn't moving unless the evidence proved it? As I said, I doesn't take a genius to tell by the evidence whether he was moving or not. I think some of you should look at something other than the one video.

The statements he gave the media contains a LOT of false information. I relied on the same info as Homey, and apparantly his info is golden while I am accused of being at the scene.

[Vaevictis]

I keep thinking of the advice that it's better to make sure they're dead, because dead people can't sue you.

[C&CDean]

Pretty solid evidence the kid wasn't trying to get up.

What? The News at 9 on KOCB?

If the POS was moving, moaning, slobbering, or even ****ing breathing then you make sure he stays down. Hell, everyone who's ever hunted knows how an animal can lay there playing dead, then jump up when you least expect it. And this kid was a ****ing animal. No more, no less. The minute he chose to rob this place - **** him.

And no, I don't give a **** about "the law" in this case. Neither will enough people to = 12 of his peers.

[Okla-homey]

I keep thinking of the advice that it's better to make sure they're dead, because dead people can't sue you.

Their families can. And often do.

[sooner_born_1960]

My point exactly. Any type of movement on the part of the perp would indicate he is still a threat.

[Vaevictis]

Their families can. And often do.

I didn't say it was good advice.

I think the premise is that dead people can't testify.

[Turd_Ferguson]

I didn't say it was good advice.

I think the premise is that dead people can't testify.I know I posted this once, but I'll post it again. The attorney that lectured at my CCW class said in no uncertain terms, "If you pull your weapon, you better kill somebody. Never pull it to threaten or wound somebody. Pull the trigger until you run out of ammo, call your attorney then call the police."

[olevetonahill]

I know I posted this once, but I'll post it again. The attorney that lectured at my CCW class said in no uncertain terms, "If you pull your weapon, you better kill somebody. Never pull it to threaten or wound somebody. Pull the trigger until you run out of ammo, Then Turn em into catfish **** "

Fixed bro:D

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Is justice killing an unarmed and incapacitated person who no longer poses no threat to you?

Yes.

Besides, given the heat of the moment, how do you know the pharmacist didn't "think" he saw movement and went to protect himself.

Also, love how the kid all of a sudden in an Honor student and would never do anything like this??? Don't know about others, but this honor student never imagined to case a pharmacy, learn the movement of drugs and money and then go in, prop the door open and run in with guns ablazin'...

Just sayin'.

[OUMallen]

Yes.

Besides, given the heat of the moment, how do you know the pharmacist didn't "think" he saw movement and went to protect himself.

Also, love how the kid all of a sudden in an Honor student and would never do anything like this??? Don't know about others, but this honor student never imagined to case a pharmacy, learn the movement of drugs and money and then go in, prop the door open and run in with guns ablazin'...

Just sayin'.

Heat of the moment = manslaughter charge and possible conviction.

I'm not saying it couldn't have happened that way. The facts are for a jury to decide, but we DO know he was unarmed 100%, he didn't move after falling (unless he crawled away then back to the same spot, which is possible bu unlikely). Also, if he thought he saw movement, it's awfully odd he sauntered over to the kid and emptied the gun right above him after turning his back on him.

All I'm saying is: he didn't look scared, not scared enough to get away scot-free with what he did.

[47straight]

Heat of the moment = manslaughter charge and possible conviction.

I'm not saying it couldn't have happened that way. The facts are for a jury to decide, but we DO know he was unarmed 100%, he didn't move after falling (unless he crawled away then back to the same spot, which is possible bu unlikely). Also, if he thought he saw movement, it's awfully odd he sauntered over to the kid and emptied the gun right above him after turning his back on him.

All I'm saying is: he didn't look scared, not scared enough to get away scot-free with what he did.

We know he was unarmed, but the pharmacist didn't necessarily know that.

We don't know that he didn't move. Funny how fumbling in a waistband wouldn't require any crawling whatsoever.

We don't know that he saw the movement before he turned his back.


And I'm not suprised a 50-ish year old combat veteran didn't look scared.

[Jello Biafra]

dear potential robbers,

don't walk into a pharmacy waiving a gun and demanding drugs and money. if you do this, you will not be shot in your dumb assed head and you will still have rights. if you choose to ignore this warning, god rest your soul.


dear NAACP,

suck a dich. you have no dog in the fight. i suspect if it were a white "baby" he would have died the same way.

signed,

"whitey"

[Jello Biafra]

this is OBVIOUSLY someone who has never had the pressure of shooting a gun in self defense before....lets share some of her wonderful insight...



"I agree with you Chris...he was not defending himself. If I were in the situation...My first reaction would have been to shoot at the person who had a weapon in my face, not to say the victim did not have a weapon. I just don't understand how he can say he was defending himself when he shot the person who did not have the weapon in his face. "
La Vonna, Oklahoma City


you can tell by the angle and the movement at the time of the gun firing that he was aiming for the guy with the gun. the guy with the gun saw it and ducked to the left and the pharm. went center mass of the next closest target. boom! head shot to the poor, honor student who also happened to be a baby.

honor students can't be that stupid. he went to the other side of town to hold up a pharmacy and then didn't have the freakin insight to walk in the store with his mask already in place. he chose to put it on a matter of seconds before the shooting and AFTER his partner produced the gun. maybe he was an honor student that wasn't offered a scholarship so he was holding the place up for tuition? don't know. just "shooting" in the dark to see what we come up with.

[SteelClip49]

A pharmacist who is a disabled veteran went on a mini rampage on the kid. Hmm....it's not war but I wonder if he had a relapse from his war days that made him keep on shooting. If the 16 year old did show signs of moving then i say it;s necessary to fire a shot in the leg but when unconscious, he took it too far.

The pharmacist and 16 year old are both at fault. The pharmacist, being a disabled "veteran" and "shooting 5 times more" shows signs of a war relapse, perhaps.

The pharmacist got what he deserved. The 16 year old got what he deserved at first but didn't deserve to be shot 5 more times when already unconscious.

Let the ethical banter begin!

[TMcGee86]

No way he gets convicted, imho. All he has to say is he felt threatened, and he will get off. Even if he says he was worried he would regain consciousness and therefore felt it necessary to finish him off.

At what point are we going to say that's not a victims right? What if one shot would have killed a person, yet the victim emptied the chamber? Can't see how anyone would have a problem with that.

What if there are a few seconds between shots?

What if there are several seconds between shots?

What if you have what you have here?

I know I wouldn't want to sit on a jury and set a precedent that you need to use the absolute least force necessary or else you will go to jail for life.

I think all the Pharm will have to say is "I was afraid the legal system would get him off and he would come back for me and my family."

Legit? Probably not. Will it hang an OK jury? IMHO, yes. (though I'm a TX atty so wtf do i know. we would have given him a medal)

[Curly Bill]

I'm a TX atty so wtf do i know. we would have given him a medal)


Let me ask you a question then: with the "castle doctrine" in Texas what would likely happen in this case? Would he even be charged? Would there be any grounds to charge him?

[TMcGee86]

There would definitely still be grounds to charge him. The castle doctrine just says you have the right to use deadly force and you do not have to retreat before doing so, even if you have the opportunity.

But the use of deadly force still has to be when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary.

Obviously the debate would be was it "immediately" necessary with the second series of shots.

But I still don't think he would be charged, no. I would think a good defense attorney would quickly change the debate from the immediately part to the "reasonably believes" part. And not many people would want to be put in position to make such a decision so I think they would let him go.

[olevetonahill]

The DA is now gonna go ahead and charge the other 3 robbers with murder also
seems He studied the Law some more :rolleyes:

[Jerk]

The DA is now gonna go ahead and charge the other 3 robbers with murder also
seems He studied the Law some more :rolleyes:


Yeah that's kind of weird after looking at what Prater said a day before in the paper: (paraphrase) "The accomplices will not be charged with murder because they did nothing that resulted in the death of Antwun..."

WTF kind of logic is that?

Anyway, it sounds like Prater had a "WTF did I just do?" moment and reconsidered.

[Jerk]

I read that, and I thought, gawdamned, this moth***cker must think we're living in martha's vinyard.

Has he not noticed the Prius to Ford Truck ratio around here? It does not indicate we have a populace with empathy for armed robbers.

[olevetonahill]

Yeah that's kind of weird after looking at what Prater said a day before in the paper: (paraphrase) "The accomplices will not be charged with murder because they did nothing that resulted in the death of Antwun..."

WTF kind of logic is that?

Anyway, it sounds like Prater had a "WTF did I just do?" moment and reconsidered.


More like "Oh ****, I just opened up a big old can of worms "
Charging the Vic and Not the other perps prolly caught him more **** than his toilet can flush ;)

[olevetonahill]

Heres the article if ya wanta read it
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=12&articleid=20090529_12_0_Oklaho732720

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Let me ask you a question then: with the "castle doctrine" in *Texas* what would likely happen in this case? Would he even be charged? Would there be any grounds to charge him?

He would be no billed. Just ask the guy from Pasadena.

[AlbqSooner]

go go jury nullification.

I hear that in some jurisdictions (most?) that a judge won't let a defense lawyer directly appeal to the jury to nullify. If so, that's bull****.

That is true in many, if not most jurisdictions. However, the key is "directly appeal". If you know the law and have a good grasp of the facts you can almost always do it indirectly.

[Vaevictis]

Heh, considering just how important jury nullification is to the foundations of our nation (see Zenger and Bushel), it really ought to be something a lawyer can directly use as a defense.

[OUNC06]

Yeah, pick me for this jury.

Let's see, two worthless POS thugs come into dude's place of business, start shooting the place up demanding money and drugs, and dude starts shooting back, hitting one POS in the punkin. POS goes down, dude chases the other out the door, dude comes back in, grabs another gun and pumps POS full of holes?

Not guilty your honor. On all charges.

The second the POS walked in the door to rob the place, all bets are off. It wouldn't matter to me if he shot him 20 times, spit on him, then dropped trou and pissed all over the corpse. The POS knew the risks/rewards for robbing somebody.

The really ****ed up thing about this whole deal is what I saw on the news last night. 600 people at this punk's funeral, all dressed like wannabe pimps, demanding "justice, alls we be wantin' is some justice."

**** you. Justice was served. Case closed.

+1000

I am on jury duty starting Monday morning at Tulsa District Court.

[Jello Biafra]

The pharmacist, being a disabled "veteran" and "shooting 5 times more" shows signs of a war relapse, perhaps.



just shut up. have a clue WTF you are talking about.

[Soonerus]

just shut up. have a clue WTF you are talking about.

insanity defense...very likely...

[olevetonahill]

just shut up. have a clue WTF you are talking about.

I think hes tryin to say " P.T.S.D. and Flashbacks " :P

[XingTheRubicon]

I think it's C.T.S.D.

Current Traumatic Stress Disorder.

Every time someone waves a pistol in his face at his place of business, he freaks out and shoots them until they quit moving. It's a little quirk he has.

[Curly Bill]

I think it's C.T.S.D.

Current Traumatic Stress Disorder.

Every time someone waves a pistol in his face at his place of business, he freaks out and shoots them until they quit moving. It's a little quirk he has.

:D SPEK

[SteelClip49]

Jello....did I say something wrong? I read the article. It would be a lot worse if I didn't say PERHAPS.

But hey, why tell me to shut up when I said something that is relevant?

[Jello Biafra]

Jello....did I say something wrong? I read the article. It would be a lot worse if I didn't say PERHAPS.

But hey, why tell me to shut up when I said something that is relevant?

what vet said...this topic has me very angry. i can't believe ANYONE would think this kid has rights AT ALL>

don't hold up a store = not dead....end of story.

just like not drinking and driving = you not being arrested for DUI

[SteelClip49]

The kid lost his rights but it doesn't give the pharmacist the right to keep shooting when it's obvious the kid is NOT moving and is unconscious. If he did move and act like he was about to pull a gun then I say it's ok to keep shooting.

The pharmacist abused whatever power he once had. I don't feel sorry for the kid because of his actions and I don't feel sorry for the pharmacist.

[olevetonahill]

The kid lost his rights but it doesn't give the pharmacist the right to keep shooting when it's obvious the kid is NOT moving and is unconscious. If he did move and act like he was about to pull a gun then I say it's ok to keep shooting.

The pharmacist abused whatever power he once had. I don't feel sorry for the kid because of his actions and I don't feel sorry for the pharmacist.

Not arguing , But please point out where this is Obvious ?

[Harry Beanbag]

Not arguing , But please point out where this is Obvious ?

FWIW, the report I saw said the coroner stated the head wound would have rendered the kid unconscious until he reached a hospital.

[Okla-homey]

What? The News at 9 on KOCB?

If the POS was moving, moaning, slobbering, or even ****ing breathing then you make sure he stays down. Hell, everyone who's ever hunted knows how an animal can lay there playing dead, then jump up when you least expect it. And this kid was a ****ing animal. No more, no less. The minute he chose to rob this place - **** him.

And no, I don't give a **** about "the law" in this case. Neither will enough people to = 12 of his peers.

then you bloody well better not try to dodge jury service next time you get called.;)

[batonrougesooner]

FWIW, the report I saw said the coroner stated the head wound would have rendered the kid unconscious until he reached a morgue.

fixed.

What kind of magic would have occured once the kid reached the hospital? If this bullet was in the brain the damage had already been done. If this wound is anything but a shot to the jaw the kid is most likely done. Just different degrees of done. Either dead in the ER, dead in surgery or dead in the ICU after a week-------->year. Fed through a stomach tube for several years until he dies of sepsis. My point is that even if the kid was "alive" at the time the extra shots were given, this isn't murder.

[47straight]

FWIW, the report I saw said the coroner stated the head wound would have rendered the kid unconscious until he reached a hospital.


Enter defense medical expert, stage right. That would be more than enough for a jury to find reasonable doubt.

[Jello Biafra]

its all very easy for me. maybe im cold and bitter from my days in the military but, you enter with a gun with plans to rob the place, you lose all rights and i gain the right to empty every round i own into your ***.

regardless, if he was truly out cold after one shot, the good news is he didnt feel anything else.

[OUDoc]

FWIW, the report I saw said the coroner stated the head wound would have rendered the kid unconscious until he reached a hospital.


Enter defense medical expert, stage right. That would be more than enough for a jury to find reasonable doubt.
I doubt the medical examiner can say with absolute certainty the kid couldn't have died from a bullet to the head.

[Turd_Ferguson]

I doubt the medical examiner can say with absolute certainty the kid couldn't have died from a bullet to the head.why do you hate drama:confused:

[Condescending Sooner]

The bullet did not penetrate the skull.

"It was merely a flesh wound."

[Turd_Ferguson]

The bullet did not penetrate the skull.

"It was merely a flesh wound."Link?

[Dio]

The bullet did not penetrate the skull.

"It was merely a flesh wound."

"I've had worse"

[C&CDean]

The bullet did not penetrate the skull.

"It was merely a flesh wound."

I keep forgetting we've got Mr. Eyewitness posting on the board.

So, if it was "merely a flesh wound" Mr. Deadassed Thug was more than likely trying to get his worthless *** up off the floor, no?

[Collier11]

It is already obvious how this will turn out, the pharmacist will get off or at the most, get a smaller conviction, racism will be screamed about, blah blah blah...Bottom line is that the guy should not be charged for 1st degree murder, at the absolute worst it should be manslaughter

[Condescending Sooner]

I keep forgetting we've got Mr. Eyewitness posting on the board.

So, if it was "merely a flesh wound" Mr. Deadassed Thug was more than likely trying to get his worthless *** up off the floor, no?

I am getting tired of the inuendo and name calling cause all you geniuses watched one video on the news and based your opinion on it.

No, the thug did NOT move and was unconscious. A bullet careening off your skull would in most cases do that to you. I am an a position to hear things, but if you would do even a little research, you could see the evidence too.

[Condescending Sooner]

Link?


I saw the coroner on TV say that, you look it up.

[C&CDean]

I am getting tired of the inuendo and name calling cause all you geniuses watched one video on the news and based your opinion on it.

No, the thug did NOT move and was unconscious. A bullet careening off your skull would in most cases do that to you. I am an a position to hear things, but if you would do even a little research, you could see the evidence too.

Name calling? Inuendo? Go **** up a rope.

You know the thug did NOT move for sure huh? Based on what you've heard in your position to hear things?

I'm just playing devil's advocate here. In court, when somebody says "dude was down for the count and not moving" and somebody else says "it was a simple fleshwound and it would not be fatal" then other dude is going to say "if it's just a flesh wound how do you know he wasn't moving?"

Beyond a reasonable doubt? Won't ever happen in this case. Mr. Pharmacist walks.

[TMcGee86]

Not arguing , But please point out where this is Obvious ?

Exactly. And obvious to whom? All of you sitting at your computer thinking of what it would be? Or the guy who just had guns drawn on him, shot and downed a perp, then chased another?

I don't give a flying **** what anyone hears anywhere, the coroner wasn't there, nor was anyone else, so nothing is "obvious".

The fact is, bodies do strange things when shot. Just look at the Zapruder film. And there is no concrete way of saying for sure what one will do when shot. You can look and see what happened and guess as to what you think it would have done, but for all you know the kid was screaming obscenities at him. You just don't know.

And again, it's real easy to say it should have been obvious sitting here after the fact. But that whole "fog of war" thing tends to cloud the obvious.

[TMcGee86]

Bottom line is that the guy should not be charged for 1st degree murder, at the absolute worst it should be manslaughter

I'm starting to think this DA may be smarter than we give him credit for, and he realized this all along.

Sort of kills two birds with one stone.

Appeases the victim's family and friends and makes the DA look tough on crime.

While at the same time, all but ensures the shooter walks by overcharging him. He knows no jury will convict the guy of Murder 1.

However, I wont be surprised at all if he proves just how stupid he is and lowers the charge after "researching" the law some more.

[TUSooner]

racism will be screamed about, blah blah blah... This will be a real shame. Dumbaszes will ignore the fact that the dead dude (and how many of his "mourners"?) was a dangerous armed criminal who should have been killed by the first shot. Everything will be "black and white" and "black versus white" which is the end of rational discourse.

[Collier11]

theyve always got something up their sleeve that usually has little to do with the case and more to do with their career

[Collier11]

This will be a real shame. Dumbaszes will ignore the fact that the dead dude (and how many of his "mourners"?) was a dangerous armed criminal who should have been killed by the first shot. Everything will be "black and white" and "black versus white" which is the end of rational discourse.

actually the kid who was shot wasnt armed but he easily could have been, if im attacked by two ppl and one has a weapon, I just assume both have a weapon

[olevetonahill]

actually the kid who was shot wasnt armed but he easily could have been, if im attacked by two ppl and one has a weapon, I just assume both have a weapon

No **** bro
and If ive got one down and shots been fired, I even think that ****er is moving, Im makin sure he dont ;)

[Collier11]

jus splainin stuff to teh TU kid, we all know tulsa peeps are slow ;)

[TUSooner]

jus splainin stuff to teh TU kid, we all know tulsa peeps are slow ;)

I do need some splainin, but my TU is for Tulane (at least as slow as Tulsians). ;)

[olevetonahill]

I do need some splainin, but my TU is for Tulane (at least as slow as Tulsians). ;)

Bro that C11 aint the brightest crayon in the Box ;)

[Collier11]

but I am the sharpest

[olevetonahill]

but I am the sharpest

Yup I can see that :rolleyes:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/132/378724107_ff7c9cd712.jpg?v=0

[olevetonahill]

well hell just click the dayum thing :P

[Collier11]

too lazy, dumb sh*t ;)

this proves that while I may not be the sharpest, you certainly are the dullest :)

[Condescending Sooner]

He was charged with murder 1 cause that's what should have been charged according to the law. That being said, I'm sure the pharmacist will be offered a plea bargain of a lesser charge.

I think he should reject any plea bargains and leave it up to the jury, but you never know what could happen in a jury trial.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

While at the same time, all but ensures the shooter walks by overcharging him. He knows no jury will convict the guy of Murder 1.

However, I wont be surprised at all if he proves just how stupid he is and lowers the charge after "researching" the law some more.

In Oklahoma, is the jury free to find for a lesser crime? or does it have to be what is charged?

[TMcGee86]

In Oklahoma, is the jury free to find for a lesser crime? or does it have to be what is charged?

good question. I meant to ask that myself. I dont know, I don't practice in OK.