GUILTY OK - Antwon Parker, 16, shot dead in OKC pharmacy robbery, 19 May 2009

[Nova]

Let me clarify....I said "technically". And yes technically "standing your ground" is just that, it isn't shoot them, leave, then come back a little while later and shoot them a few more times.

Now do not misunderstand, I am talking from a legal perspective here, not a moral one. I personally am fine with what the pharmacist did, I wish this sort of thing would happen a WHOLE lot more often! I am happy to hear that little won't be able to victimize countless people and live in and out of prison for the next 40 years while being fed and sheltered on tax dollars, I am also glad he won't be out there fathering children that the tax-payers have to feed as well. Good riddance.

You are right about the law, Sonya. I'm sad to hear your position on the ethics of the situation.

I don't believe we know anything about the man whose death you are applauding. I'm not suggesting he has a right to rob pharmacies, but there could be any number of extenuating circumstances that brought him to that store that night. (Let's note that HE was not even armed.)

And what about the not insignificant number of pharmacists who get caught writing phony prescriptions? Can we shoot them, too?

 

[jjenny]

How would this pharmacist know the alleged robber was not armed? The other alleged robber had a gun. A reasonable person could assume both were armed.
Do you agree with that?

 

[Nova]

I don't have a store, and I've made no claims that it's o'key to shoot someone for stealing gum. Furthermore it has nothing to do with this case-this was not a case of a kid shot for stealing gum.

I know you didn't, jenny. I was deliberately using extreme examples to make the point that a line has to be drawn somewhere.

In this case we have an unarmed robber already incapacitated by a gunshot to the head. If he's still fair game for additional target practice, then who isn't?

Personally, I think the law already draws the line in the right place: the threat must be reasonable and imminent.

It was both when the robber was shot in the head. (Even though he wasn't armed, his conspirator was and we can't expect the pharmacist to conduct a detailed weapons check.)

However, the threat was neither reasonable nor imminent some time later when the pharmacist got another weapon and EXECUTED the incapacitated robber. That is the offense with which the pharmacist has been charged. (As I've said, I think first degree may be overcharging; I'd probably settle for voluntary manslaughter given the facts as I understand them.)

 

[Nova]

How would this pharmacist know the alleged robber was not armed? The other alleged robber had a gun. A reasonable person could assume both were armed.
Do you know agree with that?

I absolutely agree with that, jenny. I don't for a moment blame the pharmacist for assuming both assailants were armed.

But per the prosecution, the pharmacist's behavior after he returned to the store indicates that HE didn't think the wounded robber was still a threat. The pharmacist calmly walked passed the wounded man and turned his back on him. That isn't the behavior of one who believes the wounded man was still a grave threat.

 

[jjenny]

If you are working in the store, and two people enter, one points a gun at you, and the other has no visible gun. If you assume that the one with no visible gun isn't armed, that could easily be the last assumption you ever make.
Of course since we now know the one shot wasn't armed, it's very easy for us to say the pharmacist should have known he was not in danger. However, how would a pharmacist know the would be robber was not armed?

 

[jjenny]

I absolutely agree with that, jenny. I don't for a moment blame the pharmacist for assuming both assailants were armed.

But per the prosecution, the pharmacist's behavior after he returned to the store indicates that HE didn't think the wounded robber was still a threat. The pharmacist calmly walked passed the wounded man and turned his back on him. That isn't the behavior of one who believes the wounded man was still a grave threat.

He could have heard a noise, and realize the one shot could still be a threat.
There is no sound with the tape. It is also not possible to see what the one shot is doing while on the ground. A severely wounded person could still manage to pull the trigger.

 

[Nova]

If you are working in the store, and two people enter, one points a gun at you, and the other has no visible gun. If you assume that the one with no visible gun isn't armed, that could easily be the last assumption you ever make.
Of course since we now know the one shot wasn't armed, it's very easy for us to say the pharmacist should have known he was not in danger. However, how would a pharmacist know the would be robber was not armed?

Jenny, perhaps our posts are crossing one another. This is now the THIRD POST where I have agreed with you that the pharmacist is not to be blamed because the robber he shot turned out to be unarmed. That the robber was unarmed when first shot is not why the prosecutor charged the shooter in this case.

Now I'm not sure about the later shooting. The robber was incapacitated by the original shot to the head, and (according to the prosecutor) the actions of the pharmacist prove the pharmacist knew the injured robber was no longer a threat. That's why "self-defense" no longer applies, in the prosecutor's view.

Per the link, the relevant actions include the shooter walking near the wounded robber and turning his back on him. I don't know whether the prosecution is claiming that by that time, the shooter knew the wounded robber was unarmed. Such a claim is not essential to make the case, per justifiable homicide law; however, it might make a compelling claim if true.

 

[Nova]

He could have heard a noise, and realize the one shot could still be a threat.
There is no sound with the tape. It is also not possible to see what the one shot is doing while on the ground. A severely wounded person could still manage to pull the trigger.

If he heard such a noise, why did he casually walk next to the wounded man? Why did he turn his back on the wounded man while he was getting another gun from the drawer?

The prosecution's claim is that the pharmacist's own actions show he wasn't in fear for his own life or grave personal harm, or for that of others.

 

[jjenny]

If he heard such a noise, why did he casually walk next to the wounded man? Why did he turn his back on the wounded man while he was getting another gun from the drawer?

The prosecution's claim is that the pharmacist's own actions show he wasn't in fear for his own life or grave personal harm, or for that of others.

I really don't know all the nuances. I am sure defense will come up with something. The one thing I know is that pharmacist was working in the store, minding his own business, trying to make a living when the two alleged robbers got into the store. Frankly, I don't need to know anything else. The pharmacist was put into a situation not of his own making, that could have ended up very badly for him. I really can not fault him for not behaving with perfect logic as some appear to expect.

 

[Indianagirl]

I absolutely agree with that, jenny. I don't for a moment blame the pharmacist for assuming both assailants were armed.

But per the prosecution, the pharmacist's behavior after he returned to the store indicates that HE didn't think the wounded robber was still a threat. The pharmacist calmly walked passed the wounded man and turned his back on him. That isn't the behavior of one who believes the wounded man was still a grave threat.

All I can say is, I would love to see how any of the prosecutors would have reacted if they were in the same position. At that moment, would they not feel threatened? How would they have confirmation the robber still wasn't a threat?

My sister was robbed at gunpoint when she was in high school, while working at a dry cleaners. She said her mind went completely blank when the gun was pointed at her and when I asked her opinion on this case, she said she completely understands the pharmacists reaction!

In the end, the pharmacist did not go out looking to kill someone that day and did not ask for this. No one knows how they would react unless they were in the same situation. This was a very traumatic experience.

No way, no how, do I believe a jury will convict the pharmacist of 1st degree murder.

 

[Nova]

I really don't know all the nuances. I am sure defense will come up with something. The one thing I know is that pharmacist was working in the store, minding his own business, trying to make a living when the two alleged robbers got into the store. Frankly, I don't need to know anything else. The pharmacist was put into a situation not of his own making, that could have ended up very badly for him. I really can not fault him for not behaving with perfect logic as some appear to expect.

Everybody agrees he acted lawfully in the moment, even under the influence of fear and alarm.

But if not when the imminent threat has passed, where do you want to draw the line? Can the pharmacist follow the robber to the robber's home and shoot him there? Can he shoot the robber the next time he sees him on the street?

In a society based on the rule of law, we expect people to turn to LE to investigate, catch and prosecute criminals as soon as it is reasonably possible.

And we allow that on occasion, a threat is so imminent that we can't expect an individual to wait to call 911, we have to allow him or her to protect himself immediately.

But the execution of the wounded robber wasn't immediate and the threat wasn't imminent. I can understand that we feel sympathy for the pharmacist in this case (and I predict he will serve the minimum sentence even if he is convicted). But if we give this shooter a pass, where do we draw the line?

 

[jjenny]

I've worked as a cashier, and this is one of the more dangerous jobs in US. So, all I can say is that if I were on the jury, I would not convict the pharmacist of anything.

 

[Nova]

All I can say is, I would love to see how any of the prosecutors would have reacted if they were in the same position. At that moment, would they not feel threatened? How would they have confirmation the robber still wasn't a threat?

My sister was robbed at gunpoint when she was in high school, while working at a dry cleaners. She said her mind went completely blank when the gun was pointed at her and when I asked her opinion on this case, she said she completely understands the pharmacists reaction!

In the end, the pharmacist did not go out looking to kill someone that day and did not ask for this. No one knows how they would react unless they were in the same situation. This was a very traumatic experience.

No way, no how, do I believe a jury will convict the pharmacist of 1st degree murder.

I'm very sorry your sister had that experience, but here, the pharmacist's mind did not go blank. He remembered where he kept his other gun, retrieved it and executed the robber who had pissed him off. Then he lied to police about it.

Plenty of other people have used force to protect themselves without rearming and executing a severely wounded man. Such people were NOT charged with crimes.

 

[Nova]

I've worked as a cashier, and this is one of the more dangerous jobs in US. So, all I can say is that if I were on the jury, I would not convict the pharmacist of anything.

I trust you would not commit perjury, so you would be excused from the jury when you admitted the above during voir dire.

 

[jjenny]

I trust you would not commit perjury, so you would be excused from the jury when you admitted the above during voir dire.

Since I am not in Oklahoma, there really is no danger of me actually getting on this particular jury.

 

[Nova]

I really don't know all the nuances. I am sure defense will come up with something. The one thing I know is that pharmacist was working in the store, minding his own business, trying to make a living when the two alleged robbers got into the store. Frankly, I don't need to know anything else. The pharmacist was put into a situation not of his own making, that could have ended up very badly for him. I really can not fault him for not behaving with perfect logic as some appear to expect.

I may have already responded to this post, Jenny, but I want to acknowledge your point that we haven't really heard the defense argument in this case.

I may feel very differently if and when I do.

FWIW, I was a juror on a murder case where self-defense was claimed. (Otherwise the facts were completely different.) It's a tricky concept and the deliberations lasted a full week before a verdict was reached.

 

[Nova]

Since I am not in Oklahoma, there really is no danger of me actually getting on this particular jury.

Nor I. :truce:

 

[jjenny]

Well one thing is pretty clear. He would not be going on trial in TX.
In TX, it's legal to run after someone and shoot at them as they are fleeing away. Called "right of fresh pursuit."

"And that even includes scenarios, such as the Waffle House incident, when the danger is no longer imminent. Treece said it’s called the "right of fresh pursuit.""

http://www.khou.com/news/Armed-Waff...k-but-was-he-within-his-rights-121414449.html

 

[Nova]

Well one thing is pretty clear. He would not be going on trial in TX.
In TX, it's legal to run after someone and shoot at them as they are fleeing away. Called "right of fresh pursuit."

"And that even includes scenarios, such as the Waffle House incident, when the danger is no longer imminent. Treece said it’s called the "right of fresh pursuit.""

http://www.khou.com/news/Armed-Waff...k-but-was-he-within-his-rights-121414449.html

If you want to talk about Texas, maybe we should start a new thread. The short version of my opinion of the state is what we might call the "Thelma and Louise Rule": always drive around Texas, no matter how far out of your way it takes you.

 

[jjenny]

If you want to talk about Texas, maybe we should start a new thread. The short version of my opinion of the state is what we might call the "Thelma and Louise Rule": always drive around Texas, no matter how far out of your way it takes you.

Then what do you do if you live there?
:floorlaugh: