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

[Nova]

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

Accept my utter and complete sympathy?

(I'm kidding, of course. Mostly. I do find the idea that one can chase after a robber and shoot him in the back appalling. Setting ethical considerations aside, just from a public safety point of view, that is bad law.)

 

[Nova]

Actually, I didn't come up with it. It's been pretty effective throughout recorded history.

Sorry, adnoid, I should have been clearer. I meant that you were the first to post that sentiment in this thread, back on page 1. I didn't mean to imply that you invented the concept.

If you decide that you are going to take things from other people by force, you have to accept that some portion of your intended victims will not passively accept your plan.

And you and I agree those intended victims have a right to defend themselves, even using deadly force under certain conditions. The question is what conditions? As you might guess, I want to limit those conditions to what is absolutely necessary to save the crime victim's life and health.

And we can call passively accepting whatever the criminal decides to do to you the "future dead victim's creed". I'm fine with that.

Touche. But in fairness, I don't believe anybody here has faulted the pharmacist for originally defending himself and his customers.

It is the later execution that is in question.

 

[Nova]

Man - how cool is THAT!

Totally cool until Johnny Shopowner misses and kills the pregnant woman trying to get out of the fleeing robber's way.

I'm sorry, but Texas is the world's largest loony bin. (Jjenny excepted, of course.)

 

[Jacobi]

In an alternate universe, the robber is recuperating in his hospital bed when the callous pharmacist comes over to pay a visit (and to unload five rounds into his defenceless body). The people rejoice and call him a hero!

 

[Sonya610]

But if we give this shooter a pass, where do we draw the line?

I say we draw the line at shooting any armed robber in public (or their cohorts) and any home intruder (armed or not).

That seems like a good place for the line. As far as the wait time, how about we say if the robber/home intruder manages to leave the premises and run oh...500 yards? If they manage to do that the time limit on shooting them again has been reached (plus at that point it isn't realistic anymore).

One cannot begin to compare shoplifting a stick of gum or a card with ARMED ROBBERY where the threat of an imminent and violent death is used to forcibly take the goods from a terrified victim. There is NO COMPARSION and no one is going to be terrified, possibly killed, have a heart attack or possibly PTSD etc....from discovering that a stick of gum went missing.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

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?

He wouldn't know. In a heightened state of awareness he would most definitely think both robbers had a weapon. What reasonable person wouldn't? So immediately he would think it was two against one.

While he did shoot this more than once the jury will have to decide what his state of mind was at the time.

I think the pharmacist will testify in his own defense and explain just what he was thinking when all this was happening. Was it reasonable and rational? Maybe not, but neither were the circumstances that were unfolding.

I do not see this jury ever giving this man first degree. I think that is far overreaching for the state.

IMO

 

[jandkmom]

I don't think this has anything to do with protecting his property, but defending his life and the life of every innocent party in the building. This is probably a poor comparison, but if a spider comes into my house, I don't just hit him one time with the broom and assume he is dead, I beat him until I am positive he won't crawl away to scare me another day. I don't own a gun but if I did and felt my life or the life of anyone around me was in danger, I think I would not take chances that the crook or his friends would have a chance of shooting again.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

And if Johnny Sharpshooter is a good shot and a responsible fellow citizen who does not hit a pregnant woman but only the , is that OK?

Id take Johnny or Janie Sharpshooter any day rather than the criminal .:seeya:

http://www.rense.com/general76/univ.htm

University Study Confirms
Private Firearms
Stop Crime 2.5 Million Times Each Year

 

[Strawberry Fields]

http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/168060

http://www.roanoke.com/news/breaking/wb/180435

I sort of "stumbled across" this thread and it reminded me of what occured in Roanoke, VA. As you will see in the second link, the pharmacist was not charged. The young man that was killed, turned out, was not armed. My mother and I actually drove past this pharmacy on our way to do an errand that day and "all was quiet" at the stoplight directly in front of this store. However, when we returned about an hour later, there was police tape, ambulances, satellite news trucks, all over the place.

Most people in our area felt the pharmacist was justified and we have actually heard people remark that this pharmacy would probably be totally safe now as the thugs would know this pharmacist means business.

This is OT, but not too terribly long after this occurred, I was sitting at the stoplight in front of that store and the song, "Gun Powder and Lead" was playing on my car radio. I never listened closely to the end of that song but at the very end you hear a gunshot. I had been sitting at that stoplight, looking over at that pharmacy, thinking about that shooting that occurred in that store and the gunshot sound at the end of "Gun Powder and Lead" really, really startled me.

Now as for this particular case in OK, I am sort of conflicted in how I feel about it. I definitely do not think this should be a first degree murder charge, or even murder. I believe probably this pharmacist was really scared and as some have suggested in previous posts, he was running on his adrenaline the whole time. But then again, how many times can you kill someone who is already dead? if he was really dead after the first shot and I guess that remains to be determined.

 

[Nova]

In an alternate universe, the robber is recuperating in his hospital bed when the callous pharmacist comes over to pay a visit (and to unload five rounds into his defenceless body). The people rejoice and call him a hero!

I'm not sure that's an alternate universe, Jacobi, just a few years in the future of this one.

 

[Reality Orlando]

And if Johnny Sharpshooter is a good shot and a responsible fellow citizen who does not hit a pregnant woman but only the , is that OK?

...and what if he gets the gunman before he grabs the pregnant woman to use as a shield before killing her and dumping her down the road once he's done with her?

 

[Reality Orlando]

He can do that anyway, whether the first victim is armed or not. And it happens all the time.

Criminals are criminals, they are the scum of the earth. The hurt others and do not care.

I agree. I will never live anywhere I can't be armed to protect myself and family.

 

[Nova]

Determined by whom, and at what time?

My point is the criminal started the whole ball rolling. It is the criminal, not the intended victim, that made the decision to risk his own life to attack a victim who may decide to fight back.

Do not attack others. If you DO attack others, you will get no sympathy from me for what you get in return. The criminal mindset is to look at this as some sort of a game, with certain rules that the victims are required to follow. How many times has a criminal tried to justify action against a victim with a statement such as "<the victim> forced me to choose - it was him or me?" No. The victim would be totally happy going about his business. I'm sure the pharmacist in this situation would have been totally happy to never have had a gun pointed at him.

So yes, in my world, as soon as the criminals moved to make clear to the victim that they intended to take his property or, alternatively, his life followed by his property, I give the victim latitude to do what he feels he has to to make himself safe. If that includes making 100% sure that they guy who clearly was willing to take his life is no longer a threat in any way, shape or form, then so be it.

The people who are looking to put this victim away - I remind all, a guy who started out the morning not wanting to have a gun shoved in his face but getting it anyway - feel that their judgment, long after the fact, sitting in a chair at a desk, is more relevant than his was when he had multiple people expressing intent to kill him.

Would I have done what he did? I have no way of knowing. I've never been in that situation. I'll trust his judgment.

adnoid, it's a human tendency to push responsibility off on others, not just a criminal one. Guilty or innocent, the pharmacist in this case is going to argue that the man immobilized by a shot to the head was responsible for the pharmacist getting another gun and emptying its clip into an immobilized (and perhaps unconscious) man.

The law DOES allow for individuals to protect themselves, their families and others. But the law also has to set limits as to what reasonable people can do. If we are to live under the rule of law, we do not allow private citizens to execute others, no matter how reprehensible those others might be.

And that's what this was (as far as we know given the facts we have): an execution. It was not a justifiable homicide in self-defense.

Would I have done the same thing? Probably not, no fonder than I am of guns, but maybe. And if so, I too would be criminally liable.

(The above being said, I still think voluntary manslaughter is a more apt charge than 1st degree murder. It will be interesting to see if the jury is given that choice. The defense may oppose it, believing that without such a choice the jury will acquit rather than go to 1st degree murder. Ultimately, I believe the judge decides.)

Would it matter if you knew the unarmed robber was stealing to feed his children? Or is everything just his tough luck?

 

[Nova]

Determined by whom, and at what time?

Well, in CA, justifiable homicide is determined by a jury of the killer's peers, based on the standards that the threat was imminent and reasonably perceived. As I've said, that still leaves plenty of room for a jury to debate, but it probably doesn't include an execution-style killing of an incapacitated man.

 

[jjenny]

Does it really matter as to why robber does it? If he shoots you, you are just as dead, regardless of whether he was trying to rob you to feed his children.

 

[Strawberry Fields]

http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/168060
BBM:
And, in Virginia, case law supports the use of deadly force to defend against a robbery, she said.

"The shopkeeper clearly had rights to repel this person. The question is, did he take it too far?" she said.

The prosecutor will look at a variety of factors, including whether the suspect was armed and used threatening language or made threatening gestures ...
Coughlin said previous robberies or attempted robberies at the store likely will be a factor.

I'll definitely be interested to see how this case in OK turns out. Obviously, in this case in Virginia, this robber used some threatening gestures for there to be no charges filed, even when he was not armed. Seems like the scenario was probably that the robber came in, indicated he wanted drugs/money, the pharmacist pulled his own gun and there was a struggle. The pharmacist accidentally got shot by his own gun and the robber ended up dead. It is a blessing there were no other injuries; i.e., customers, etc. It is a very tiny free-standing building and never many cars parked in front. We often have wondered how they stay in business as it never looks busy.

 

[Nova]

Id take Johnny or Janie Sharpshooter any day rather than the criminal .:seeya:

http://www.rense.com/general76/univ.htm

University Study Confirms
Private Firearms
Stop Crime 2.5 Million Times Each Year

That survey is based entirely on self-reporting by gun owners, a group that we should assume is entirely unbiassed on the subject.

But I don't think gun ownership is the issue here. The right of private citizens to play judge, jury and executioner is.

 

[jjenny]

By the way, in case anyone missed, the prosecutor in this case got beat up by an adult defendant from this case, right there in the courtroom. I guess the prosecutor shouldn't have assumed that just because he was in the courtroom, he was safe.

"District Attorney David Prater had just completed a closing statement to Mitchell's 12-member jury in the penalty phase of the trial when Emanuel Mitchell, 33, jumped up from the defense table and punched Prater on the right side of his face as he walked back toward the prosecution table. Prater grabbed Mitchell and both men fell over a rail to the ground and struggled at the feet of the victim's terrified family members."

Read more: http://www.newstimes.com/news/artic...kes-Okla-prosecutor-1361372.php#ixzz1Lciy7jBh

http://www.newstimes.com/news/article/Jurors-deliberate-verdict-in-Okla-County-murder-1361372.php

 

[Nova]

http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/168060

http://www.roanoke.com/news/breaking/wb/180435

I sort of "stumbled across" this thread and it reminded me of what occured in Roanoke, VA. As you will see in the second link, the pharmacist was not charged. The young man that was killed, turned out, was not armed. My mother and I actually drove past this pharmacy on our way to do an errand that day and "all was quiet" at the stoplight directly in front of this store. However, when we returned about an hour later, there was police tape, ambulances, satellite news trucks, all over the place.

Most people in our area felt the pharmacist was justified and we have actually heard people remark that this pharmacy would probably be totally safe now as the thugs would know this pharmacist means business.

This is OT, but not too terribly long after this occurred, I was sitting at the stoplight in front of that store and the song, "Gun Powder and Lead" was playing on my car radio. I never listened closely to the end of that song but at the very end you hear a gunshot. I had been sitting at that stoplight, looking over at that pharmacy, thinking about that shooting that occurred in that store and the gunshot sound at the end of "Gun Powder and Lead" really, really startled me.

Now as for this particular case in OK, I am sort of conflicted in how I feel about it. I definitely do not think this should be a first degree murder charge, or even murder. I believe probably this pharmacist was really scared and as some have suggested in previous posts, he was running on his adrenaline the whole time. But then again, how many times can you kill someone who is already dead? if he was really dead after the first shot and I guess that remains to be determined.

Good example of a clearly justifiable homicide, Strawberry. I'll be surprised if anyone here argues the matter.

As for the OK case, perhaps the defense will argue otherwise, but the medical examiner must have ruled that the robber was still alive at the time of the second shooting; otherwise, there would be no case to bring.

 

[Nova]

...and what if he gets the gunman before he grabs the pregnant woman to use as a shield before killing her and dumping her down the road once he's done with her?

That's clever, but not really the point. "What if?" So you're now arguing that we are safer with private citizens shooting at suspects on the run rather than relying on trained LE professionals?

If so, maybe your state/county/city needs to do a better job of training its cops.