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

[Nova]

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.

Does that include white-collar criminals? Should you and I be allowed to walk into Goldman Sachs and gun down a few brokers?

 

[Nova]

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.

If he has a gun aimed at you, it does not matter why.

If he lies incapacitated on the floor with a bullet in his brain, I think it ought to matter very much.

 

[Nova]

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.

In CA, the standard would be whether a "reasonable person" would "reasonably' expect the robber to use deadly force. That force wouldn't necessarily have to be a gun.

 

[jjenny]

If he has a gun aimed at you, it does not matter why.

If he lies incapacitated on the floor with a bullet in his brain, I think it ought to matter very much.

Well if you are in that situation, you better hope that your assumption that he is in fact incapacitated is the correct one.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

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

Are you saying they are lying?:waitasec:

I am a legal gun owner and I would have no reason to lie or have biases and having my handgun with me did save me from grave bodily harm or worse when I was in my early 20s. But trying to infer legal gun owners would outright lie and be biased is baseless, imo.

More crime is stopped by a private citizen legal gun owner than the police. I shudder to think what could have happened if this pharmacist had had no protection at all to protect himself or the other employees.

There are plenty of more articles out there and statistics that backs up the amount of crimes thwarted yearly by someone who owned a legal firearm. I just don't have time now to look it up since it is late.

imo

 

[oceanblueeyes]

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.

LE is more of a reactive group. They go to a crime scene after the crime has already taken place.

Private citizens stop more crime from happening than LE.

About 97% of the time the private gun owner doesn't have to fire their weapon. The mere showing of the weapon will stop the criminal because a criminal doesn't give a crap about anyone else's life but they do value their own highly.

Most of the time when we hear of the weapon being fired is either during a home invasion where the thugs have already made it inside the home or a business that is being robbed at gunpoint.

IMO

 

[JBean]

If he has a gun aimed at you, it does not matter why.

If he lies incapacitated on the floor with a bullet in his brain, I think it ought to matter very much.

I have to say the law in CA has a very tough line as to where self defense stops and assault begins.

One of my boys got in a fight in the high school locker room once. The other guy was picking on another kid and my son told him to knock it off. The boy attacked my son and was throwing punches , that was not in dispute. My son hit the boy once causing the boy to move backward and then my son knocked him to the floor.
LE was called because the moment my son had knocked the boy backwards the threat of bodily harm to my son was gone and he was no longer defending himself but rather assaulting the boy when he knocked him to the floor.The backward movement away from my son and the forward movement of my son towards him shifted the entire thing.
oy

So, in this case, the minute the robber was shot and on the ground, in a legal sense, the store owner was no longer defending himself and right there it has to stop.
That's what I learned from the locker room incident.

 

[ziggy]

Does that include white-collar criminals? Should you and I be allowed to walk into Goldman Sachs and gun down a few brokers?

Damn Nova - I think so!!!!!

 

[Sonya610]

The backward movement away from my son and the forward movement of my son towards him shifted the entire thing.

So, in this case, the minute the robber was shot and on the ground, in a legal sense, the store owner was no longer defending himself and right there it has to stop.

That's what I learned from the locker room incident.

Schoolboys fist fighting in a locker room with no reasonable fear of deadly intent is completely different than an armed robbery where the robbers use a gun to show deadly intent.

When weapons are in the mix LE shoots multiple times as the intent isn't to stop the attack but to kill the attacker as fast as possible.

I had not watched the full original video in over 2 years. Just watched it again. I had thought the female workers had fled the store but they were in fact still in there. I can definitely sympathize with this man, he was making sure the threat was eliminated and he was quite efficient.

I can say if a home intruder broke in and my loved ones were in danger I would make sure it was dead too. I would not wait around for the cops and keep an eye on the attacker, or try to move my loved ones out of the way for fear the attacker might revive. A few extra bullets guarantees the threat is eliminated. Though I always wondered if the angle of the bullets (body being prone) would cause legal difficulties, if no video had been taken I doubt it would have raised any eyebrows.

Many people apparently believe armed robbery and home intrusion are two cases in which the attacker forfeits their right to live at the hands of the victims. If confronted it is not a "negotiation" and "being reasonable" flies out the window, they cross a sacred line and once crossed there is no need for the victims to be "reasonable or show restraint or give the assailant the benefit of the doubt".

 

[JBean]

Well, after all, California law is very skewed toward the criminal.

What your son did, as you describe it, would be totally acceptable to me. If he were charged and I was on the jury I would acquit.

I concur and it was acceptable to me. I would rather he were arrested and helped someone defensless rather than not get involved. Sometimes it is just worth it. But, I was surprised to find that there was such a low bar as to when self defense stops. They told me the minute he moved towards the perp it was no longer self defense and it made him the aggressor.
It all worked out, but it was really stupid.
Have you seen the movie Felon? It is basically the same story as this pharmacist. Totally the same premise and positively frightening.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felon_(film)

Felon is a 2008 American drama film about a family man who ends up in state prison after he kills an intruder. The film was written and directed by Ric Roman Waugh, and stars Stephen Dorff, Val Kilmer and Harold Perrineau. The story is based on events that took place in the 1990s at the notorious California State Prison, Corcoran.[1]

[video=youtube;Sr0zDhqfOVo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sr0zDhqfOVo[/video]

 

[JBean]

This was just signed at the end of April and goes into effect in November. I wonder if it will have bearing on this case?​

It is an expansion on the already existing "Make My Day" Law already in effect.

​

Oklahoma governor signs bill that expands self-defense rights​

“The thing before was, it was always if I was an employee and I may know that there might be a gun there that my boss had but should I even pick it up?” Vaughan said Monday. “And if I did, am I going to go to jail or am I going to get sued?
“If in a split second of this horrible situation happening, they're not going to have to think about that,” he said. “If you come in and threaten me and you put a gun right to my head or a baseball bat and I take you out, that's as far as it's ever going to go​

Read more: http://newsok.com/oklahoma-governor...-defense-rights/article/3562054#ixzz1LhJVsR9h​

Read more: http://newsok.com/oklahoma-governor...-defense-rights/article/3562054#ixzz1LhIvZsf7​

 

[JBean]

Oklahoma’s Make My Day Law Amended to Include Businesses

D. A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony

http://thetruthaboutguns.com/2011/0...ake-my-day-law-amended-to-include-businesses/

 

[jjenny]

This was just signed at the end of April and goes into effect in November. I wonder if it will have bearing on this case?​

It is an expansion on the already existing "Make My Day" Law already in effect.

​

Oklahoma governor signs bill that expands self-defense rights​

“The thing before was, it was always if I was an employee and I may know that there might be a gun there that my boss had but should I even pick it up?” Vaughan said Monday. “And if I did, am I going to go to jail or am I going to get sued?
“If in a split second of this horrible situation happening, they're not going to have to think about that,” he said. “If you come in and threaten me and you put a gun right to my head or a baseball bat and I take you out, that's as far as it's ever going to go​

Read more: http://newsok.com/oklahoma-governor...-defense-rights/article/3562054#ixzz1LhJVsR9h​

Read more: http://newsok.com/oklahoma-governor...-defense-rights/article/3562054#ixzz1LhIvZsf7​

I don't think any new laws passed will affect this case, because presumably the laws are not retroactive. But obviously this case will lead to stronger self-defense laws that might just prevent someone else from being charged with first degree murder. Why doesn't this prosecutor consider the extreme emotional distress that can be caused by the gun being pointed at the victim of the attempted robbery?

 

[Nova]

If he has a gun aimed at you, it does not matter why.

If he lies incapacitated on the floor with a bullet in his brain, I think it ought to matter very much.

(ETA I misspoke. If the robber is incapacitated, it doesn't matter if he is Charles Manson. Once he is incapacitated, nobody has the right to kill him (except, in most states, a judge and jury).

I overreached in response to the "criminals are criminals" argument, because some people are driven to commit crimes by desperate circumstances. I don't agree that the crime of theft automatically makes one deserving of execution.)

 

[Nova]

If such a question were asked.

Have you been through many voir dires? I promise you it would be asked.

 

[Nova]

Like with everything else, the specific facts are important. I have read nothing to indicate that these dirtbags shoved the barrel at the victim and demanded a basket of cherry tomatos, some hearts of romaine and a nice balsamic vinegarette. They were pulling an armed robbery on a pharmacy, not a fruit stand. Money, drugs, or both - I wasn't there, but that's the way I'd bet.

Would it matter to you that if the victim was killed, or is now convicted, that he would no longer be the sole living caregiver to a terminally ill child? We can go all over with the what ifs, but we won't get anywhere.

Again, the thugs with the guns and the criminal intent started this. They own the results, even if the results are not what they wanted.

Would it matter if the victim were the sole caregiver? No, because you and I already agree that robbing anyone is wrong, regardless of the victim's circumstances.

Is your basic argument that once one commits a crime, then one is fair game for anything anyone wants to do? Or will you at least admit that a line has to be drawn somewhere?

 

[Nova]

If you were going to go gun down "a few brokers", you are saying that you would be picking people at random to answer for a crime they did not necessarily commit just because they look a certain way, dress a certain way, and talk a certain way - right? Sounds like a hate crime to me.

I'm a gun toting knuckle dragging right wing capitalist, and there are quite a few of those folks that belong in the slammer with their wealth stripped away and returned to their victims. Dishonesty is not a virtue, nor is deception. But shooting them at random as you suggest is clearly not appropriate.

There was a comment earlier that was not really worth a reply about shooting someone in a hospital bed. I would have no problem convicting someone for murder in a case like that, because it meets all the elements. I'm assuming we're talking about how things are done out here with injured criminals - while in the hospital they are handcuffed to the gurney, guarded, or both. In either case a very important event has taken place - law enforcement personnel have arrived and taken charge of the suspect. That's a nice, sharp dividing line for me as far as being reasonable sure you are safe.

The police are not required to stop any particular crime. They can deter crime in general by their presence. They can stop crimes in progress that they come across. But if you have a gun in your face in the hands of some lowlife who has made it clear that he will rub you out to get what he wants, there's not much chance he'll hold on while you call 911.

And if you have a gun in your face, you are allowed to respond with deadly force. Nobody is arguing that. Even if it later turns out the gun was a realistic-looking toy or just the robber's finger in his jacket pocket, you are allowed to respond with deadly force.

But not even the police are allowed to reload and execute an incapacitated man.

As for our raid on Goldman Sachs, I assumed you know me well enough to know I would do my research carefully and only gun down those traders who were guilty of theft.

 

[jjenny]

And if you have a gun in your face, you are allowed to respond with deadly force. Nobody is arguing that. Even if it later turns out the gun was a realistic-looking toy or just the robber's finger in his jacket pocket, you are allowed to respond with deadly force.

But not even the police are allowed to reload and execute an incapacitated man.

As for our raid on Goldman Sachs, I assumed you know me well enough to know I would do my research carefully and only gun down those traders who were guilty of theft.

Just because someone is on the ground and has been shot does not necessarily mean that someone is incapacitated. Especially if that someone is armed. It's easy for us to say that alleged robber was no threat because he wasn't armed. The pharmacist however could reasonably assume the alleged robber was armed, considering the other one had a gun.

 

[Nova]

Well, at least he can be judged by the jury. He could have been dead. Has there been any evidence that he is trained or certified in some way to determine incapacitation? Is he a medical examiner? A physician? A trauma surgeon?

"I'd rather be judged by 12, than carried by 6."

The law in California rightly allows for the fact that a layman may not have perfect perception in terms of an assailant's capacities.

The standard is whether a "reasonable person" would believe s/he was in grave danger of death or bodily harm, NOT whether a trained physician or forensic expert would think so.

Per the link on the OK case, the prosecution believes the actions of the pharmacist prove he knew he was no longer in danger after the robber was incapacitated. I've already acknowledged that we don't know what the defense will argue.

 

[Nova]

Are you saying they are lying?:waitasec:

I am a legal gun owner and I would have no reason to lie or have biases and having my handgun with me did save me from grave bodily harm or worse when I was in my early 20s. But trying to infer legal gun owners would outright lie and be biased is baseless, imo.

More crime is stopped by a private citizen legal gun owner than the police. I shudder to think what could have happened if this pharmacist had had no protection at all to protect himself or the other employees.

There are plenty of more articles out there and statistics that backs up the amount of crimes thwarted yearly by someone who owned a legal firearm. I just don't have time now to look it up since it is late.

imo

No, I'm not saying they are lying nor did I mean to imply that gun owners are less truthful than other people.

My argument was that they have specific points of view, just as I do, and that may affect their beliefs as to how many "crimes" they have thwarted.

A better survey would be based on police reports, though even there many of the accounts would have to be self-reported.

I do apologize if I seemed to be calling gun owners liars. I don't believe that and have no reason to think so.

(And I trust you will note I never blamed the pharmacist for defending himself. I only blame him for later executing an incapacitated man.)