Pharmacist Who Shot Man Robbing Store Charged With Murder - Page 4
Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 76

Thread: Pharmacist Who Shot Man Robbing Store Charged With Murder

  1. #31
    I think I read somewhere that the first gun was a Tarus Judge and the second one was a P3AT.

  2.   
  3. We can not decide guilt but...

    The debate about guilt or innocence is not much help to me. The jury will decide that.

    What do we learn from this video and the law? Many states are like OK and there is not duty to retreat. The pharmacist shot in SD and defenses of employees. The DA even has gone on record saying that the shots fired down the street could be justifiable, ‘he was shooting at an armed person that may harm others.’

    The pharmacist comes back in. All in the store then had an opportunity to retreat. Not required by law but in my opinion, prudent. The pharmacist would not be in jail tonight and not facing murder charges. If he does beat the charge, the family will still come after him for “wrongful death.” Best case he will go free and loose everything he has.

    I would not want to be in his shoes.

    What are the ramifications of this shooting on our community? One of our argument are that we are trained, have background checks, and we have control over our emotions. I can already see the Brady Press Release. CCW Pharmacist to be turned loose in our National Parks along with hundreds of thousands ....

    This case is a black eye. He is not guilty until convicted or pleads guilty, but I cannot defend the pharmacist’s actions.

    I would rather send 1 night at home than be judged by 12 or carried by 6.

  4. #33
    What do we learn from this video and the law? Many states are like OK and there is not duty to retreat. The pharmacist shot in SD and defenses of employees. The DA even has gone on record saying that the shots fired down the street could be justifiable, ‘he was shooting at an armed person that may harm others.’
    His initial actions were exactly what was expected and no one can fault him for that. For some reason in less than a minute later he loses all of his senses. I can't say what went on with the second (if there was) but everyone shoulf learn from his stupid mistakes here. Not only did he start talking to the police but I really don't think he was close to being truthful. He lied to the police. He said there were at least 15 shots fired and he was hit in the arm. Then after he talks to the police he talked to the media.

    Needless to say that none of this talking is doing him any good and is reallly going to haunt him in court.

  5. Quote Originally Posted by trainer23 View Post
    The debate about guilt or innocence is not much help to me. The jury will decide that.

    What do we learn from this video and the law? Many states are like OK and there is not duty to retreat. The pharmacist shot in SD and defenses of employees. The DA even has gone on record saying that the shots fired down the street could be justifiable, ‘he was shooting at an armed person that may harm others.’

    The pharmacist comes back in. All in the store then had an opportunity to retreat. Not required by law but in my opinion, prudent. The pharmacist would not be in jail tonight and not facing murder charges. If he does beat the charge, the family will still come after him for “wrongful death.” Best case he will go free and loose everything he has.
    Actually, if he is aquitted or the charges are dropped (ie, it's a clean shoot), Oklahoma law protects him from all civil liability, so they can't come after him.

    Wait one on that. I'm not sure if the civil liability immunity applies in cases where charges are filed and result in an aquittal or just in cases where no charges are filed. Let me look into that.
    "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"

  6. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by joespahr View Post
    Actually, if he is aquitted or the charges are dropped (ie, it's a clean shoot), Oklahoma law protects him from all civil liability, so they can't come after him.

    Wait one on that. I'm not sure if the civil liability immunity applies in cases where charges are filed and result in an aquittal or just in cases where no charges are filed. Let me look into that.
    Unless the OK law is very unusual it is would be up to a judge and jury to determine the facts when the family goes after him. Even if the prosecutor or jury find in his favor the family will still try to prove in civil court that it was not justified. Remember the OJ case. The prosecutor deciding that it is justified will go a long way but unless it spelled out in law the family will try to get a civil court to rule differently. The two do not always have to agree.

  7. #36
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Cajun Land
    Posts
    367
    My take....... Under stress of a shooting situation, people, especially untrained people do strange things. Even trained people make strange decisions during a shooting situation. The only thing you can do is train and train right, and enough, so that your training kicks in as much as possible. Whatever you routinely do in training will come back to haunt you under stress. Why have dead cops been found with spent casings in their pockets after shooting the revolver empty and trying to reload? Because that's what they did when they trained at the range. Put the empties in their pocket. Instead of doing a fast reload, they took the time to do an unneccesary action. A combat shooter had been practicing rapid mag reloads for competition. He'd fire one or two rounds, then drop the mag and rapidly grab another and reload. Doing this repeatedly with about 6 mags on his belt. In a real life shoot out, he actually fired 2 rapid rounds, dropped the mag and reached for another, only to find there were no spares in the place he was reaching for. It was in his pocket. He survived the shooting after picking up the loaded mag off of the ground and re-engaging, but left the other loaded mag untouched in his pocket, because he forgot it was there.

    The only reason I'm saying this, is because people will do strange things during a shoot out when they are trained, but even stranger things when they aren't well trained. This guy made a decision to go back and shoot the bad guy, I believe, because he felt the situation was still hot and things were still happening fast.
    We can sit here and discuss, shoulda, coulda, woulda all day, but unless you were there or have been in a real shoot out, you don't know what you would have done, nor can you say this guy should have........

    Now, Prediction. He will not be convicted of anything. He will be aquitted. Second, the little turds in the neighborhood will think twice before robbing him again or maybe other businesses in the area.
    The Lesson, You cannot go into a business with a gun and a ski mask and expect things to go well. Life and robbery is not a damn video game. You have the right to get your ass shot off by someone in that business. The reset button won't work after that. The more this kind of thing happens, the fewer robberies we'll have. Your lesson. Train; train for real; train the way you would want to react; after you get the basics down, train at the same speed that it would happen in real life. FAST!!! Hope and pray for the best, and get it down in your mind, how you will react in certain situations.
    There's Something Goin' On Here, and it Ain't Funny!!!

  8. #37
    That 72-year-old Marine who shot that perp in Plantation FL had a similar problem - he had a spare mag tucked in his belt, but in the firefight, it slipped below his belt, and he actually had to open his pants to get to it. Luckily, the 2nd perp (who he had shot in the chest) didn't stick around to fight back.

    He fired all the ammo in his 1911, and tried to reload fearing that the 2nd guy, or other accomplices, might keep things going. And in the aftermath, he critiqued himself as a bad shot for missing so many times, although he had shot the 1st guy 3 times (leg, chest and head) and hit the other guy once in the chest.
    -= Piece Corps =-

  9. #38
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio
    Posts
    181
    Quote Originally Posted by FN1910 View Post
    His initial actions were exactly what was expected and no one can fault him for that. For some reason in less than a minute later he loses all of his senses. I can't say what went on with the second (if there was) but everyone shoulf learn from his stupid mistakes here. Not only did he start talking to the police but I really don't think he was close to being truthful. He lied to the police. He said there were at least 15 shots fired and he was hit in the arm. Then after he talks to the police he talked to the media.

    Needless to say that none of this talking is doing him any good and is reallly going to haunt him in court.
    I would say that his lawyer will go for "post traumatic stress". He popped after the initial incident. PTS can come back anytime. That's where the "post" comes in.....
    The Iceman, Akron, Oh
    Shoot straight and be safe...

  10. There is so much wrong with this case, it's hard to find anything that's right. From a tactical position, to a moral position, to a traning position...everything he did screwed himself. To start with, he lied to investigators and the media so either he is incredibly deceptive, or he is delusional or both. I don't trust a single word from his mouth, and he may have already commited perjury.

    The fight was over, the perps had split and the remaining one, unarmed from the start, was lying incapacitated on the floor. This is a great example of what not to do. I would like to think most of us wouldn't need this example of what not to do. You don't walk back inside, walk past a downed perp, walk over to a locked drawer, unlock it, retrieve your other gun, then walk over to the downed perp and empty it into him at close range. That's not self defense, that's an execution.

    He had prepared extensively for another robbery, and I would think he had thought over what he would do so much that he just went overboard neutralizing the threat. He seemed to be operating under the delusion that it was okay for him to do so. He very calmly finished the kid off, then promptly called the police. Very business like. I'd say he was gravely uneducated and ignorant of what he could and couldn't do. I'd venture the guess that perhaps he was thinking an armed robbery = a right to terminate anyone involved. Unfortunately he was either uneducated on when his right to use deadly force stopped, or he was flustered and steamrolled right into what appears to have been a cold blooded murder.

    You have to educate yourself and make certain you know your laws and what you can and cannot do to defend yourself, and you can't loose control like that and murder someone, even out of ignorance or heat of the moment. Something in your head should click when you're looking down at an incapacitated person with a gun in your hand, if you go ahead and empty your weapon into them then you have some issues. If you think you didn't have issues then, you will have some real issues, legal ones. The law doesn't care if you know it or not, saying you're sorry you didn't know won't cut it, saying I'm sorry I thought I was following the law won't cut it. Not on this scale at least.

    This is supposed to be a military trained and seasoned veteran with combat experience and a CCW holder. Was this guy asleep during his CCW course? So either he is the most stupid person on the planet, or he willingly wrongfully and feloniously executed Parker or both.

  11. #40
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Sunny South Florida
    Posts
    486
    Quote Originally Posted by FN1910 View Post
    Unless the OK law is very unusual it is would be up to a judge and jury to determine the facts when the family goes after him. Even if the prosecutor or jury find in his favor the family will still try to prove in civil court that it was not justified. Remember the OJ case. The prosecutor deciding that it is justified will go a long way but unless it spelled out in law the family will try to get a civil court to rule differently. The two do not always have to agree.
    Actually OK law would not need to be "very unusual" as immunity from civil action after self defense shootings is rapidly becoming the norm as it is included in "Castle Doctrine" laws that are sweeping the nation. However, in most cases the immunity only applies if the defense under castle doctrine is accepted, not an otherwise obtained acquittal.

    OJ was not a self-defense action so castle doctrine would not have applied had it existed. However, OJ is an example of why there is a push to have criminal proceedings take precedence of civil in many of these cases so lawyers cannot use civil penalties to inflict punishements they failed to get at criminal trial.

    In this case, however, I think it is all a mute point because I do not see this guy walking away.

Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast