http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-pharmacist-found-guilty-of-murder/article/3571542
Better article. The jury had the option of manslaughter.
Better article. The jury had the option of manslaughter.
And yet the teenager who was killed wasn't holding the gun, and you don't regard the person who actually took a life as being a threat to life.
alkemyst said:Equally sad is it's usually only when these chumps get caught to they finger their accomplices.
Lol....
The pharmacist is a hero in my book. Even if one criminal is taken off of the street, that is positive. Although the pharmacist should have been aware of the camera on the premises and done something about the incriminating video...
He forgot. He also lied about when he shot the guy, saying he shot him the extra five times before chasing the other one out of the store. He also shot himself in an attempt to fake injuries. Apparently he changed his story several times. Yeah I bet his conscience is clean.
I HOPE HE MISSES HIS FUCKING DOG!
http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-pharmacist-found-guilty-of-murder/article/3571542
Better article. The jury had the option of manslaughter.
He forgot. He also lied about when he shot the guy, saying he shot him the extra five times before chasing the other one out of the store. He also shot himself in an attempt to fake injuries. Apparently he changed his story several times. Yeah I bet his conscience is clean.
I HOPE HE MISSES HIS FUCKING DOG!
The problem with your logic is you assign some form of worth and value to the criminal. You need to look at the bigger picture. Just seconds before, he attempted to rob a store while brandishing a deadly weapon. Just because he was wounded and disarmed does NOT make him all of the sudden into a saint. He is still a little thug criminal who upon surviving looks at this incident as a way to earn street cred or perhaps chooses another time to go and try to exact a little revenge on the pharmacy.
Am I assuming? Maybe. Are my assumptions out of line? I don't think so. Shit like that is better off dead I say.
The pharmacist would only be a threat to life if he takes it from a real person deserving life. That little POS forfeited it.
I don't think I said at any point that the dead person is innocent of anything.
I think this thread is just going round in circles. You're making a load of assumptions about the person who died, and judging him as harshly as you possibly can,
Yes he is a hero and took care of a big problem, permanently and better than our justice system would have.yet you're almost regarding the person who committed the greater crime as the hero.
It might have been borderline vigilante justice and not sanctioned by a legal authority but I agree with it and the kid deserved it. You should have no reason to be scared unless you also have urges to partake in criminal acts like this dumbass kid. Justice was served in IMHO and a waste of oxygen was removed from the streets. Hard and tough justice, but still, justice nonetheless. That is one less criminal to commit future crimes and hopefully other would-be criminals will be deterred as well. There is greater utility and more common good in this teenager's death than letting him live.Yes, the person who died took part in an armed robbery. He should have been caught by the law for the crime and given an appropriate punishment. Instead he was killed. If you want to start advocating that all armed robbers should be executed (I'm being generous here by just saying armed robbers), then that's your opinion and you're welcome to it.
If you allow the initial victim to go beyond pure self-defence, then you're not far off advocating one person being the judge, jury and executioner. If you can't see anything wrong with that then that just scares me.
Wow.
@ NetWareHead
Hypothetical situation, if you (or say your kid) had walked in after the robbers and because you're dressed similarly to them, or you're a similar height/age/whatever, and had got shot by the pharmacist because he mistook you for one of them, and he shot you like he unloaded on the kid who was already down (ie. not in the heat of the moment), how would you feel about it? Would you be still glad that he's using his own judgement to judge who should live and die?
Wow.
@ NetWareHead
Hypothetical situation, if you (or say your kid) had walked in after the robbers and because you're dressed similarly to them, or you're a similar height/age/whatever, and had got shot by the pharmacist because he mistook you for one of them, and he shot you like he unloaded on the kid who was already down (ie. not in the heat of the moment), how would you feel about it? Would you be still glad that he's using his own judgement to judge who should live and die?
http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-pharmacist-found-guilty-of-murder/article/3571542
Better article. The jury had the option of manslaughter.
So 2 adults talked the 2 teens into doing the robbery while waiting nearby. And the Pharmacist had a handcuff key all that time while free on bail. He also lied that he served during the first Gulf War, faked a gunshot wound, lied about the account/timeline of the shooting.Ersland had been free on $100,000 bail. He had a handcuff key on him when he went through a courthouse security checkpoint Thursday morning, sheriff deputies said. He gave up the handcuff key when confronted about it.
Earlier this month, another jury convicted the two men who planned the drugstore robbery of first-degree murder. That jury decided Emanuel D. “E Man” Mitchell, 33, and Anthony D. “Black” Morrison, 45, should spend life in prison. The two talked the teenagers into doing the robbery and waited nearby in getaway cars.
This is not the situation at hand here. The point is that someone who has forfeited their own life by acting in a way threatening towards others should have their life terminated by anyone who can do the job and that does not necessarily have to be an agent of the govt or other lawful authority. I feel that vigilantism is not always such a bad thing (provided the punishment was delivered to the correct person) and if I were on that jury I would refuse to convict.
This is the problem with the way people think in these situations and usually worry about it being them or their friend/kid.
That's fear guiding you. Our forefathers were very clear voting based on fears is a huge problem.
This is not the situation at hand here. The point is that someone who has forfeited their own life by acting in a way threatening towards others should have their life terminated by anyone who can do the job and that does not necessarily have to be an agent of the govt or other lawful authority. I feel that vigilantism is not always such a bad thing (provided the punishment was delivered to the correct person) and if I were on that jury I would refuse to convict.
@ Netwarehead
I asked the question because I want to know to what extent your opinion applies. It seemed to me that you were giving a pretty generalised opinion. If that's not the case, then maybe you shouldn't make such sweeping statements about what you think is right.
alkemyst, maybe you would like to give an opinion on the hypothetical situation I put to netwarehead. If you want to "take fear out of the equation", then make the innocent bystander someone you don't know. I can't see how it would make any difference to the response.
That's what they should have found him guilty of, not 1st-degree murder.
Wow. Based on that article, I would think 1st degree is appropiate. He went and got a second gun, then 18-24 inches away finished him off. Damn