Oklahoma pharmacist kills armed robber, saves the lives of his staff

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
WVUPharm2007 said:
I don't necessarily object to the shooting first thing...but the whole walking to the kid and putting 5 caps in his limp ass...yeah...that's ****ed up.
Click to expand...

You wanted him to get an Ace bandage off of his shelves and wrap the guy's head?!? Pull some epinephrine pens from the back, and get them on board to avoid any hemodynamic compromise?
Members don't see this ad.
 
StaviZFingerZ said:
Someone pulls a gun on my property with an ill intention regardless if they're going to shoot or not, if I have a chance, I'm going to shoot to kill. No, he should not have come back and shot the kid laying on the ground.. but the armed robbers and accomplices (unless forced to do so) should be shot dead. I applaud the action of the pharmacist and hope he gets a not guilty verdict. No way in hell should we condone the act of drug seeking young punks pulling a gun on healthcare professionals who serve the community then condemn the act of the pharmacist.

I do not have a single ounce of sympathy for the robbers. I feel bad for the family members.
Click to expand...

Listen, I don't condone the behavior of these animals. I repeat, I don't condemn the first shot. You rob people and point guns at them, you can't be shocked if someone shoots you first. The pot calling the kettle black and all that. But you can't execute people. Spiriva is right, shots 2-5 will send him to jail.
 
SpirivaSunrise said:
Agree. :thumbup:

Which is why I was glad to hear the fate of the pharmacist in Arkansas as well...and that he's still licensed and working.
Click to expand...


ehhhh....I'm not so sure about that. Evidently, he was not the best hospital pharmacist.. and there was a fatal mistake.. I didn't hear the end of the story...
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Old Timer said:
He is NOT being prosecuted for shooting the guy in the head. He is being prosecuted because:

He shot a defenseless person five times. He was no longer a threat. There is no self defense here.

As for the obvious, the business analogy is their view, not mine. I don't say I agree with this. You still haven't told me what good comes out of this for anyone.
Click to expand...

Yeah, because you keep failing to acknowledge any of the potential consequences of appeasing drug seeking, masked gunmen. Once again, keep painting your rosy picture of the friendly, neighborhood "businessmen" just wanting to build an inventory, and neglecting that the lives of three, hard working Americans were at stake, and I will keep ignoring your question.
 
Old Timer said:
Listen, I don't condone the behavior of these animals. I repeat, I don't condemn the first shot. You rob people and point guns at them, you can't be shocked if someone shoots you first. The pot calling the kettle black and all that. But you can't execute people. Spiriva is right, shots 2-5 will send him to jail.
Click to expand...


Or all white jury will send him home...
 
Priapism321 said:
You wanted him to get an Ace bandage off of his shelves and wrap the guy's head?!? Pull some epinephrine pens from the back, and get them on board to avoid any hemodynamic compromise?
Click to expand...

well...the dude he shot didnt have a weapon...i can see shooting him at first...but watch the video...he just got a bigger gun, calmly walked over, and capped the kid. straight cold blooded. i have no sympathy for the kid...but two wrongs don't make a right...
 
WVUPharm2007 said:
well...the dude he shot didnt have a weapon...i can see shooting him at first...but watch the video...he just got a bigger gun, calmly walked over, and capped the kid. straight cold blooded. i have no sympathy for the kid...but two wrongs don't make a right...
Click to expand...

The kid had a backpack on, can anyone prove that there could not have been a weapon inside?
 
it will be interesting to see the defense strategy... I'm sure the video is DA's best weapon.. no pun. If OJ can get not guilty, let's see how this defense will conjure it up.

I'd first establish that kid on the ground is still dangerous because he could be armed.. yet injured enough to not be a threat to the techs in hiding yet still dangerous..

Then establish the mental state of the pharmacist..military... and being robbed before..etc.
 
Old Timer said:
Listen, I don't condone the behavior of these animals. I repeat, I don't condemn the first shot. You rob people and point guns at them, you can't be shocked if someone shoots you first. The pot calling the kettle black and all that. But you can't execute people. Spiriva is right, shots 2-5 will send him to jail.
Click to expand...

Yeah, unless video evidence shows him reaching for his gun again while on the floor, trying to get up, etc., he's in trouble...whether we agree with it or not is really inconsequential.

Then again, it's hard for us or anyone to say how they'd react in a similar situation. After masked men point a gun to your face, your actions towards them are hard to predict. It's easy for us to say we would have remained calm by looking at video footage from the comfort of our home and no adrenaline rush...
 
I don't know...... I'm not so sure the 2nd round wasn't justified..... The robber may be down...but you know the old saying, if you're going to shoot... The robber wasn't dead..and he's still dangerous...

Pharmacist may have thought the robber was dead..only to find out he wasn't..maybe the robber made sound after gaining consiousness..

This aint going to be a slam dunk go to jail for the pharmacist.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
SpirivaSunrise said:
Yeah, unless video evidence shows him reaching for his gun again while on the floor, trying to get up, etc., he's in trouble...whether we agree with it or not is really inconsequential.

Then again, it's hard for us or anyone to say how they'd react in a similar situation. After masked men point a gun to your face, your actions towards them are hard to predict. It's easy for us to say we would have remained calm by looking at video footage from the comfort of our home and no adrenaline rush...
Click to expand...

That guy was as cool as I was when I had gun put in my face. The adrenalin rush comes afterward. He murdered the kid and that's that, buy any legal definition. We are country of laws and not men.
 
If it were up to me, this it what I'd do...

...dude doesn't go to jail as I consider this temporary insanity...but he doesn't get to own a gun ever again...he's clearly demonstrated that he is mentally unstable.
 
StaviZFingerZ said:
I don't know...... I'm not so sure the 2nd round wasn't justified..... The robber may be down...but you know the old saying, if you're going to shoot... The robber wasn't dead..and he's still dangerous...

Pharmacist may have thought the robber was dead..only to find out he wasn't..maybe the robber made sound after gaining consiousness..

This aint going to be a slam dunk go to jail for the pharmacist.
Click to expand...

Are you kidding me, he walked past him two times. Once to chase the first guy and the second time to get the cannon. Then he called the cops. We'll look it up in a few months & see....
 
Old Timer said:
That guy was as cool as I was when I had gun put in my face. The adrenalin rush comes afterward. He murdered the kid and that's that, buy any legal definition. We are country of laws and not men.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I agree. The most disturbing part about the video to me, may be how calm he looks while retrieving the second gun and unloading again. He didn't seem like he was in any rush/panic, as if the man on the floor really posed any danger and that it had to be done/done quickly.
 
Old Timer said:
That guy was as cool as I was when I had gun put in my face. The adrenalin rush comes afterward. He murdered the kid and that's that, buy any legal definition. We are country of laws and not men.
Click to expand...

You call him kid, I call him criminal/robber. When he decided to put that mask on and rob a pharmacy, he decided he wasn't a kid anymore.
 
Old Timer said:
Are you kidding me, he walked past him two times. Once to chase the first guy and the second time to get the cannon. Then he called the cops. We'll look it up in a few months & see....
Click to expand...


First time, he may have thought the robber was dead. The 2nd time, he may have known the robber was alive yet, this dude can't run...back brace, remember? Also, He's probably empty. He looks calm...doesn't mean he's not going as fast as he can.
 
StaviZFingerZ said:
You call him kid, I call him criminal/robber. When he decided to put that mask on and rob a pharmacy, he decided he wasn't a kid anymore.
Click to expand...

I'd have to know more info...some kids are controlled by others...that age is very impressionable. I'm sure you've heard of the cycle of hopelessness, but people that grew up in cushy middle class lives don't get it, can't get it...don't want to get it. It could be me slinging meth based on the neighborhood I grew up in if the dice didn't fall the right way for me...easily.
 
Ehh, I would have shot the robber multiple times as I was chasing after the 2nd guy.

Personally, if you break into my house, or into my place of work and present yourself in a threatening manner, you are dead. Now, if you're just hungry and want something to eat, I'm not gonna harm you (unless you decide to have a gun or a knife on you)
 
WVUPharm2007 said:
here is the uncut surveillance video. yeah...he's going to jail...jesus h christ...
Click to expand...

No way, the video is what will save his butt. All he has to say is he thought the guy on the floor had a gun. We cannot see on the video what the guy on the floor was doing. He very well could have regained consciousness. The pharmacist comes back around the counter and sees movement and fires. I would have done the same thing. You have no way of knowing if he had a weapon. If I would have seen one inch of movement I would have fired. Maybe not five times but as many times as necessary to ensure he was no longer a threat.

I see nothing in that video that shows the Pharmacist did anything wrong. I bet the charges get dropped before it gets anywhere close to a trial. Typical grandstanding by the DA. He has to look like he is doing something so he can get reelected.
 
MountainPharmD said:
No way, the video is what will save his butt. All he has to say is he thought the guy on the floor had a gun. We cannot see on the video what the guy on the floor was doing. He very well could have regained consciousness. The pharmacist comes back around the counter and sees movement and fires. I would have done the same thing. You have no way of knowing if he had a weapon. If I would have seen one inch of movement I would have fired. Maybe not five times but as many times as necessary to ensure he was no longer a threat.

I see nothing in that video that shows the Pharmacist did anything wrong.
Click to expand...

Stop repeating what I said. I know you want to be like me and all...but..
 
MountainPharmD said:
No way, the video is what will save his butt. All he has to say is he thought the guy on the floor had a gun. We cannot see on the video what the guy on the floor was doing. He very well could have regained consciousness. The pharmacist comes back around the counter and sees movement and fires. I would have done the same thing. You have no way of knowing if he had a weapon. If I would have seen one inch of movement I would have fired. Maybe not five times but as many times as necessary to ensure he was no longer a threat.

I see nothing in that video that shows the Pharmacist did anything wrong.
Click to expand...

Maybe there was a second shooter.
 
Sparda29 said:
I don't think he is going to go to jail. Since this happened in Oklahoma, and Oklahoma has castle law, where basically an illegal intruder is a dead man, I think he's gonna be in the clear with this one.

I think I am gonna move to Austin, TX after I'm done with pharmacy school and probably residency. My girlfriend's whole family is moving down there, her brother is a pharmacist, her sister-in-law is a pharmacist, her sister is a pharmacist.

I know I'm going to miss my Mets though if I move.
Click to expand...

The 'Castle Doctrine' implemented in Oklahoma leaves some room for interpretation. I've bolded some sections that I think are particularly relevant:

Oklahoma State Courts Network said:
Oklahoma Statutes Citationized
Title 21. Crimes and Punishments
Chapter 53 - Manufacture, Sale, and Wearing of Weapons
Oklahoma Firearms Act of 1971
Section 1289.25 - Physical or Deadly Force Against Intruder
​


A. The Legislature hereby recognizes that the citizens of the State of Oklahoma have a right to expect absolute safety within their own homes.​




B. A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:


1. The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against the will of that person from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and


2. The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.




C. The presumption set forth in subsection B of this section does not apply if:


1. The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not a protective order from domestic violence in effect or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person;


2. The person or persons sought to be removed are children or grandchildren, or are otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or


3. The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity.




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.




E. A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle of another person is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.




F. A person who uses force, as permitted pursuant to the provisions of subsections B and D of this section, is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force. As used in this subsection, the term "criminal prosecution" includes charging or prosecuting the defendant.




G. A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force, but the law enforcement agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.




H. The court shall award reasonable attorney fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection F of this section.




I. The provisions of this section and the provisions of the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act, Sections 1290.1 through 1290.26 of this title, shall not be construed to require any person using a pistol pursuant to the provisions of this section to be licensed in any manner.




J. As used in this section:


1. "Dwelling" means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people;


2. "Residence" means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest; and


3. "Vehicle" means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.
Click to expand...
The above reference is from http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=69782 .

Perhaps the most relevant detail in applying the Castle Doctrine to this case is that, in Oklahoma, it is intended to be applied in the context of one's home. The law takes care to define what constitutes a dwelling, place of residence, and vehicle. There is some ambiguity concerning the scope of a dwelling, but in the context of subsection A and the fact that only domestic environments have been previously cited in the law, I would imagine that this excludes business locations such as a pharmacy.

The second point, which is what has already been thoroughly alluded to in this thread, is the reasonableness of the pharmacist's actions. In particular, the jury will likely be asked the question, "Would a reasonable person perceive shots 2 through 5 to have been necessary to prevent an impending death or serious bodily injury?" Or, in looser terms, if the pharmacist hadn't used his revolver to kill the man on the ground, would the pharmacist had died (or have been seriously injured)?

The third point is the key phrase "probable cause" to make an arrest in cases involving the unlawful use of force to defend oneself. It's notable that this is just for an arrest, not a conviction. To evaluate a murder, you would need 'beyond a reasonable doubt' and that's a higher level of burden to prove than just probable cause, so we'll see a much more strict measure to actually convict than to charge or arrest.

Concerning the camera footage, the information presented through that view is not entirely comprehensive, and as mentioned in this thread, there may be details in the situation that were missed by the camera. However, I do not think that the ambiguity that occurs from missing such potential details would necessarily play in the defense's favor. The prosecution has the burden of proof to provide evidence against the accused, but they only have to establish "beyond reasonable doubt." That doesn't mean 0% remaining doubt, nor does it mean removing all possible doubt. The term only applies to removing doubt that can be reasonably interpreted from the situation and by the evidence presented. To say the least, the idea is relentlessly ambiguous, but it does mean that the doubt created by increasingly unlikely scenarios or interpretations can be ignored unless there is compelling evidence to support such scenarios and interpretations.

For instance, if the assertion is being made that the individual on the ground was still a reasonable threat through the claim that he may have been moving for a gun, we cannot accept that statement on face value. We would need to consider the testimony of witnesses (ie: Did the Pharmacist see the individual reach for a possible weapon?), forensics ("The bullet barely grazed his skull and likely only dazed him... or the bullet cracked or penetrated his skull and would have knocked him unconscious, or at the least severely impaired him"), and other such evidence, accounts, and testimony. There needs to be evidence to support such a statement of possibility. Furthermore, the evidence needs to be compelling.

As for the pharmacist being charged with first-degree murder, the concept of premeditation varies from state to state, but the idea of premeditation does not preclude days of planning.

In my personal opinion, if there are no more forthcoming details, it looks like a third-degree murder or manslaughter to me. If the investigation can establish some sort of psychological instability / temporary insanity on the pharmacist's part or that there was some blatantly threatening movement from the individual on the ground, then I can see the pharmacist getting off. In contrast, if the investigation establishes an emotional rush or indiscrept movement by the individual on the ground, then I only see a mitigating circumstance that makes the situation less flagrant but would not absolve the pharmacist of guilt or greater responsibility.

Best of wishes, though. It sounds like a trainwreck.

--Garfield3d
 
Last edited:
StaviZFingerZ said:
Stop repeating what I said. I know you want to be like me and all...but..
Click to expand...

Busted...Yes I do.....Maybe I should come over and spread your mulch so you can tell me the secret to become a rich and successful consultant. It might take me awhile I am tired. I have moved 20 wheel barrel loads of dirt and about 10 of pea gravel in the last few days here at my homestead. Leveling my back yard and building flowerbeds....fun stuff. At least the weather has been good. For Texas at the end of May I do not think it gets any better than yesterday.
 
MountainPharmD said:
No way, the video is what will save his butt. All he has to say is he thought the guy on the floor had a gun. We cannot see on the video what the guy on the floor was doing. He very well could have regained consciousness. The pharmacist comes back around the counter and sees movement and fires. I would have done the same thing. You have no way of knowing if he had a weapon. If I would have seen one inch of movement I would have fired. Maybe not five times but as many times as necessary to ensure he was no longer a threat.

I see nothing in that video that shows the Pharmacist did anything wrong. I bet the charges get dropped before it gets anywhere close to a trial. Typical grandstanding by the DA. He has to look like he is doing something so he can get reelected.
Click to expand...

Hey genius,

Did you read the police report? There is NO gun. The only people who had guns were the pharmacist and perp #1. Perp #2 never had a gun. Plus he was on his back and shot in the head. No gun found near him, no shell casings, nothing.

He walked past this guy twice without considering him a threat. Then he went a got the cannon and stood over him. He should have called the cops and then he would be a hero.
 
Old Timer said:
Hey genius,

Did you read the police report? There is NO gun. The only people who had guns were the pharmacist and perp #1. Perp #2 never had a gun. Plus he was on his back and shot in the head. No gun found near him, no shell casings, nothing.

He walked past this guy twice without considering him a threat. Then he went a got the cannon and stood over him. He should have called the cops and then he would be a hero.
Click to expand...

Hey I know you are old and slow and you work for CVS so you have alot going againts you. So I will try to spell this out for you in simple terms.

I do not care what they found AFTER the incident was over. I am talking about the Pharmacists actions and what he may have been thinking DURING the crime. He had no way of knowing DURING the crime if the second suspect was armed or not. What does walking past him twice have to do with anything? He comes around the counter the third time and all of a sudden sees the suspect reach into his pocket and instictivly fires thinking he may have been armed.

The only way the Pharmacist would be screwed is if the second robber was clearly on video the whole time laying on the floor not moving. Again for those of us who are old and slow. We are talking about the Pharmacists actions DURING THE CRIME.
 
MountainPharmD said:
Busted...Yes I do.....Maybe I should come over and spread your mulch so you can tell me the secret to become a rich and successful consultant. It might take me awhile I am tired. I have moved 20 wheel barrel loads of dirt and about 10 of pea gravel in the last few days here at my homestead. Leveling my back yard and building flowerbeds....fun stuff. At least the weather has been good. For Texas at the end of May I do not think it gets any better than yesterday.
Click to expand...

DOOOOOD... Garland has a day laborer center... I think Saturn and Garland.. just find you 2 day laborers who can finish that work for you in 2 hours... What is wrong with you????????
 
DownonthePharm said:
I just finished watching the local press conference, according to Oklahoma law, the first shot was completely legal because he was in danger of his life because the robber had a weapon. The headwound grazed the skull knocking the boy out and leaving him flat on his back. If the pharmacist had left it at that, even if he had killed him, it wouldnt be an issue. However, the pharmacist went back to a drawer to get another weapon and fired shots to the body, which were the fatal shots. Because he shot the robber while he was incapacitated it was considered murder.

The short answer is, if there is a threat, you are OK to shoot. Once the immediate threat is gone, you are not OK to shoot. This is going to be a very interesting case to watch.
Click to expand...
very clear answer thankyou
One more advantage in US is that there are cameras everywhere
 
Sparda29 said:
The DA is setting a bad precedent by going after this guy. I don't care if he executed the robber, he is still a hero. He will be a martyr in the eyes of that community and the pharmacy community if he gets sent to jail.
Click to expand...

The DA is grandstanding. He has to make it look like he cares so it can't be used against him during reelection.

Trust me this will never even come close to seeing trial.
 
StaviZFingerZ said:
DOOOOOD... Garland has a day laborer center... I think Saturn and Garland.. just find you 2 day laborers who can finish that work for you in 2 hours... What is wrong with you????????
Click to expand...

Are you talking an offical place or the parking lot where all the illegals hang out? There is one of those places in Frisco and McKinney. It makes me nervous to have people I do not know coming over to my house to work. Have you read the book or see the movie the Green Mile?
 
MountainPharmD said:
Are you talking an offical place or the parking lot where all the illegals hang out? There is one of those places in Frisco and McKinney. It makes me nervous to have people I do not know coming over to my house to work. Have you read the book or see the movie the Green Mile?
Click to expand...

Gawwwd what a big wuss! Its official.
 
StaviZFingerZ said:
Dang Garfield.. I love that lawyer talk!!
Click to expand...

Thanks! I'm no lawyer though, so it's really just law talk from me. I don't mean to present myself as some sort of authority on the matter.

Sparda29 said:
The DA is setting a bad precedent by going after this guy. I don't care if he executed the robber, he is still a hero. He will be a martyr in the eyes of that community and the pharmacy community if he gets sent to jail.
Click to expand...

The use of deadly force is debatable, and maybe even acceptable, in the scope of self-defense and eliminating a serious threat. But, you're arguing that the robber needed to die to be made an example to other criminals out there?

It's not the pharmacist's place to delegate an execution. You're basically advocating for vigilante justice, and this kind of reasoning would impinge upon why vigilantism is outlawed. Law enforcement and the government can't condone vigilantism because everyone else would then use their own criteria and standard for judging a particular situation. In short, letting the pharmacist off scott-free could set its own precedence for other individuals to exercise their own potentially loose interpretations of justice.

For me, at the heart of the matter, I am wondering about the motivations for the pharmacist's actions. Did he feel a pervading sense of fear? Was he acting on impulse or abject terror? Or, is he acting on anger and vengeance? Such emotions are not virtues and they shouldn't be applauded. I can more readily accept if the pharmacist felt the need to kill the robber, but if instead he wanted to kill the robber, then that's distinctly different.

--Garfield3d
 
Garfield3d said:
The 'Castle Doctrine' implemented in Oklahoma leaves some room for interpretation. I've bolded some sections that I think are particularly relevant:


The above reference is from http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=69782 .

Perhaps the most relevant detail in applying the Castle Doctrine to this case is that, in Oklahoma, it is intended to be applied in the context of one's home. The law takes care to define what constitutes a dwelling, place of residence, and vehicle. There is some ambiguity concerning the scope of a dwelling, but in the context of subsection A and the fact that only domestic environments have been previously cited in the law, I would imagine that this excludes business locations such as a pharmacy.

The second point, which is what has already been thoroughly alluded to in this thread, is the reasonableness of the pharmacist's actions. In particular, the jury will likely be asked the question, "Would a reasonable person perceive shots 2 through 5 to have been necessary to prevent an impending death or serious bodily injury?" Or, in looser terms, if the pharmacist hadn't used his revolver to kill the man on the ground, would the pharmacist had died (or have been seriously injured)?

The third point is the key phrase "probable cause" to make an arrest in cases involving the unlawful use of force to defend oneself. It's notable that this is just for an arrest, not a conviction. To evaluate a murder, you would need 'beyond a reasonable doubt' and that's a higher level of burden to prove than just probable cause, so we'll see a much more strict measure to actually convict than to charge or arrest.

Concerning the camera footage, the information presented through that view is not entirely comprehensive, and as mentioned in this thread, there may be details in the situation that were missed by the camera. However, I do not think that the ambiguity that occurs from missing such potential details would necessarily play in the defense's favor. The prosecution has the burden of proof to provide evidence against the accused, but they only have to establish "beyond reasonable doubt." That doesn't mean 0% remaining doubt, nor does it mean removing all possible doubt. The term only applies to removing doubt that can be reasonably interpreted from the situation and by the evidence presented. To say the least, the idea is relentlessly ambiguous, but it does mean that the doubt created by increasingly unlikely scenarios or interpretations can be ignored unless there is compelling evidence to support such scenarios and interpretations.

For instance, if the assertion is being made that the individual on the ground was still a reasonable threat through the claim that he may have been moving for a gun, we cannot accept that statement on face value. We would need to consider the testimony of witnesses (ie: Did the Pharmacist see the individual reach for a possible weapon?), forensics ("The bullet barely grazed his skull and likely only dazed him... or the bullet cracked or penetrated his skull and would have knocked him unconscious, or at the least severely impaired him"), and other such evidence, accounts, and testimony. There needs to be evidence to support such a statement of possibility. Furthermore, the evidence needs to be compelling.

As for the pharmacist being charged with first-degree murder, the concept of premeditation varies from state to state, but the idea of premeditation does not preclude days of planning.

In my personal opinion, if there are no more forthcoming details, it looks like a third-degree murder or manslaughter to me. If the investigation can establish some sort of psychological instability / temporary insanity on the pharmacist's part or that there was some blatantly threatening movement from the individual on the ground, then I can see the pharmacist getting off. In contrast, if the investigation establishes an emotional rush or indiscrept movement by the individual on the ground, then I only see a mitigating circumstance that makes the situation less flagrant but would not absolve the pharmacist of guilt or greater responsibility.

Best of wishes, though. It sounds like a trainwreck.

--Garfield3d
Click to expand...

Fantastic post! I'm most impressed.


Posted via Mobile BlackBerry Device
 
One of my major concerns with a high profile incident like this, however, is how it will affect future robberies at pharmacies.

I don't suspect most criminals/thieves anticipate the pharmacist is armed...will their actions start to change if they think, hey, there's a chance the guy in the white coat could pull a gun on me?

Look...some of you know which way I lean politically; this isn't a left-wing bash guns post...but I'm a little concerned as to whether this incident could put other pharmacists in harms way if the 'I better shoot first' mentality takes over with the criminals.


Posted via Mobile BlackBerry Device
 
SpirivaSunrise said:
One of my major concerns with a high profile incident like this, however, is how it will affect future robberies at pharmacies.

I don't suspect most criminals/thieves anticipate the pharmacist is armed...will their actions start to change if they think, hey, there's a chance the guy in the white coat could pull a gun on me?

Look...some of you know which way I lean politically; this isn't a left-wing bash guns post...but I'm a little concerned as to whether this incident could put other pharmacists in harms way if the 'I better shoot first' mentality takes over with the criminals.


Posted via Mobile BlackBerry Device
Click to expand...

I knew it!!! You left wing, tree hugging, liberal!!! You will never take my guns!!!! NEVER!!!!!!
 
i hope he gets convicted of second degree. All you ignorant southerners need to find some common sense. A person could have a rocket launcher, a chainsaw, what-the-**** ever in their possession, but guess what? If they are incapacitated and unable to wield the potentially harmful weapon, they are NOT a threat!!!!

Don't make up bull**** about "finishing the job" or "eliminating the threat". He was on the ground with a head-wound. He would have been lucky to survive that alone. This was cold blooded MURDER.

Priapism, stavi, you ass-hats make me sick :rolleyes:
 
Shaptown said:
i hope he gets convicted of second degree. All you ignorant southerners need to find some common sense. A person could have a rocket launcher, a chainsaw, what-the-**** ever in their possession, but guess what? If they are incapacitated and unable to wield the potentially harmful weapon, they are NOT a threat!!!!

Don't make up bull**** about "finishing the job" or "eliminating the threat". He was on the ground with a head-wound. He would have been lucky to survive that alone. This was cold blooded MURDER.

Priapism, stavi, you ass-hats make me sick :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

The feeling is mutal....Oh and don't let the door hit ya on the way out of our forum.....
 
MountainPharmD said:
I knew it!!! You left wing, tree hugging, liberal!!! You will never take my guns!!!! NEVER!!!!!!
Click to expand...

You have this stuck to the back of your Harley don't you?

16952664.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Next unread thread

Similar threads

Codegreyk
Amazon staff Pharmacist
Replies
0
Views
1K
Codegreyk
Codegreyk
P
Immunizing pharmacist CVS
Replies
0
Views
576
pharmdeep
P
D
Have an interview scheduled for remote Cigna staff pharmacist
2
Replies
85
Views
11K
projektreverb
P
A
Is this real? 300k income as a pharmacist?
2
Replies
50
Views
6K
pharm B
pharm B
B
Canadian Trained Pharmacist Relocating to the US
Replies
17
Views
5K
BenadrylPRN
B
Top