Thread: Oklahoma Incident

Looks like a clear case of self-defense to me.

Originally Posted by JimmyHAD

Crazy gun laws ?? So the alternative being the criminals who are armed because they don't obey laws come in and shoot you, you're only hope being they only want you money and not your life?

A few years ago in a restaurant across the street from where I work two guys went in at 10PM and herded the three female employees into the kitchen and shot all three in the head. One of the victims was 17 years old. They got $120.00 for their efforts. The police caught them because one of the bragged to a friend telling him of the murders. I guess he was proud of himself. The friend dropped a dime on him.

Regrettably they were not given the death penalty they both so richly deserve. The taxpayers will have to pay for both perpetrators food and lodging for the rest of their natural lives. Once in custody each denied being the shooter and accused the other. I guess not so proud after all.

If I was on the jury I would have acquitted Bernard Goetz and I would acquit the pharmacist as well. Predators are fair game in my book.

Yes, crazy gun laws.

I love guns and own guns, but many of the U.S gun laws are nuts.

The story you told sounds horrible and tragic...but different. The kids in the convenience store robbery clearly aren't professionals - they want to get in and out with the register's contents as quickly as possible, and although they're carrying guns, they probably don't want to shoot them. I mean, if I were to rob a store at gunpoint, I wouldn't be looking to kill anyone -- I'd just want the money. But I guess there are all kinds of different people, aren't there?

The guys who robbed the place across from your workplace obviously weren't geniuses either if they only managed 120 bucks, but systematically executing three people? It certainly sounds premeditated in the sense that they reasoned they had to be killed (maybe they didn't wear masks and thought they could identify them?) and then carried out those killings. Maybe it happened after a discussion then and there or maybe it was a split second decision - but I can say confidently that it probably wasn't a "heat of the moment" decision to execute a defenseless 17 year-old and two others.

Originally Posted by sensei_kyle

Here's a few things to add to the mix:

My understanding is the initial firearm that the pharmacist used to deliver the headshot was a .380 auto. Not exactly a superlative self-defense round.

This is what I don't get: if you want to carry for self defense (no argument from me) then why use such a ****ty weapon / round? I know squat of guns, but self defense scenarios don't often call for long range shooting.
A 357 magnum with short barrel and hollow point (or whatever damages the most) rounds would seem better to my untrained eye. no?

Originally Posted by sensei_kyle

A theory going around about the murder charge. First degree murder means pre-meditated. I don't know that a jury in my county is going to agree this guy sat down, thought about killing someone, planned it out then executed that plan. Manslaughter perhaps, but not murder. The DA might have given in to pressure from groups like the NAACP and filed the charge. I predict the pharmacist will get a not guilty from the jury.

I hope he will get off home free too.
I know first degree is not determined by a timeframe. Planning for months to kill someone is identical to kicking someone down, and then deciding he has to die and getting a weapon to do it, from a legal pov.
Perhaps the fact that he shot once, and then got another weapon to shoot again caused this decision?

Wow, one that I really want to post on but man I've got lot to say. I'll try to organize it.

1st- the incident itself. not having all the facts, and the criminal inside being off camera I can't make a call to if the perp was still a threat or not. However, there are a couple of reasons the guy may have gone back. first being that he may likely was trained not to leave a threat behind. second being that he may have been told, as I was as a kid by my retired sheriff grandfather, to always kill the criminal. it eliminates conflicting versions of the events. and in places like Kalifornia where everybody sues everybody it could save you civil trouble as well. out here criminals are very happy to sue anybody brazen enough to thwart their plans. they're like the US automakers, they'll get your money one way or another

Did this guy do something wrong? wasn't he in fear of his life, under stress and the influence of adrenaline? If the bad guy was truly unconscious, and it was purely calculated to finish him, then that may be cold, it doesn't mean it was wrong. what's better, to have the criminal live, go to prison at cost to tax payers, come out and go back into the same life? somebody mentioned retribution, that is very true. I read a story of a Los Angeles Jewelry store owner who shot some gang members that tried to rob him, they robbed him again, more shootouts, finally there was a target on his head and he had to close up his doors and hide out. doesn't seem fair that the honest run and hide because the evil men have power.

somebody said they weren't hardened criminals intent on killing. I don't know, no sound, if they were firing or just waving the gun, but have you ever had a gun pointed at you? did you feel relaxed knowing that the person probably wasn't going to shoot you? was the gun empty? if not then whether they "intended" to shoot anybody or not there was the possibility, and the lack of concern over that outcome. they were willing for an unknown payout to risk and maybe even take the lives of multiple innocent, working, people. and accidents happen, it is very easily to accidentally fire a gun, especially if you are amped up and swinging it about like that. accidentally being shot and wounded or killed sucks just as much as if the person did it on purpose.

I think the guy on trial should be acquitted, I think he defended himself, and without being in his head at the time nobody can know the reasoning there. the people were/are criminals. IMO criminals, during the committing of a crime, are entitled to NO RIGHTS. that's the choice they've made.

1st degree? isn't there something about if you are acquitted for the maximum crime they can't retry for a lesser charge? I wonder if the DA is doing a two-fer, making the stupid people that want to make it about race and excessive force happy by "coming down hard" but giving the guy a hand in reality, the jury is unlikely to say first degree, any jury, and once acquitted he has no need to fear future indictments.

As to the 380's viability/potency etc. sensei's five bullets give a good list
(1) All guns, IMO under 40cal are compromise weapons ***(Edit- I meant under the power level of a 40s&w, 38special and 357 mag of course are smaller dia. but completely sufficient), and ofter what is reasonable to carry on yourself is not the ideal weapon. when I had my permit I carried a small 38 snub and also a sig 380 (not at the same time). the 38 I had faith in the 380 not ideal but BETTER THAN NOTHING. when I camp/hunt I carry a 45long colt with Speer hollow points, even a winging is going to throw a guy down. but I couldn't carry that damn thing around all the time, couldn't conceal it for one. remember, this guy was interacting with customers, (not like the guys at the pawn shop who just wear it exposed, he had to be discreet) and had an injury. isn't it thunder ranch or another training facility that says use a pistol to get to a gun? i.e. use what you've got to get to the better weapon.

(2) He obviously made a good shot if he hit the gun in the head, a difficult shot, during the initial confusion. I want to say it was a couple of years ago here in Fresno they had on the news a car that had been run to ground by cops for whatever reason. something like 96 shots fired, bad guy hit a couple of times non-fatal. these were professionals! in real life with the movement, adrenaline, tunnel vision or whatever, I think it is really hard it's just that in movies they make it look too easy. I hope if people are ever shooting at me it's hard as hell for them to hit me

(3) Shoot to kill, not neutralize. ALWAYS!

(4) Find a lawyer now, before you need one. Sitting at county jail is not the time to go through the yellow pages. SMART! and let me tell you something on lawyers, pick one that isn't' buddy buddy with the prosecutor. it does nothing for your trial if the lawyer is unprepared because the night before he was at a party, with the prosecutor.

(5) Remember your constitutional right to the 5th amendment. Shut up and don't say a word to the police without your attorney present. I haven't found a lawyer who wishes his client would have talked to the police instead of being quiet. THIS IS THE NUMBER ONE MOST IMPORTANT THING ALWAYS IN DEALING WITH THE "MAN". yes, some of them are on your side, hell, most of them might be good people. but remember, they aren't your friends and don't have your best interest in mind. I've known people railroaded by the system, victims of the machinations of men that needed to feel important and powerful.

in the beck case, considering what the assailant did to beck who was cooperating, the "innocent bystander" that sued him should have been grateful, he likely would have shot and possibly killed her as well after getting her vehicle. people amaze me. too bad they settled. people like her are one of the things wrong with our world.

well, this has kept me up too late. the baby stopped throwing up thank God so I can go ahead and get some sleep. you gents play nice if you're still up.

Red

If you are an armed robber isn't being killed sort of an occupational hazard?

I think one important thing people should take away from these sorts of topics is that
THE POLICE ARE NOT YOUR FRIENDS

REPEAT

THE POLICE ARE NOT YOUR FRIENDS

it is the job of the police to
ticket YOU
fine YOU
arrest YOU
help prosecute YOU

this is the function of the police force

DON'T TALK
and whatever you do
DON'T TAKE THEIR ADVICE
ASSUME EVERYTHING YOU ARE TOLD IS A LIE
REALIZE THEY WANT YOU TO CONFESS
YOU DON'T ALWAYS HAVE TO BE MERANDAIZED
JUST DON'T TALK

Originally Posted by Bruno

This is what I don't get: if you want to carry for self defense (no argument from me) then why use such a ****ty weapon / round? I know squat of guns, but self defense scenarios don't often call for long range shooting.
A 357 magnum with short barrel and hollow point (or whatever damages the most) rounds would seem better to my untrained eye. no?

A .357 Magnum is a great round. A snubby is easily concealable, but it's a hand cannon not suitable for everyone. I suspect part of the issue is the .380 is small & easily concealed. In Oklahoma, the concealed carry permit means exactly that -- concealed, no bulges, distortion of clothing, no hint the weapon is even there. Makes things difficult, especially in the 100+ degree summers. Something like the Ruger LCP is great for concealability. I'd call it tiny, since the entire weapon fits in my hand with room left over. But, the price you pay is a lower powered round and less of them. And, as one of my shooting buddies is fond of saying, being a turd is becoming a team sport.

I hope he will get off home free too.
I know first degree is not determined by a timeframe. Planning for months to kill someone is identical to kicking someone down, and then deciding he has to die and getting a weapon to do it, from a legal pov.
Perhaps the fact that he shot once, and then got another weapon to shoot again caused this decision?

The first degree charge will be tough for the prosecutor to prove. Premeditation is the key. I'm no lawyer, but if the DA fails, the pharmacist cannot be charged for the same crime again (double jeopardy). However, the pharmacist is still open to civil suit from the 16 year old scumbag's family.

Also, regarding talking to the police: remember in the miranda warning "anything you say can and will be used against you". Nothing you say to the police can be used for your defense. You cannot call on the police to testify on your behalf. So, shut up & lawyer up.

I think what is being misunderstood here in his choice of round is the purpose.

For the purpose of defense a .380 is ok (ish)

If his shot to the head knocked the guy down (about the only way you will with a .380) then the round had served it's purpose.
He could have gotten away.

If you intend to kill your opponent, then a larger round is in order.
I carry Mjollnir.

I think he had changed form defense to offense when he got his other gun.
It's clear as day.

Originally Posted by Blade Wielder

There was recently a case in BC where a McDonalds drive-thru was held up with a knife... a guy with a knife, sitting in his car, tried to demand money from the window. If they had taken a step back and pressed the "close window" button, they'd have been perfectly safe. Instead, one of the workers tossed a litre of boiling fryer oil on the robber's face. I thought that was excessive force also.

that's awesome. I hope the clerk asked him, "would you like fries with that?"

I don't know how many of you have actually killed someone, watched someone die from a gunshot wound, or have been in a situation where your life is in grave danger or how many x combat vets we have here. There's no telling how you will react in that type of situation. Believe me, you don't want to know. It can mess up your head for a long, long time... Military and Police forces train and train for these situations and sometimes, their still not ready. Don't be so quick to judge the Pharmacist. There's no telling what went through his brain at the time. He was probably still wired from the robbery. He'll probably get off with a warning.