Thread: Oklahoma Incident

I just noticed that the NAACP is involved.

THAT explains A LOT !!

Many good points on both sides of the argument.

A couple quick points. Sometimes I think our sense of reasonableness and fair play (mine included) are overly influenced by the image of the tv hero who would never shoot someone in the back, always give repeated warnings, and stop his self-defense actions when the villain puts his hands in the air (even if still holding the gun).

Ok, those weren't my points. That was the preamble.

Point 1, clerk may not have know where he hit the guy. #2, as noted earlier, he may still have been moving, and the video tape doesn't show otherwise, therefore, #3 it may be reasonable to believe the attack on his life is not definitively over. #4 Is the pharmacist a medical practitioner, capable of determining the consciousness of the gunshot ... recipient? #5 would it be reasonable to expect him to even try, under the circumstances? #6 While the one shot was apparently unarmed, did the pharmacist "know" this with a certainty? Could it be reasonable to expect both assailants were armed?

Yes, it looks like overkill, but isn't there a principle that the victim in a crime, while defending himself with "reasonable force" is not required to measure with precision the nicety of his defense? Ie, quite a bit of latitude when giving the benefit of the doubt to the victim who defends himself.

FWIW

Brenton

Sometimes we try and overanalyze these things and that's the job of the experts.

Its pretty basic really. The perp is on the ground, not moving and has no weapon in his hand so there is no threat. If the hero was concerned the perp might awake or was faking why did he leave the perp to go behind the counter and get another weapon. maybe the perp would have gotten up with a gun and shot the hero.

After watching the video of this incident, the only thing I can conclude is that the clerk was in the wrong.

We first have two encounters here.

First the robbery:

This incident went exactly the way it should have for the good guys. Bad guys come in and threaten, good guy defends self, store and others. One bad guy down one bad guy fled. end of story, incident over.

Next the shooting:

After defending his store the owner fetches a weapon and takes revenge on the downed criminal. He didn't hesitate in shooting him, nor show the same emotional state he did during the first incident. If he had stopped before firing I would find it believable that he was "holding" the downed bad guy for police but then the guy seemed to make a threatening move so was shot. but from the video he seems to have made the decision to shoot him even before he turned with the gun. Now it is possible the guy was threatening him in some way, we can't tell, and the "experts" say not, so this is his only defense.

Too bad really, there are a number of ways he could have achieved the same outcome and been within his legal rights. I guess he really wasn't thinking under th pressure of the incident.

Originally Posted by thebigspendur

Sometimes we try and overanalyze these things and that's the job of the experts.

Its pretty basic really. The perp is on the ground, not moving and has no weapon in his hand so there is no threat. If the hero was concerned the perp might awake or was faking why did he leave the perp to go behind the counter and get another weapon. maybe the perp would have gotten up with a gun and shot the hero.

Originally Posted by Wildtim

After watching the video of this incident, the only thing I can conclude is that the clerk was in the wrong.

We first have two encounters here.

First the robbery:

This incident went exactly the way it should have for the good guys. Bad guys come in and threaten, good guy defends self, store and others. One bad guy down one bad guy fled. end of story, incident over.

Next the shooting:

After defending his store the owner fetches a weapon and takes revenge on the downed criminal. He didn't hesitate in shooting him, nor show the same emotional state he did during the first incident. If he had stopped before firing I would find it believable that he was "holding" the downed bad guy for police but then the guy seemed to make a threatening move so was shot. but from the video he seems to have made the decision to shoot him even before he turned with the gun. Now it is possible the guy was threatening him in some way, we can't tell, and the "experts" say not, so this is his only defense.

Too bad really, there are a number of ways he could have achieved the same outcome and been within his legal rights. I guess he really wasn't thinking under th pressure of the incident.

It looks to be as you guys say. Only problem is that we can't see whats happening off camera where the first shooter is.
I think a good lawyer will get the clerk off no matter the truth of what happened.

It's that zone where what is obvious (e.g., that it was unnecessary for him to shoot the kid 5 more times) overlaps with "reasonable doubt".

That's where the lawyer is gonna earn his keep.

Either way it goes, it's sure to be controversial.

Were it Canada? He'd almost certainly be convicted on the weapons offense (having the gun there, improper storage, etc...), not withstanding whether it were judged reasonable to have used it.

In my books, it was the robbers who put the clerk into a situation where few of us would stay calm and rational without proper training. Being attacked on a street, I know how adrenaline messes up your decision making and perception of reality. Unless we can prove that the clerk was rational and fully aware of the consequences of his acts (which is hard to believe considering he knew he was filmed by the security camera), I do not see how he can be held responsible for a disaster that someone else put in motion.

Originally Posted by sparq

...Unless we can prove...
...I do not see how he can be held responsible for a disaster that someone else put in motion.

I guess that depends on which disaster you are talking about. The clerk is of course responsible for the robber's death which actually ended the immediate disaster. However it was the robber who was responsible for the disaster of the robbery and creating a situation where someone else is going to be faced with the choice of taking responsibility to end it

Threatening someone's life: a disaster
Self-defense: not a disaster
Murder: a disaster

The question is whether it was murder or only self-defense Either way, the clerk is still responsible for taking another man's life. No amount of adrenaline or emotion can erase that fact

Originally Posted by gssixgun

It sounds like he went overboard or might have been out of it from stress overload...

Criminal charges????
No way, not in my book they shot at him first, period, end of story,

I think this sums it up. Been nice if he showed restraint after having his life threatened, but he shouldn't go to jail for not showing restraint. If he was law enforcement, different story - they are supposed to be nice to the guy that tried to kill them once the guy is subdued. Don't think we can hold normal people to that standard.

Originally Posted by smokelaw1

I read a bit about the case before. The kid he shot was hit in the head, and was laying on the floor unconcious. OUT. THe other robber ran out, and the guy chased him...but did not catch him. Returned tot he store, where the kid was STILL UNCONCIOUS. Then, the pharmacist grabbed another gun from behind the counter (as far as I'm concerned, this point doesn't matter, it could have been the same gun), and fired five mroe times into the unconcious robber.
I'll be interested to see how it plays out.

FROM WHAT I READ IN THE LINK FROM HOGALOO THE STORY HAS HIM SHOTING KID BEFORE GOING AFTER SECOND, HOWEVER THERE ARE SOME QUOTES AFTEER SAYING VIDEOS WERE AVAILABLE.

EVERYONE HAS TO REALISE THAT WE ARE HERE DISCUSSING THIS UNDER NO PRESSURE OR FEAR. IN SAME CURCOMSTANCES I WOULD SHOOT EVERYTHING I HAD OUT OF FEAR. IN OTHER WORDS "OVERKILL"

ALSO REMEMBER THE PHARMISIST HAD BEEN SHOT TWICE AT THIS POINT !!!