Shoot to kill...

[dmarc117]

Apparently with good reason. The shooter left the room, effectively reloaded, then came back for more. That's not "losing control," that's a deliberate decision that evidenced reflection. As far as diminished capacity goes, you generally need to show you didn't understand the consequences of your actions, and that guy knew exactly what he was doing. He said as much: he was defending himself and 2 others. The only defense I'd buy into is #3: imperfect self defense. Maybe. His actions were clearly unreasonable (not the initial self-defense - the going back for more part), but if I were convinced he acted with an honest belief that he was still protecting himself or others from immediate harm then I might buy it.

 

Bottom line: the shooter executed a scum bag that had it coming. Unfortunately, that isn't the legal standard to avoid a murder charge, regardless of whether it ought to be.

 

 

i guess since youre the expert, how long does it take for a reasonable person that was just robbed to come down from that adrenaline rush and think reasonably again? 30 seconds? 2 minutes? 5 minutes?

[yo mama]

i guess since youre the expert, how long does it take for a reasonable person that was just robbed to come down from that adrenaline rush and think reasonably again? 30 seconds? 2 minutes? 5 minutes?

Your mistake is equating an adrenaline rush with loss of capacity and/or control. Did you watch Ursa's video? That guy started out justifiably defending himself but finished up by executing the robber. The store owner knew exactly what he was doing. No hesitation. No remorse. Never lost control. After the initial volley he methodically cleared the area, reloaded, then came back to finish the robber off.

 

It's okay if you believe the store owner was morally in the right; I won't fault you. Hell, I'm not even sure I'd disagree with you. But that second volley does not appear to meet the legal tests you previously posted.

Edited May 29, 2009 by yo mama

[Azazello1313]

Your mistake is equating an adrenaline rush with loss of capacity and/or control. Did you watch Ursa's video? That guy started out justifiably defending himself but finished up by executing the robber. The store owner knew exactly what he was doing. No hesitation. No remorse. Never lost control. After the initial volley he methodically cleared the area, reloaded, then came back to finish the robber off.

 

It's okay if you believe the store owner was morally in the right; I won't fault you. Hell, I'm not even sure I'd disagree with you. But that second volley does not appear to meet the legal tests you previously posted.

 

it's not just an adrenaline rush...dude just had a gun pointed at him in his own store. that is gonna stoke fear, rage, you name it. "heat of the moment without reflection?" I could definitely see a jury going along with that one. voluntary manslaughter seems like an appropriate charge here to me.

 

interesting that the guy's version of events is that the kid was moving like he was trying to get up when he emptied the clip. that version is not contradicted by the surveillance video as posted on that site, since he is not in the frame. I wonder if there is other video from different angles? without more video it seems like it would be tough for the prosecutor to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was 1) so incapacitated he couldn't possibly have moved, AND 2) he wasn't dead.

[yo mama]

it's not just an adrenaline rush...dude just had a gun pointed at him in his own store. that is gonna stoke fear, rage, you name it. "heat of the moment without reflection?"

Heat of the moment without reflection would be more like if he'd kept shooting, all in one volley, until he ran out of bullets. And things like fear, rage, etc. are not (necessarily) equal to loss of control or diminished capacity. In fact, rage is the last thing that guy wants to admit to. He's better off sticking to his "I was in fear for my immediate safety and the safety of the women around me" story. It'll just be an issue of whether a jury wants to believe him, or if this occurred in Texas.

[wiegie]

I'm not certain that I wouldn't have done the same thing.

[dmarc117]

Your mistake is equating an adrenaline rush with loss of capacity and/or control. Did you watch Ursa's video? That guy started out justifiably defending himself but finished up by executing the robber. The store owner knew exactly what he was doing. No hesitation. No remorse. Never lost control. After the initial volley he methodically cleared the area, reloaded, then came back to finish the robber off.

 

It's okay if you believe the store owner was morally in the right; I won't fault you. Hell, I'm not even sure I'd disagree with you. But that second volley does not appear to meet the legal tests you previously posted.

 

 

im just saying people react differently to very stressful situations. who the hell knows what anyone else wouldve done. its easy to be a monday morning qb with these once you watch the video. do you know how you would react? hell, i have no clue what i would do. what if the guy thought he was still in danger? or had so much rage cause he was just attacked? he wasnt in his right mind and i dont know how anyone can say that he was.

Edited May 29, 2009 by dmarc117

[westvirginia]

I'm not certain that I wouldn't have done the same thing.

 

Me too. I can totally see after the fear subsides, rage setting in at this "thing" who just put me and my employees in danger. And if the guy was trying to get up, a big "Aww HELL no" going through my head.

[Perchoutofwater]

When I first read the about this, I was thinking that murder was the right charge. The more I think about it, the more I think the guy should be brought up on manslaughter. In reading the original article it said the robber wasn't moving, but now the pharmacist is saying he was, and that hasn't been refuted by the witnesses. I can see where if the guy started to move again where someone might feel the need to shoot the robber again. While the guy that was killed didn't have a gun, how sure of that was the pharmacist? The other robber put a gun in his face. The more I think about it and the more I read about it, the more I think the DA has brought the wrong charge.

 

One thing to think about here though, is maybe the DA is taking the easy out. The pharmacist is white. The robber appears to be black. If he doesn't charge he pharmacist with something, he could be looking at some race relations problems that at the very least might cause him not to get re-elected, and at worst could cause a Rodney King type episode. So the DA charges the guy with murder knowing no jury will convict him of that, so the guy ends up walking. The DA can say he tried.

[dmarc117]

When I first read the about this, I was thinking that murder was the right charge. The more I think about it, the more I think the guy should be brought up on manslaughter. In reading the original article it said the robber wasn't moving, but now the pharmacist is saying he was, and that hasn't been refuted by the witnesses. I can see where if the guy started to move again where someone might feel the need to shoot the robber again. While the guy that was killed didn't have a gun, how sure of that was the pharmacist? The other robber put a gun in his face. The more I think about it and the more I read about it, the more I think the DA has brought the wrong charge.

 

One thing to think about here though, is maybe the DA is taking the easy out. The pharmacist is white. The robber appears to be black. If he doesn't charge he pharmacist with something, he could be looking at some race relations problems that at the very least might cause him not to get re-elected, and at worst could cause a Rodney King type episode. So the DA charges the guy with murder knowing no jury will convict him of that, so the guy ends up walking. The DA can say he tried.

 

 

careful with this, oj

[i_am_the_swammi]

my hunch would be he probably had a reasonably clear head, and he probably thought along the lines, you put me in danger in my own store, you die, punk. I think his best defense would be to say he kind of lost it, so much adrenaline pumping, fight-or-flight instinct kicking in, etc. he'd probably be sort of lying, but I think it would create reasonable doubt.

 

+1

 

clear case of revenge, in my mind. you terrorize me, you are gonna pay with your life.

 

Charge him on murder 2, but allow the jury to convict for manslaughter. I am sure there will be 1 in 12 that feels it was quasi-justified.

[Azazello1313]

Heat of the moment without reflection would be more like if he'd kept shooting, all in one volley, until he ran out of bullets. And things like fear, rage, etc. are not (necessarily) equal to loss of control or diminished capacity. In fact, rage is the last thing that guy wants to admit to. He's better off sticking to his "I was in fear for my immediate safety and the safety of the women around me" story. It'll just be an issue of whether a jury wants to believe him, or if this occurred in Texas.

 

here's a model jury instruction I found on voluntary manslaughter:

First, the defendant unlawfully killed [victim];

 

Second, while in a sudden quarrel or heat of passion, caused by adequate provocation:

 

a) the defendant intentionally killed [victim]; or

 

the defendant killed [victim] recklessly with extreme disregard for human life; and

 

Third, the killing occurred at [location stated in indictment].

 

Heat of passion may be provoked by fear, rage, anger or terror. Provocation, in order to be adequate, must be such as might arouse a reasonable and ordinary person to kill someone.

 

you'll notice "rage" is specifically listed. now, the DA might be able to make the argument that the 20 seconds from the time he had a gun pointed in his face until he unloaded on the wounded assailant was a sufficient cooling down "reflection" period to negate the heat of passion defense. of course, that is a factual question for the jury. again, voluntary manslaughter seems like a very appropriate charge here. and I just see a prosecutor having a really hard time getting a conviction on anything more than that, esp. in a place like oklahoma.

[Controller]

Was the other robber ever caught? If so, HE should be charged with murder because he was involved in a crime that resulted in a death. I don't know the name of the law, but at least here in Calfiornia, that's how it works.

[Azazello1313]

Was the other robber ever caught? If so, HE should be charged with murder because he was involved in a crime that resulted in a death. I don't know the name of the law, but at least here in Calfiornia, that's how it works.

 

felony murder rule.

[Sox]

If he can convince the jury the robber was moving,he'll probably get off.He should anyways imho.The concern over the amount of force someone should use when dealing with an armed robber is ludicrous.

 

The man who ran away was apparently armed.I watched the video yesterday and can't remember who had what though.My bottom line is this:The moment you decide you are the predator and other people are the prey,well,it's just too damn bad if you happen to run into a guard dog.They decided to rob a store,and one of them wound up dead.Too damn bad.

 

I have zero sympathy for those that would rob or attack others.

Edited May 29, 2009 by Sox

[MrTed46]

I hope he gets zero time.

 

I know if someone comes into my home and threatens anyone of my family members (including my dog) I will kill him, end of story. You point a gun at an innocent person you should be killed on the spot. Wether its family members or employees or friends or strangers, no innocent person should be put in danger.

 

I agree with the above post, the guy who got away should get the charge.

 

ETA: I don't care if he's moving or not, I am not one to make an assessment if he is alive, dead, a threat, disables, nothing of that sort. For all I know hs is down for the count and can get up with a gun and kill me.

Edited May 29, 2009 by MrTed46

[Sgt Ryan]

Here is the thing, this guy probably doesnt know which one had the gun, or if they both had a gun. Dude left the store to go after the other guy, and when he returns if he sees the guy move at all, he unloads on the threat at hand.

 

 

 

dude walks easily.

[Duchess Jack]

Here is the thing, this guy probably doesnt know which one had the gun, or if they both had a gun. Dude left the store to go after the other guy, and when he returns if he sees the guy move at all, he unloads on the threat at hand.

 

 

 

dude walks easily.

 

then shoot the unconcious guy in the hands and/or elbows.

[MrTed46]

then shoot the unconcious guy in the hands and/or elbows.

 

I don't take any chances when my life is threatened

[dmarc117]

then shoot the unconcious guy in the hands and/or elbows.

 

 

is that before or after you shoot the apple off his head?

[Perchoutofwater]

then shoot the unconcious guy in the hands and/or elbows.

 

First, the DA claims the robber was unconscious, the pharmacist claims he was moving. The video tape doesn't show anything. Based on everything I've read, I don't think the witnesses have said anything contrary to what the pharmacist has said. So it can be argued as to whether or not he should have shot the guy after he was on the ground. If he was moving.

 

Second, it isn't anything like the movies, you don't shoot crap out of their hands, you aim for center mass to make sure you get a hit. Doing anything else is just stupid.

[MrTed46]

First, the DA claims the robber was unconscious, the pharmacist claims he was moving. The video tape doesn't show anything. Based on everything I've read, I don't think the witnesses have said anything contrary to what the pharmacist has said. So it can be argued as to whether or not he should have shot the guy after he was on the ground. If he was moving.

 

Second, it isn't anything like the movies, you don't shoot crap out of their hands, you aim for center mass to make sure you get a hit. Doing anything else is just stupid.

 

I agree with you and I will bring up the point again, moving or not shoot him as many times as you like.

[Ursa Majoris]

Anyone else think those five rounds at the end were fired amazingly fast?

[Duchess Jack]

First, the DA claims the robber was unconscious, the pharmacist claims he was moving. The video tape doesn't show anything. Based on everything I've read, I don't think the witnesses have said anything contrary to what the pharmacist has said. So it can be argued as to whether or not he should have shot the guy after he was on the ground. If he was moving.

 

Second, it isn't anything like the movies, you don't shoot crap out of their hands, you aim for center mass to make sure you get a hit. Doing anything else is just stupid.

If he's unconscious, then its not too hard. What are we talking about 6-8 feet. If he conscious then my opinion of this changes. The threat needed to be eliminated.

[Perchoutofwater]

If he's unconscious, then its not too hard. What are we talking about 6-8 feet. If he conscious then my opinion of this changes. The threat needed to be eliminated.

 

If he was unconscious then there is no reason at all for him to shoot the guy again. I disagree with you on the range, and aiming for an elbow or hand. I can't tell by the video what he was carrying, but if it was a snub nose revolver, you still aim for center mass, as they just aren't that accurate, particularly when you are jacked up and have just ran after another criminal.

[Duchess Jack]

If he was unconscious then there is no reason at all for him to shoot the guy again. I disagree with you on the range, and aiming for an elbow or hand. I can't tell by the video what he was carrying, but if it was a snub nose revolver, you still aim for center mass, as they just aren't that accurate, particularly when you are jacked up and have just ran after another criminal.

In my defense, I only metioned the elbow or hand in response to shooting an unconscious guy dead because you don't know where the gun is. I might not have taken that route. It just seemed to be a better option. And I have to admit, I did not watch the video.