Pharmacist Shoots Robber 5 Times - Charged with 1st Deg. Murder

[Papa_Complex]

Originally Posted by askmrjesus

Sorry, that was rude of me.

I just really wanted to use the phrase, "Mr. Perry fucking Mason", and I lost my head.

JC

Well give a guy a heads up next time first.

Yeah, he looked positively paralysed with fear, didn't he?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHshsgpsxFg&feature=fvsr

[101lifts2]

Originally Posted by askmrjesus

Fixed.

Care to show the statute that backs up that statement, Mr. Perry fucking Mason?

JC

Yeah its called you're not even compaing apples to oranges. Murder 1 is premediated murder in which you have a right mind to kill someone. We don't know what was going through this guys head after some people just robbed him. You DON"T know..you are just ASSuming, like I am.

[101lifts2]

Originally Posted by askmrjesus

....Watch the video again. Does he look scared to you? He didn't even glance at the dude he was supposed to be so afraid of, on his way to grab his second gun.....
JC

He is crippled...he isn't going to move fast..and how the hell do you know he wasn't scared? Because he didn't jump up and down screaming? Please your assuming just as much as me.

There is 1 dead thief and one in jail. That is where fucking armed robbing thieves belong. The state should have given the guy money for saving the taxpaper jail costs.

[101lifts2]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

Well give a guy a heads up next time first.

Yeah, he looked positively paralysed with fear, didn't he?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHshsgpsxFg&feature=fvsr

You know to me it doesn't matter if I was on the jury. I hope they prove the first bullet would have killed him anyways.

[Smittie61984]

Out of the times that police "accidently" lose security videos, why can't this be one of them.

And what if it was a poor black man who broke into a courthouse and opened fire with a M16 on a couple of handcuffed rednecks who just raped and attempted to murder his daughter? Well it'd be a movie where the black man gets off with pre-meditated murder and everyone in the theatre rejoices as the murderer gets off.

[101lifts2]

Originally Posted by Smittie61984

Out of the times that police "accidently" lose security videos, why can't this be one of them.

And what if it was a poor black man who broke into a courthouse and opened fire with a M16 on a couple of handcuffed rednecks who just raped and attempted to murder his daughter? Well it'd be a movie where the black man gets off with pre-meditated murder and everyone in the theatre rejoices as the murderer gets off.

Not the same thing...and that guy should go to jail. While I would feel for the guy, you cannot allow Vigilante justice as we are a country of law. The phamacist says he was scared for his life....something a jury is going to have to decide.

[askmrjesus]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

Well give a guy a heads up next time first.

Ok, here it comes..

Originally Posted by 101lifts2

He is crippled...he isn't going to move fast..and how the hell do you know he wasn't scared? Because he didn't jump up and down screaming? Please your assuming just as much as me.

Crippled my shiny white ass. He was moving pretty fast when he chased the other dude out the door.

I'm not claiming that he wasn't scared, I'm sure he was. Was he scared enough to think that a bleeding, unarmed kid laying on his back, was a threat? Please. The dude is a Gulf War vet, he should know the difference.

Originally Posted by 101lifts2

Yeah its called you're not even compaing apples to oranges. Murder 1 is premediated murder in which you have a right mind to kill someone. We don't know what was going through this guys head after some people just robbed him. You DON"T know..you are just ASSuming, like I am.

Had you been following along, you'd know that I don't think Murder 1 is the right charge. There are definitively some extenuating circumstances here, but the fact remains, that he did not have to shoot that guy 5 more times. The one thing I'm not assuming, is what the law is.

JC

[101lifts2]

Originally Posted by askmrjesus

....Had you been following along, you'd know that I don't think Murder 1 is the right charge. There are definitively some extenuating circumstances here, but the fact remains, that he did not have to shoot that guy 5 more times. The one thing I'm not assuming, is what the law is.

JC

The discussion is about Murder 1 JC..get with the program and quit drinking. lol If you don't think its Murder 1, then you think he should be aquitted because that is the charge the jury is going to have to decide on.

If they would have lessened to charge to voluntary manslaughter or something like that, I might think probation would suit the punishment just fine.

[Papa_Complex]

Originally Posted by 101lifts2

The discussion is about Murder 1 JC..get with the program and quit drinking. lol If you don't think its Murder 1, then you think he should be aquitted because that is the charge the jury is going to have to decide on.

If they would have lessened to charge to voluntary manslaughter or something like that, I might think probation would suit the punishment just fine.

Do I have to give you the legal definition of premeditation, or will you simply accept the two posts that I've made on the subject already?

Oh, fuck it. I'll just toss it in here anyway:

PREMEDITATION. A design formed to commit a crime or to do some other thing before it is done.
2. Premeditation differs essentially from will, which constitutes the crime, because it supposes besides an actual will, a deliberation and a continued persistence which indicate more perversity. The preparation of arms or other instruments required for the execution of the crime, are indications of a premeditation, but are not absolute proof of it, as these preparations may have been intended for other purposes, and then suddenly changed to the performance of the criminal act. Murder by poisoning must of necessity be done with premeditation. See Aforethought; Murder.

[askmrjesus]

Originally Posted by 101lifts2

The discussion is about Murder 1 JC..get with the program and quit drinking. lol If you don't think its Murder 1, then you think he should be aquitted because that is the charge the jury is going to have to decide on.

If they would have lessened to charge to voluntary manslaughter or something like that, I might think probation would suit the punishment just fine.

Under Oklahoma law, the pharmacist can use "Heat of Passion" as a defense. If he does so, the jury has to be instructed to choose between Murder 1, and Heat of Passion manslaughter, so it's not as cut and dry as you think.


OUJI-CR 4-95A

MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE –
DEFENSE OF HEAT OF PASSION

A person who kills another person in the heat of passion cannot have the deliberate intent required for murder in the first degree. Thus, malice aforethought and heat of passion cannot co-exist.

______________________________

Notes on Use

This instruction should be given if the defendant has raised heat of passion manslaughter as a defense to murder in the first degree and evidence supporting this defense has been introduced at trial. In cases where heat of passion manslaughter has been charged as a lesser included offense to murder in the first degree, the trial court should also give OUJI-CR 10-23 and 10-24 relating to lesser included offenses and the appropriate jury instructions on murder in the first degree in OUJI-CR 4-61 through 4-63 and heat of passion manslaughter in OUJI-CR 4-95 and 4-97 through 4-101. This instruction should be given after the heat of passion manslaughter instructions.

Committee Comments

The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals noted in Hogan v. State, 2006 OK CR 19, ¶ 45, n. 14, 139 P.3d 907, 925 n. 14, and Black v. State, 2001 OK CR 5, 21 P.3d 1047, 1067 n. 17, that more specific jury instructions on the relationship between murder in the first degree and heat of passion manslaughter may be desirable. See also United States v. Lofton, 776 F.2d 918, 921-22 (10th Cir. 1985) (reversing murder conviction because the jury instructions did not specifically distinguish heat of passion and malice "as inconsistent mental states or inform the jury that finding one necessarily precluded finding the other").


Given the obvious premeditation in this case, the pharmacist would be a fool not to raise this defense.

JC