This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Remember that Oklahoman pharmacist who killed the kid that attempted to rob his

#111atmasabrPosted 6/2/2011 4:16:13 AM
I also think first degree murder is too far.

You know it's nice to have a "test case" on this sort of thing now and then but we're talking about someone's life and freedom here.

I mean, REALLY, why does someone get sent to prison for longer for making a split-second decision to shoot a robber five-six times in the heat of the moment, than for boozing it up and killing a family in a car accident?

Life stinks. I hate people. Everyone can go to hell.
---
I did my own research. I rock!
#112JimayoPosted 6/2/2011 4:23:29 AM(edited)
prezman posted...
I mean, REALLY, why does someone get sent to prison for longer for making a split-second decision to shoot a robber five-six times in the heat of the moment, than for boozing it up and killing a family in a car accident?

Because one is cold-blooded premeditated intent to kill showing a horrifying disdain for human life. The other is stupidity(I assume you drink and drive) with the obvious assumption that one can make it home without causing damage.
#113KradekPosted 6/2/2011 9:54:24 AM
Jimayo posted...
Kradek posted...
Murder implies it was premeditated doesn't it? Meaning he would have to had like convinced the kid to rob his store just so he could kill him. Manslaughter surely, but murder? And first degree? Isn't that the **** they give drug lords who kill competitors?

Premeditated doesn't mean weeks of planning.

It can mean as little as the 30 seconds it takes to step over the unconcious person and grab a second gun to unload into him. That is planned.

The 3 seconds it took him to think I should get my other gun and unload the clip into him is premeditation.



I guess I had missed that tidbit about the walking back and getting a second gun. Thank you.
---
If money doesn't grow on trees, then why do banks have branches?~ Mighty_Giraffe
#114KnightgeePosted 6/2/2011 11:01:03 AM
As usual, property is more important than people. Of course, that's a gross oversimplication of a complicated issue, but then again, so is "you were about to rob me, therefore I can do whatever I want to you", because you can't. Like, that's the law. You cannot intentionally kill someone who is unconscious just because they were mere minutes ago in the process of robbing you at gunpoint. The law only allows for you to do what is necessary to save yourself in the moment. If the first shot had killed him, that would be fine. If the remaining shots had been fired right after that, it would have been arguable that it was out of fear and a need to defend oneself, but shooting some robber, chasing another robber down, and then coming back to shoot the now incapacitated first robber 5 more times in the torso is pretty much just murder, intentional murder at that. The court was correct here. There are reasonable limits to what you can do to defend your property and your person.
---
You don't know that Mickey Mouse wasn't going to vote, or didn't vote. Why do you keep saying that he was never going to vote? --Gufman
#115jmf8241Posted 6/2/2011 11:32:25 AM
For those wondering why the accomplice is getting charged with first-degree murder as well(at least I got the impression that that's what's going on from some posts), it's because of the Felony Murder Rule.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_murder_rule#United_States

It essentially, says that if someone is killed while you are committing a felony, you are criminally liable for there death as well; even if you weren't the person who killed someone. Thus, if you are breaking into someone's house and your partner is shot by the home owner, you can be considered liable for there death. Obviously, this varies between jurisdictions.
#116MusourenkaPosted 6/2/2011 1:06:52 PM
That rule makes complete sense if your accomplice kills someone, but it doesn't if your accomplice is the one who gets killed. After all, you both accepted the consequences.
---
"Can't stop myself drinking. Can't stop being me.
If I call, will you come and will you save me?
"
#117btaylorstlPosted 6/2/2011 2:45:43 PM
Wow. I was an extremely active participant in that original thread when the story first broke, and I couldn't be more shocked that the jury actually did the right thing here.
---
This signature will not change until the St. Louis Cardinals win the World Series. Started: 10/28/06
#118btaylorstlPosted 6/2/2011 2:50:15 PM
First degree murder seems extreme. This certainly wasn't at all premeditated. Second degree murder would seem to be the more appropriate verdict.


Premeditation has a specific legal definition, and it has nothing to do with the popular fiction that it means it has to be planned out hours or days in advance. Technically speaking, simply picking up a weapon and aiming it is sufficient to establish premeditation in the legal sense. This guy more than exceeded the threshold by walking past the defenseless robber without paying him even a glance (showing that he did not view him as a threat, obviating any self-defense mitigation), then returning to the store, going all the way into the back room to get a different gun, calmly strolling over to the incapacitated kid and pumping five rounds into him.
---
This signature will not change until the St. Louis Cardinals win the World Series. Started: 10/28/06
#119btaylorstlPosted 6/2/2011 3:01:35 PM
That rule makes complete sense if your accomplice kills someone, but it doesn't if your accomplice is the one who gets killed. After all, you both accepted the consequences.


Well, the felony murder doctrine is quite controversial because it eliminates the traditional formation of specific intent, which is a long-standing common law standard for culpability. But I'm not sure what you're driving at by separating the accomplice's death from that of someone else. You say that "they both accepted the consequences," but how is that true in the absence of a felony murder consequence? One was killed and the other wasn't. The consequence for the survivor is only there if they get convicted of murder under this doctrine.
---
This signature will not change until the St. Louis Cardinals win the World Series. Started: 10/28/06