Pharmacist who killed robber guilty of murder

[Whoozyerdaddy]

They should have been required to prove the guy would have lived if he hadn't been rightfully finished off like the sack of shit he was.

This pharmacist is a hero to everyone this garbage would have killed while performing an armed robbery in the future.

That is not how the law works.

Then the law should be changed.

And there's the conversation. I have no problem with a criminal being killed by the victim while committing his crime. *BOOM HEADSHOT* *Hi-Five* It's Miller time.

But that is not what happened here. You just don't have the right to execute people the way this guy did. And that's what it was... an execution. There was no self-defense. No castle law would cover this action.

 

[eits]

While i am all for self defense, what the pharmacist did was despicable.



If Parker was alive... shooting him FIVE more times was assassination.
There was no reason to shoot him five more times.

i agree, but at the same time, you gotta understand the pharmacist's mindset during that time. his life was threatened and he's got adrenaline surging through his body. anger + adrenaline + fear = irrational behavior uncharacteristic of a person.

i remember seeing the video of this. when he came back and just shot the kid over and over again, my jaw dropped. i think i remember posting that if there's anything that's gonna convict this pharmacist, it's the fact that he came back and shot the kid several more times. he fucking had the wherewithal to get a loaded gun to come back and finish the kid off.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

honestly this is part of heat of passion. i know it's a solid 45 seconds later, but for many people, getting robbed doesn't end when the robber runs away. it ends when the cops finally show up and you feel safe again.

i bet for some of you, you'd still be adrenaline pumped afterwards, tweet about it, facebook it, write about it on ATOT with a poll and then you'd finally calm your asses down. how do you expect someone to be fine after the first shooting, and then go into a murder planning mode 45 seconds later to pop 5 more bullets into the guy? I agree this is totally excessive, but in no way is this first degree murder. How is he getting the same sentence the other adults are? I do not understand.

 

[QueBert]

i agree, but at the same time, you gotta understand the pharmacist's mindset during that time. his life was threatened and he's got adrenaline surging through his body. anger + adrenaline + fear = irrational behavior uncharacteristic of a person.

i remember seeing the video of this. when he came back and just shot the kid over and over again, my jaw dropped. i think i remember posting that if there's anything that's gonna convict this pharmacist, it's the fact that he came back and shot the kid several more times. he fucking had the wherewithal to get a loaded gun to come back and finish the kid off.

His mindset is that of a criminal, I worked at a store and was robbed at gun point, and given the chance I would have never done what this guy did. He went so far beyond simply defending himself it's not even funny. Fear isn't going to make a person do what he did, it's nothing but an excuse. Take a woman who cheats on her boyfriend and blames in on the fact she was dunk. Regardless of a situation a person will never do anything that goes against their core beliefs. Fear doesn't make you execute a person, it takes a certain mentality to do that.

 

[xaeniac]

No matter what it should not be 1st degree murder. The pharmacist has a right to protect himself and the scum should have never robbed, unless they were ready to die.

 

[mrjminer]

And there's the conversation. I have no problem with a criminal being killed by the victim while committing his crime. *BOOM HEADSHOT* *Hi-Five* It's Miller time.

But that is not what happened here. You just don't have the right to execute people the way this guy did. And that's what it was... an execution. There was no self-defense. No castle law would cover this action.

Like I said, then the law should be changed to where you pull a gun on someone, all bets are off until the police arrive. Don't like it, then don't... threaten to shoot someone with the gun you're holding in your hand.

 

[dabuddha]

this is why:

Ersland follows the fleeing robber outside, then returns to the store, walks by where Parker has fallen, gets a second gun, walks back to Parker and shoots five more times.
The last shots were fired from 18 to 24 inches away and struck Parker in the abdomen and chest, according to the testimony.


fucking dumbass thieving cockroach.

FTFY

 

[Beev]

I think the robber deserved it just because he wouldn't ever be a productive member of society (and imo, anyone who won't be deserves to not waste the rest of ours' resources), but the pharmacist went about it the wrong way.

 

[sourceninja]

This story sickens me. I'm 100% in favor of self defense. I love my state laws when it comes to self defense. I would shoot someone if I thought my life depended on it and I carry everyday.

This was not self defense after he walked back into the store. It started off as self defense and quickly turned into a cold blooded murder.

 

[ichy]

The pharmacist may have gone overboard, but I don't see how this is first-degree murder. Should be second-degree at the worst since he clearly did it in the heat of the moment.

 

[classy]

The pharmacist may have gone overboard, but I don't see how this is first-degree murder. Should be second-degree at the worst since he clearly did it in the heat of the moment.

He looked awfully calm when he came back through the second time.

 

[edro]

1. How did the pharmacist know he wasn't armed? He could have pulled a gun and shot the pharmacist while he wasn't looking.
2. How do we know Parker wasn't dead from the first shot? The second 5 shots were just abuse of a corpse.

1st degree murder is retarded. 1st degree requires premeditation. The pharmacist didn't premeditate before the robbery. Yes, it was premeditation when we walked back and shot 5 more times, but he probably was already dead or was going to die anyway.
You can't kill a dead person.

 

[pontifex]

This story sickens me. I'm 100% in favor of self defense. I love my state laws when it comes to self defense. I would shoot someone if I thought my life depended on it and I carry everyday.

This was not self defense after he walked back into the store. It started off as self defense and quickly turned into a cold blooded murder.

it stopped being self defense when he chased after the other guy. As soon as the first guy went down and he saw the 2nd guy flee, he should have been on the phone to 911.

I'm all for self defense and firearms and less criminals, but you can't do shit like this. you have to be smart about it and follow the law otherwise you get punished for it.

 

[isekii]

Maybe if the dumbass didn't put him in his position by trying to rob the place, he wouldn't be dead.

 

[SphinxnihpS]

Watch all of his his police interrogation, watch the surveillance video. It's not at all hard to see why it only took the jury four hours to convict him and recommend life.

 

[PowerEngineer]

I think the robber deserved it just because he wouldn't ever be a productive member of society (and imo, anyone who won't be deserves to not waste the rest of ours' resources), but the pharmacist went about it the wrong way.

Comments like this one have me wondering just how "productive" we can ever expect you to be. :hmm:

Okay, that's a little harsh. However, Hitler and the Nazis had your kind of confidence in their ability to decide who deserved to live and die.

Not sure I want to know how the think the pharacist should have gone about "it".

 

[Beev]

Comments like this one have me wondering just how "productive" we can ever expect you to be. :hmm:

Okay, that's a little harsh. However, Hitler and the Nazis had your kind of confidence in their ability to decide who deserved to live and die.

Not sure I want to know how the think the pharacist should have gone about "it".

I don't think I need to explain how some silly thug isn't a productive member of society... I don't ever want to be in a position where I decide who lives and who dies, but if people are only going to hinder our species then they're useless. Worse than useless, they're harmful.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

1. How did the pharmacist know he wasn't armed? He could have pulled a gun and shot the pharmacist while he wasn't looking.
2. How do we know Parker wasn't dead from the first shot? The second 5 shots were just abuse of a corpse.

1st degree murder is retarded. 1st degree requires premeditation. The pharmacist didn't premeditate before the robbery. Yes, it was premeditation when we walked back and shot 5 more times, but he probably was already dead or was going to die anyway.
You can't kill a dead person.

The prosecution introduced evidence that Parker was still alive when the pharmacist fired the last series of shots. You are correct that this could not have constituted murder if Parker had already been dead at that point. Whether or not he would have died from his other wounds would be speculative and legally irrelevant - you don't have the legal right to kill someone just because he may or may not be mortally wounded. As for the premeditation piece, generally even a moment of premeditation can be sufficient to satisfy that element. Here, I would presume the prosecutor argued (and the jury agreed) that the pharmacist's action of going and getting the second gun was evidence of premeditation to kill.

 

[DrunkenSano]

Meh, the pharmacist did go over the line with the execution but my opinion is if you're out robbing someone, you forfeit your life. Don't need scum like that in our population.

 

[her209]

Meh, the pharmacist did go over the line with the execution but my opinion is if you're out robbing someone, you forfeit your life. Don't need scum like that in our population.

What if you're robbing someone but instead of a gun, you're using your computer or clever (read:illegal) accounting?

 

[Macamus Prime]

This racist is going to enjoy prison.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

This racist is going to enjoy prison.

Is there evidence that he's a racist, other than the fact that he shot two black men? Personally I don't see that as a racist act - those just happened to be the guys who robbed his store. (That is not to say I am defending his murder of the robber - just that I don't see it as a racist action.)

 

[classy]

The prosecution introduced evidence that Parker was still alive when the pharmacist fired the last series of shots. You are correct that this could not have constituted murder if Parker had already been dead at that point. Whether or not he would have died from his other wounds would be speculative and legally irrelevant - you don't have the legal right to kill someone just because he may or may not be mortally wounded. As for the premeditation piece, generally even a moment of premeditation can be sufficient to satisfy that element. Here, I would presume the prosecutor argued (and the jury agreed) that the pharmacist's action of going and getting the second gun was evidence of premeditation to kill.

According to the autopsy, the head wound wasn't fatal. The 5 shots afterwards is what ended up killing him.

 

[Macamus Prime]

Is there evidence that he's a racist, other than the fact that he shot two black men? Personally I don't see that as a racist act - those just happened to be the guys who robbed his store. (That is not to say I am defending his murder of the robber - just that I don't see it as a racist action.)

There was no justification to kill someone he already took down. The robber was already unconcious, because a bullet was already in his head.

So, he shot one of the robbers. Robber goes down - he is out. No longer a threat.

Pharmacist goes after the second robber. Pharmacist comes back. Still, downed robber is no longer posing a threat.

Pharmacist goes and gets another gun. STILL, downed robber is no longer a threat.

He then shoots and kills downed robber, who is no longer a threat.

Sure, lets throw out the racist comment. OK. Do you think the folks in prison will be just as willing as me to let this go?

Doubtful.

He had NO reason to kill someone he already took down. OK, lets say it was wanting revenge - great - but, you already shot him. He is already down. And, that is why he will be in prison now.

Oh, dis good ol'boy is gonna hava gran ol'time in prison, he shooo is!!

 

[gaidensensei]

I don't believe the extra shots were necessary, but there are some things I thought would be appreciative to address.

This guy's somewhat an old timer. He's 59 years old. His hometown is the same place, OK city. He was a Lt. Col. for USAF, said he served in the Gulf War.

He lied and said that he had shot and killed people in the war, but military records disproved this, saying he was actually on base in OK city. (Old article)

Part of me believes that his motivation for the execution has to do with two things:
1) being from the past
2) anger issues since the other robber got away

Maybe 20, 30 years ago, a case like this would never have backfired in the midwest culture, people would have stood up for it as are his supporters now.