Question I Have a Question for Everyone Regarding OKC Pharmacist

I've been reading everyone's opinions on the OKC pharmacist who shot and killed the 16 year old robber.

The question obviously is was the 57 year old in the right or in the wrong?

Me personally (attack if you must) say that the 1st shot was self defense, the next 5 were shots the followed were an act of murder.

Just my opinion.

Many of you saying that it was an act of self defense I pose this to you; when OUR US SOLDIERS go into a country and start pointing guns in other citizens faces can we be upset when our soldiers get shot at and killed? Are the other countries not simply fighting against our invasion? Using the same logic that some people are using to demonize the 16 year old kid couldn't it be used to demonize are soldiers as well?

Now I'm not against our military so those of you who don't wanna think before you post please stop now. I'm mearly just stating, if you bash one and support the other, are you being a hypocrite?

My personal opinion in the case of the pharmicist and the 16 year old is that both are wrong.

I'm all for self defense, but at what point does self defense turn into murder?

I'm sorry for all of you who are thinking "Well GeechQuestInfo must be a terrorist, he's not supporting the robbery of a hard working American is he"? or "TERRORIST!!! Our troops NEED to be over fighting for our freedoms"

I'm merely asking for all of us to be a little bit more aware of both sides point of views, especially on a day like today and during the moment of time we are in.

Hope everyone, whether you agree or not, has a GREAT DAY!!! I love you all!

When you walk back to the unconscious body on the ground and cap him 5 more times.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere

---

I don't see a link here is that what happened? I could understand if he was frightened for his life and unloaded all shots rapidly which is common in self defense shootings. But if he was shot once, some time passed and a second wave of bullets was unleashed, that crosses the line imo.

Is there a link you can post to the story?

One of the great things about this country is that people don't have to be tried and convicted on message boards or newspapers.

Also there is a difference between "kill" and "murder".

In my own belief system the decision is made by the perpetrator. It is a hard thing to think about ahead of time and nobody ever wants to think about taking a life.

As for me, my decision is made already about the actions I would take and under what circumstances. I have reconciled my beliefs spiritually, ethically and within the laws of my jurisdiction.

Anyway, I don't know the specifics of the case but having taken care of many gunshot victims in my life I can tell you that a single shot is very unlikely to incapacitate an attacker or deter an attack.

I think that concept is hard for folks without extensive military, law enforcement or even gang experience to understand. There is absolutely no time to make a decision WHEN the attack happens. A determined attacker with nothing to lose, amped up on illegal substances, can move from 21 feet away to physical striking range faster than a typical human can react.

That is why I firmly believe the shoot/no-shoot decision must be made ahead of time. There is no way to evaluate/judge/react/respond while considering moral/legal recourse when you have less than a second left to live.

Unfortunately nefarious characters understand this. They have made the decision to use force (even deadly force) and have nothing to lose.

I would encourage you to read my thread in the Survival forum about criminals and gun shows. The linked research study has interesting insight about how criminals with nothing to lose approach lethal force.

I found a link:

Pharmacist

*IF* this incident happened exactly as reported then in my opinion it was excessive force. It has to be weighed by a jury of his peers.

*IF* the robber was incapacitated and the situation was secure then I believe the moral/ethical/legal choice would have been to call 911 and continue to carefully watch the robber until the police arrived.

I am sure there is a lot more to this story but it's disturbing from all angles.

Also, this has nothing at all to do with soldiers or wars.

reply to post by emsed1

---

Another link:

AP

One thing is for certain. Oklahoma is a very strong advocate of gun ownership for self defense. If there was any doubt, it would be difficult to convict him. The DA seems pretty confident.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere

---

Hate to say it but both arguments are correct. Finishing him off was murder, but chances are good if the guy had survived someone may have come back to finish the pharmacist off so he couldn't testify. Or robbed him again. Gangs are gaining a foothold in Oklahoma and my ten bucks says this guy was connected. I think the state will have a hard time getting a jury to convict this guy of murder especially if a background search on the kid turns up some dirt, possibly manslaughter with extenuating circumstances, not sure of what the laws there stipulate.

reply to post by emsed1

---

You have an excellent point about one shot not deterring an attack, the endorphin rush people get during a crisis like that does tend to override pain receptors. Not to mention, if you are hellbent on robbing someone or harming them, that would shortcircuit common sense. That would explain why most gunshot injuries you see in emergency rooms involve multiple shots. Overkill is common.

Ten bucks says the prosecution comes up with someone claiming this guy is a racist or has made racist statements in the past, they are going have to trash him to get enough people to want to convict. A lot of us are just sick to death of violent crime and I personally find it very hard to sympathize with someone who is injured or killed while committing a premeditated crime, regardless of how excessive the force was.

If or when a human life is threatened or even sever harm appears to be imminent or likely to result, I believe the individual has the right to protect them self. In such rare circumstances that individual is likely to be very, very afraid for their welfare and may over react. Multiple shots may be excessive, however, guaranteeing ones own safety and perhaps the welfare of others is not necessarily going to happen with just one shot. If someone has put another human being into this rare and unfortunate circumstance they alone are accountable for it's result. The shooter may have over reacted but so what? They have every right to assume the worst including the possibility of multiple assailants not immediately perceivable. Guaranteeing one assailant no longer poses a threat is just a good safety precaution. Mistakes are made, but the initial mistake of threatening the welfare of another human being is the greater and overriding cause of the effects that follow.

Believing we should some how imprission people left and right for their behavior or mistakes is fundamentally wrong. No one gets away with anything in this world no matter what it seems. Everyones behavior down to the smallest detail like stepping on an ant will be accounted for. Debts will be payed by the natural karmic processes arranged from higher regions. Almost everyone is taken at the time of their death for judgment and dispensation. We all life and relive lives in this world with events transpiring that are the result of such repayment of debt positive or negative. Making ourselves the judge of others is also a karmic inducing event. Be wary of adding to your own sins by rushing to control and judge others as criminal and punishable. We should never punish the purpose of jail two fold. To restrict access to the public by those considered a danger to it and to rehabilitate them in a reasonable time frame. Housing people merely on some intellectual argument is a serious mistake.

Here's a quote from another article from employees at that SAME pharmacy that were robbed and beaten in a similar attack in 2007:




source

I still think there is a lot more to the story.

reply to post by ReelView

---

This is exactly right.

Our existence on this world is only temporary and I believe we will have to answer for our actions at a higher level.

As humans we should seek to alleviate pain and relieve the suffering. It will never happen in our lifetimes, but I think if we spent all the time, energy and money in "correcting" problems instead of "preventing" them our entire society would be better.

It sounds cheesy, but what if we lived in a world where guns weren't necessary because the taking of "stuff" (money, food, drugs, land) was meaningless?

I don't want to sound like a hippy/progressive :-) but would this deadly interaction have happened if the pharmacist and the robber (the white guy and the black guy) grew up in an environment of love and support, where all the basic human needs like food, shelter, healthcare, education were available?

Of course that kind of world might be boring too.

Warning - Graphic

One thing I can say after 18 years as a paramedic is that once our skin is pulled back we all look the same inside. When the blood of white people and black people, or poor people and rich people, runs together on the sidewalk it all looks the same.

It is also true that once our physical life processes stop we very quickly (in the terms of history) all return to the exact same state.

Carbon atoms don't care whether they are in a pencil lead or a human heart. Proteins don't know if they are in a human or a horse, and nerve cells don't know if the message they are carrying is good or bad, right or wrong.

However it happens a finger pulls a trigger and much like you can't unscramble an egg, you can't unshoot somebody.