Oklahoma Pharmacist gets life.............
 

Oklahoma Pharmacist Who Killed Armed Robber Gets Life

For shooting an armed robber. Interesting case. He chases off the would be armed robbers, comes back and shoots one while he is down.

Christ, I'm usually 100% backing the victim(not the thug) to the extremes, but he shot the guy and put him down, chased the other guy outside the store, came back in, got a different gun and then put 5 more bullets into the guy?

Yeah, I'm not exactly shedding a tear from the victim, but that's a bit much.

Yeah, it's a very interesting case. I think he was claiming the robber was still threatening him, and there is no camera evidence either way.

Yeah when I read the details, it's hard to fault the verdict IMO.

Guilty? Yes.
Life in prison? A little questionable.

There is a similar case in Chicago where a guy whos house had been constantly robbed chased a robber like 10 blocks and shot him in the back. The argument is that his house had been robbed so many times that it was self-defense.

Tough case though. I don't think I could convict the Pharmacist though. If someone comes on your property and threatens you with a gun, you have a right to defend yourself in the most extreme ways. He is not a trained law enforcement professional and should not be held to those same standards for the use of lethal force. I don't feel like the pharmacist is a threat to society in any way.

Bacially what I'm saying is that if you threaten someone with a gun, you get what is coming to you.

He must have shitty counsel if he got life in prison for this.

Well, the sentence is another question altogether.

Obviously the guy was affected mentally by the situation the robbers put him in. He crossed the line, to put it mildly, but I believe that should be taken into account. Life in prison, and no chance of parole until he's 97, seems pretty extreme.

I must admit though, watching the casual way he shoots the guy on the ground before phoning the police is a little alarming.

What makes it crummy in both this case and the one you mention - especially the one you mention given it was his own home - is the fear you have of them coming back to get you later after you've chased them off.

I have no idea what gun laws are in the US (...I'm just glad we don't share them over here in .au), but I assume you need a license, and part of that would hopefully involve a general guideline of appropriate use?

I disagree with that last statement too. In an eye-for-an-eye kind of world that's how it would be, but that's not how the legal system works in our countries.

I would think that if someone can get a reduced sentence for killing their husband because they caught them in bed with another woman he should get some wiggle room for shooting the man who just threatened his life. I do agree though that he is not the posterchild for gun rights.

I think I remember defending that guy for the reasons you stated, or at least something similar. I wouldn't have even had a problem if he took the second guy down outside while he was running away. Difference is in this case the guy's already wounded on the ground, he took his sweet time then unloaded 5 shots into him at point blank range?

He sure didn't looked that threatened as he casually walked by him to get his other gun.

I think the guy in Chicago's defense is similar to battered women. That he had been victimized so many times that he felt he had to do it to make it stop.

I guess my defense of the pharmacist is that I don't think it's fair to judge his actions in the same way we'd judge a police officer. He is not a trained professional, just a pharmacist with a gun. His life was put in danger and he took care of that threat. That guy is not dead if he doesn't walk into the store and pull a gun on the pharmacist. Moral of the story is don't pull a gun on someone.

I agree, I say the same thing all the time in regards to defensive shootings. However I don't think his life was even remotely in danger and I think, based on how he behaved, he knew it.

but this isn't an eye for an eye situation, it's something that happened in the heat of a stressful situation.

Did the pharmacist cross the line, most likely, but I don't feel bad for the kid for one second.

I thought the same thing, a decent lawyer should have been able to get him off much easier.

Just for the record, I agree :). I don't really have a terribly passionate opinion of this case. Guilty or innocent, doesn't bother me that much.

Watching the video, I think he's guilty as hell and should serve every minute of 20 hours of community service.

Ditto.

Then again, I'm also one of those people who believes that if you break into my house with the sole intent of stealing my television and not harming anyone, I should be able to shoot you dead. You're not just taking my stuff (even if that is your total objective), you're invading my home. I'm the one who's going to jump at sounds in the house at night for the next 20 years. I'm the one who's going to wake up from nightmares of intruders.

When you violate my sense of security, you're violating my quality of life. You've decided my television is worth more to you than my peace of mind.

So if I decide that my peace of mind is worth more than your miserable little life, that makes us just about even.

i think he was lucky, thats cold blooded murder... he should be on death row, im pretty sure OK does that...

Yeah, that's Murder One.

The end result only came about because of the "victim" robbing the place. Hopefully the pharmicist gets a better lawyer and gets this reversed.

Yeah, I don't see how you watch this video and then call the "second" shooting self defense. He doesn't even spare the guy a glance as he walks past him to get another gun. He's clearly not threatened in the least. He defended his property, and then on top of that decided to kill a guy, two different scenarios here.

If he had walked in his store and found a burglar who had accidentally slipped and knocked himself out, would it be okay to go get a gun and kill the guy? Not much difference here that I can see. Without the video, it'd be questionable, but this guy shows no sign of being caught in the heat of the moment.

I wonder if they could stick the other robber dude with a felony murder rap.

Weird, I'm pretty sure that in the thread here on the Detroit case (which seemed more heat of the moment than this one), the general consensus was that those of defending the homeowner valued property more than life, and I think someone told me I was going to end up shooting a family member coming in late or something. It's early yet though.

But ya, let's remember that the primary purpose of prison is protection of the community. There's other goals that have been recognized, but in every state- that's the most important criteria. And I guess we could say that with this pharmacist in jail, home invaders are safer, so there's that.

Agreed.

While I agree with that as an ideal for the purpose of prison, I don't think it's realistic to suggest that our legal system and sentencing system are built around that idea. It would be pretty easy to find a majority of the prison terms being served, or not served, that violate the idea that prison is for protection of the community, not punishment of the criminal.

The thing that bothers me about sending this guy to jail is that he is never put in this position if a guy doesn't walk in and points a gun at him.

This is how I feel about it also. Once you walk into a store with a gun to rob it what happens in the few minutes after is on you.

And while it seems easy to "hold a guy at gunpoint" until police come, it isn't necessarily that simple. The guy on the ground could be armed, he may be able to get to his gun quicker then you think, the guy's cousin might have been outside acting as a lookout and now he might be coming in to take you out. You lose the benefit of the doubt regarding your intentions when you invade someone's house. Community service, probation, maybe a gun safety course of some type all might make sense as a sentence.

That's the hard part about being a grownup, you have to be responsible for your actions even when life isn't fair. I don't need a Get Out of Consequences card just because some other asshole doesn't know how to function on earth.

But did you watch the video? I'd be completely with you there (well, to a point) if there was no video, I'd give the guy the benefit of the doubt that he was still worried. That guy looks more worried about what he's going to have for dinner than he does about the guy on the ground.

I think it's tough to judge his intentions and callousness. The guy may have been in shock. It's tough to judge the mindset of someone who just had a gun pointed at their head.

So how far do we take this theory that "the guy wouldn't have been put in this situation if...". Can he just repeatedly stab the guy? Saw his head off? Feed him to his dogs? I mean literally any action is covered by that blanket statement.

Yeah, once the guy is down and wounded and not being seen as a threat(which is wasn't by how the guy was acting), thats about it.

because I'm sure we would all be acting so rationally in that spot.

So we get to commit murder when someone has done something to put us in an irrational frame of mind? Where do you draw the line? Someone cheating on you? Your boss firing you? Bank foreclosing on your home? Hospital refusing to treat your child because you're poor?

Christ man, I'm usually full on with your argument. But yeah, if you are not a murderer I don't expect you to put 5 shots at point blank range into a man you alreay shot and put down 30 seconds ago, you are just calmly coming back for seconds. I don't care how irrational you are, that's just not something people do in any state of mind.

If he shot the guy, he went down, and he just kept on shooting in one action, that's one thing. What he did was something totally different.

None of those examples you gave are violent situations where you just defended yourself for what could likely be a kill or be killed situation.

Once fight or flight takes over and you choose to fight my opinion is you become less responsible for making irrational choices, especially when you were not the instigator.

It's easy for us to be armchair quarterbacks on this, but unless you have been in that situation I don't think you can comment on how someone is supposed to behave.

He walked back behind the register, slowly got a gun, walked back to the victim, shot 5 times, walked away. Sure as shit didn't seem to have any urgency sparked from "irrational thinking".

Where the fuck do you get fight or flight from that? He was just pissed off.

Again, he never has to make that decision if two guys don't walk in and hold a gun to his face.

It was also 2-on-1. There were employees in the store he was protecting. In the heat of the moment, how is he supposed to assess the injuries to the one guy while hoping the other guy with a gun doesn't come back into the store. He made sure one of those threats was no longer there and I think he had the right to do that. It might be overboard, but that's the risk you run when you try and commit an armed robbery. Sometimes the old pharmacist is not going to take a chance that you're still capable of fighting back.

Yeah, no. He was pissed off and murdered him. Video tells all.

The video shows the fucking moron robbing the store at gun point. IMO, I couldn't kill someone enough for pulling a gun on me.

I got a gun pulled on me once by a cop as I left my door. He was on alert for a possibly burglar due to an unknown silent alarm in my dorm, and I was just walking outside, and I just looked at him and said "What the hell are you doing?" He looked sheepish at me and mumbled sorry and lowered his gun. That's it.

Umm, what video are you guys watching? Firstly you can't see the "victim", so you have no idea what he was or wasn't doing at the time. Secondly I don't know how the hell you judge if the pharmacist was calm or not. I could just as easily believe, just from the video, that the guy was still scared for his life and fired the shots to make sure the robber didn't get up, which I haven't got a bit of problem with.

Let's assume that when he walks back in he doesn't see the robbers gun and the robber is still moving, is it ok to shoot then?

I think it's fairly insane to expect this guy, being put in a situation he didn't ask for, to act like a cop at best or even level headed at worst. There's every reason to believe he's scared for his life and very little reason to believe he's shooting a helpless victim. Judging from some of the comments on here I expected to see him firing at a lifeless body in the video and that's not even close to what we see.

If he was scared for his life then why would he walk right past the guy to go retrieve the second gun? If he was comfortable with getting that close then he could have simply disarmed the kid before calling the police. He had every intention of making sure the kid was dead, though. Casually shot him five times point blank without hesitation. It was ice cold.

On re-watching the video I noticed when the pharmacist was leaving the store he went around the far side of the counter, but when he returned walked around the near side closest to the downed robber. Sure didn't look like someone in fear for his life, but someone intent on revenge. It almost seemed like he was angry the other robber got away and took it out on the one he still had available.

There's a big difference between standing over someone and delivering shots than reaching, looking or moving the guy to disarm him. You say "simply disarm" like it's akin to picking up an apple. You're expecting him to make the judgement call of aiming the gun and hoping the guy doesn't try anything or shooting him and being assured of it. This isn't a case of turn your tv off when it's thundering and lightning outside safe or sorry, it's a life and death case of safe or sorry and I can't imagine i'd rather not be safe. I don't doubt for a moment he had every intention of making sure the kid was dead, but you're assuming in favor of the man who just robbed him at gunpoint. I'm sorry but that video shows me no evidence that the robber wasn't still doing something to provoke that fear even if it was just words.


Seriously dude? He walked out of one end because that's where he was. He walked into the other end because that's which one was closest.

I thought it was going to be Mister Gower.

The way you worded this makes me chuckle. :lol:

Eh, whatever man. If I feared for my life enough to empty a clip into a teenager I sure as hell wouldn't be taking the path of convenience because it was closest. I also definitely wouldn't turn my back to the gunman. The pharmacist didn't seem to show any concern that he might be in danger at that point.

Did anyone happen to notice that the kid that got shot wasn't even holding a gun before he went down?

Well it's clear that Oklahoma is a violent state. The robber had a gun. The pharmacist emptied his clip into the robber. The judge gave the guy life...

They all want people to die...whee...

And of course God wants them all dead via by sending tornadoes their way.

I'm down with the idea that the guy should never have been put into this position to begin with.

One thing I noticed is that the kid that he apparently shot and killed doesn't even look like he had a gun. The other guy walks in and starts pointing the gun around and the dude that got shot looks like he's trying to put a ski mask and he is still messing with it when he gets shot. I don't even see him with a gun.

My personal opinion on the whole thing is that the pharmacist went too far, but at the same time I really don't know what they were saying to the guy and how much danger he really felt he was in.

The whole thing is unfortunate. He never should have been in that position.

+1

I didnt watch the video at first and just read the article & the comments (here) first. I was expecting to see something completely different than what that video showed.

First off...I dont understand how anybody can throw out the word "casually" to describe his behavior in any part of this. The pharmacist is an older man, he doesnt move particularly fast, and could very easily have been taking the route past the downed robber (who we do NOT see) due to being on autopilot (i.e. takes the same route every time he comes into the store).

You also can NOT tell if he did (or did not) look at the downed robber while passing him as the video is not real-time. He very easily might have walked past him to see if he was still a threat (however HE determines that, in that situation). Its likely 15 (or less) FPS video and things do not look the same as a real-time 30 FPS (I believe there was a case with a babysitter appearing to shake a baby on the parents' spycam...when in reality she was actually talking to & soothing the baby when one took the missing frames into account).

I dont know how I might react, I dont know what this pharmacists' "threat-meter" is set to...but I cant see any reason this guy should be sent to prison for life based on that video alone.

Yes, I think they could.

In one of the 2 articles posted, I think it says he was.

After thinking about this for a while now, I'd clear the pharmacist. I don't know what kind of trial it was, but if they found a jury that convicted him I'd be shocked, and if his lawyer didn't ask for a jury trial, he's an idiot. HIS life was placed in danger, and he reacted.

Which I have no problem with at all.

You guys realize you're arguing on behalf of a couple of armed robbers who would have shot him in a heartbeat if they thought he was going to resist, right?

Jaywalking? Talking too loud in a theater? Leaving the toilet seat up?

This case didn't have to do with any of those things (though if he had killed that kid after he had sex with his wife, he would have gotten a lesser sentence.)

How do we know this? I could be wrong, but the robbers never fired a shot right? As soon as the pharmacist started shooting, the guy he missed took off.

How do we know that they didn't intend to just intimidate with the gun and not actually pull the trigger?

Hell, the kid who was killed doesn't even look armed in the video to me.

No, I'm pretty sure those darn kids just had a little growing up to do. They all probably would have shared a pizza with each other if they could have just talked it out.

We don't know for sure, and neither did the pharmacist, that's the problem. But of course - the entire point of an armed robbery is the victim has to believe that you're willing to kill them. Maybe the other guy was running to get another gun, or some friends. You don't get the benefit of the doubt when you threaten someone's life in this manner.

If someone pulls a gun they intend to use it- and no one should ever think otherwise.
Especially in a break in- you can't draw that line on firing the first shot, what am I supposed to do hide in my room until they get the first shot then I'm free to shoot?

Yeah, which is why I'm not arguing to hard. If he was found innocent and was allowed to put 5 more bullets into the corpse I'd be OK with that as well :).

I guess after watching the video, the verdict just doesn't upset me though.

How is suggesting that this guy committed murder arguing on behalf of armed robbers? Suggesting the pharmacist did something wrong has nothing to do with how wrong the robbers were. This argument is just as bad as the bleeding heart complex where no criminal can ever do anything wrong. Now none of us can do anything wrong when it comes to criminals?

I guess bottomline I don't believe he shot the guy out of fear or an abundance of caution.

That said, fucking kid deserved every bullet.

I see both sides of the argument. Without seeing what the kid was doing while he was laying on the floor, we'll never really know the truth, IMO.

They shouldn't have tried to rob the pharmacy, for sure.

Based on what I see in the video, I think the pharmacist went too far. I don't see the guy he killed even holding a gun, but I don't know what he was doing while he was on the floor.

If I was on that jury, I don't think I could have convicted him.

I'm not at all surprised by the guilty verdict, but I am surprised by the sentence. I wonder if the prosecutor really thought life was appropriate?

I am a bit curious why the shop owner grabbed a different gun after returning to the store. He left the store with gun in hand...why not just use that one to shoot the guy on the ground? Did he do some shooting outside of the store and return with an empty guy? It seems like an odd sequence of events.

I use that term not just because the dude's walking slow, but because everything i see contradicts what I think any person terrified for their life would do. If this guy had even one thought that the guy on the floor might still be a threat, might grab a gun and fire, anything, he would never walk so close to him, he would never take his eyes off him, he wouldn't turn his back on him, hell he wouldn't just stroll in the door like that. To me all those things make very clear that the pharmacist was not worried. He might have had adrenaline pumping through his system, yes, he might have been angry and violated and all those things. But the man was not scared by that guy on the floor.

If he had shot the guy that many times when he first came in the door, meh. But to my mind the separation between the shootings turns him from self-defense to being a vigilante. If he had known this kid robbed someone's store, went to his house, knocked on teh door and shot him five times, that to me is closer to what he did than self defense. I haven't studied the case, maybe there's some other fact that would make me think he was justified. But from what I saw in the video you'd have a hard time convincing me as a juror that this guy was rattled and scared.

One more thing ... the story I just read says that yes, only the robber that fled was armed, and that he has pleaded guilty to first degree murder. In addition, the prosecutors claim no shots were fired by the robber, but that Ersland claims they shot twice, and may have planted evidence of a spent casing. If it turns out that the pharmacist is lying about the shots fired and even planted evidence, I definitely don't see any reason to hold back when it comes to his sentencing. If you want to defend your property, be man enough to not lie about what happened.

Either way one robber is dead and the other is getting charged with first degree murder. It's not like they're getting off for what they did.

Maybe they should have got someone to replace him.

I love some of the bullshit arguments in this thread. Reminds me of the torture debate, where if you oppose any sort of torture you get labeled as someone who "supports" terrorists.

I could give a shit about these guys. I hope the one that survived gets the maximum penalty possible, However, I think the guy committed murder. Watching the way he casually shoots the guy makes me think the verdict was correct. I can understand why people disagree and it's a difficult situation, but I'd prefer it we kept the argument at that level instead of making nonsense arguments about how people are defending armed robbers and want them to talk it out over pizza.

I do find it bizarre that apparently the FOFC consensus is that it's okay to kill someone if they tried to rob you, but it's not okay run a red light if your loved one is dying. I simply do not understand that at all.

Just when I think there's hardly any way for society to disappoint me, along comes this case. If ever jury nullification was appropriate ...

Video makes it pretty clear he went above and beyond protecting himself and his property.

I'd have voted to convict him, but would've went for a far more lenient punishment.

The damning evidence, honestly, is that the pharmacist went back to get a second gun. At that point it becomes pretty hard to argue that it was anything but pre-meditated murder. Possibly fueled by anger, yes, but it was the purposeful and intentional killing of an incapacitated person.

Think on it - had the downed robber been any thread, why would the pharmacist have walked past him to get a second weapon? Fight or flight doesn't pan out here, since the man was already outside and away from the threat. Instead he entered back into the potentially dangerous situation, picked up an additional weapon, got as close as possible to the potential danger and spent several seconds firing at close range. Even if the robber was getting back up and was a threat, the pharmacist was already holding a gun. Why did he need to take the extra time and get another?

Yes, he shot someone who was robbing his store, and I'm not terribly sympathetic to the dumb kids who did it. But that wasn't self defense.

I think the act of retrieving a second gun is what made it criminal. If he would have rendered aide to the fallen or chosen to lock the bad guy up then he would have been good. Then again some shitty lawyer would have levied a civil suit due to not giving the injured care.

Does anyone know if this was a mandatory sentence in OK?

Can't the pharmacist just plead temporary insanity and get off like so many real criminals do?

I don;t understand why everyone has to say in their post that "I don;t defend the guys, or they aren't on my Christmas Card list or they deserved some serious justice and are the obvious cause" before discussing the incident. Can't we discuss the facts of the case without being thought that we must really really want to invite the two males over for dinner and a movie?

Yeah, I think you may have an overinflated sense on how easy that actually is.

Bah, I know, just being flippant. But my point remains: once a gun is pointed at your face, how can anyone discuss this guy's decisions as though they are rational for the next 10 or 15 minutes? People do weird things under stress, think weird things under stress, and remember weird things under stress, and I can't think of anything more stressful than having a gun pointed at my face by some cheap punk who's clearly not thinking straight himself. Heck, I'd be worried he'd shoot me by accident at that point, let alone intentionally.

So if there was any shining example of "temporary insanity", this incident would be the poster child for it. If the guy had gone back into the store, smoked a cigarette, ate dinner, and came out 45 minutes later to finish the guy off, I think we're into rational premeditation. But with the scene as laid out, I'm not giving the guy credit for thinking about ANYTHING during this timeframe except "they wanted to KILL me!" over and over and over again.

Seems like it's pretty damn hard to get off on that "technicality" if you haven't previously been diagnosed for a mental illness, so it makes sense why his lawyers would advise against it. I'm also sure his lawyers would've advised against the planting of evidence, so I'm not sure we can necessarily blame them for the life sentence.

If that's the case couldn't Abe (I think it was) who posted earlier about having a cop point a gun at him for no good reason get away with shooting the cop? If someone points a gun at us we get a carte blanche? Or only if a bad guy points a gun at us?

I just don't think this is how life works. When one of my kids jumps out and scares the crap out of my other boy, and the scared kid hits him, I don't tell him, "That's fine." I tell the kid who scared him, "You shouldn't do that, and you shouldn't be surprised to get hit." And I tell the kid who hit, "Even if you're scared, you're not allowed to hit." Yes, those are attenuating circumstances, he would get in more trouble if he just walked up and hit his brother for no reason. But if he's scared, hits his brother in surprise, then goes and puts on a boxing glove, comes back and hits him some more, his free pass is over.

I understand there's a lot of people who are frustrated by crime and criminals and feel like our society coddles them while coming down hard on regular citizens. That's a legitimate complaint, but I don't think it needs to color everything to the point that we consider two wrongs a right.

I'm kind of disappointed that the pharmacist didnt do something nefarious to kill the guy. All first degree murdering aside, this story is so much better if he spikes the dude with insulin in order to create a heart attack. Or if he accidentally gave the dude an overdose of morphine in order to "kill the pain". Instead he goes all gangsta and shit.

That would have worked if not for the video tape. If the guy was afraid, he most certainly wouldn't have walked directly by the kid on his way back to the counter. You don't walk right by the "danger" without giving it much of a glance, go find a gun and come back to the "danger", lean over it and then make an assessment in fight/flight mode.

That doesn't mean that he was thinking clearly, was calm or wasn't under duress, but the tape makes it tough to justify a temporary mental disability. Also, if you accept that kind of excuse, you're justifying shooting a drunk driver who causes a car accident because your physical responses would be very similar to the ones in this scenario.

The video damns him on this one. If he had even taken the other route around the counter, that would be a plausible theory. If he walked in to the store and plugged the kid a few more times, he could have said that he was being threatened. But he doesn't. The video is pretty clear - he came back in, walked right by the kid, gets another gun, walks right over to where he dropped, leans over and then plugs him a few more times. And in our legal system, two wrongs don't make a right.

In the absence of video evidence, my cop friends have always advised that if you shoot a home intruder, you shoot them until they're dead.

Why? Because if they're alive, they've got the opportunity to spin the story into something other than self-defense. If they're dead, yours is the only story that gets told.

Then again, they also advise that if you shoot them and they fall outside of your house, you drag them back inside and shoot them again until they're dead, not moving and not having any part of their limbs even pointing in the direction of outside.

Yeah, the blood trail wouldn't give that away. :nono:

Sounds like a cop.

Seriously cops like that piss me off.

With all due respect to your cop friends, that sounds like horrible advice. Firstly, your story won't be the only one that gets told as the evidence tells a story as well. Sure there won't be video evidence, but dragging someone back into your house is going to leave enough evidence behind, in addition to the chance of eyewitnesses.

Also, I'd rather take my chances that the criminal can try to spin the story since the worst penalty I'd get if I somehow lose is much less than the penalty I'd get for murder. Also, I'd rather not kill people unless I absolutely have to, but I suppose that's not germane to the discussion.

+1

Hey I think there are three movie plots! Quick someone make them!

Seems to me that if I shot someone, then ran after the other guy, I would be calling the cops instead of coming back inside where this guy I shot may still be...

You always have to distinguish the legal and moral argument too - we can really only have the moral argument here unless we saw haw the jury was instructed, what the elements for 1st degree murder in Oklahoma are, what the elements of self defense are, who's burden it is to prove/disproof self-defense.

Morally, I think that armed robbery is a pretty dangerous line of work that inflicts an incredible toll on people (not just property loss), and people who engage in it deserve to die. And I don't have any problem with our pharmacist here taking one out in this kind of situation. He could have made other choices, but I think this is easily within the range of what I personally find acceptable.

But legally, who knows? As jurors we'd have to deal with the instructions given us try to put our personal views on morality aside and try to follow the law, unless we choice to engage in jury nullification. There's a case to be made for jury nullification and its an important part of our history but I think these days, there's not a lot of blatant examples of it, jurors do try to follow the law.

Edit: People get this stuff confused when they say stuff like, "oh, I'm allowed to murder someone if I get scared?", or when they equate a killing like this to a government execution. In this country, for now, we're still allowed to have moral opinions separate from the government's (we can't always act on them though.)

That's the danger of these kinds of cases - you're judging a guy based on what you think you would do. That's not the standard we use when we lock people up and throw away the key (though I wonder if the jury engaged in a little of that here).

I disagree, I'm arguing that the responsibility of owning a gun doesn't just give you carte blanche to kill someone after you have already took them down.

Even if your friend, family or in this case employee was still in the store?

From some quick web searches, it looks like the only options in Oklahoma in Murder-One cases is death, life without parole, or life with parole. Once this guy was convicted of murder-one, he was screwed.

Well looking at the facts, why did he come back inside? If you look at the video it was to kill the intruder. Case closed.

Well that changes the picture a bit, thanks.

I wonder if they offered him any kind of plea deal.