Replies

Now, about the other robber ~ I presume Oklahoma is going to try him as well, right?

I'll be honest muawiyah, I don't remember if they apprehended the runner or not....I think they did. It's been years since I discussed this on FR.

They did. Runner was 14. He pled guilty to first-degree murder for his role in the death of his buddy.

It has been a while. Still, I remembered it. Just a pharmacist making sure the perp was down. BTW, you only know if both of the robbers do or don't have a firearm until AFTER the firefight.

The 16 year old came in with the older one (if he was older) so he was, so to speak "armed" with his guard.

A number of posts have targeted that point ~ that the 16 year old didn't actually have a gun on him ~ as if it really meant anything. Turns out it does in some States. Massachusetts would be concerned if 10 armed men went after you and you shot and killed their 11th gang member who didn't happen to have a gun. There are others and Oklahoma may be one.

Even states with the Castle Doctrine laws might mess with you if you shot an unarmed person in the back, or did what this particular pharmacist did.

There are other states that view a crime like this in the greater context of a "robbery underway" and don't set any time limits ~ particularly with one of the perps still armed and roaming around somewhere ~ and the pharmacist having no idea where.

That takes care of the problem of him getting the second firearm.

I suspect what we have here is a jury acting in regard to some peculiarities of Oklahoma law ~ not what the pharmacist did. Every action he took makes sense one way or the other ~ particularly with the other perp still on the loose and maybe coming back for his little buddy.

I see an appeal.