Skip to comments.
Oklahoma Pharmacist Case Tests Self-Defense Law
Yahoo News ^
| 6 Mar 2011
| L. L. Woodard
Posted on 03/06/2011 4:26:27 PM PST by smokingfrog
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-84 next last
This one is going to be interesting.
To: smokingfrog
2
posted on
03/06/2011 4:27:38 PM PST
by
smokingfrog
( BORN free - taxed to DEATH (and beyond) ...)
To: smokingfrog
If that’s what the video really shows, he should fry.
3
posted on
03/06/2011 4:28:56 PM PST
by
Melas
To: smokingfrog
I’m not sure the guy with the head wound was a threat after he was down. But I wasn’t there.
4
posted on
03/06/2011 4:33:36 PM PST
by
davetex
(All my weapons got melted by a meteor!! No Sh*t)
To: Melas
5
posted on
03/06/2011 4:34:48 PM PST
by
MrEdd
(Heck? Geewhiz Cripes, thats the place where people who don't believe in Gosh think they aint going.)
To: smokingfrog
Not guilty. The perp committed suicide. One shot or fifty, who cares?
6
posted on
03/06/2011 4:35:58 PM PST
by
Jacquerie
To: davetex; smokingfrog; Melas
I doubt that law requires you to take the perps prisoner either. So who knows what the pharmacist saw ~ maybe the guy was going to get up and go after him, or he feared the other one coming back so he had to disable this one.
So many decisions to make ~ and NONE of them were required until the perps tried to rob the man.
I'd say it's all the fault of the guy who ran out the door.
7
posted on
03/06/2011 4:36:51 PM PST
by
muawiyah
(Make America Safe For Americans)
To: Melas
If thats what the video really shows, he should fry. He calmly walked back in right past the unconcious Parker, went and got another gun and calmly came back and shot him.
8
posted on
03/06/2011 4:37:26 PM PST
by
SeeSac
To: muawiyah
I doubt that law requires you to take the perps prisoner either. So who knows what the pharmacist saw ~ maybe the guy was going to get up and go after him, or he feared the other one coming back so he had to disable this one.Did you watch the video?
9
posted on
03/06/2011 4:38:23 PM PST
by
SeeSac
To: smokingfrog
This one is going to be interesting. Indeed. The video shows what the DA had to say. Now let's hear what the defense has to say and ultimately what the jury has to say. This could be a case for jury nullification and then maybe not. I don't won't to be one to rush to judgment before all the facts are known.
At least the robbery victim will be tried by twelve rather being carried by six. Oh, and the perp won't be robbing anyone else in this lifetime.
10
posted on
03/06/2011 4:39:03 PM PST
by
Ron H.
(America cannot afford the socialist Impostor!!!)
To: Ron H.
I don’t think the DA can win this case. Charges were brought only after many loud threats from the local naacp trouble makers. Unfortunately, the DA continues continues to cave to the naacp - you have no right to self defense in Oklahoma county as long as the current DA is in office. He needs to be gone......red
11
posted on
03/06/2011 4:48:20 PM PST
by
rednek
("Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.")
To: SeeSac
Sure did. It did not show the scumbag on the floor. I remember this one as OKC is about a hour and half away in my home state.
The Citizen Pharmacist said that the scum on the floor tried to grab him as he walked by, and that it looked like he was reaching for a weapon so he retrieved another gun and ended the threat.
In Oklahoma you are not required to retreat from a threat.
Job well done I say, this man did society a favor by flushing the toilet.
12
posted on
03/06/2011 4:48:20 PM PST
by
Fantomw
To: smokingfrog
The fundamental question is what the defense will be allowed to have the jury consider. From what I can tell, the defendant may have in a somewhat disturbed mental state at the time of the shooting, such state having been deliberately induced by the robbers. If the jury reflects on the fact that it is unreasonable to expect a person to be in (or return instantly to) a right frame of mind when/after someone robs them, it should probably find excusable almost any behavior by the defendant which avoids harming anyone not involved in the robbery. Based on my recollection of the case, the blood of the decedent lies solely upon the decedent and his accomplice.
13
posted on
03/06/2011 4:48:45 PM PST
by
supercat
(Barry Soetoro == Bravo Sierra)
To: SeeSac
He calmly walked back in right past the unconcious Parker, went and got another gun and calmly came back and shot him. What are you smoking?
You cannot see Parker on the floor, nor can you see the location of his backpack and, finally, how do you know he was unconscious since you cannot see him.
Were you there? No, I didn't think so.
Go back under your rock.
14
posted on
03/06/2011 4:50:09 PM PST
by
JohnG45
To: Melas
If thats what the video really shows, he should fry.People who murder innocent people should fry.
Did Ersland cross the line when he administered the coup de grâce to a wounded Antwun "Speedy" Parker? Perhaps. But try as I might, I just can't find a sense of loss in my heart that Parker no longer occupies this world. I doubt he was headed for a life of great accomplishments.
A world without Antwun Parker is just a little bit better than a world with Antwun Parker. That's the way I see it.
To: SeeSac
Several times. Knowing the limitations of security video I’m not prone to make judgments about what somebody was thinking!
16
posted on
03/06/2011 4:57:34 PM PST
by
muawiyah
(Make America Safe For Americans)
To: muawiyah
A doctor should be able to answer if the guy on the floor could have been conscious when the pharmacist came back with another weapon and delivered five gut shots.
Personally, I’ve preached for years against vigilante justice, but if this guy walks, I hope someone takes him out with a gut shot. Nothing about this strikes me as self-defense, it was an execution.
17
posted on
03/06/2011 4:59:15 PM PST
by
Melas
To: Ron H.
Security videos don't carry all the frames necessary to know whether or not this guy was calm, or agitated, or fearful, or shaking ~ the frame rates are different from the rate you normally see at, and that stuff in between the frames can be quite powerful.
Again, he didn't plan any of this ~ the robbers did ~ and they set everything in motion. They are guilty.
18
posted on
03/06/2011 5:00:29 PM PST
by
muawiyah
(Make America Safe For Americans)
To: Melas
You are looking at a security video with a low frame rate. You are imputing emotional content to something that usually isn't fast enough to show subtle smirks, etc. It actually has a hard time covering everything that happened in between the frames.
In virtually every hard case where this sort of stuff has come up on a security video the prosecution's target has walked once the experts got done with the jury.
The prosecutor in this case will be handed his head and will never become a judge.
19
posted on
03/06/2011 5:03:22 PM PST
by
muawiyah
(Make America Safe For Americans)
To: smokingfrog
It's absurd that this has dragged on for so long. He was the victim of an armed robbery and the perp was off camera when he was shot so there's no evidence that he wasn't twitching or otherwise moving. That equals reasonable doubt and if I were on the jury I would not vote him guilty of anything.
Before anyone gets bent out of shape, I know he made false claims of being in the first Gulf war and that he was grazed with a bullet during the robbery. It has nothing to do with the case since he's not on trial for being a butt-head.
20
posted on
03/06/2011 5:03:31 PM PST
by
Dayman
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-84 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson