Your thoughts

[2006PSDSD]

Should he be charged with murder? The guy is disabled, you can see the brace that he wears just to stand straight (I think that's what its for), and sees a young robber getting up after being shot in the head. I say serves that punk right

http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-phar...ad_story_title

[thunderinms]

Likely the Grand Jury will not release an indictment. He did the same thing I would do - when in doubt empty the magazine. The man defending himself likely was in "fight" mode and had not came down from the adrenaline rush. I wonder if he is having a defense fund setup?

[2006PSDSD]

Originally Posted by thunderinms

Likely the Grand Jury will not release an indictment. He did the same thing I would do - when in doubt empty the magazine. The man defending himself likely was in "fight" mode and had not came down from the adrenaline rush. I wonder if he is having a defense fund setup?

I don't know, but I would contribute some. He's a f-ing war vet, how come that brings no merit in a case like this? These f-ing theives, rapists, and murderers have more rights than law-abiding citizens

[bigcountrysg]

The media report is poor in my opinion. With out knowing actual facts of this case. I would say it is hard to make a solid statment.

Being after the first shot to the head. The other robber suspect fleeing the scene. It is hard to state if he was justified to keep shooting the injured suspect.

Disabled or not, really doesn't matter.

Like I said the news report just does not give enough information.

[symbols]

Originally Posted by 2006PSDSD

I don't know, but I would contribute some. He's a f-ing war vet, how come that brings no merit in a case like this? These f-ing theives, rapists, and murderers have more rights than law-abiding citizens

I agree. That POS got what he deserved. They know they are taking a chance on dieing or going to jail when they went to rob the place. The guy is obviously handicapped so I'm sure that played a major role in his decision.

Only thing that concerns me is that apparently there are 2 different stories. One from the pharmacist and one from the cameras. Either way, I have no problem with him using deadly force to stop a robbery.

[kingchip]

Bottom line, he feared for his life, and defended himself.

No indictment.

[bigcountrysg]

Deadly force is not justified to prevent loss of property. Your life has to be endangered to justify deadly force.

The news report did not state if the accussed robbers were armed or not. So two masked men coming in demanding money and what ever else is a weak excuse to justify deadly force.

The video tape is going to be used by the prosectution for this case. That is going to be the deal breaker if this goes to trial. Being the video tape does not lie.

There is no report of them threatening the man, there is no report of robbers being armed. So it is hard to say if it was justified or not.

Another thing that is taken into consideration is reaction by a normal human being. Would the majority react in the same way as this elderly man. If the answer is yes then by that, he could be found innocent.

But if the answer is no, then he could be found guilty. Depending on the rest of the evidence that is available.

Being he is already charged, he has already been indicted. An indictment is nothing more then being formally told what your charged with.

If he was not charged and held in jail with out bond, then he would not be indicted. The next step is arriagnement. Which being he is held with out bond tells me he has already been through that step as well.

[wriott]

i feel that he is innocent. if it were me in the same situation, i would have done the same. i feel that this should be made a statement that if you rob someone or attempt to that you loose all rights (even life) and the person defending themselfs shouldnt have to worry about being charged after the fact

[Barchetta]

Originally Posted by bigcountrysg

Deadly force is not justified to prevent loss of property. Your life has to be endangered to justify deadly force.

The news report did not state if the accussed robbers were armed or not. So two masked men coming in demanding money and what ever else is a weak excuse to justify deadly force.
The video tape is going to be used by the prosectution for this case. That is going to be the deal breaker if this goes to trial. Being the video tape does not lie.

There is no report of them threatening the man, there is no report of robbers being armed. So it is hard to say if it was justified or not.

Another thing that is taken into consideration is reaction by a normal human being. Would the majority react in the same way as this elderly man. If the answer is yes then by that, he could be found innocent.

But if the answer is no, then he could be found guilty. Depending on the rest of the evidence that is available.

Being he is already charged, he has already been indicted. An indictment is nothing more then being formally told what your charged with.

If he was not charged and held in jail with out bond, then he would not be indicted. The next step is arriagnement. Which being he is held with out bond tells me he has already been through that step as well.

This depends much on how Oklahoma's laws are written.

In Florida, you are justified in using deadly force in any forced felony. Robbery is considered a forced felony here in Florida. Also our Castle Doctrine give you the citizen, the presumption that if someone breaks into your home (and I also believe business) they are going to do you harm and you can defend yourself accordingly. Regardless if they were armed or not.

That's the law of course. What happens in a court of law is totally different. Especially if you get a judge like Sotomayor.

So it's going to depend a lot on how the law was written, how well his attorney can define the law.

The other aspect is that he went back and shot the robber again. Who knows what those circumstances were. There's a lot info that was left out of this article. So it's very hard to pass judgment.

Should be interesting to see how this plays out.

[bigcountrysg]

I agree Barchetta, I was making statements off Michigan State Law. It does make a difference with what the actual law is in Oklahoma.

But the big thing is how much the media did not report. I mean the media sure did a poor job at making it sound like this guy is innocent. They made it sound like he is guilty.