Interesting gun case about to be tried in Oklahoma City

I feel sorry for the guy and agree with some people here that the first shot was acceptable since he had a gun pointed at him in the first place but once he was incapacitated on the floor and posed no threat to the storekeeper then emptying the rest of the gun into him was a stupid thing to do.

But hey. It's alright for us to say "I would of done this" but the guy must of been freaking out under the pressure. and probably didn't think about what he was doing. He just wanted the kid gone so he could protect his own life and I think a lot of people would of done something simular if we were put in that situation. I know I would of.
 
Crumpet said:
I feel sorry for the guy and agree with some people here that the first shot was acceptable since he had a gun pointed at him in the first place but once he was incapacitated on the floor and posed no threat to the storekeeper then emptying the rest of the gun into him was a stupid thing to do.

But hey. It's alright for us to say "I would of done this" but the guy must of been freaking out under the pressure. and probably didn't think about what he was doing. He just wanted the kid gone so he could protect his own life and I think a lot of people would of done something simular if we were put in that situation. I know I would of.
Click to expand...

Have you watched the video footage Crumpet?
 
Morcheeba said:
Have you watched the video footage Crumpet?
Click to expand...

Yeah I have. But christ I know I'd do stupid things if I was under threat with a gun ><
 
but we can safely say no one will rob this fella for a loooooooooooong time.
 
Firestreak said:
It's murder. I don't really feel much sympathy for the kid though, or any anger towards the guy. It's just, matter-of-factly, murder. I think he was angry and he wanted that guy dead and it's not very often you get to shoot people. But yet, I wouldn't feel in danger with that guy living in my community. The only threat he poses to is armed criminals, which makes he ultimately a positive force, even if his actions are, picked apart, negative.

Just think if he didn't finish the guy off. Now that guy is nursed back to health in an expensive hospital, given an expensive trial and then put into an expensive jail. I feel kinda "meh" about it. I'm not saying I'd have shot him myself or I'd say he should get the death penalty for armed robbery. I'm just pointing out that I don't particularly care he's dead. Society is better off and he brought it on himself.

This "gun nut" justified his own damn gun purchases. He protected himself and his place of business. Getting shot during a robbery also is a deterrant that actually works unlike prison for the most part.

I know what he did was against the law but I think it's a bad law. It's bad because while there's a 95% this guy knew he was not in danger when he shot the robber... there's a 5% chance he wasn't sure. To me, if he THINKS he's still in danger, he can do ANYTHING to the robber to protect himself. End of story, that's basic common sense. If there's even 1% that he thinks he's still in danger, I'm all for letting him walk scott free. And there is.

Now there can be 100% he knows he wasn't in danger, at which point... no you can't kill him. You can't tie him up and execute him with his hands tied behind his head. You can't throw him in a padded room and gas him... it's not like that... I mean... he can be down, his eyes closed and you can see him as a danger.

People pretend to be down. People suddenly wake up. People pretend to be unconscious or dead. People who are even fatally wounded don't usually die instantly. That's why you're trained to shoot to kill generally. If you're shooting already, you want the person dead. 2 in the chest, 1 in the head. This philosophy is adapted because of drawn out fire fights where good guys were needlessly killed because of bullet riddled guys.

Fact is, you shoot me, I fall down. You don't know anything. You don't know if I'm alive. You don't know if I'm playing possum. You don't know if I've armed to the teeth down there and waiting to pounce you. Guy needed him dead to feel safe.
Click to expand...

This nicely sums up how the majority of people feel. Don't really feel sorry for the kid, understand that the owner had every right to shoot the first time, but watching him slowly walk up and shoot the kid point blank when hes down is a bit unnerving.

I do like your point though about him perhaps not being 100% sure the kid was no longer a threat. A good defense lawyer would definitely play to the fact that the owner has no real idea if the kid is gunnna suddenly pop up and go crazy like in some movie or what. I do kind of agree that if you are not convinced 100% that the kid is no longer a threat to your life you will be tempted to ensure that your safety is garunteed. Popping 5 bullets point blank is a pretty solid way of making sure you are safe.

Of course prosecution would likely argue that a head shot is enough and that the kid was unarmed...which are both viable counter points to that defense. I dunno...its a tough one really. I feel like a lot of people, including me, are torn both ways and its hardly getting a truly violent criminal off of our streets by sending the man to prison. I hope for everyone's sake they do some sort of plea deal...
 
Zoolander said:
This nicely sums up how the majority of people feel. Don't really feel sorry for the kid, understand that the owner had every right to shoot the first time, but watching him slowly walk up and shoot the kid point blank when hes down is a bit unnerving.

I do like your point though about him perhaps not being 100% sure the kid was no longer a threat. A good defense lawyer would definitely play to the fact that the owner has no real idea if the kid is gunnna suddenly pop up and go crazy like in some movie or what. I do kind of agree that if you are not convinced 100% that the kid is no longer a threat to your life you will be tempted to ensure that your safety is garunteed. Popping 5 bullets point blank is a pretty solid way of making sure you are safe.

Of course prosecution would likely argue that a head shot is enough and that the kid was unarmed...which are both viable counter points to that defense. I dunno...its a tough one really. I feel like a lot of people, including me, are torn both ways and its hardly getting a truly violent criminal off of our streets by sending the man to prison. I hope for everyone's sake they do some sort of plea deal...
Click to expand...

I can understand that he could have felt threatened... but now that he's down you can simply leave the store? Just get out of there.

I'm also annoyed by the idea that people think that pulling his own gun was the correct idea in the first place. Know what the safest way to get through a robbery in your store is? Give them whatever they ask for. 99% of the time, they just want cash and smokes, then want to get the fuck out. They aren't there to shoot up the place no matter what they say when they show up, or what movies like to show us.

In truth, know what pulling the gun could have gotten him? Dead, and the robber wouldn't have gotten hit with killing him, because at that moment he would've been acting in self defence. He'd still get hit for armed robbery and all that, but not for shooting the guy.
 
Marajade said:
In truth, know what pulling the gun could have gotten him? Dead, and the robber wouldn't have gotten hit with killing him, because at that moment he would've been acting in self defence. He'd still get hit for armed robbery and all that, but not for shooting the guy.
Click to expand...


Mebbe in Canada, but if you've got a gun, and committing a crime, and you shoot someone else who ALSO has a gun, it's still Murder in the US last time I checked.

That's like saying that a criminal who gets into a shootout with the cops and kills one of them will only be going down for resisting arrest.

That aside.

Once you pay the Danegeld, you will never be rid of the Dane.

On an individual level, it makes sense for survival to just give up whatever the aggressor is asking for, rather than risk potential injury or death. On a societal level, it encourages the negative behavior of robbery/mugging.

There are alternatives.

As Heinlein put it, "An armed society is a polite society."
 
Marajade said:
In truth, know what pulling the gun could have gotten him? Dead, and the robber wouldn't have gotten hit with killing him, because at that moment he would've been acting in self defence. He'd still get hit for armed robbery and all that, but not for shooting the guy.
Click to expand...


Oklahoma is both a conceal and carry state as well as a "make my day" law state. If someone enters your home or place of business with a weapon, you have the legal right to use deadly force. If the assailant injures or kills you instead, they are not considered, by law, to be "acting in self defense" in the least.
 
Dejavu said:
How in the hell can the accomplice be charged with anything other than attempted robbery and stupidity. He did not pull the trigger on his friend.
Click to expand...

The accomplices could easily be charged with murder, not to sure on the laws in that particular state, but. Many states have laws where if taking part in a felony, you can be charged for ANY death that takes place as a result of the felony your committing.

If your robbing a bank, and a cop has his siren on and is on his way to the bank in response to the alarm, and he happens to get in a car wreck and dies on the way, YOU can be charged with murder for his death.

Sounds extreme i know, but one more thing to think about before committing a felony.
 
Last edited:
If you take part in or plan a felony crime where someone is killed, you can be tried for first degree murder. Virtually all states have laws such as these on the book.
 
I think most people acknowledge...

1) Statistics favor the victim not drawing a gun.
2) Escalation of violence, generally bad for society.

However it's kind of a simplification of the matter. I feel like gun control, like most issues in society, have 3 levels of understanding.

!) Basic gut reaction, often seen in a conservative vein. ("You can pry from my dead cold hands.")

2) More cerebral, reflective, progressive/liberal viewpoint... often statistically correct. ("You're safer without using a gun.")

3) Higher order analysis. ("The society in general is better off with the guns out there.")

A lot of people in the 2 camp mistake points in the 3 camp for points in the 1 camp. If I say we're better off with guns, you say I'm working with an emotional or gut reaction, and you shove statistics in my face. But I don't believe everyone understands the point of statistics or what they can and can't tell you.

For example you show me a country as generally safer and point towards its gun control, and say, "This means guns are bad." It's often a simplification. Guns tend to be a symptom not a disease in and of itself. The US has more murders than European countries because the US has more dangerous people living within it. It has more immigrants and it has more cultural fragmentation. There are millions of people living within it that have their own cultural system of values - and the general attitude in the US of the last 40 years is to embrace the diversity rather than seek to integrate. So a guy who robs liquor stores isn't respected by 95% of Americans buy may be by a 5% where he lives.

A really bad knee jerk reaction to this is to blame the guns, look at safer countries who outlaw guns because they don't NEED them, and then outlaw ours. Which is sort of the undertones here. I think at a point if you disagree with this guy's actions, it's because even he was legally allowed to have his gun, you don't believe in a citizen's right to use deadly force. He was showing it off, less bravely then what would be impossible to argue against.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top