Should he "plea out"?

[ENC]

I have been following this case very close. I voted plea w/ jail time because I don't see a plea w/out jail time being offered. Who Knows.

Also I have a M.S. in Forensic Science Technical Investigations. I took all the Blood Spatter ( no L) courses offered and I did an internship with OKCPD. Not having seen any crime scene photos it is hard to tell if Spatter analysis will help say if the deceased was trying to get up at the time of the (second) shooting. A gunshot can cause back spatter as much as four feet away from the target IIRC. I think Brent has some good questions regarding blood on the hands/Bullet marks in the floor. The more I think about it I think Blood on the hands of the deceased would be pretty convincing evidence that he was trying to get up assuming the hands weren't under the body.

Also blood spatter caused by gunfire versus blood dripping out of a bullet wound has very different characteristics. Basically (large) drops versus very small drops.

Evan

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

Is there any doubt who tried to rob whom and who did it while masked and armed?If there is I missed something,
Regards,
Brair

No there is no doubt who robbed whom. There is also no doubt, legally or morally, where the line is between self defense and murder. The first shot is fine and dandy. No problems. The next 5 are an execution of an unarmed, unconscious, defenseless human being. I don't care if he was raping the mans daughter 5 minutes ago. Shoot to STOP the threat, no threat equals no shoot. Shooting a non-threat, including one that WAS a threat even seconds before, is murder. Plain and simple.

 

[hogdogs]

Is there any doubt who tried to rob whom and who did it while masked and armed?If there is I missed something,
Regards,
Brair

The deceased was one of the 2 inside that were robbing the place. He did not, in the video, have a weapon drawn. He may have had one in the bag. He may have been trying to get it out but he is not in view of the camera. So it all returns to evidence gathered in the investigation to decide the possible positioning of the robber. Thus far all we have been told is that forensic evidence clearly, to the medical examiner, shows the dead guy was unconscious at the time the final (second time shot) 5 rounds were put into him.
The DA was clearly unhappy he had to prosecute the guy.
Brent

 

[doh_312]

johnwilliams,

The police in Lakewood here at home are trained to shoot two to the chest, one to the head to stop a threat. If the threat so much as twitches, they repeat the exercise. I think one would be wise to add more lead to a threat who is still moving weather it is a twitch or otherwise. Just makes sense to me, if they are still moving they are still a threat. Besides in the heat of the moment I doubt you could tell if it were and unconscious twitch or a movement towards a weapon.

 

[doh_312]

hogdogs,

As you walk up to your downed threat to kick the gun away from him, he shoots you.

Now your both bleeding because someone lying on the floor equals no threat regardless of a firearm in his hand.

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

As you walk up to your downed threat to kick the gun away from him, he shoots you.

Now your both bleeding because someone lying on the floor equals no threat regardless of a firearm in his hand.

THE GUY DIDN'T HAVE A GUN!!! A gun is not going to materialize in his hand! In his pocket? Maybe. In his backpack? Maybe. You don't shoot someone over a "maybe". He WASN'T a threat. Continue to watch? Yep. Warn him if he moves? Yep. Shoot again if he reaches in a bag/pocket/backpack? Yep.


He. Shot. An. Unarmed. Man. Lying. On. The. Floor. Whilst. Said. Man. Was. Unconscious.

M. U. R. D. E. R.

 

[johnwilliamson062]

the reason I don't think the marks on the floor are enough is it is very posble he could have suffed some sot of paralysis below the shoulders and not moved his body dnough to matter while still having decent control of his arms. I don't know how many here have been laid out before or witnessed someone get laid out, but it is not all that uncommon to see appendage movement when the torso is not moving. The shooter fired pretty quickly, and even he was squirming a little he may not move all that much and there were probably deflections off of bone.
I still think it is going to be really difficult to give "beyond a reasonable doubt" even though the guy can't keep his story straight.
I still have not voted b/c I am still not sure. In these cases the law does not matter nearly as much as who ends up on the jury.
2 real lessons here, take and maintain a defensive position or retreat, and keep your mouth shut afterwards.

 

[hogdogs]

The police in Lakewood here at home are trained to shoot two to the chest, one to the head to stop a threat. If the threat so much as twitches, they repeat the exercise.

I doubt that is exactly correct. If the guy is down and "twitching" and the cop is on film being recorded, repeating the exercise It wouldn't matter one bit what dept. policy was. Especially if the guys family was there to back up the video in court.

Just makes sense to me, if they are still moving they are still a threat.

Glad you ain't a policy maker!!!

hogdogs,

As you walk up to your downed threat to kick the gun away from him, he shoots you.

Now your both bleeding because someone lying on the floor equals no threat regardless of a firearm in his hand.

If a person is out cold and/or just laying there and has a pistol still laying on their hand I could order them to sling it. If they are obviously un responsive I can cautiously approach while keeping the BG fully covered up with muzzle. If he should attempt to draw on me he would be dealt with accordingly. If he doesn't move and I used care and wisdom I could boot the gun.

the reason I don't think the marks on the floor are enough is it is very posble he could have suffed some sot of paralysis below the shoulders and not moved his body dnough to matter while still having decent control of his arms. I don't know how many here have been laid out before or witnessed someone get laid out, but it is not all that uncommon to see appendage movement when the torso is not moving.

Had he been paralyzed yet arms mobile he would have been shot with his back sack removed and his arms digging in it cuz that is where the gun would have been as he didn't have a gun in hand nor drawn and now on the ground...
M.U.R.D.E.R.
Now please do us all a favor and vote in the poll and comment on the poll only in this thread. we have a thread in Tactics and Training for discussing the shooting. If you do yourself a service and read the 20+ pages of posts you will find many links to reports as well as many wise posts by informed TFL'ers.
Thanks,
Brent

 

[wmeSha]

The job of the defense attorney is to do well for his client. Given the video footage, I'd say that a defense attorney has to seriously consider going for a plea if he can swing it. The prosecutor has to weigh the likelihood of the murder conviction.

I don't claim to know the minds of attorneys, but I have to think the defense would want to pursue a plea but the prosecution will reject it and go forward with murder 1.

 

[hogdogs]

wme, I think in this case the DA will offer some plea deal as he seemed apprehensive of charging the guy but was slapped handily across the face with irrefutable evidence of poor judgement at least and blatant execution at worst.
ALL ON HIGH RESOLUTION REAL TIME CAMERAS X3...
Brent

 

[Dust Monkey]

I feel sorry for the man. I cant speak for his state of mind or what he went through. But, Ex Investigator hat on, the video is damning. The first shot that hit the bad guy = good shoot. No problem. The walking around the counter and back, emptying 5 shots into the BG laying on the floor, Murder. Period. Unless there is some evidence that says BG was a threat, the second shoot was not self defense. So I hope he has a good Lawyer and I hope he listens to his lawyer and any plea deal that is offered. Going to a jury on this one is a very bad roll of the dice. With that said, any lawyers out that want to hazzard a guess as to what typr of plea deal might be on the table for a situation like this...

 

[5whiskey]

I've posted once, but I want to say this...

unless this guy can make a reasonable case that he felt threatened when he dropped the 5 .380 slugs in the kids chest, I pray that he doesn't walk. That video just gave all of the antis 5 reasons to argue against the right to defend ourselves. Not to mention it's a shame that this kid is dead. Yeah, the kid was in the wrong. Got it. It's obvious he's not an experienced criminal based off of his fumbling in the video. Were the kid NOT EXECUTED as we saw in the video, he could have went on and done well in life.

I'm all for someone having the right to defend themselves. I'm of the frame of mind that if a criminal dies while attempting a crime which someone defends against, then the criminal took that chance and his death is on him. If the first headshot would've killed him, oh well. The 5 to the chest against an unarmed, unconcious, FORMER assailant though? Come on folks, we have more sense than this... right?

 

[Al Norris]

doh_312, johnwilliamson062: We are not going to debate the quilt or innocence of the pharmacist. Nor are we going to debate whether the kid moved or didn't move. This thread is about the poll questions. If either of you wish to debate anything else, go back to the original thread, up in Tactics and Training.

But not here and not this thread.

 

[Wagonman]

The police in Lakewood here at home are trained to shoot two to the chest, one to the head to stop a threat. If the threat so much as twitches, they repeat the exercise

I don't think that a twitch is a threat.


I hope he is able to plea out to manslaughter with a shortish sentence.

He was wrong but there were extenuating circumstances.

 

[Ricky B]

The poll leaves out the most obvious response:

Yes to a lesser charge (say, murder 2 or voluntary manslaughter) with a sentence of substantial jail time.

 

[B. Lahey]

I am not a lawyer, but my take on it is that it depends if he said anything stupid to the cops.

I don't think the video is conclusive. It looks bad, but you can't see what robbery-boy is doing when shot the second time. The first shot was one of those stupid shotgun revolvers, so it could have been ultra low velocity birdshot that hit him. I don't think it's a safe assumption to say that he was unconscious, he could have just as easily been briefly stunned by a relatively harmless wound and later decided to try to fight again.

But if the pharmacist dude screeched "better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6!" or "dead men tell no tales!" when the cops asked him what happened, he should probably take whatever deal he can get.

I bet he said something stupid or he probably wouldn't have been charged in the first place.

 

[WeedWacker]

They say "he was unarmed" but what was the he pulled from his pants right after entering the pharmacy? Half looked like a MAC


ETA: NM, it's his mask...

 

[teeroux]

Well one argument could be is that would he have died anyway without the second string of fire?

Reguardless of when or how many times he was shot after the fact if he was dead or would have died shooting him again would not cause him to die again and could possibly only have caused him to die faster.

I don't think that he should have shot him again but IMO the procecution should prove beyond doubt that he may have lived if not shot a second time.

 

[hogdogs]

Tee, The defense isn't in a position to that. A person is a person until "declared dead" by a physician or medical examiner. So even if he was dead when the second shooting occurred he was considered a "person" and not a "body".
Brent

 

[bababooey32]

Hog

bababooey32?

Did you not read my post (#33), above?