On a completely intellectual level, I would like to begin a brief
discussion of the case in Oklahoma wherein a pharmacist was convicted
of murder and sentenced to life in prison. All I have to go on is the
store's security camera video, shown over and over on television,
without the benefit of testimony, cross examination, etc. So, before
I deliver my opinion, a brief but amusing short story:
A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, I found myself sitting
in a review class preparing for a final examination in Criminal Law. The
professor, Robert LaBorde by name, was one of these amazing, real,
hands on criminal lawyers who not only had a gift for teaching but
had the great ability to retain interesting, real cases in his memory
banks by which he was able to give his students excellent examples
of criminal activity and the results in court after capture. In
addition, back in the days when political correctness was very much coming
into vogue, he told his classes on the very first day that he was
going to insult each and every one of us so get ready....etc. Professor
LaBorde was Basque by heritage, however, and one of my classmates
was also Basque and in that very first class, when that fact came out,
Professor LaBorde stated, "Well, you'll do well!" He was quick
like that. So, to make you understand where I am coming from, two quick
insults we got used to (admittedly, we loved them) - - he always
referred to the crime of arson as "Jewish lightning" and the crime of
extortion as "Italian lightning".
So, in the review, the question of the difference between murder
and manslaughter was discussed. Professor LaBorde used the
following examples (while maybe not perfect examples I'll never
forget them): You come home, walk through the door, and find your wife
in/flagrante delicto/ with another man and in your sudden fury
you pull out your trusty revolver from your belt and in the ensuing melee
you kill him. _Manslaughter_. The opposing example was that
you come home from work, find your wife /in flagrante delicto/ with
another woman, you run to the closet, get your revolver, and
"put a hole in the dike". _Murder_. (No joke, that's what the Professor
said. We
howled with laughter as we reviewed and re-learned the lesson.)
So, as simplistic and deliberately "funny" as he was trying to be,
what the Professor was doing was making us think through /mens rea /-
did the actor have sufficient intent to make the killing murder rather
than manslaughter. In that VERY SIMPLE context, and in the context of
the fact that in every self defense course you will ever take you will
be told that once the threat is over so should your shooting be over,
let us briefly, intellectually discuss this Oklahoma case.
Two masked men, armed, enter the pharmacy.
The pharmacist pulls out his own weapon and fires, hitting one
perpetrator and causing the second to flee.
Right there, he's done, the threat is over and he has won. But there
is more.
The pharmacist pursues the fleeing suspect. Not necessary, but
chasing a felon is allowed. The pharmacist fails to catch him and
re-enters the store.
Apparently, after retrieving a second handgun, the pharmacist fires a
/coup de grace**/shot or shots into the previously downed felon.
Absent testimony and cross examination, specifically testimony that
the felon on the ground posed a threat, is there any question that the
justifiable act of using deadly force in self defense has been
overcome by the act of what appears to be a pre-meditated execution?
The only defense, that the perpetrator "needed killin'", could have
been sufficient for jury nullification. It didn't happen.
Do you have better facts from news reports or courtroom testimony that
has been released that I have not seen?
If not, and omitting the notion that felons "need killin'", as a
society do we not have the obligation to ensure that a former victim
does not become judge, jury, and executioner?
I admit that I do not care that the felon was killed, I have no pity,
no mercy, for armed felons. On the other hand, the law forbids the
act that in this case I have witnessed on TV so many times now, and I
think the punishment might actually fit the crime.
Comments and opposing opinions very much welcomed!
***GRJ***
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to [email protected]
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the
messages to others.
