1. The entire story may be told by the video tape but realize it may be misleading.
2. Other sources of information will have to be considered.
3. Oklahoma law says once the threat is over, the threat is over. Continuance of action is not defense.
4. Physiology of shooting events confirm that all kinds of chemicals are dumped into the body and that a "euphoria" can be experienced from the shooting. Officers are trained (at least should be) that this will happen and are cautioned about this in their own personal shooting experiences.
5. Officers are trained (maybe shouldn't be) that the earliest confessions are the best confessions. See 4 above, yeah, this one doesn't seem to make sense as an absolute, does it?
6. There was a gun and fear, I didn't see a gun on the robber that was shot, but I did see a gun with the 2nd robber, see 2 above. A gun is not necessarily the only vehicle to justify a self-defense shooting in Oklahoma see 2 above again.
7. I can understand shooting the first robber on the basis of 6 above.
8. The guy ran after the thug with the gun. This is not allowed in Oklahoma law, see #3 above. Note that the pharmicist actions show he has forgotten a basic tenent taught in concealed carry courses in Oklahoma and reinforces to me the need for regular training but no harm no foul. See 4 above.
9. The pharmacist came back, by his admission on O'Reilly, and made an assessment that a girl had been shot by the reactions of the mother. Oops, not that I wouldn't do the same...but we need to make our own assessments. Then again, this may be one of those statements that comes with good counsel. Then again, see 4 above.
10. The pharmacist said the guy was rolling around and was acting like a threat. This could be another one of those statements that comes with good counsel. Then again, see 4 above.
11. Rolling around and interpretation to be a threat may not be a threat to you and me, but in Oklahoma law handicapped and disabled people get special consideration to shoot when healthy people do not. The pharmacist stated he was crippled...this could be one of those statements that comes with good counsel. Then again, see 4 above.
If you didn't see it on the tape, how can you dispute the account of the pharmacist? Forensics would be the only way if the thug on the floor can't be seen. Still, remember 4 above, the pharmacist is swimming in a sea of chemicals dumped in his body due to the stress of the situation.
So, for me...if what we see on the tape is the entire and real story and knowing that stress creates bodily imbalances...the worst I could give him for a helpless shooting is manslaughter. If the guy was dead when he shot him on the floor no crime. I think 1st degree murder is too far...not enough time to premeditate...could be the DA is helping to preserve the guy from a manslaughter charge by setting the bar high (1st degree). A not guilty to 1st degree by the jury would end this action and probably preclude additional prosecution.
Everything we see is not as it seems. Lots of dynamics here...we'll never know.