This was in the news recently. What do you think? Was this guy justified? What should his sentence be, if any, in your opinion?

STORY HERE

Why are they calling him a "druggist"? Is that even a word?

The unbiased title should be "Oklahoma Pharmacist Arrested for Killing Robbers".

I wondered why they called him a druggist as well, I guess it might be to get people's attention.

Druggist is the American term for pharmacist but I do agree, I think the latter would have been a better choice of words.

I'm American, and I've never heard of the word. :|

Yeah, I've never heard a pharmacist called a druggist either.

In the southern states it's common to refer to a pharmacist as a druggist. The older people in my town still call them druggists. I guess it goes back to the olden days.

the first shot was justified, the rest were not, he's a murderer

It is in no way justified, he should be found guilty of murder.

I think he's justified in EVERY sense. I would have done the same thing. I think TONS of others would have as well.

I'm willing to bet this guy never sees a day in prison.

I don't believe armed robbery should be punishable by death, especially when the victim is judge, jury, and executioner. He had a right to defend himself but killing the guy was not neccessary.

Especially with six bullets!

I know in MOST states if they enter your house you can shoot them, but the police reccomend you shoot to kill so they dont sue you in the end, it is called the "Make your Day" law. I dont think it applies to store robberys. I would have done the dame thing.

if you read the whole article, it says that Oklahoma, where this happened, extended the law to cover anyplace a person has the reasonable expectation of being safe i.e. car, work etc.

I personally think of MORE people shot to kill like this, crime WOULD go down. Like Tommy states below...Live by the Gun...DIE BY IT!

I think the law in the state of Arkansas is that the person has to be inside your house when you shoot them otherwise you can be arrested for attempted murder. That's why if someone ever breaks into my house and tries to run, I'm dragging that bastard back in the house so I can shoot his ignorant ass.

LOL. I totally pictured you doing that ;-D.

lmfao! i completely agree!!!

I mean same not 'dame'

fuck, if he didnt turn his back and get the other gun. i dont know what to think now,lol
it's an economics issue, and the Hollywood filthy glorification of violence, and thug life.
i guess that;s what i think, short of leaving it in te hands of teh jury, which the one kid never got. but put himself in that situation for him to be a victim of excessive force. live by the sword die by it
but remember, the pen is always mightier ie write your congressmen, senators, and demand fair trade, and lets get back to producing 80% of what we consume, so we'll have a booming economy once again. only this time, lets run our factories with solar power.
oops, rambling, sowwie

It's all good. I agree with you on this. This kid put himself in that situation so, IMHO, he deserved what he got. Live by the sword, die by it.

It's definitely a Thug mentality that is killing more people than anything. Until this mindset/cycle is broken, it will keep on happening.

People seriously use the term "druggist?" That just sounds stupid. The guy was a pharmacist. :p

The first shot was justified. The rest were not. You shoot someone who is threatening you. After he hit the kid in the head with a bullet unless he came at the guy again he did not need to shoot him 5 more times.

The fact that he shot one kid in the head, ran someone out of the store and then came back, saw the kid laying on the floor and then got ANOTHER gun and shot him 5 more times is a bit excessive to me. I agree that the kid got what he deserved, he did try to rob a store, but the Pharmacist should not have shot the kid five more times after he was clearly no longer a threat!

I think it was one of those things to get people to read it ;D

I agree. Shooting him once, I see. Chasing the other one off, I see. But coming back, getting another gun, and shooting the kid five more times is what we call overkill.

The first shot was more than justified.
The other 5, certainly were not.

I think he should be aquitted of all charges. What he did was self-defense -- no matter HOW many bullets he shot. Anyone in his position, that had a gun & was being robbed would of done the same.. At least, I would of.