12,000 Angry Men

About a week ago a man was convicted of 1st degree murder, by a jury of his peers.  Many Oklahoman's were outraged.

First here is the short of what happened.

Two men stormed into a pharmacy 15 minutes before closing time.  One was armed with a gun.  The pharmacist pulled his own gun as his two female employees took cover.  The pharmacist shot one of the robbers in the head and the armed robber fled.  Pharmacist pursued.  Upon his return he grabbed a higher caliber gun and shot the downed robber 5 more times.  He claimed the robber moved and still posed a threat to him and his workers.  Needless to say the D.A. decided to take up the case, put the man on trial, and the man was found guilty of 1st degree murder.

An anonymous member of the jury stated how upset she was to hear so much criticism on the verdict. Because as she said "it wasn't an easy decision because you're talking about a man's life but also you got to consider the laws."(Sunday Oklahoman 6/12/11)

It was the last part of that statement that prompted me to write about this topic.  What is the purpose of the jury if it is only to follow the law? If interpreting law is all you need, why not just have well educated judges?  The point I would like to make is that jurors are supposed to evaluate the law and determine if it is sufficient for certain cases as not all crimes are the same.

So the ultimate question one must ask in all cases is, was this a just decision?  Did the punishment fit the crime?  I think in answering this question we can understand the thousands of angry citizens who object to this ruling.  First, what was the crime?  The pharmacist repeatedly shot a downed robber after he had stormed in with an armed accomplice.  Would the pharmacist have shot the guy had he not stormed in with an accomplice that had a gun? No!  Was this 1st degree murder?  Murder Defined (Scroll down to the middle and click on the arrows)  I would say no this was not.  Again the pharmacist could not have planned this out.  He was obviously acting in the moment.  And ultimately he was defending 3 lives, his own included.

Now with that said I do believe five rounds is excessive even in self defense, but when you are told in self defense classes "to shoot to kill" because of the way law is written, what do you expect?

Finally,  if you look at the Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraph 2263 the Church agrees that a man has a right to self defense, even to the point of killing his aggressor.  The Church goes further and explains that this is moral because every individual person has a right to protect his own right to life.  But the Church does beg that we only use the means necessary to protect our lives and not exceed those means.  In other words if you can get away with injuring someone to protect yourself the Church would prefer that over you killing that person.  I believe Holy Mother Church's stance is what is overall the best way to handle these situations, because she takes into account one's body, mind and soul!

Please pray for the this man and that justice will be done!

God Love You!