If a person who defends himself is going to be convicted of first degree murder what message that sends?
that you cannot defend yourself when you are at a gun point? that you have to comply with criminals request and pray that criminal has enough sense not to kill you without a reason?

+1
Imo, that pharmacist deserves jail time, just like the robers.

He did defend himself, and nobody (including me) would have blamed him for shooting in the 1st place; however, it's his subsequent actions that were not justified.
(As a side note, while the 1st kid is gun blazing, the dead one doesn't even seem to be armed at all... he's struggling to get the mask off his pants and wearing it when he get shot)
I don't see here a message of "victims should be helpless and comply to criminals", however, even in a country where you are allowed to protect yourself with guns, there is a line that has to be drawn somewhere.

he could be reaching for his gun couldn't he? The victim knows that the person wanted to kill him. So he fired again and again as he was scared for his life.
If you point the gun at somebody you accept the fact that you can get killed.

I think that Antaniserse is quite right there.
Sure he can shoot for his self defense, however after watching the videos at all different angles, I think that shooting him again for five times was uncalled for.
He could have restrained him.
I do understand that it's all in the heat of the moment
I think that in this kind of situation, the best thing to do would to shoot to paralyze in some way, not to kill in the name of self defense.
To be honest, there were bits of right and wrong going on.
However, I think that killing in the name of self defense does not give someone the right to have no kind of lawful punishment.

It does look almost... casual... the way he just walks back over and puts a few more rounds into the one he downed at the beginning of the whole thing. Obviously, it's grainy security cam footage so you can't really tell, but there's not a whole lot of hesitation, there, which is arguably where the prosecution is going to be making a lot of its case.
Also, bear in mind, folks, that -1st Degree- Murder implies premeditation. You set out with the express purpose of killing someone. Again, that could be argued by the fact that the weapon he's carrying is -concealed.- I'm not sure what state law is in Oklahoma, but assuming civilians aren't allowed to carry concealed weapons in Oklahoma, the idea would be that since he -is- carrying one, that in and of itself is a crime. Any decent prosecutor would use that as a means of leveraging things to say that by carrying a concealed weapon about his person, he was willfully provoking a situation such as this, and it's not a stretch to say he was looking to "pick a fight" as it were, so he could pop someone.
Do I actually think this is what happened? No, not particularly, but it's not all that wacky a theory, if you ask me.

Neither am I, but the answer may be here.
That is, there seem to be very few restrictions on guns (actually, just one: colleges/universities are not forced to allow guns on campus; ie. schools are allowed to forbid guns on campus)
According to that page, the pharmacist was acting within the law - possibly with the exception of actually killing the would-be robber(s).

Arguably, not even that. He resorted to deadly force right off the bat, which is acceptable under Oklahoma state law. It doesn't seem like the legislation makes any determination as to whether or not it's ok to continue firing after someone's been incapacitated or even how to determine -if- someone can safely be considered incapacitated or not.
Makes me wonder, then, if this isn't just any issue of some zealous District Attorney trying to make a point. Though that could just be me watching too much damn Law & Order.

Bloody hell, Antaniserse.
The only time I've experienced the serious threat of intentional bodily harm from other people (a group street-fight which was fortunately averted), I could still feel the after-effects of the adrenaline rush a couple of hours later.
45 seconds after you are faced with sudden-death by gunshot, you are NOT "way past the "panic" or "adrelanine" stage". Unless you are as cool as a combat-trained cucumber, I would say that you are still smack in the middle of it (like Namur said).

Just to clarify, i didn't watch the video either (i'm at work right now, a little GOG doesnt hurt anybody :-P).
But whenever I see people claiming that a shot to the leg or arm is more "humane", they must remember that two main arteries go there, and the person is most likely to bleed to death painfully while you "disable" him.
here's a map of all the main arteries and veins of the body. Try to miss all of them while avoiding major organs too!
http://www.sciencehelpdesk.com/img/bg3_2/VeinsArteries1.gif
edit: another link
http://www.mste.uiuc.edu/courses/educ362sp04/folders/wisseman/arteries.gif

I'm not allowed to see that one :-(
Forbidden
You don't have permission to access /img/bg3_2/VeinsArteries1.gif on this server.
Additionally, a 403 Forbidden error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.

Personally, I would have also tried to shoot both of them and, failing that, I would have made sure that the one that remained was permanently disabled – be that by shots to the joints of the legs and arms or by another shot to the head.

have you watched the video? the dieing robber was doing something... can be easily confused for trying to reach for a new gun.
and have your life have ever been threaten.... like really threaten that you weren't sure whether you are gonna live ten minutes from now.
My was. it ain't pretty and if i could i would shoot them till they are not moving.
the guy was still a danger to the owner. he had right to defend himself.

Cable news must be having a field day with this one.
"Pharmacist charged with murder after defending store from armed robbers!"
"Teen dead in wake of failed robbery!"
We're raging politically biased retards! Pay attention to us!!!