The pharmacist is a murderer, plain and simple.
The first shot - fair enough, in a way. Self defense, I can accept that. But then the pharmacist escaped. There was no danger to his life, he was out of the situation and that's that. He then went back in, and killed the robber in cold blood. Fucking evil bastard.

Gotta agree with most of this, with the exception of it being clear first degree murder (seems more like second or third degree murder, depending on which of the two common classification schemes in the US Oklahoma goes by). I say the following as someone who's fully in favor of people being able to use lethal force in self-defense. Initially shooting the robber was clear-cut self-defense, and if that's all the pharmacist were being prosecuted for I'd be up in arms. However, the fact that the guy then pursued the second (armed) robber indicated that at that point he wasn't acting out of concern for his life. That his actions after returning to the store weren't to flee the premises or summon the authorities, but rather to make a beeline for the second gun, make sure the injured robber was dead, and only then make a call to the police further support that the shots after the first one weren't out of concern for his life (and thus not self-defense). The reason I say it isn't first-degree murder is that it was so extremely close in time to the robbery that I don't think the premeditation condition for first-degree murder is met (and other possible conditions for first-degree murder aren't met either). Likely the first-degree murder charge is just another case of the prosecutor abusing the plea-bargain system (charge with first-degree murder, make lots of scary threats, then plead out to second-degree murder, manslaughter, or even something much more minor like aggravated assault and thus avoid having to take the case to an actual trial).

I suppose this is besides the point, but killing someone is always wrong. Sure, there might be situations that warrant or require it, but it is never right.
Anyway, don't just shout 'Common sense died' in reaction to these kinds of judgements. This isn't that simple and you don't know the specifics. There are a lot of hypothetical situations in which the "pharmacist that shoots armed robbers" *is* guilty of murder, and we don't know enough to decide if this is or is not one of those possible situations.

Bottomline, the guy made a decision. He decided not to take any chances regarding the downed perp.
I won't pass any moral judgement on him. I can't honestly say what i would do in a similar situation. And it would be very easy for me to judge him while safely at home reading about it on my monitor and with all the time in the world to make all sorts of moral considerations about it.
Nevertheless, and considering that 30 seconds went by since the first shot and the 5 subsequent shots i have no doubts that handing this guy a murder one charge does prove in fact that common sense is dead and burried.

From the one angle I saw on the link, I was unable to see what the offender was doing. For all I know, he still had a gun in his hand, and he was moving. That makes him a still a threat.
As far as shooting to disable, or otherwise incapacitate him? Police are trained to shoot and stop shooting only until the offender is no longer a threat. That doesn't mean to shoot once, stop to evaluate the situation, then fire again if need be. You shoot until the job is done. Police are also trained to shoot center mass. Don't expect a civilian to do more than that.

I watched the videos. I never saw the kid who was shot holding a gun. It was only the kid who ran that I saw with a weapon. Shooting the one while faced with a pistol pointed at you, I have no problem with that. Going behind the counter, then going back over to the wounded one and shooting him because he's not dead yet--I do have a problem with that. I couldn't see him on the ground from any of the angles they showed, so there may be mitigating factors that will come out in the investigation and the trial.

Do we have to deal with such stuff EVERYWHERE? You guys don't have enough options to discuss something like that? You had to do it on a board for old games?
....
I'm not having problems seeing something like that. I bought Postal 2 on GoG, so it's not that I find it disturbing. However, there's more then enough places to discuss news, voyeuristic videos or judges, lawyers and the law.
But why here?

I agree. The guy deserve to be in jail.

Criminals deserve to die. No matter in what way. Also, the kid stopped being a minor in my eyes the moment he became old enough to rob stores.

1 board for each game. 1 board for all other things, yes. Still there's not one reason to post or discuss it here, as this board and GoGs service have nothing even remotely to do with it.
Seems we do have to deal with RL deathscenes everywhere... still don't see why that is a good thing.

Again, it's a "general discussion" board. For topics of "general discussion." Why this topic that has nothing to do with games? Because, having established through common ground (i.e. games) that the other people who frequent these boards are people we actually like to talk to, people feel the need to solicit their opinions on subjects -other- than just games. Hence the, again, "general discussion" board.
Yes, it's an ugly topic, and yes, it's not something everyone wants to see, but it's not like the subject matter of this particular thread was in any way a secret. it was quite clearly delineated in the subject header and you chose to walk in.

One must wonder how a Sodkiller escaped from Planescape and learned how to post on internet forums...

True, but this is a gaming-oriented site after all. Perhaps we need a "General gaming" forum, and a "Community chat" forum for the non-gaming discussions? (it works at TTLG, anyhow)

If someone pulled a gun on me, then I'd shoot him 2000 times.
In the last two decades, hypocritical "upstanding" members of society keep preaching to the masses, even in the most dire of circumstances, to control their emotions. In reality, especially in life-threatening circumstances, this will never happen.
I don't know how many people have had a gun pulled on them (three times for me), but it's very scary. At the time, if I had a gun, then I would have fired and reloaded all of my bullets until I was empty. During and after those few incidents, emotionally, I was a wreck. In his specific situation, I have a hard time judging him.
Retrospectively, it's easy for myself and the rest of society to look at an incident and say we would have responded differently to a particular situation. Fortunately, most of us will never have to find out.