So there's this pharmacist who gets robbed by two armed robbers (one is 16), right? Then the pharmacist takes out his concealed pistol, and pops the bastard in the head... then five more times. He gets a first-degree murder charge.
Here's what I don't get. The guy was doing this in self defense, and yet he gets charged with murder. Sure, he didn't have to shoot the guy so many times after, but if it's me or him, I'd do anything to save my own life from any risks that might occur. That's what I think. Do you think the pharmacist deserved it?

Well... I guess one shot was enough...

Guy gets up after first one.
Five is a bit overkill but his life was threaten. Why law protects criminals is i don't understand.
He tried to rob pharmacy he gets killed.
it is not that the owner tortured him or anything like that.

I mourn him every day.

It's on par with someone breaking into your house, stubbing their toe on a, say, a knife and then deciding to sue you, the poor owner.
In the panic and adrenaline rush of defending your self and your business, multiple shots I would think be expected. Who cares about the little expletives age, you rob a place, expect retaliation to this degree.
+1 this

Good thing y'all agree with me... or else I would be on the receiving end of hate.
Anyway, did you see the video on the link? Interesting stuff.

I'm...speechless. Something's wrong with the law, if a man who is defending himself gets charged. I understand 5 being overkill, but like what lukasz said, it's self defense. Of course your first reaction would be to incapicatate him out of sheer panic - unless you're Clint Eastwood, you probably wouldn't be calm enough to think "hmm maybe I should put 2 more bullets into him so that he doesn't get up....naaaaah I think one is enough. Hey Barney, you think I should put 1 or 2 bullets into his stomach?"
Also, first degree murder? Wtf? We should cast "Resurrect Dead" and rez Common Sense!

First off let me say that I'm a firm believer that if some punk puts you or one of your loved ones at risk, you should be able to defend yourself and them to the best of your ability without question.
That said and now playing devils advocate here: ahem...
If the robber of this pharmacist was attempting to escape/exit the store then the pharmacists live was no longer in mortal danger. Therefore shooting the scumsucker in the head would be an act of retaliation. Furthermore shooting the prick 5 more times to make sure that he was down is excessive and shows intense anger on behalf of the shooter. Granted, the bastard can no longer harm others while attempting to repeat this type of thievery, the pharmacist could easily have further incapacitated or rendered the young offender defenseless without ending his life (which may have been the end result of a bullet in the head anyway). Ergo the pharmacists story of defending his life is weak.
Please keep in mind that I have not been able to review any video evidence as I'm at work and they frown on that type of thing.
On the plus side the area's rehabilitation programs gets to save a few bucks.

Well from the article it sounds like he shot him in the head, then after the danger passed, he went over, saw the guy was alive and pumped 5 more shots into him.
I'd say it's all in the timing. Unfortunately the article doesn't go into enough detail to even determine what the robbers were threatening them with.. If the punk was holding a pistol, then he deserved it. If they were unarmed or using something that was dropped after the shooting, it's most likely excessive force.
On the flip side, the surviving accomplice is the one that should be the one charged.. In most jurisdictions, anything that happens to a criminal as result of the commission of a crime that involves more than one perp usually becomes the responsibility of any of the accomplices of said crime, by virtue of the fact that if the crime had never been committed, then the death (or maiming, etc) would have never occurred. I guess Oklahoma City doesn't have that kind of law.

Well, the video looks as if they were carrying a gun or something like a firearm.

Guys... have you actually watched the video linked before talking of "common sense"?
He shoot the kid once, go out chasing the other one, then come back into the store.... he goes calmly behind the counter and then, noticing the 1st kid is still moving on the ground, he shoots him again
He was way past the "panic" or "adrelanine" stage... murder charge is very much deserved

Yes, we did.
The fact that the perp IS MOVING calls for a second shot. I do think (as I said already) five more shots was definitely uncalled for.

The kids were armed.
The kid who took the shot in the head went down and the other one (clearly seen on the video holding a gun and pointing it at the people inside) runned out of the store. When the pharmacist was using the phone the kid that took the shot in the head moved on the ground . The pharmacist went over and shot him 5 more times. All this took place in 45 seconds, so i i think he was still pretty much in the 'adrenaline' stage.
Excessive force ? Perhaps.
Should the pharmacist had taken the risk of the kid having another gun and being able to use it ? I wouldn't.
Hard working people struggling to make a living shouldn't have to make this kind of decisions so i don't blame then when they make one that doesn't please everybody's notions of morality.

I admit, I didn't watch the video before. But, now that I have, I agree with what Namur says. Even rationally, I wouldn't let the person off without permanently disabling his mobility (for those who cannot read between the lines, this means that I would probably just shoot him in the leg instead of torso). It's not a matter of being a cold hearted killer or not, it's knowing that the armed perpetrators may actually come back for revenge that I will take into serious consideration. These are young men daring enough to rob a simple pharmacy with weapons that could kill - what's to stop them from making a whooping return with more friends?
While I don't agree that two wrongs make a right, we're dealing with daring criminals here, of whom you don't know the extent of their viciousness
I'm not a lawyer, much less one from Oklahoma, but you are charging a man, who acted on his instincts, with first degree murder here people! Who's to say what's right and what's wrong when you're dealing with crooks like those 2 morons? And who in the rational mind wouldn't stop for a moment to ponder over the possible repercussions, when the one who gets shot but is still alive would do when he recovers?