PDA

View Full Version : Armed Citizen: Oklahoma Pharmacist Defends Employees from Robbers


Pages : [1] 2 3 4

Blue Steel
May 24, 2009, 12:43 AM
[Note by Antipitas: For those of you that are just coming into this thread, there are several accounts (links) of where to get all the information you will need in order to make informed comments. The latest recap of this information can be found here (http://thefiringline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3583562&postcount=757). (That's post #757 on page 31) - Read at least the linked post before you post any comments]


By Johnny Johnson, The Daily Oklahoman

Jerome Ersland was back at work Thursday filling prescriptions and hoping that by taking the life of a 16-year-old boy two days earlier, he had saved others.

Rubbing an oversized bandage on his left forearm, where he said he was grazed by a robber’s bullet, Ersland related details of a highly organized hit on the Reliable Discount Pharmacy.

"I just regret anybody would get killed,” Ersland said. "But if I wouldn’t have been here, there would have been three people killed — the other pharmacist and the two techs.”

He also recalls the angry voices of people who gathered outside the pharmacy Tuesday night, shouting that he was a racist who unnecessarily took a life of the Seeworth Academy charter school student, Antwun Parker.

AN ORGANIZED HIT

After the pharmacy near SW 59 and Pennsylvania was robbed two years ago, the owner installed new security measures to try to make sure his employees would never again be forced to a back room and pistol-whipped.

"We have a very good security system,” Ersland said, motioning to the magnetic door locks that won’t let anyone in or out of the store without permission. "The door locks, and the robbers knew that. They had cased it because they knew exactly what time to hit us when we’d have all of our narcotics out and our money out.”

About 10 minutes before 6 p.m. two robbers wearing ski masks waited for someone to leave the pharmacy and then grabbed the open door and threw down a board to stop the door from closing. The robbers came in cursing and yelling, ordering employees to give them money and drugs, Ersland said.

Two women who were working behind the counter ran for a back room where they would be safe, but Ersland said he couldn’t run. A veteran with disabilities from wounds he received in Operation Desert Storm, Ersland wears a cumbersome back brace and just had his latest back surgery six weeks ago.

"All of a sudden, they started shooting,” he said. "They were attempting to kill me, but they didn’t know I had a gun. They said, ‘You’re gonna die.’ That’s when one of them shot at me, and that’s when he got my hand.”

Ersland said he was thrown against a wall, but managed to go for the semiautomatic in his pocket.

"And that’s when I started defending myself,” he said. "The first shot got him in the head, and that slowed him down so I could get my other gun.”

But as one robber hit the floor, Ersland said, a bullet from the other robber whizzed past his ear. The pharmacist said he then got his second gun from a nearby drawer, a Taurus Judge. After he had the big gun, Ersland said, the second robber ran.

But as he started to chase after the second robber he looked back to see the 16-year-old he had shot in the head getting up again. Ersland said he then emptied the Kel-Tec .380 into the boy’s chest."

"I went after the other guy, but he was real fast and I’m crippled,” Ersland said.

AFTER THE GUNFIRE

When he went back in the pharmacy, Ersland said, he called police. "I asked if the girls were all right, and they were in the back crying,” he said. "I was glad to know they were alive. We were lucky and I’m glad I defended us, because I feel that a person has a right to defend themselves at their home or at their work. People deserve to be safe and not be afraid of people that want to take money when they don’t work for it.”

That’s what the Second Amendment and the state’s concealed carry license are for, he said.

"Fortunately, God made them miss me, except for this minor scratch,” Ersland said.

"I was able to return fire and protect the girls’ lives. God was helping me.”

http://photos.newsok.com/2/showimage/570964/lead620/

samurai30047
May 24, 2009, 12:57 AM
Well done sir, you are a great man. Take the race haters in stride and take comfort in the fact that you and those around you are still alive. I lost a friend of mine to a gas station robbery back in 80'. He was 17 and was shot execution style with a sawed off shotgun by two career criminals. They took him into the back room and put him on his knees.

Kyo
May 24, 2009, 01:17 AM
thats not racism. you shoot at me I don't care if your black your gonna get shot back.
What i can't believe is that even one to the head with a .380 didn't drop someone for good. :eek: Those are supposed to be effective right? At least a mag to the chest worked.
Good guts right there.

JohnKSa
May 24, 2009, 03:22 AM
What i can't believe is that even one to the head with a .380 didn't drop someone for good.There's a suprising amount of your head that isn't filled with anything critical to immediate survival. Look at some anatomy charts.

The brain only makes up about half of your head, and you can even live without fairly large parts of your brain.

glock06
May 24, 2009, 05:31 AM
When the BG's showed a gun(s) and discharged it they gave up all rights to life and consideration of their humanity.

They were a lethal threat and were treated as such.Would it have been better for innocents to be executed?? Hopefully others will understand that.

The Pharmacist is a hero.The people protesting are idiots.

glock06
May 24, 2009, 07:23 AM
Typical response after a shooting--

Read the article-The paper offers up pharmacist to be grilled by public opinion for shooting a youth and puts the family all in the headlines after the shooting.

Why the h*ll would a pharmacist want to shoot a 16 yr old in the first place unless he were in danger??

http://www.koco.com/news/19543055/detail.html


"Police said detectives are still investigating the case and will likely have no further comment. Any new information will probably come after police forward te case to the district attorney, who will decide whether to file charges."

“For a wrong cause, we can accept any responsibility,” said Parker’s sister, Brittany Baldwin. “We can own up to that. But for him to lay my brother in the ground was absolutely wrong.”

What total crap--

Wildalaska
May 24, 2009, 12:26 PM
But as he started to chase after the second robber he looked back to see the 16-year-old he had shot in the head getting up again. Ersland said he then emptied the Kel-Tec .380 into the boy’s chest."

No comment on this one? Was he going for the gun? Was he up? Could the pharmacist have subdued him without this additional use of deadly force? Was the threat over?

If he was shot on the ground, with a gun no where near him, would you all still be applauding? Could he in fact have been acting with an animus and have simply executed this young man?

As we dont have all the facts here, could it be that the protesters were right? Do they know something the press isnt telling us?

WildnowwatchtherageastheseuncomfortablequestionsgetdiscussedAlaska TM

Kyo
May 24, 2009, 12:26 PM
there's another article talking about "my brother didn't intend to rob that store" man people are so in denial these days about others.
Would I shoot someone again if they got back up during a robbery? Yes. I would. Do I care if they have a gun? No, the fact that they got up is enough to put them back down

Wildalaska
May 24, 2009, 12:40 PM
No, the fact that they got up is enough to put them back down

Really...so a badly wounded robber is attempting to get up. He is not a threat, so you just shoot him anyway?

Leave your Hollywood world folks, one is not judge, jury and executioner. The justifiable use of deadly force is over when the threat is removed. That is an objective question was well as subjective. The guy bleeding out on the floor struggling to get up with his gun 12 feet away is not a threat necessitating you stand over him and pump rounds into his chest.

WildandyesiunderstandchasesyndromeanddetachedreflectionargumentsAlaska TM

troy_mclure
May 24, 2009, 12:55 PM
if he is trying to get back up after i shot him(and he shot at me) i am assuming he is still a threat, and going to continue the attack. im not going to wait to see if he goes for his gun, or charges me to get mine.

garryc
May 24, 2009, 01:30 PM
That’s what the Second Amendment ....... (is) for, he said.



NOPE

Double Naught Spy
May 24, 2009, 01:53 PM
Let's see, SC Highway Patrolman Mark Hunter Coates was killed by a .22 by a downed suspect he had shot multiple times with a .357 magnum. Coates was shot while radioing in the battle with the suspect. The suspect started trying to get up and Coates kept telling him to stay down and unrealized by Coates, the suspect's moving around was him drawing his .22 that he then used to shoot Coates.

Coates didn't think he was going for a gun, apparently, and just thought the suspect was trying to get up.

garryc
May 24, 2009, 02:05 PM
Well if I'm on his jury he'd walk.

Is he trained to evaluate a dynamic situation like this? Nope

Would a reasonable man consider the robber a threat? Yes

Did he believe the man was still armed? Maybe

Kyo
May 24, 2009, 02:08 PM
ok alaska, you go ahead and wait for the guy to get up to see what he does next, im gonna stick with "hollywood" aka common sense, and not take chances. Dude already attacked me multiple times. You gonna wait for him to get up to see what he does? Who's thought is more movie like?

Stevie-Ray
May 24, 2009, 02:11 PM
Coates didn't think he was going for a gun, apparently, and just thought the suspect was trying to get up.Yup, and this guy isn't in great condition to be bending down to check on the criminal's well being anyway.:rolleyes: I don't know what I would have done, maybe stepped on his chest and told him to stay down. But, I don't have the physical liabilities this man has. I also don't know that I wouldn't have done the same thing. And the idiots outside the pharmacy shouting racism are the true racists.

Well if I'm on his jury he'd walk.Same here.

wayneinFL
May 24, 2009, 02:55 PM
The guy bleeding out on the floor struggling to get up with his gun 12 feet away is not a threat necessitating you stand over him and pump rounds into his chest.

Twelve feet away? Where did you read that? And why wouldn't you expect that he might have another weapon, anyway?

glock06
May 24, 2009, 03:52 PM
People who are shot can still kill you!!

If this individual were making purposeful movements and had just shot me do you think I would still consider him a threat? Could he be carrying another weapon? Absolutely!!

Was this inidividual in a panic/shock state who was just shot and saw the person he shot in the head still moving--- possibly to shoot him again now guilty because he considered the shooter still a threat?? I think not.

First shot a head shot? Look at some Pharmacy counters they are chest high and all you can see are head and shoulders.That may have been all he could see.

What would you do if you had been shot and the threat is still moving?Decide this in a matter of tenths of a seconds.I may have done the same thing.

Don't Monday morning quarterback. Put yourself in the shoes this person who just got shot--

If I am on a jury this guy walks. The shooter started the whole chain of events.Once you cross that line and may still be a threat your fair game.

Wildalaska
May 24, 2009, 04:35 PM
Don't Monday morning quarterback. Put yourself in the shoes this person who just got shot--

Im not Monday morning quarterbacking. Im asking questions based on a paucity of the evidence, whilst some here are automatically assuming a good shoot based on the same paucity.

So...white war veteran shoots young black armed robber. ALL of the facts arent out...some black folks scream rascism and say Bad shoot. Some white folks say good shoot. Is there a difference?

Let me ask again: if this guy stood over this shot kid and pumped rounds into his chest why he was struggling to get up, with out more, you would all consider that a good shoot? If thats what happened.? "Cuz under the law, thats manslaughter or CNH and a prosecutor worth hlf his salt could get a conviction.

I wish Mas Ayoob would pop on and give us some insight, I'd love to hear from an expert

WildilovetoseefolkspreconcievedideasexpressedAlaska TM

Kyo
May 24, 2009, 04:45 PM
The kid wasn't in front of him. As he started to chase the other one, the first one got up. Thats the story anyway.
But lets entertain the thought. What if this guy was right in front of the kid when he was getting up? Is he wrong to empty his gun into him? How do we know that the kid wasn't reaching for something as he was getting up. How do we know he wasn't going for his weapon again?
If you get back up, you are in the fight. If you are down, you are still in the fight. You are in the fight until your dead.
Let me say something very obvious. If the pharmacist was black this wouldn't be an issue. The problem everyone is having is that the kid was black, and 16. Well, he's still the ARMED robber. Age doesn't matter, and race doesn't either. The family of the kid want people to feel sorry for him? Seriously? He chose this. He chose to walk in and shoot a gun at innocent people. The pharmacist didn't decide he was going to kill some kid today, the kid decided to kill people in that store today. Lets really get into perspective here. The kid died cause he tried to kill others. If the family wants to be ******, be ****** at the idiot 16 year old who decided it was ok to rob, shoot, and attack people. If that guy was my dad I would press charges against the family for slander.

Wildalaska
May 24, 2009, 04:54 PM
If you are down, you are still in the fight. You are in the fight until your dead.

really? So whenever a police officer is forced to shoot a person, he should then walk over to the downed person and fire one last shot into the perp to make sure they are dead?:rolleyes:

Care to show me a statute or case law that supports that position?

WildimagefolksimageAlaska TM

muddinman_04
May 24, 2009, 05:04 PM
If you are going to play devils advocate, you need to keep in mind that this gentleman was crippled (as per his description of his condition). I would think that this would make the 16 yr old boy a little more of a threat to him.
In my mind, I picture the boy getting up maybe to run, maybe to attack (He did tell the guy that he was going to die).
From the looks of the device this guy is wearing and having back problems myself, I don't see where you could perceive a bad shoot scenario.

Crippled older war veteran vs. 16 yr old gun slinging robber (even if he is wounded)...It's kind of obvious.

cracked91
May 24, 2009, 05:21 PM
I don't know if Im for or against what the guy did to the kid trying to get up because I don't know the facts.

I will say this though. He has a back brace on, he had already been shot once, the guy that shot him was attempting to get back up. I don't think I would shoot him but I was not in the guys shoes so ill never know. The kid could have been getting up quickly scrambling. I have met a guy who goes around doing religous seminars because he was shot dead center of the forehead with a .38, managed to run away and get to a hospital, (this was in argentina) and made a full recovery amazingly quickly (2 months i think)

glock06
May 24, 2009, 05:30 PM
The rascist suff is total garbage and a smokescreen to divert attention away from the wannabe killer.It's all total BS manufactored by idiots who see the world as owing them something--thus they can commit acts of evil and rationally be justified. The shooter made a choice to go in and try to shoot and kill another person. Should he be allowed to kill and maim and be given every consideration because he is a "victim" of society? He got what he deserved--rough justice instead.

Do you think the Pharmacist really cared if the shooter was purple or polka dotted??This man was responding to save his life after being shot and acting to save the lives of others.Unless there is a glaring crime here-- God can sort it out with the pharmacist in the next life.Only the Pharmacist knows what he was thinking! Give this guy the benefit of the doubt!

Again, if these events happened in a blur, I believe any rational person should believe this guy walks.

fatboy02
May 24, 2009, 05:32 PM
The article does not say weather the kid still had the gun in his hand or not. We can sit here a pick it apart but none of us were there. I have to say from what the article said it is a good shoot. He saved three lives, The robbers shot unprovoked.

If we would of been one of the sheep in the heard we would be dead, because he carried "LEGALLY" he and his coworkers alive.

I wonder if the pharmacist would have died would the young black kid have been a racist? Or just misunderstood youth.

Double Naught Spy
May 24, 2009, 05:47 PM
This is for you Wild!

http://www.koco.com/news/19543055/detail.html

Jerome Ersland said he shot Antwun Parker, 16, because he feared for his own life, but Parker’s family said that the Ersland didn’t need to shoot to kill.

“For a wrong cause, we can accept any responsibility,” said Parker’s sister, Brittany Baldwin. “We can own up to that. But for him to lay my brother in the ground was absolutely wrong.”

glock06
May 24, 2009, 06:35 PM
Good Point!

Were folks protesting a shooting because the criminal who was attempting murder and shot was BLACK?
or were they protesting because a black man was shot and killed committing a crime?

So now we should show rascial preference and must not shoot certain folks and possibly kill them when defending ourselves if attacked? Ridiculous.

What part of reality, and the morality and consequences of attempted murder do they not understand?

I believe society at large has great problems dealing with individuals who act morally and take others lives.Remember that we folks who carry firearms are in the vast minority.Lethal responses to confrontation are in the distinct minority and a vexing problem for societies passive sheep.That means that individual was judge, jury, and executioner, usurping roles that the bureaucracy of society mandates. Sadly,I believe that maybe a majority of the mindless out there might be more comfortable that the innocents be sacrificed with little fanfare and the "system" just stumble along to eventually take care of the "misunderstood" perpetrators in time.

Read opinion polls on societies sheep.There are so many folks out there with poor judgement and perception deciding societies fate.They want their decisions to be easier with less thought and judgement needed for those who act differently from the herd.

Example-If all handguns are illegal then things are simple for an amoral government.No matter than BG's have guns, and innocents die. LEO's would know if you use a gun they should arrest you irregardless.Innocents are just collateral damage.Their jobs are so much easier.

I firmly believe that more and more of society is becoming amoral and clueless.We all will suffer if such ridiculous thought processes divorced from reality become rationalized--Good or evil eventually won't matter. Just what society determines is convenient and expedient.

Wildalaska
May 24, 2009, 07:06 PM
And notice how my point gets drowning in the rhetoric:D

I have to say from what the article said it is a good shoot

Yep, the intial shots surely were.

Now show me facts to conclude that this guy did NOT wantonly execute this perp.

You guys should put your self defense woobie away for a bit and use this incident as a chance to evaluate and critically thinkout a self defense scenario...when does justified shooting become murder?

How about less screeching and more thinking...and by the way, consider the civil aspects....,.

WildihopefolkspostmorefactsastheybecomeavailableAlaska TM

PS

"I believe society at large has great problems dealing with individuals who act morally and take others lives.Remember that we folks who carry firearms are in the vast minority.Lethal responses to confrontation are in the distinct minority and a vexing problem for societies passive sheep.That means that individual was judge, jury, and executioner, usurping roles that the bureaucracy of society mandates. Sadly,I believe that maybe a majority of the mindless out there might be more comfortable that the innocents be sacrificed with little fanfare and the "system" just stumble along to eventually take care of the "misunderstood" perpetrators in time.

Thats a perfect quote to illustrate why many decent folks look askew at the armed citizen.

Glenn E. Meyer
May 24, 2009, 07:21 PM
Just a hint - don't hang yourself on the race issue in this thread.

Since this is tactics - we should talk about the actions of actors. Your socio-political theories about the aftermath aren't relevant.

Numerous factors go into a shoot/no decision. Talk about that. If you want to debate specifically if the race of the actors influenced the shoot/no shoot decision - go research it on Google scholar - there's quite a bit of work. But if you want to rant about it without background - not useful.

Ricky
May 24, 2009, 07:25 PM
Without being there and knowing all of the facts, I have to say that my first reaction upon reading the story was that he did execute the bad guy.
I realize that the pharmacist would not be able to physicaly subdue the BG. I'm not about to pass judgment either way but I did wince when I read that he emptied the mag in BG's chest.

glock06
May 24, 2009, 07:27 PM
deleted

Kyo
May 24, 2009, 07:34 PM
factor 1, he said he was gonna kill the guy
factor 2, he had a gun
factor 3, he fired the gun
factor 4, there was another perp
factor 5, he didn't stay down
factor 6, 1 vs 2
factor 7, other innocent lives
factor 8, the guy defending himself didn't know the kid was 16. he didn't care about race, he was trying to stay alive.
I welcome contradictions. Mods are right, lets be on topic

Glenn E. Meyer
May 24, 2009, 07:39 PM
1. Can the pharmacist reasonably articulate that he was still in fear of his life or grievous bodily harm from the moving but down violent criminal actor?

That's crucial and the whole game.

2. IMHO - going after the guy who fled was not a wise move. Nor do I understand the time line about the Judge. Did he have one in each hand?

3. Are there tapes of this event? With the security mentioned, I would think so. His fate may be determined by what they show.

possumman
May 24, 2009, 07:48 PM
If he was shot on the ground, with a gun no where near him, would you all still be applauding? Could he in fact have been acting with an animus and have simply executed this young man?It never ceases to amaze me how after a tragic incident such as this people want to 'Monday morning quarterback'. (a)I don't believe any of us were there, (b) I'm pretty sure things went to sh*t Real quick, not a lot of time to think things through, (c)They come in guns a blazing yelling and, oh yea shooting too! (d) Who can say this kid wasn't still a threat, wasn't he starting to get up. (e) Maybe he did still have access to a gun, did the store owner know for a fact that he didn't, something tells me, probably not. He also recalls the angry voices of people who gathered outside the pharmacy Tuesday night, shouting that he was a racist who unnecessarily took a life of the Seeworth Academy charter school student, Antwun Parker.
And to this, I don't give a damn if he was black, white, or purple. Why does this issue always come up? What is ashame is this 16 year old kid saw this as his only option in life. Bad choice:(

Wildalaska
May 24, 2009, 07:50 PM
1. Can the pharmacist reasonably articulate that he was still in fear of his life or grievous bodily harm from the moving but down violent criminal actor?

That's crucial and the whole game.

Depending on the jurisdiction thats half the game

"The jury must first determine whether the defendant had the requisite beliefs under section 35.15, that is, whether he believed deadly force was necessary to avert the imminent use of deadly force or the commission of one of the felonies enumerated therein. If the People do not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not have such beliefs, then the jury must also consider whether these beliefs were reasonable. The jury would have to determine, in light of all the "circumstances", as explicated above, if a reasonable person could have had these beliefs"

People v Goetz 68NY296, 115

WildimlookingforanonpointheresanothercaseAlaska TM

Tripacer
May 24, 2009, 07:52 PM
"All of a sudden, they started shooting,” he said. "They were attempting to kill me, but they didn’t know I had a gun. They said, ‘You’re gonna die.’ That’s when one of them shot at me, and that’s when he got my hand.”

Assuming the above account is accurate, the pharmacist was justified to shoot the killer/robber with his underpowered 380 until there was no more potential threat. I also have a 380 (Beretta Model 34) and if I had sustained a potentiallhy lethal attack I would keep that Beretta in action until I was absolutely sure that the person who tried to kill me was totally incapacitated. My intention would not be to kill the attacker but to absolutely stop him from attempting to kill me or anyone else in the store.

Wildalaska
May 24, 2009, 07:53 PM
a)I don't believe any of us were there,

Yet then you go on to argue b, c, d, e as if you were:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

WildyouneedtolearnwhatmondaymorningquarterbackingisAlaska TM

garryc
May 24, 2009, 08:04 PM
Fact is, at this point he said what he said. Anything else said to the police should be said through an attorney

Kyo
May 24, 2009, 08:17 PM
actually I am pretty sure you can use deadly force when a felony is being committed. so, the kid is committing the felony still, technically the guy walks either way.

Jay1958
May 24, 2009, 08:25 PM
I would have absolutely NO different take on this situation if the young armed robber was white and the pharmacist was black. I would still have the same opinion - the pharmacist did what he had to do to protect himself and the robber got what he risked by choosing to rob.

On second thought, maybe I would have a SLIGHTLY different take on this situation if the dead young robber were white and the pharmacist was black. I'd think - well, at least, maybe this will help some people realize that the right to self-defense is a basic human right that law-abiding citizens of all races, ages, genders, cultures, sexual preferences, religions and backgrounds deserve and should have.

So...white war veteran shoots young black armed robber. ALL of the facts arent out...some black folks scream rascism and say Bad shoot. Some white folks say good shoot. Is there a difference?

possumman
May 24, 2009, 08:26 PM
Yet then you go on to argue b, c, d, e as if you were

Well, let's see, (b) I don't think its reaching out on a limb to say Sh*t hit the fan, and some quick decisions had to be made. thats pretty much a given. (c) okay, I'll give you that, we Don't Know about the "guns a blazing". However, I'm basing my opinion on the facts we have, which happens to be eye witness account even if he was the owner, victim, and Thankfully not the deceased. Your 'what ifs' are nothing but total supposition.

g_avery
May 24, 2009, 08:35 PM
and this is why we doubletap.

Double Naught Spy
May 24, 2009, 08:39 PM
My take from the articles is that the pharmacist downed the threat who was then out of the battle (shot in the head) and the pursued threat #2 that ceased being a perceiced threat via flight. Then the pharmacist discovered threat #1 wasn't neutralized after all and engaged the guy for a second time as an active threat.

Sounds plausible.

FF/EMT
May 24, 2009, 08:57 PM
That guy truly is a hero. Amen he's alive and so are those girls. Thank God he had a sidearm to defend himself. Maybe that will teach at least one moron from thinking it's a good idea to give up a life of hard work and try to rob a hardees or 711

Wildalaska
May 24, 2009, 09:15 PM
Your 'what ifs' are nothing but total supposition.

No more than yours...and need I emphaisze again...

"But as he started to chase after the second robber he looked back to see the 16-year-old he had shot in the head getting up again. Ersland said he then emptied the Kel-Tec .380 into the boy’s chest."

Perhaps my "what ifs" are a lot less than yours.

But then again, it seems folk are more concerned with vindicating this guy instead of thinking about the ramifications of this scenario. I would have thought that responsible gun owners would have preferred to analyze the situation in a critical manner, as opposed to screeching yahoo.:cool:

WildguessiwasmistakenAlaska TM

possumman
May 24, 2009, 09:56 PM
But then again, it seems folk are more concerned with vindicating this guy instead of thinking about the ramifications of this scenario. I would have thought that responsible gun owners would have preferred to analyze the situation in a critical manner, as opposed to screeching yahoo.Hey, I'm not wanting to vindicate this guy just because he is a 'gun owner', and I, for one, am not thinking yahoo! I certainly consider myself a responsible gun owner, thankyou very much, and would imagine the majority on this forum are also. Again, all we know is what we've heard, any analysis will be up to those investigating the crime scene. As far as I can see, the only Irresponsible gun owner was the deceased.

Kyo
May 24, 2009, 10:00 PM
well lets really think about this, if he hadn't had a gun and defended himself, there would be 4 people dead in a pharmacy and the brady idiots would have another example of why GunsRBad Mkay?

FF/EMT
May 24, 2009, 10:20 PM
Kyo +1..amen

Glenn E. Meyer
May 24, 2009, 10:26 PM
Yep, let's hold off until an investigation is performed. Tune in a few months. Tapes, forensics, etc.

He could be righteous or not. CSI-TFL will have to wait.

cracked91
May 25, 2009, 12:04 AM
I doubt he'll walk.

In the report it only mentions him firing 1 shot before he "emptied his .380 into the boys chest" The Kel tec p3at (which im assuming it was) holds 6+1 rounds. And if he truly emptied the gun, thats at least 5 rounds into an already down person. I could see a second shot, but pumping 5 rounds in a row, even someone who opposes an immiadiate threat (which the kid probably didn't) . . . he's gonna need a hell of a lawyer. I know adrenaline was probably a major factor in all this, and legal ramifications were probably the last thing on his mind, but thats some hard explaining to do

txbirddog
May 25, 2009, 01:10 AM
In the report it only mentions him firing 1 shot before he "emptied his .380 into the boys chest" The Kel tec p3at (which im assuming it was) holds 6+1 rounds.

You are assuming the mag was full and a round in the chamber. I only had 5 HP's in mine as it fed better that way.

And if he truly emptied the gun, thats at least 5 rounds into an already down person.

You may have missed this in the OP. But as he started to chase the second robber he looked back to see the 16-year-old he had shot in the head getting up again.

I could see a second shot, but pumping 5 rounds in a row, even someone who opposes an immiadiate threat (which the kid probably didn't)

You know, if I had shot someone in the head and they were still in the fight, I am going to use ANY and ALL means that I have available to stop the threat.

txbirddog
May 25, 2009, 01:30 AM
Depending on the jurisdiction thats half the game

"The jury must first determine whether the defendant had the requisite beliefs under section 35.15, that is, whether he believed deadly force was necessary to avert the imminent use of deadly force or the commission of one of the felonies enumerated therein. If the People do not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not have such beliefs, then the jury must also consider whether these beliefs were reasonable. The jury would have to determine, in light of all the "circumstances", as explicated above, if a reasonable person could have had these beliefs"

People v Goetz 68NY296, 115


Yeah, no kidding. What precedent of New York law have to do with a case in Oklahoma? You are also assuming the DA is even going to prosecute. I think you will find that we in the south use a lot of common sense, based on facts, and don't just go to court for the heck of it. In Texas, if it is considered self defense, there is also no civil liability.

Nisei
May 25, 2009, 02:07 AM
If he gets in trouble, it's going to be because of the excessive amount of ammo used.

Alaska is right, we don't know everything.

What if the pharmacist shot the kid x amount of times in the chest before attempting to chase the other kid, failed to chase and then shot the 16 year in the head? I'm not calling the pharmacist a liar but I won't rule out the possibility.

I won't be taking sides on this, I will wait for a security tape.

I fear this post will take on more flak than a B-17 over Germany.

Wildalaska
May 25, 2009, 02:27 AM
What precedent of New York law have to do with a case in Oklahoma?

Most lawyers recognize that because of the advanced state of the law and judicial decisions in NY, there is universal applicability, especially in criminal matters.

It doesnt surprise me that Oklahoma decisions mirror the Goetz case cited

"Oklahoma's standard of reasonableness may be gleaned from past decisions of this Court and is set forth in OUJI-CR 743, which reads as follows:

A person is justified in using deadly force in self-defense if that person reasonably believed that use of deadly force was necessary to protect herself from imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. Self-defense is a defense although the danger to life or personal security may not have been real, if a reasonable person, in the circumstances and from the view point of the defendant, would reasonably have believed that she was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm.

The aforesaid instruction was given in this case. While the instruction explicitly states that the fact finder should assume the viewpoint and circumstances of the defendant in assessing the reasonableness of his or her belief, i.e. subjective, it also requires the defendant's viewpoint to be that of a reasonable person, in similar circumstances and with the same perceptions, i.e., objective. Thus, Oklahoma's standard is a hybrid, combining both the objective and subjective standards. This Court has considered the issue of the clarity of this instruction on several occasions, the latest in Goulsby v. State, 742 P.2d 567 (Okl.Cr. 1987), where the appellant in that case argued that the reference to "if a reasonable person" make it appear to a lay jury that the defendant's viewpoint had to conform to that of a reasonable person. There, we held that the instruction correctly stated the law in Oklahoma and found it to be sufficient. See also Adams v. State, 70 P.2d 821, 827 (Okl.Cr. 1937); Alcorn v. States, 56 Okl.Cr. 156, 35 P.2d 735, 739 (1934); Turner v. State, 4 Okl.Cr. 164, 111 P. 988, 998 (1910); Brantley v. State, 15 Okl.Cr. 6, 175 P. 51 (1918); Baker v. State, 22 Okl.Cr. 224, 210 P. 292 (1922); Jamison v. State, 35 Okl.Cr. 302, 250 P. 548 (1926); Guthrie v. State, 87 Okl.Cr. 112, 194 P.2d 895, 901 (1948); Haines v. State, 275 P.2d 347, 354 (Okl.Cr. 1954)."
BECHTEL v. STATE 1992 OK CR 55

[I think you will find that we in the south use a lot of common sense, based on facts, and don't just go to court for the heck of it.

Mmmmmm....yes Im sure, perhaps sometime we could compare the court dockets of Houston and NYC:rolleyes:

WildnowyouarearguingjusttoargueAlaska TM

Kyo
May 25, 2009, 07:43 AM
if they have anything like GA law, if it is a self defense situation deemed by authorities, the guy is immune to any lawsuit.

garryc
May 25, 2009, 07:50 AM
This whole thread shows what happens when someone can sit back and review a situation over hours and while not being under stress or duress. That is the problem with review boards and such, never can they actually get in a guys shoes at the time of the incident.

DonR101395
May 25, 2009, 08:19 AM
Really...so a badly wounded robber is attempting to get up. He is not a threat, so you just shoot him anyway?


If I'm in a back brace from surgery and this guy just tried to rob me and he's still getting up. Yep, he a threat and I shoot him again.

Also, you're not just asking questions, you're doing what you always like to do in a thread such as this, you like to stir up things.

Double Naught Spy
May 25, 2009, 09:14 AM
This may clarify things a bit as to the number of times the suspect was shot, apparently 2 in the head and 2 in the chest.
http://newsok.com//article/3370984?custom_click=rss

I found this interesting from Wildalaska...

As we dont have all the facts here,...

But then again, it seems folk are more concerned with vindicating this guy instead of thinking about the ramifications of this scenario. I would have thought that responsible gun owners would have preferred to analyze the situation in a critical manner, as opposed to screeching yahoo.

No, of course we don't have all the facts here. We have news accounts only. Since we don't have all the facts, then I don't see how we can actually analyze the situation in a critical manner as called for. All that can be analyzed is what has been stated in the news and as noted, that isn't all the facts. So there is something of a Catch-22 here in noting that we don't have all the facts, but that we should be discussing the situation in a critical manner instead of being exuberant for the pharmacist.

Those who current have all the current facts, law enforcement, have not acted against the pharmacist. Until which time they do decide the move against the pharmacist, "yahoo" may be in order. Certainly, if the pharmacist had blatantly acted in an unlawful manner, he would have been arrested. If it appeared he acted in an unlawful manner to the officers on scene, he would have been arrested. So thusfar, indications by law enforcement do not indicate he acted unlawfully. That does not mean he necessarily acted in a lawful manner and some the analysis is ongoing, but there is no indication at the current time that the pharmacist is being considered as a suspect in the death of the would-be robber.

I think many responsible gun owners are perfectly happy with the results so far based on the information given and the fact that Jerome Ersland thusfar hasn't been arrested and that there is no current public indication that he will be arrested.

glock06
May 25, 2009, 09:37 AM
Everything so far has been opinion based on the information available.

TACTICALLY,HOW COULD THE SHOOT SHOULD HAVE GONE DOWN BETTER WITH THE ROBBERS SAME RESPONSE TO BEING SHOT?

1)Robber enters, threatens, then fires and shoots Pharmacist.
2)Pharmacist shoots back and Double taps the head(assume the C of Mass shot unavailable).
3)Pharmacist reassesses after these shots and notes the other assailant leaving.
4)Pharmacist DOES NOT pursue the fleeing suspect with his loaded gun(danger from this perp no longer present)
5)Say the perp who was shot starts moving and getting up.(some brain damaged folk can move purposefully and with coordinated movement, some carry on as before)

You have the perp who shot you getting up/moving after 2 to the head, what do you do?? You have a back injury and are not physically fit and cannot wrestle with him.

You gonna watch him, get physical, or put 2 in the C of Mass? The perp was shot in the chest so he must have been facing the pharmacist--

What is the best tactical response of the pharmacist?

Kyo
May 25, 2009, 09:55 AM
well, he said he reached for his judge, and I would say the best response would be to shoot with that gun instead of the .380. But we dont know why he didn't. That story is hilarious, because other stories have already identified everyone

kalstrand
May 25, 2009, 10:05 AM
Oklahoma does have a law preventing civil action in a case deemed self defense.

Tennessee Gentleman
May 25, 2009, 10:19 AM
One key fact to me that I haven't seen commented on was whether the BG while getting up still had his gun in his hand. If he did then all the training I had seen says keep shooting. Seems like if he is getting up with a weapon in his hand that he has already used against the pharmacist that would be grounds to keep on shooting?

txbirddog
May 25, 2009, 10:20 AM
Most lawyers recognize that because of the advanced state of the law and judicial decisions in NY, there is universal applicability, especially in criminal matters.

It doesnt surprise me that Oklahoma decisions mirror the Goetz case cited

"Oklahoma's standard of reasonableness may be gleaned from past decisions of this Court and is set forth in OUJI-CR 743, which reads as follows:


Yes but how much weight does it hold with the jurors of Oklahoma.

A little more recent law is the one signed by Governor Henry in 2006.

http://www.gov.ok.gov/display_article.php?article_id=744&article_type=1

I would bet the DA puts more weight on their laws than those of NY.

Wildalaska
May 25, 2009, 12:49 PM
One key fact to me that I haven't seen commented on was whether the BG while getting up still had his gun in his hand. If he did then all the training I had seen says keep shooting. Seems like if he is getting up with a weapon in his hand that he has already used against the pharmacist that would be grounds to keep on shooting?

Those are the two key facts IMHO:

1. Was the gun in his hand or in easy reach
2. The angle of the shots

Also, you're not just asking questions, you're doing what you always like to do in a thread such as this, you like to stir up things.

If you call forcing my fellow responsible gun owners to think and confront unpleasant questions "stirring", then of course I'm guilty.

What is the best tactical response of the pharmacist?

We dont know yet do we. The whole issue involves the capabilites of the dead guy (before he was dead) and the objectively reasonable need to shoot again.

Certainly, if the pharmacist had blatantly acted in an unlawful manner, he would have been arrested. If it appeared he acted in an unlawful manner to the officers on scene, he would have been arrested. So thusfar, indications by law enforcement do not indicate he acted unlawfully. That does not mean he necessarily acted in a lawful manner and some the analysis is ongoing, but there is no indication at the current time that the pharmacist is being considered as a suspect in the death of the would-be robber.

Well he hanst been cleared yet, has he. And in a high profile case like this, I am sure it will be a while

And folks in Oklahoma should shut up:

"A man whose wife and adult daughter were in the store at the time of the shooting said the pharmacy owner was robbed about three years ago and had said nothing like that was going to happen again. The man did not want to be named."

Animus? Vigilanteism? To an ambitious DA confronted with the race card? Possible execution?

First Lesson when you shoot someone: DONT TALK TO THE PRESS! AND TELL OTHER FOLKS TO SHUT UP TOO

I would bet the DA puts more weight on their laws than those of NY.

You miss the point, but thread drift anyway

WildhopefolkskeepuspostedAlaska TM

ftd
May 25, 2009, 01:33 PM
But as he started to chase after the second robber he looked back to see the 16-year-old he had shot in the head getting up again. Ersland said he then emptied the Kel-Tec .380 into the boy’s chest."


We don't know enough, and never really will (probably).

The "emptied" haunts me. Isn't there a syndrom where a fearful shooter (an otherwise reasonable person - under great stress), may, after the first shot, continue to pull the trigger, ever after the gun is empty?

This is my only nightmare when I consider my use of self/household defense - that I would act beyond the defense, and react from fear and stress and become almost a willful executioner. I'm not talking about:

1) two to the chest and one to head (or even more) - reasonable to me if I'm threatened by an armed shooter;

2) shooting a bg, who is down, again if there are other threats still around - not unreasonable if I can't deal with the downed bg because of other threats;

3) shooting the downed bg again if I truly believed he was a threat; I believe that this could be considered a second "first shot".

I'm talking about loss of reason because of adrenolin AND frustration that would make me turn it all out on the one guy when I took the second "first shot", or just because.

I worry that it could happen to me, and even if "no charges are filed", I would still know what I did. I could accept it if someone else "got away with it", because I think that it could happen to anyone, even someone much more highly trained than me. But if it happened to me, I could/would accept God's forgiveness but it would still haunt me till the day I died.

Shadi Khalil
May 25, 2009, 01:56 PM
You are assuming the mag was full and a round in the chamber. I only had 5 HP's in mine as it fed better that way.

Despite that, he still unloaded on a downed man.

With the info available, mainly the account of shooter, I would say he will have a real tough time defending his actions in court. If the downed attacker still had the gun in his hand or near him, well thats another story. His actions leading up the unloading into the boys chest do not stand well for him. He chased the other guy out the door, on his way he shot the boy. I would have to be pretty confident to be chasing after an attacker who was fleeing my response. Doesn't that mean the threat was subdued? In both cases? Until more info is available, I wont defend his actions.

Glenn E. Meyer
May 25, 2009, 02:26 PM
Folks - a warning - wander into your views of race and you will be gone. :mad:

I said it once and just deleted such a post from a new member.

This is Tactics and Training - not Rantics and Raving.

Glenn

txbirddog
May 25, 2009, 02:52 PM
But as he started to chase after the second robber he looked back to see the 16-year-old he had shot in the head getting up again.

This is from the original post.

Please show me the "downed" position when he shot the guy.

Despite that, he still unloaded on a downed man.

With the info available, mainly the account of shooter, I would say he will have a real tough time defending his actions in court. If the downed attacker still had the gun in his hand or near him, well thats another story. His actions leading up the unloading into the boys chest do not stand well for him. He chased the other guy out the door, on his way he shot the boy. I would have to be pretty confident to be chasing after an attacker who was fleeing my response. Doesn't that mean the threat was subdued? In both cases? Until more info is available, I wont defend his actions.

I also don't see where, "He chased the other guy out the door". Are you reading another account that is different from the OP?

Wildalaska, You miss the point, but thread drift anyway

Depending on the jurisdiction thats half the game

"The jury must first determine whether the defendant had the requisite beliefs under section 35.15, that is, whether he believed deadly force was necessary to avert the imminent use of deadly force or the commission of one of the felonies enumerated therein. If the People do not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not have such beliefs, then the jury must also consider whether these beliefs were reasonable. The jury would have to determine, in light of all the "circumstances", as explicated above, if a reasonable person could have had these beliefs"

People v Goetz 68NY296, 115

If you read the circumstances of the OP, then the Goetz case holds no weght. Ergo: About 10 minutes before 6 p.m. two robbers wearing ski masks waited for someone to leave the pharmacy and then grabbed the open door and threw down a board to stop the door from closing. The robbers came in cursing and yelling, ordering employees to give them money and drugs, Ersland said.

I would think that ANY REASONABLE PERSON could have the belief of using deadly force to stop the imminent danger. Don't you?

I guess I AM missing the point, from the get go you have been coming down on the shooter as he was WRONG. Neither of us have first-hand complete knowledge, but I am giving him the benfit of the doubt UNTIL the DA files charges. My point to you is trying to show you that NY or Houston cases, don't hold as much weight as OK or US law. I was also trying to point out that if it is found a "self defense" shoot, then there will also be no civil standing. Based upon the info given, I would have acted the same way.

BTW, if I don't fall lockstep with your ideas, does that make me an "irresponsible" gun owner? :rolleyes:

TailGator
May 25, 2009, 03:06 PM
I have been a bit surprised by the vehemence of the opinions expressed on this thread. If this was a question on a med school exam, the only correct answer would be "Not enough information to reach a diagnosis." That is the point that WildAlaska and those in concurrence with him have tried to make, and it is a point well made

Reading back over the thread for the umpteenth time I do not really see anyone calling this a bad shoot from the start. I don't think anyone but the most virulent anti-gunner would say that the pharmacist had no right to return fire given the initial situation. But there is a legitimate question of whether he should have continued shooting into a down assailant. Look back at all the sentences regarding the actions and intent of the robber. They all end in question marks - Did he? Would he? Could he? The point that several have made is that we don't know enough to be certain of a position; that is not abandoning a fellow believer in the right to self defense, it is being honest about what we know.

I have to say that I cringed when I read that the pharmacist stated publicly that he chased the fleeing suspect and then emptied the magazine into the down robber. There are legitimate reasons for a wounded person to move - pain, difficulty breathing, attempting to staunch his own blood flow, etc. If his position is that he was defending the other employees and himself from lethal assault, he gave up that position by pursuing a fleeing robber. It would seem to me that the best survival tactic would be to let the fleeing robber flee and to kick out the board that they used to prop the door open, thus securing the building against any ill-advised attempt by his assailants or their comrades to re-enter the building and re-engage. He may then have been in a better position to defend his employees from the down man, to assess the threat that the down man made when he began moving around, and may have been in a better legal position as well.

That said, the post that pointed out that he had seconds to make the decisions that we have been beating around for a couple of days is well taken, as well.

The pharmacist's biggest mistake may have been talking too much. Telling reporters that he emptied a magazine makes it sound like he only quit shooting because he ran out of ammo, implying that he was not assessing the situation and making it too easy for him to be portrayed as vengeful and aggressive. Giving chase to the fleeing criminal makes it appear, similarly, that his demeanor and purpose changed from defense to offense. I am not saying he shouldn't have taken those actions necessarily, although they can be questioned (questioned, not condemned - see first paragraph) - I am saying he may have been wise not to have talked about them so freely. If he had said no more than, perhaps, "It is regrettable that I was forced to defend myself. I am sure you will understand that law enforcement agencies and my lawyer would both prefer that I not discuss this publicly until the investigation is complete," neither the protesters outside his store nor those of us blessed with the opportunity of discussing such things in this forum would have had nearly as much to talk about.

Stevie-Ray
May 25, 2009, 03:33 PM
No, of course we don't have all the facts here. We have news accounts only. Since we don't have all the facts, then I don't see how we can actually analyze the situation in a critical manner as called for. All that can be analyzed is what has been stated in the news and as noted, that isn't all the facts. Well, I can say this is a fact. If you had all the news agencies in the entire US reporting on the exact same story, and they were beaming all their findings into your receiver at the same time, and your receiver AND your brain were able to process all said findings, You still wouldn't have all the facts. Of that, I have complete confidence.;)

Wildalaska
May 25, 2009, 05:27 PM
Give TailGator an "A":D

WildwelcomeAlaska TM

ltcdoty
May 25, 2009, 07:20 PM
really? So whenever a police officer is forced to shoot a person, he should then walk over to the downed person and fire one last shot into the perp to make sure they are dead?

For what its worth,I was taught in my police academy class, ( thirty five years ago ), in a gun fight, after you downed the perp with a shot, you empty your sidearm into him. Too many officers have died from a downed suspect. No walking over and executing the guy, just a continuation of a gun fight. I have had the unpleasant experience of being in a gun fight on the job. I and others have had the same eperience as the druggist. Unless you have been there, and done that, its kind of like child birth, you can talk about it all you want but you never have experienced it. So most of this Monday Night quarterbacking is just a lot of hot air:)

Wildalaska
May 25, 2009, 07:29 PM
For what its worth,I was taught in my police academy class, ( thirty five years ago ), in a gun fight, after you downed the perp with a shot, you empty your sidearm into him.

I call BS...tell us what Department would train that way:cool:

WildandiintendtocheckAlaska TM

Kyo
May 25, 2009, 07:35 PM
Not sure if this has relevance, but from the videos I have watched that are made by Tactical Response, and Valhala, and Paladin Press, gunsite, and even books I have read, all of them explain that you shoot until the threat is gone. Just because the threat is down doesn't mean he isn't a threat anymore. Getting back up is pretty much asking to be shot if you are a robber.
Yes, the guy talked too much, but lets not forget that he was getting robbed by 2 idiots. They started it on his property. He had every right imo

Shadi Khalil
May 25, 2009, 07:55 PM
I also don't see where, "He chased the other guy out the door". Are you reading another account that is different from the OP?

Same thing you are reading, buddy.


But as he started to chase after the second robber he looked back to see the 16-year-old he had shot in the head getting up again. Ersland said he then emptied the Kel-Tec .380 into the boy’s chest."

"I went after the other guy, but he was real fast and I’m crippled,” Ersland said.

Chase being the key word here, in order for there to be a chase one must be fleeing and the other in pursuit.

SP Shop Foreman
May 25, 2009, 07:56 PM
Sure is a lot of typing.

SP

jjyergler
May 25, 2009, 09:24 PM
+1 to TailGator and sort of to WildAlaska. The problem with these kind of posts is the fact that in the moment, things can be very different than how they are described in news stories or posts.

For example, when he "emptied the magazine," How many shots were fired, how many bullets did he have left? I can empty a magazine by firing one, two, or twenty five shots.

For another, I've seen several people post that he "chased" the second man. Looking at his brace, I'm not sure what kind of chase this guy can participate in.

Finally, and most importantly, "down" can have many shades of meaning. The robber being "down" can mean face down in a pool of blood. It can also mean that he is on his back with tongue hanging out the side of his mouth. However, it can also mean that the robber is on one knee, staggered by a superficial head graze. Think "Dirty Harry" and the bank robber on the sidewalk. Is that guy "down?" He certainly is. Is he still a threat? He certainly is.

This whole thread shows what happens when someone can sit back and review a situation over hours and while not being under stress or duress. That is the problem with review boards and such, never can they actually get in a guys shoes at the time of the incident.
+1 garyc

Dallas Jack
May 25, 2009, 10:48 PM
I see two things that were done as preached on various forums.

1. Shoot to slide lock.
2. Shoot till the BG is down.

He emptyed his gun, sounds like he shot to slide lock. The BG was getting up. He wasn't down, he was still a threat.

One other thing. It said they were wearing ski masks. How could he tell gender, race, or age.
Dallas Jack

David Armstrong
May 26, 2009, 12:33 AM
If you call forcing my fellow responsible gun owners to think and confront unpleasant questions "stirring", then of course I'm guilty.

Heaven forbid, WildAlaska, that gunowners should actually have to think and analyze things in a rational manner, at least on the internet. You will cause all the uber-warriors to get a headache.:)

Blue Steel
May 26, 2009, 05:04 AM
I think we can all agree that the initial engagement is justified.

Now, since we don't have sufficient information to decide whether the pharmacist was justified in his followup shots, let us discuss what circumstances would allow you to fire on a downed assailant, or not.

How aggressive was the robber in his movements? Were they directed at the pharmacist, as if to advance and engage him in a physical assault, or was he attempting to escape? or was him simply shuttering in pain from his wounds?

What was the robbers proximity to his firearm? Unreachable, double-arms length, arms length, or had he maintained control of his firearm? Were his movements directed towards recovering his firearm?

Double Naught Spy
May 26, 2009, 05:50 AM
Well, it happened a week ago today. If the Pharmacy's security system involves video, it has been reviewed by now. Heck, it was probably reviewed several times within hours of the incident. Known witnesses, except maybe the second robber, have been interviewed and he is facing possible murder charges for the death since it happened during the commission of his felony. The crime scene has been recorded multiple ways and witness statements correlated with it. S o far, no legal move against Ersland by law enforcement.

ltcdoty
May 26, 2009, 08:59 AM
For what its worth,I was taught in my police academy class, ( thirty five years ago ), in a gun fight, after you downed the perp with a shot, you empty your sidearm into him.

I call BS...tell us what Department would train that way

No BS...It was a major upstate New York Police Dept......like I said...it's a gun fight...over in seconds...you make sure that you or your partner or inocent bystanders don't get hurt. You can pontificate all you like about what you would do, or what should have been done, but unless you have been there and took part in the gun fight.....its just a lot of hot air on your part.......talk to me again after you have ..:rolleyes:

KLRANGL
May 26, 2009, 09:17 AM
I see a lot of the what ifs of the "execution-no-shoot" are related to where the BG's gun was while trying to stand back up again.
Take this fictional scenario: Unarmed BG, who is 16 but looks like a linebacker (as some do) walks towards a crippled man yelling "im going to kill you!" It is my understanding that, if the physically disabled man shoots, it would be a good shot. Much like a women shooting an unarmed but overpowering attacker.
If this is indeed the case, the location of the sidearm becomes irrelevant. (Note my assumption of the 16 year old being physically dominant)

What does become relevant was the state of the BG and if he indeed posed a threat. Im inclined to think that a guy who would walk into a store, yell "you're dead!" and start shooting without provocation should be considered extremely dangerous, and would almost be justification enough to "empty the magazine" when he's trying to get back up.

I remember a while back seeing a security video on here where a security guard at a gas station or some such engaged two BGs who came in guns blazing (it was somewhere in Asia I beleive). He shot one BG, and ran after the second, but after running past the one downed BG, he was shot and killed. The assumption was the downed BG was no longer a threat, and it killed him.
Not sure if that's totally relevant, but you can see the parallel to this case.

David Armstrong
May 26, 2009, 09:59 AM
No BS...It was a major upstate New York Police Dept.
Then your agency was teaching you BS that was in conflict with the law, not to mention bad tactics. Even 35 years ago excessive force was frowned upon, and emptying your gun into a downed suspect would get you jail time. Even under the fleeing felon doctrine, once the suspect was down and out of the fight you had to quit trying to kill him.

Wildalaska
May 26, 2009, 12:33 PM
No BS...It was a major upstate New York Police Dept.

Which one. Put up or shut up:cool:

Then your agency was teaching you BS that was in conflict with the law, not to mention bad tactics. Even 35 years ago excessive force was frowned upon, and emptying your gun into a downed suspect would get you jail time. Even under the fleeing felon doctrine, once the suspect was down and out of the fight you had to quit trying to kill him.

+1, assuming it even happened

WildnowayAlaska ™

Playboypenguin
May 26, 2009, 12:54 PM
I am late chiming in here but I wanted to add my two cents.

Not being handicapped myself, I am not really in a good position to judge this man's actions.

I fully agree with defending yourself and others but I did take issue with the part of the story where he "emptied" his .380 into the assailants chest. I would really want to know what condition the assailant was in as he returned to his feet and if he was armed and how he was bringing said arms to bear. If the assailant was not presenting any further danger (IE: unarmed or unable to use firearm) I would consider this a massive over-reaction and possibly a bad shoot. I say possibly because once bullets have started to fly I find it easier to forgive over-reactions later on in the conflict.

Also, as I said before, I am not handicapped. In fact I am quite capable physically and I tend to judge such scenarios based on my own personal mindset. That mindset is one of someone more than capable of defending themselves in a scuffle. My entire perception might be different if I was not capable of such actions. I might find it much more necessary to act sooner and more decisively than I do now if I knew I would not be able to cope with a physical assualt.

PS: They have such a great security system...is there a video to back up this version of the story? I might have missed it reading the thread.

Montanaman
May 26, 2009, 12:59 PM
First of all, if you weren't there, didn't have a dog in a fight then none of us have any say in this.

Second, If you ain't been in a gun fight and survived you have no idea what your talking about.

The gents biggest misque was saying anything at all until he got a Lawyer, keeping your mouth shut will always improve the odds in your favor.

If you have been or are a cop then you know that about 90% of BG's in the joint are there because they opened their mouths, they talked to somebody, the cops, the girl friend that they forgot about smacking around the week before.

I'm a good guy, I would never say one word to a LEO without first talking to my Lawyer, and I am a former LEO .

G. Gordon Liddy as I recall was the only Watergater to never say a word, nada, nothing to anybody. When asked in an interview if he had ever killed anybody he replied, The Statute of Limitations never end for some things.

This man did what he had too, I'm sure he was scared to death, I'm sure he really has very little memory of the events and that should be all he says, I don't recall, I was fighting for my life and the ladies who work for me.

My last thought is this, Never shoot a BG until "your" convinced he's dead, shot him until "HE's" convinced he's dead.

Then shut up!!

David Armstrong
May 26, 2009, 01:07 PM
That mindset is one of someone more than capable of defending themselves in a scuffle. My entire perception might be different if I was not capable of such actions. I might find it much more necessary to act sooner and more decisively than I do now if I knew I would not be able to cope with a physical assualt.
It does change one's perception. I've become handicapped to a certain degree, and whle it does not effect my normal activities too much it does strictly prohibit high levels of exertion or anything that would cause the body to heat up much beyond normal. Because of that my chosen responses to a number of situations have changed, some quite radically. There are some scenarios now where I would go to deadly force, for example, when previously I might have looked at it as a good chance for a workout and to practice some techniques.

Mark Milton
May 26, 2009, 02:33 PM
Number one
• If some Dumb@SS of Olympian proportions goes into a liquor store, bank or pharmacy with intent to rob it and gets his head blown off, thats his OWN STUPIDITY IN ACTION and the 'tards relatives need to realize that. Had he not tried to hold the place up, he wouldn't be laying in the ground with a hole in his head now would he?

• This stuff happens all the time. Two years ago some pill zombie went into a pharmacy in Stollings WV and tried to stick it up to get pills. Unfortunately for him he ate the pills and when he passed out the victims disarmed him and went medieval on his @$$. He looked like he went 12 rounds with Mike Tyson AND George Foreman in his mug shot.

• Sometimes you don't even have to have a gun to foil a felon but it helps...
Once in my town a nutjob dressed like a Ninja tried to rob a Captain D's restaurant and bystanders chased him down for the cops...

Here is the latest such incident from my county by the way...

Local man catches burglary suspect for police

BRUNO — Some fast thinking and courageous action on behalf of a local man helped the West Virginia State Police capture an accused burglar who had warrants out on him for other theft related charges.
According to police, on May 9, Jack L. White of Bruno captured Richard L. Toler and detained him for the WVSP after a burglary attempt in his neighborhood. Toler had a warrant out for his arrest already for credit card fraud and conspiracy charges.
Toler, 40, of Bruno, was then arrested by West Virginia State Police Trooper J.E. Williams for burglary, conspiracy and fraudulent use of a credit card on May 9.
According to police reports, Trooper Williams responded to a burglary complaint from the landlord of the residence belonging to the victims.
"The landlord advised that he saw the defendant leaving the victim's residence," the report states. "The landlord had (Toler) detained until this officer's arrival. The landlord advised that (Toler) was carrying a folded blanket containing one X-Box game console, 12 X-Box games and one controller. The landlord advised that the back door of the residence had been shattered and forcibly entered. This officer also obtained a written statement from the defendant verifying the said events. Total value of loss and recovery was approximately $460."
A different criminal complaint states that on Sept. 21, 2008, Toler and two women allegedly conspired to fraudulently use a Walmart credit card belonging to a victim in order to make three separate purchases within a one-hour time frame.
The trio reportedly purchased more than $900 worth of merchandise with the stolen card.
He was booked at the regional jail at 12:30 p.m.

Wildalaska
May 26, 2009, 02:36 PM
the 'tards

That is a disgrace

WildreportpostbuttonhitAlaska ™

mikejonestkd
May 26, 2009, 03:55 PM
No BS...It was a major upstate New York Police Dept

That's odd, I just got back from next door and talked with a 23 year veteran of a major upstate police dept...and his words were not family friendly on this forum, but the response was contrary to your claim.

Name the department and the person that trained recruits in the manner that you claim.

KingEdward
May 26, 2009, 04:51 PM
one armed robber who fired shots died.

one armed robber lived.

the victim (in the store) lived (but was shot) and the other three employees lived.

so after an armed robbery, 5 out of 6 people lived and the one who did not
was the criminal.

Looks to me like the shooting victim here who stood his ground saved 4 lives by what he did.

could he have expressed some thoughts differently, probably.

he did express remorse for the death and it is most likely genuine.

but he and the others are alive.

He might be judged by 12 but he will NOT be carried by six.

as some here always say.

ltcdoty
May 26, 2009, 05:33 PM
Then your agency was teaching you BS that was in conflict with the law, not to mention bad tactics. Even 35 years ago excessive force was frowned upon, and emptying your gun into a downed suspect would get you jail time. Even under the fleeing felon doctrine, once the suspect was down and out of the fight you had to quit trying to kill him.

Its not BS, and it was not bad tactics...and it was not in conflict with the law...I'm not talking about shooting a perp and then strolling over to him and emptying a gun into him....I'm talking about an intense incident that takes just seconds...just seconds...the BG goes down and keep firing...thats what we were taught, and it saved lives. I'm not interested in who talked to the cop down the street....thats the way it was. Now who here has ever been in a gun battle...Who...I was in in two in my thirty five year career..scared the hell out of me both times.... oh and about bad tactics...how many gun fights have you been in? It seems to me that people on this thread have the luxury of critiquing events after the fact with very few facts....you guys are boring me. and I really don't give a rats patoot if you believe me or not.

Wildalaska
May 26, 2009, 05:59 PM
and I really don't give a rats patoot if you believe me or not.

We dont.

WildyouloseAlaska ™

Dihappy
May 26, 2009, 09:42 PM
We dont.


Speak for yourself.

Kyo
May 26, 2009, 09:57 PM
Wild I disagree with your whole stance on this thread. And I can believe that you shoot after a guy drops. If you won't, then that is your risk. You can't know till you are there, and you can't say its wrong, either. Maybe its politically incorrect, but I personally don't care if I am politically incorrect as long as I am not dead. Cause who cares if you were polite if your dead?
Ability, Opportunity, Intent BG had all 3. Even when getting back up

JustDreadful
May 26, 2009, 10:01 PM
The only definitive tactics judgment that I think can be made, knowing what little we know, is "Don't carry a .380." (Where's Ayoob with his proscription against mouseguns?)

As far as the morality of the supplemental shooting, we don't know for sure, but I think it's entirely appropriate to give the benefit of the doubt to the party who didn't decide to be an armed robber.

Deaf Smith
May 26, 2009, 10:22 PM
Pretty much every state's laws on self defense say once the threat is over, then you must stop.

Now as for shooting after they fall, well that depends on if they keep fighting once on the ground. If you feel they are still a threat, then you take the appropriate action.

But!!!!! I caution everyone here, whatever you do, it will be brought up in court and a jury (either grand or trial) will decide if your actions were justified. And in very liberal states, shooting a prone person does not sound very good. In fact even in Texas it does not look so good.

It's going to be up to your lawyer on getting the jury to see it your way.

Lots of luck.

csmsss
May 26, 2009, 10:53 PM
I find it interesting and rather sad that so many in this thread insinuate/assume that the pharmacist did not have justification to take the second set of shots, as if they witnessed this event. None of us were there, and none of us have any right to make such judgments, based as they are entirely on personal prejudice and unwarranted speculation.

It's also sad that the same folks seem to have a rather expansive view of the rights of the armed robber/attempted murderer and an extremely narrow view of the rights of the innocent pharmacist to defend himself and his coworkers.

buck9
May 26, 2009, 11:26 PM
Where did I lose my country? How can a person plan a robbery and use a weapon and still have rights? Who are these people who defend the rights of a human that thought this out and planed to use a weapon to rob and maybe kill another human ? Am I wrong to think that if you come into my home or place of work and try to rob or kill me that I have the right to kill you? I must say I do not know what I would do until it happens? But I think???? I would keep pulling the trigger until he stops moving?

Kyo
May 26, 2009, 11:36 PM
csmsss buck9
+1 to the both of you. criminals don't have rights even though its politically correct to say they do, not even sure that is right in itself.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2004/dec/12/ukcrime.immigrationpolicy
Goldsmith, by contrast, warns against ignoring burglars' rights: 'We must protect victims and law-abiding citizens. But we have to recognise that others have some rights as well. They don't lose all rights because they're engaged in criminal conduct.'

This is what England is today. This is not what America is. Kid deserved to die. I would bet all my possessions he would have tried another burglary again if he got out of that one.

R1145
May 26, 2009, 11:54 PM
...but it can be hard to know when that has occurred. Knowing only the few facts in the news stories, it seems to me that the pharmacist will be found to have been justified in using lethal force against the robber. The subsequent civil case will be more problematic, but I think the pharmacist will be found to have engaged in reasonable self-defense.

Double Naught Spy
May 27, 2009, 01:52 AM
...but it can be hard to know when that has occurred. Knowing only the few facts in the news stories, it seems to me that the pharmacist will be found to have been justified in using lethal force against the robber. The subsequent civil case will be more problematic, but I think the pharmacist will be found to have engaged in reasonable self-defense.

If the use of lethal force is justified, according to OK law I believe, then there is civil immunity for the action against the criminal.

Tucker 1371
May 27, 2009, 02:52 AM
There's just a few pieces of specific and detailed information that we are lacking, preventing us from intelligently arguing this incident.

Things I want to know are.

1) How close was the kid's gun.

2) But as he started to chase after the second robber he looked back to see the 16-year-old he had shot in the head getting up again. Ersland said he then emptied the Kel-Tec .380 into the boy’s chest."

"getting up" is very vague. If he's just starting to prop up on his elbows with his back still on the ground he's not a threat unless his gun is in his hand. If he's on his knees or is starting to get his feet under him he's in a fighting position and is a threat regardless of where his gun is.


EDIT: As for the protestors and all this race crap people (protestors and folks here) need to cut the crap. When you do bad things, bad things happen to you, that's how society works, it's sad that someone had to die but that's the situation the kid and his friends put us in. It doesn't matter if the kid had been white, he'd be dead just the same and you know it, don't make it a race issue because it's not.

This is why I will never use a .380 ... if he'd had something like a .40 SW, .357 Sig, .45 ACP I'd be willing to bet the kid would've been dropped cold the first shot.

cracked91
May 27, 2009, 03:15 AM
Its not about the perps rights, its not even about the perp really. I think we all can agree that noone here cares about what happened to an armed robber. Its about whether or not the man who was only defending himself and his co workers is going to walk free or get locked up over 1 or 2 extra pulls of the trigger. Its a shame for sure, but its a shame we have to face and understand when carrying a weapon. I never plan on going to prison or getting in a gunfight, but if I get in a gunfight I sure as hell don't wanna go to prison after the fact.

As for the guy who says his department taught him to keep shooting after the threat was down. . . I believe him. I am almost positive this was not the department policy, but there are many instructors out there who come from alot of experience, many times war related, that preach alot of there own personal opinion into training. They don't want their tranees getting killed over something stupid like that. I am currently enrolled in a law enforcement program in a community college and my instuctor told me almost the exact same thing.

He also taught us that no intelligent person should ever talk to the police after being part of an incident without first talking to a lawyer. Its too easy to incriminate yourself.

garryc
May 27, 2009, 06:00 AM
+1 to the both of you. criminals don't have rights even though its politically correct to say they do, not even sure that is right in itself.


Of course they have rights. They have rights before and after the incident. During the incident the potential victims right to life trumps all others.

thallub
May 27, 2009, 06:13 AM
Well if I'm on his jury he'd walk.


Same here. This shoot will probably never go to trial. In OK the prosecutor is not required to take a good shoot to the grand jury. In the past two years our county prosecutor has declined to take three good fatal shoots to the grand jury.

If the family of the deceased perp is so inclined they can take up a petition for a grand jury: That will go nowhere in OK.


The subsequent civil case will be more problematic, but I think the pharmacist will be found to have engaged in reasonable self-defense.

Not in the state of OK. If the prosecutor declines to prosecute, the grand jury fails to indict or the jury finds the guy innocent; the family of the deceased perp cannot sue in civil court.

TheClown
May 27, 2009, 07:55 AM
One thing I haven't seen discussed is his military background. The biggest question I've seen argued is whether or not the last two shots (or however many there were) were justified. Perhaps we should look at how his military training affected the outcome?

Glenn E. Meyer
May 27, 2009, 09:26 AM
Arguing that your training led you to shoot too much admits you shot too much. And then one could argue that you should have known better as you are not in the service any more and not a robot. Dangerous path to go. But this is just horsepoop speculation.

I'm reading Joker One by Campell about Marines in Iraq and they are training in Kuwait before entering Iraq and the author (a Lt.) is discussing a class they got on when to shoot, what's a threat and when to stop. The modern military seems concerned with stopping the threat only?

Kyo
May 27, 2009, 10:10 AM
The best part of this thread is how everyone's perception of what is a threat when is different. So, there can be no right answer. To some, if the kid is getting back up, he's not a threat just yet, because we don't know what he will do. To others, he's getting back up and getting back in the fight,with or without a weapon, no thinking required.
I would use the military training in a positive way if I had to go to court. Just like the solicitor is asking police all these questions re-affirming how trained they are to do their jobs. I would re-affirm that he was taught by the best military in the world to make the right decisions in dire times and that he made his call based on that training. I would also argue that a normal civilian might not be able to make those decisions because of the fact that they were not trained.

Tennessee Gentleman
May 27, 2009, 10:13 AM
If the prosecutor declines to prosecute, the grand jury fails to indict or the jury finds the guy innocent; the family of the deceased perp cannot sue in civil court.

Same law here in TN. However, lawyer types have told me that the deceased BG's family can still try to make the claim of "Use of Excessive Force". I might be mangeling the legal terms here but maybe some legal types on here can answer that? My point is that even with those statutes we aren't 100% safe from civil suit.

I'm reading Joker One by Campell about Marines in Iraq and they are training in Kuwait before entering Iraq and the author (a Lt.) is discussing a class they got on when to shoot, what's a threat and when to stop. The modern military seems concerned with stopping the threat only?

Glenn this is totally anecdotal but a young brand new Army Second Lieutenant (that we have known since she was three) came thru visiting on her way to Ft. Lee. She had just finished her Basic Officer Leadership Course (BOLC II) at Ft Benning GA and she said they had been taught to double tap then pause and she also said they were told that if they shot an individual with burst automatic fire they would get an Article 15 (Nonjudical Punishment).

I cannot vouch for the accuracy of this (other than I think she is an honest person) but rather pass it along in support of your statement as I think you may be right about just stopping the threat. This is new stuff I was never taught when I served but I don't think she made it up either.

Glenn E. Meyer
May 27, 2009, 10:31 AM
Kyo, I'm still not sure that arguing you act in a way trained by the military - whose mission is to destroy the enemy as compared to acting to protect yourself is a good plan.

There are two military arguments:

1. Diminished capacity - killer automaton produced by the military. Interestingly, this was an old plot on a lawyer show in the distant past called the Defenders. William Shatner played a highly trained but out of the service soldier. He is accosted by a bully and despite being meek and mild, the bully grabs his shirt and Kirk goes gung-fu on him and kills him. The defense claims automatic response. At trial, the dead guy's brother accosts him across the rail and guess what - bro gets a buttwhooping in automatic mode.

Diminished capacity - complex issue but did he know right from wrong and would he be punished and/or was the action a product of mental illness (training?). Do you want to go there and even get a mental defense - that would probably take away your guns rights on any NICS check.

2. Training said act this way - so he did consciously? Then he should know that a military response is NOT appropriate - we shoot to stop - not to kill or get rid of 'scum'. Seen the military response be inappropriate in a FOF. Police were looking for a terrorist in a school. One officer was already charged up and annoyed that he had been 'killed' before. Ego involved. Thus, at perceived movement - he left off a full auto stream (not real bullets) down a corridor at movement (which was not even there as the BGs were elsewhere). The training sarge - whistles went off and the shooter was chasitzed - this isnt' Viet Nam anymore. It's a civilian locale - what the blah, blah are you doing firing full auto down a school corridor.

Get my drift - Training in a killer mode isn't the way to go. He needs to articulate the threat and the need to stop it.

skydiver3346
May 27, 2009, 11:05 AM
No doubt he saved all the employee's lives that evening. The bad guys came in to rob and shoot the victims (and did exactly that before this pharmacist even returned fire, in defense of his life). What's the problem?

Racism? Who cares what color you are when you are shooting someone in the act of a robbery? There seems to always be someone out there trying to play the race card when crimes like this are being committed on innocent people. It's called self defense, period! This pharmacist was crippled and just had back surgery, yet was still at WORK, (something these low lifes who robbed the place, know nothing about it seems). They just wanted something for free and taking it was easier than working I guess. Problem is, they got more than they bargained for instead.

As far as folks commenting on why he shot the "Kid" (again) when he started to get up? Who knows if the robber still had his gun or would not shoot the pharmacist again? When you shoot someone in the head and they get up again, it really must have scared the pharmacist. No wonder he shot him again. He was obviously in fear of his life.

It's easy for us to comment on what "we would have done" but we were not there and experienced what he went through. I think I will believe his side of the story from reading the details so far.

Glenn E. Meyer
May 27, 2009, 11:17 AM
While discussing race is risky - I'm going to throw out some informative info which would be useful if race was a variable in court.

1. After Diallo, there were a lot of studies on tendency to shoot based as the 'target's' race varied. Also how we judge the aggressive appearance of folks as race varied.

2. Studies show (on the average, etc.) that normal subjects were prone to misidentify objects for gun in the hands of blacks as compared to whites. They were also prone to shoot at blacks with weapons faster than whites.
Various theoretical reasons for this.

3. However, police training (which you probably don't have) reduced this effect. The authors of these works have presented this at police conferences as they are interested in not shooting innocents and liability issues.

4. In faces, technically matched for emotional stimuli, whites thought black faces angrier than white faces.

So, in the abstract, a knowledgable practitioner and legal team should know there is a literature regard tendency to shoot and misinterpret based on race. Is it applicable here - who knows? Did the shooter ever say anything about race - you can bet they might be looking if he is billed.

Note - again - this is informative to your tactical and legal info base and not to excite social-political views of race, blah, blah.

Yes, there are references - google scholar on race and shooting - Payne, Correll, etcl

fixxervi6
May 27, 2009, 11:52 AM
I think the fact the boy is 16 is pointless

he was old enough to illegally aquire a fire arm, old enough to make the decision to go rob a store, old enough to know that guns can be used to take lives, attempted to take a life, I don't care how old you are, if you can do these things you are a threat, your age doesn't change anything.

I also assume he did not run in with a big sign on his chest that said I'm only 16

If someone shot at me and they were getting back up, your stupid if you don't put them down for good, they have already proven they are an extreme threat intent on doing you harm or death, slowing them down doesn't stop the threat. You people should know this, this is the kind of person that came in armed and shot at people, this isn't a person that is going to see reason.

To those crying he didn't need kill him, asking why he didn't try to stop him without killing him etc, god help you if you ever end up in that situation because you'll probably get killed, its not like the pharmasist presented a weapon and the kid stopped then he filled him with lead, go back and READ IT.

Good on this pharamsist, need more men like him out there, its just a shame a boy was killed. Its not the pharmasists fault the boy was killed, the boy made decisions that put him in this situation and he paid the ultamite price, its the boys fault and its a shame this man is going to have to live with these problems now because this boy forced this man to defend himself.

If people can't see that for what it is, God help us all as americans freedoms and rights to defend ourselves is doomed, you people make me sad :-(

Wildalaska
May 27, 2009, 12:12 PM
If people can't see that for what it is, God help us all as americans freedoms and rights to defend ourselves is doomed, you people make me sad :-(

You mean it is somehow unamerican for folks to object to a possible street execution scenario.:rolleyes:

WildtheselfdefensewoobiestrikesagainAlaska ™

Glenn E. Meyer
May 27, 2009, 12:13 PM
Spelling and grammar count if you are going to lecture us about being Americans.

Again, the question is not the need to kill him but the need to stop him. In stopping him, killing can be a consequence but not the necessary goal.

We've discussed Blood Lust before - it doesn't make the gun world look good and can come back to haunt YOU!

I went to a dinner and heard a FOG proclaimed to twenty people how if someone got into his house, he was going to KILL him. Now if he proclaims that widely and gets into an ambiguous shoot - some is going to drop the dime (Law and Order viewer) on him.

Last, we really don't know the circumstances of the movement that got the kid filled with lead yet. We will see.

KLRANGL
May 27, 2009, 12:31 PM
This is a very interesting topic, with some thoughtful comments. I have a question though.

On the assumption that the "unloading the mag" shot was a bad shoot, would he have the moral and legal justification for not being charged with murder? Would he have the "reasonable person" defense, saying that a reasonable person would still be in fear for their life due to the high stress and fast paced action of the event, even if the BG had every intention to surrender (body language and intent)?

I do agree that street justice is wrong, but I have trouble condemning a man for murder because he was scared out of his mind and shot maybe too quickly before thinking.

Hope that all came out right and made sense...

Brian Pfleuger
May 27, 2009, 12:39 PM
Would he have the "reasonable person" defense, saying that a reasonable person would still be in fear for their life due to the high stress and fast paced action of the event, even if the BG had every intention to surrender (body language and intent)?

I do agree that street justice is wrong, but I have trouble condemning a man for murder because he was scared out of his mind and shot maybe too quickly before thinking.

I wonder the same thing. Unfortunately, the "reasonable man" defense is usually being considered by a bunch of reasonable people sitting in the near absolute safety of a court room with no legitimate way to understand how it would actually feel to be in that situation. Sitting under the glare of fluorescent lights in a court room, no "reasonable man" would do such a thing.

fixxervi6
May 27, 2009, 12:40 PM
...Spelling and grammar count if you are going to lecture us about being Americans....

So says you, if my post offended you therefore you feel like bringing up my spelling, then good, its typical for those that get touched off a bit to attack someones spelling or grammar.

My point is this, the guy was CLEARLY a threat, its not like the 16 year old stopped, put his hands up, then the guy unloaded on him.

Brian Pfleuger
May 27, 2009, 12:41 PM
Spelling and grammar count if you are going to lecture us about being Americans....

So says you,

Take note that the "you" who said it is a Moderator and take note that proper spelling, grammar and punctuation are written REQUIREMENTS of TFL member postings.

KLRANGL
May 27, 2009, 12:43 PM
My point is this, the guy was CLEARLY a threat, its not like the 16 year old stopped, put his hands up, then the guy unloaded on him.
That's what we call an assumption. There is no way of saying that with certainty unless you have read the police reports, or were actually there.
And you know what happens when you assume :p

Don't get so worked up. The people who are "unamerican" here are actually just trying to get you to think (which is a good thing). Doesn't mean they think the shot is bad, just that there is some room for speculation.

Sitting under the glare of fluorescent lights in a court room, no "reasonable man" would do such a thing.
Very good point sir... Can expert witnesses help the reasonable man case then?


I went to a dinner and heard a FOG proclaimed...
Sorry for the ignorance, but FOG?

fixxervi6
May 27, 2009, 12:45 PM
Snip - ranting about moderation

fixxervi6
May 27, 2009, 12:56 PM
Yes, part of my rant was based on assumption, as without being there or having a video I don’t know all of the facts.

I’m sensitive to people taking up for the bad guy while the good guy gets walked on. The article stated that protests were occurring outside the store and he was accused of being a racist, that makes my blood boil, but does not surprise me.

To me taking up for the 16 year old for any reason, race, age, and motive is just an attack on a citizen that defended his life, and the lives of others.

I also want to point out that while some people think he may have went too far (also based on assumptions), let us not forget about adrenaline and what fear can do to us, the guy was just shot at.

KLRANGL
May 27, 2009, 01:00 PM
The article stated that protests were occurring outside the store and he was accused of being a racist, that makes my blood boil, but does not surprise me.
Yes, it would make most people upset (including myself). Try not to let it influence your posts here though. Rants never come out the same as you mean them to.

I also want to point out that while some people think he may have went too far (also based on assumptions), let us not forget about adrenaline and what fear can do to us, the guy was just shot at.
I definitely agree with this, and is the reason behind my question a few posts back.

wun_8_seven
May 27, 2009, 01:00 PM
An Oklahoma City pharmacist was charged today with first-degree murder in the May 19 shooting death of a would-be robber.

Chickasha resident Jerome Ersland, 57, on Tuesday said he was concerned about the scrutiny he has faced since the shooting.

The charge alleges Ersland shot Antwun Parker, 16, while he was incapacitated and lying on his back. Ersland’s account of the incident doesn’t match the video or the evidence collected at the scene, according to the affidavit written by Oklahoma City Police Detective David Jacobson.

Parker was shot once in the head and five times in the stomach area. The autopsy found Parker was still alive after the head shot and died from the stomach wounds.

Oklahoma County District Attorney David Prater is scheduled to discuss the case at an afternoon press conference.

Ersland has maintained he acted in self defense when he shot Parker to foil the robbery attempt.

He said two men in ski masks threatened him and two other employees when they burst into Reliable Discount Pharmacy, near SW 59 and Pennsylvania, demanding cash and drugs.

Ersland, a disabled Army veteran, could not flee like the two women working with him, so he reached for the semiautomatic pistol in his pocket, he said when he recounted the incident for The Oklahoman last week.

Ersland shot one of the robbers in the head then grabbed a second gun to pursue the other robber

The injured teen was trying to get up, Ersland said, so he emptied his gun into the would-be robber’s chest.

The other robber and getaway driver drove away before Ersland could reach them, he said.

Police have not identified anyone else involved in the robbery attempt, but the investigation is ongoing.

KingEdward
May 27, 2009, 01:07 PM
then he will be judged by 12.

interesting case.

Brian Pfleuger
May 27, 2009, 01:08 PM
I wonder if they could get a medical doctor to testify that the head shot would have been fatal eventually. If that shot was justified and would have been fatal then the rest are cursory.

glock06
May 27, 2009, 01:12 PM
Is all the rhetoric, cautioning, and concern above just about whether gunnie blood lust was truly present??

No one would defend someone coldly killing someone else just because the opportunity was present. Is there any way to abolutely know? A liberal news media will never color any civilian shooting in a positive fashion. Knowing this, we need to be supportive until facts to the opposite arise. No shoot will ever be tactically perfect.

Or is this all just about being PC? Do we critisize every shoot about a shooters possible evil intentions and make a case for the anti's?? If we are going to be really PC then we don't need to be armed at all!! We need to be focused on public polls and compromise with those that want to disarm us to make the public think they live in a safer world, right??

The public's perception is "their" reality. Race can get you considered for arrest for a self defense shoot,, the robbers age can get you considered for a shoot, etc.

Presently, we still have the right to use lethal force to save our lives--I care much less about making a bulletproof case for any murderer/potential murders rights to continue to exist. You have to give deference to the good guy to preserve his life vs the criminal to take it.

wun_8_seven
May 27, 2009, 01:14 PM
the DA is saying his story doesn't match the video from the stores cameras. DA says video shows him shoot the guy once,chase the other bad guy come back get second gun out of drawer and fire five shots to the bg while he lay on the floor

also no gun was found on or near this bg although the one who got a way was armed

JWT
May 27, 2009, 01:16 PM
Another thread just opened that indicates the pharmacist is going to be charged with murder.

JWT
May 27, 2009, 01:17 PM
The entire event has had considerable discussion on an earlier thread.

Glenn E. Meyer
May 27, 2009, 01:21 PM
I'm going to merge these!

FM12
May 27, 2009, 01:22 PM
You must cease shooting when the threat is down and no longer a threat.

Glenn E. Meyer
May 27, 2009, 01:37 PM
The issue is not being PC - it's about being knowledgeable about using lethal force and the risks you face after you think you righteously did it.

If the physical evidence screws him in the sense that he returned to fire at an individual who was not a risk - then you can discuss it being PC not to clear the streets of scum, etc. - but you are wrong.

And if we present gun owners as such, then pragmatically you lose support for gun rights.

markj
May 27, 2009, 02:24 PM
Everyone that carries needs to be aware of the events that are unfolding, the permit isnt a ok to kill but to allow us to protect ourselves from harm. When the person that is a threat becomes no longer a threat we must restrain ourselves.

I was waiting to see what if anything else would show up on this event. Cameras everywhere nowadays so be careful.

Double Naught Spy
May 27, 2009, 04:09 PM
Apparently now, according to the video, Antwun Parker was NOT getting up. He was shot whilst down and unconscious, in other words, no longer a threat...which I think most of us can agree is completely illegal.

And it rather kills the whole discussion by responsible gun owners as to whether Parker was just getting up versus going for a gun or how far the gun might have been from him...now that we have more of the facts and can discuss the matter a little more critically.

I will say this, nothing like a good video security system to keep everyone honest.

Mr. Ersland is a genuine hero:
And apparently a genuine murderer.

I seem to recall an incident inside or near Salt Lake City years ago where a drunk naked guy was trying to break into the back door of a man's home and he shot him and the naked guy went down with a fatal wound, unconscious. The only problem was the home owner went over and then shot the guy in the head, killing him. He was charged and convicted of murder. I mention this because I have to wonder of Antwun Parker's head shot was lethal or not.

Everyone that carries needs to be aware of the events that are unfolding, the permit isnt a ok to kill but to allow us to protect ourselves from harm.

Maybe I missed it, but I don't see anyone arguing that a carry permit is a permit to kill. Of course it isn't a permit to kill.

Playboypenguin
May 27, 2009, 04:15 PM
Apparently now, according to the video, Antwun Parker was NOT getting up. He was shot whilst down and unconscious, in other words, no longer a threat...which I think most of us can agree is completely illegal.
If that turns out to be true...and I stress "if"...I am afraid I would be less supportive of the shooter. I would still have to try and decide for myself if he still felt threatened or not if I was on a jury. I would have to take into account the fact that the defendant had already been fired upon and his perceptions might have been slightly altered because of this fact. That type of scenario is quite common in battlefield situations and this would be very similar in my opinion.

fixxervi6
May 27, 2009, 04:15 PM
Can you post a link to the article or source?

If this is indeed the case, not a good mark for the CCW world once the press gets it churning on all 8 cylinders :-(

Going to be hard for him to say he shot him out of fear if he was just laying there out of it.

Tucker 1371
May 27, 2009, 04:18 PM
Apparently now, according to the video

Where is this video?

Glenn E. Meyer
May 27, 2009, 04:27 PM
Small world. In a pharmacy near where I live and that I drove by an hour earlier:

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/Attempted_pharmacy_robbery_turns_deadly.html

This was judged to be righteous.

Here's the video - link on the right. Doesn't look good for him.

http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-pharmacist-faces-murder-charge-in-shooting/article/3372941?custom_click=breaking_news

wun_8_seven
May 27, 2009, 04:31 PM
looks bad

Brian Pfleuger
May 27, 2009, 04:36 PM
He's up a creek.

When he came back inside he walked right past the guy without paying any attention to him, clearly he was no threat. Then he returns and walks right up to him and shoots him 5 times? Bad, bad, bad, bad. He's a goner.

KLRANGL
May 27, 2009, 04:51 PM
Well, you cant see what happens to the BG, so technically we dont know if he started getting up or not... But that does not look good for him. Not one bit...
Maybe he actually listened to the mall ninja "dead men tell no tales" advice. Dead men dont, but cameras sure do.
Very sad for everyone...

bababooey32
May 27, 2009, 04:57 PM
Just saw the video...doesn't look good for the pharmacist. He looked rather cool and calm as he walked to the back of the store and then came back and shot the BG at point blank. Not good at all...

fixxervi6
May 27, 2009, 05:00 PM
Thats what I was thinking, as he walked by him he looked pretty collected. Only thing that leaves any room for doubt is the fact you can't actually see the bad guy laying there.

But to me, sure doesn't look like he went back and shot out of fear.

Guy is hosed.

glock06
May 27, 2009, 05:13 PM
Bloodlust and stupidity--bad combination!!

And after he acted he had to know there was a video to hang him.

Dumb move--
So sad!!

The guy just throws his life away to get some satisfaction by killing a robber in cold blood.

This is bad for all gunnies and folks who carry.

KLRANGL
May 27, 2009, 05:27 PM
The guy just throws his life away to get some satisfaction by killing a robber in cold blood.
Granted, video evidence is somewhat supporting, I feel that without actually being there, that statement is a bit of an assumption.

I must say though, responses have taken quite the 180 from the OP...

David Armstrong
May 27, 2009, 05:32 PM
Very good point sir... Can expert witnesses help the reasonable man case then?
Yes, they can. Mas Ayoob and some of the people he has worked with have done some great work looking at this sort of thing, how the shooting event impacts perception, reaction times involving threats, etc.

Brian Pfleuger
May 27, 2009, 06:29 PM
Yes, they can. Mas Ayoob and some of the people he has worked with have done some great work looking at this sort of thing, how the shooting event impacts perception, reaction times involving threats, etc.

Yeah, but you know how juries are... you get one PITA on there and the whole thing goes to a bad place in a hand basket. Someone who can't quite comprehend the judges instructions or the difference between ANY doubt and REASONABLE doubt for example.

spacemanspiff
May 27, 2009, 06:51 PM
Ersland said he was thrown against a wall, but managed to go for the semiautomatic in his pocket.

"And that’s when I started defending myself,” he said. "The first shot got him in the head, and that slowed him down so I could get my other gun.”

But as one robber hit the floor, Ersland said, a bullet from the other robber whizzed past his ear. The pharmacist said he then got his second gun from a nearby drawer, a Taurus Judge. After he had the big gun, Ersland said, the second robber ran.

But as he started to chase after the second robber he looked back to see the 16-year-old he had shot in the head getting up again. Ersland said he then emptied the Kel-Tec .380 into the boy’s chest."

"I went after the other guy, but he was real fast and I’m crippled,” Ersland said.

The video supports NONE of Erslands above statement.
I can't tell from the video if the robbers are even firing, can anyone else tell?
Did Ersland use two guns or three? First he fires the semiautomatic, then he gets the Taurus Judge and the 2nd robber flees? Then he comes back and shoots the Kel-tec again?

MrCleanOK
May 27, 2009, 06:53 PM
http://newsok.com/multimedia/video/24432753001

Looks like the pharmacist has some serious splaining to do. While all of the facts do not make themselves clear from the video, I am inclined to believe that the shots fired after the perp was on the ground were not necessary to prevent further bodily harm. But, that's just my hunch. Will be interesting to see what a judge and jury have to say about it.

Playboypenguin
May 27, 2009, 07:03 PM
After viewing the video tape; IMHO, this man is going to jail for a very long time...and deservedly so.

He went beyond dutiful citizen defending himself and others and crossed over to cold blooded killer with his actions after re-entering the business. :barf:

wickedrider
May 27, 2009, 07:10 PM
When he came back in the store did he change mags? I never saw "The Judge".

OldMarksman
May 27, 2009, 07:18 PM
It is amazing to me how many people who were not present and who have not been presented with either evidence or testimony believe it appropriate to judge...

Playboypenguin
May 27, 2009, 07:21 PM
It is amazing to me how many people who were not present and who have not been presented with either evidence or testimony believe it appropriate to judge...
You don't consider video tape of the event as evidence? :confused:

Brian Pfleuger
May 27, 2009, 07:22 PM
It is amazing to me how many people who were not present and who have not been presented with either evidence or testimony believe it appropriate to judge...


"not been presented with evidence"? Did you watch the video? That's pretty damning.

Besides, this isn't a court room. It's entirely appropriate for us to pass judgement. "Innocent until proven guilty" is for judges and juries, not internet forums.

OldMarksman
May 27, 2009, 08:01 PM
The video tape does not show everything that happened.

Yes, it looks very damning for the shooter, but there have been some rather convincing videos that proved to be very misleading indeed.

Don't get me wrong--I am not assuming that the shooter was justified; nor do I say that a person on the floor is still a "threat" as long as he is alive.

Good idea to hear the testimony and let both sides describe their views of the video tape and provide some sworn testimony.

Wildalaska
May 27, 2009, 08:13 PM
The affidavit of probable cause:
http://s3.amazonaws.com/content.newsok.com/documents/pharmdoc0001.pdf

I will refrain from any other comment

WildsomuchfrothisthreadAlaska ™

fatboy02
May 27, 2009, 08:16 PM
After seeing the video I would have to say leagally it looks like he is screwed.

I still personally think that the perps should loose all right when they commit a crime but we all know that is not the case.

From what is on the video he went way to far. Does anyone know if there has been anything else out there on this? has he been arrested ?

Brian Pfleuger
May 27, 2009, 08:19 PM
So does anybody know if it might be possible to show that the head wound would have been fatal and the other shots were non-consequential? Perhaps the charge would be reduced.... not saying I think it should but what his lawyer might be thinking.

wickedrider
May 27, 2009, 08:35 PM
After hearing about the murder charge, I initially thought that the charge would be reduced to manslaughter, heat of passion. But after the video, that might be problematic. He looked at the BG before he chased the other guy, looked at him again as he walked to the corner. Did something, I think, though I cannot see, he reloaded. Walked back over to the BG and shot the BG again.

DonR101395
May 27, 2009, 08:45 PM
Based on the initial report I supported the guy; after viewing the tape I think he's he's screwed. I still think the bad guys got what they deserved, but the shooter screwed up.

csmsss
May 27, 2009, 08:59 PM
Obviously, the video paints a different portrait of the events than the initial news article and the pharmacist's statements to the media present. However, we do not see the robber at all once he goes down, and it's possible he did in fact attempt to get up once the pharmacist approached him.

When all's said and done, I believe you will see a plea agreement to something like manslaughter, and an enormous civil judgment against the pharmacist.

surg_res
May 27, 2009, 09:12 PM
That guy didn't look too crippled to me, a bit slower than the 16 year-old but not so crippled--as I would use the term.

Was he worried about paying the kid's medical bills or what? Honestly, I'd have to say that I'd be scared s---less if someone just shot me, but at least I'd look nervous on my own video surveillance and not like I was casually reloading for the gun range.

Of course we can't see the dead guy. On trauma call, I've discharged people who have been shot or stabbed directly home from the ER. You'd be surprised by how much damage the body will take before it prevents someone from pulling a trigger on you (even with GSWs to the head). As mentioned earlier in the thread, the skull is a tough shell and it can take a not-so-perfect shot and protect the brain quite well, leaving a person capable of finishing their mission.

I have to say that we all live in a really horrible world when a professional veteran who is just trying to make a living goes to prison for life for just doing his job, protecting himself, and being robbed and shot by two violent and dangerous criminals. I would testify that adrenaline alone could account for his poor judgement in finishing-off the suspect, if the threat were in fact neutralized. I don't think he was right, but I'd hate to see him become the loser for a situation he didn't create.

Dallas Jack
May 27, 2009, 09:14 PM
Whether the shooting was justified or not he did one thing that will make it difficult for his lawyer to present a proper defense.

He talked. He talked to the cops. He talked to the press. Looks like he talked to anyone that would listen.

Do not remember where I got this.

"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik"]

Dallas Jack

BTW: This post is not ment to condone or condem just state a simple but fatal error.

Wildalaska
May 27, 2009, 10:12 PM
I still think the bad guys got what they deserved, but the shooter screwed up.

No, the one bad guy didnt. If all is at it appears, he was executed.

I have to say that we all live in a really horrible world when a professional veteran who is just trying to make a living goes to prison for life for just doing his job, protecting himself, and being robbed and shot by two violent and dangerous criminals. I would testify that adrenaline alone could account for his poor judgement in finishing-off the suspect, if the threat were in fact neutralized. I don't think he was right, but I'd hate to see him become the loser for a situation he didn't create.

If all is at it appears, the pharmacist is a murdering scumbag who is as violent and dangerous a criminal as the guys he shot.

If all is as it appears and he gets off, we all live in really horrible world.

Every person is responsible for his or her own actions.

And with that you guys can continue.

Wildkeepinmindcap'ncharliesadmonitionAlaska TM

DonR101395
May 27, 2009, 10:42 PM
No, the one bad guy didnt. If all is at it appears, he was executed.

Just stating my opinion, which is, he got what he deserved. He initiated the interaction and messed with the wrong guy. He decided his fate when he started pointing guns at people. The pharmacist didn't start the hunting trip, but did indeed end it. I have no sympathy for the criminal.
IMO, the two mistakes the pharmacist made were having video and talking to the police and media.
Please continue with your responsible gun owner rhetoric etc. It will change nothing about how I feel about criminals dieing at their chosen profession.

OuTcAsT
May 27, 2009, 10:51 PM
the three mistakes the pharmacist made were committing murder,having video, and talking to the police and media.



This looks about right.

fixxervi6
May 27, 2009, 10:54 PM
Most likely an older person talked the 16 year old into a situation that got him killed, I call that sad.

instead of the older person (ok assuming the one with the gun was older)getting killed the younger one paid the bigger price

Situations like this no one wins, 16 year old got his life cut short and a guy that started out defending himself turned into a murderer.

In my opinion a better turn out would have been the perp with the gun got a solid one between the eyes, the 16 year old gave up and in the long run turned his life around.

dead is dead tho, no changing what happened now.

buck9
May 27, 2009, 11:14 PM
Seeing the video helps me about knowing when enough is enough. A head shot and the bg is down and I can walk around and do other things? Sure I would watch him and make sure he didn't do anything bad but I can not see myself just pumping him full of lead? I will give you this It wasn't me I wasn't there in the heat of the moment but I still think I would have just watched him? May God bless me that I never have to take a life but if I have to my he bless me with the skill to do it?

supergas452M
May 27, 2009, 11:26 PM
You shoot to stop the threat. When the threat is stopped so is the shooting.

No where in this video did the kid who was pulling a mask over his head, show a gun. The initial shooting of him was justified, he was obviously part of an armed robbery. The execution after the pharmacist reentered the store is gonna put him (the pharmacist) away for a long time. If you participate in an armed robbery and you die as a result, I will shed no tears for you, period. This pharmacist went too far and will pay dearly as a result. My biggest regret about this situation is the other BG is still alive. I am sure he will be brought in, serve a few years and be let back out into society to prey again. If he pulls this again, hopefully he will pay the ultimate price of an intended victims' well placed shot.

Lesson learned by all of us I hope.

Kyo
May 27, 2009, 11:29 PM
he'll walk. that wasn't an execution, that was making sure the threat was gone. and we can't tell if the kid was getting up or not

JustDreadful
May 27, 2009, 11:53 PM
I still think the bad guys got what they deserved, but the shooter screwed up.


No, the one bad guy didnt. If all is at it appears, he was executed.


Which is what he deserved.

If all is at it appears, the pharmacist is a murdering scumbag who is as violent and dangerous a criminal as the guys he shot.

This may also be true.

Sometimes, there are no good guys.

buck9
May 28, 2009, 12:13 AM
My brother I hope not ? If we are allowed to do what I saw in the video take your time go change weapons come back and fire five more shots into the b/g and the jury will let you go? Is that what we want? Kill the B/G and no questions asked? IMHO when the threat is over STOP?

Kyo
May 28, 2009, 12:27 AM
is that what we want? i don't know. you tell me. is that what you want?
Lets really look at it. How do we know next time that dead kid wouldn't have that gun and blast someone away? How many potential lives don't have to be taken cause the guy died? Do we really know?
Not to get religious here, but this goes way back in the day where if you try to kill me I get to kill you back. Its like a karma thing. Some robbers walk in with a gun, your WIFE is there, other people are there, and they could have killed you, your wife and others. You aren't gonna be mad enough to kill a guy? It might not be politically correct but I feel the kid got what he deserved.
You want to play gangster you are gonna die. That is what we teach kids right? I even think he should get a darwin award for putting on a mask during a robbery and getting shot in the head for it cause he just stood there.

in short, yes if you come into my house pointing guns, and saying im gonna die, I will shoot you until you are dead. I won't listen when you say don't shoot, I won't wait for you to drop your gun, and I won't wait for you to say anything, get back up, or even run. You forgo mercy when you come in as a predator. This is the basis of nature and survival. Animals don't show mercy when something tries to threaten them. Why should you? So you can get killed for it?

Wildalaska
May 28, 2009, 12:30 AM
IMO, the two mistakes the pharmacist made were having video and talking to the police and media.

You're kidding, right:barf:

WildandfolkswonderwhythesoccermommieslookaskanceatgunownersAlaska TM

cracked91
May 28, 2009, 12:49 AM
So does anybody know if it might be possible to show that the head wound would have been fatal and the other shots were non-consequential? Perhaps the charge would be reduced.... not saying I think it should but what his lawyer might be thinking.

I forgot what the law is called but there is something out there about who actually made the fatal shootings. I.e. someone gets shot in the head and then before they are dead someone else comes and shoots them in the stomach. They die of the head wound, so the person who shot them in the head is charged with murder, but I still think the person who shoots them in the stomach is charged with attempted murder, as long as they are still alive when they are shot. But since the same person shot both times hes pretty much screwed on that one.

Playboypenguin
May 28, 2009, 02:08 AM
Lets really look at it. How do we know next time that dead kid wouldn't have that gun and blast someone away? How many potential lives don't have to be taken cause the guy died? Do we really know?
Are we really going to go down the road of debasing ourselves to the point where we try to excuse abhorrent behavior with hypothetical scenarios? Are we going to lower ourselves intellectually to a point were we try to condone reprehensible acts by creating fanciful tales of what might have happened? :barf:

glock06
May 28, 2009, 02:57 AM
In retrospect the pharmacist will always be screwed because he apparently shot the robber when he wasn't a threat.

What could have prevented this?? Maybe if he had been carrying more gun his first shot to the head could have been fatal.Past that, his judgement to shoot again convicts him.

I'm sorry he he didn't have more gun or didn't do a better head shot.

All gunowners get a black eye over this incident.

Double Naught Spy
May 28, 2009, 03:51 AM
So does anybody know if it might be possible to show that the head wound would have been fatal and the other shots were non-consequential? Perhaps the charge would be reduced.... not saying I think it should but what his lawyer might be thinking.

Why? Just because the head wound would be fatal at some later time, killing the suspect with the shots to the abdomen and ceasing his life prematurely is still murder. Simply put, the pharmacist apparently had no longer had the right to use lethal force against the downed suspect.

You are just as guilty of murder if you kill a person who is already terminal or one who is healthy.

Here is a great link showing the DA explaining everything including the ME's belief that the head wound was NOT fatal. He notes that Parker would have been unconscious, but alive. This is a very interesting video to watch.
http://www.news9.com/Global/category.asp?C=116601&autoStart=true&topVideoCatNo=default&clipId=3804065

I like how the DA, David Prater speaks of the 2nd Amendment and the reason for pressing charges. Watch all the way through.


When he came back in the store did he change mags? I never saw "The Judge".

The Judge was the first gun used. It was clearly visible in the footage from 36-38 seconds here...
http://newsok.com/multimedia/video/24432753001

This is the first time I have seen, heard, read of a Judge being used in self defense. Too bad it turns out to be in such a bad situation.

fixxervi6
May 28, 2009, 08:06 AM
After seeing the vid I was thinking the judge was the first one used too, however, what would he have loaded in it that would have deflected off the skull at that range? Surely not .45, maybe some kind of short .410 shot round?

skydiver3346
May 28, 2009, 08:23 AM
:confused:
We are all making assumptions based on this video which is now available, (including me). After viewing it several times, the pharmacist does look very cool and collected. He walks past the guy after glancing at him on the floor and goes outside to look for the other robber. Then comes back in, goes to the register or drawer, (does something we can't really see, maybe re-loads a mag?). Then cooly walks over to the robber who was originnally shot in the head and shoots him again.

Important: We can't see the bad guy on the floor. We can't see if he is pointing his weapon at the pharmacist or reaching for it to shoot the pharmacist, etc. All we see is the pharmacist pointing his weapon DOWN at the robber and shooting. The video shows nothing of the robber once he is originally shot. Note: I assume the robber's weapon just doesn't disappear and would have to be very close to him or still in his hand, etc. Maybe the phamacist felt threatend (more than it looks like on the video). Do we know if the bad guy was really trying get up again like the pharmacist said)?

Who knows what actually really happened, but it really does not look good for the pharmacist when it's all said and done, (after viewing the video). The only thing he has going for him is that the video does show the two robbers coming in his store and pointing their weapons directly at him and his female assistant, (putting them in fear of their lives). He responded and it just went south after that. If I was him, I would be worried about the jury and their final decision....

bababooey32
May 28, 2009, 08:48 AM
We can't see if he is pointing his weapon at the pharmacist

Note that no weapon was recovered from the deceased. IMO, this is largely irrelevant, but it is factual. The now-deceased BG participated in an armed robbery, making him a legit target (at least initially).

While the video does not look good, a jury will not be allowed to "assume" anything regarding what is not shown on the video. On this forum we can all agree that it is unlikely that the BG is posing a threat to Ersland, but there is no video proof of that (direct proof - we can deduce some things by Ersland's actions and movements).

What we are left with is Ersland's word about what he saw and the threat he feared from the BG "getting up" (with adrenaline pumping, maybe the "fear" we are expecting him to show from a renewed threat is dulled?).

Now, if we give Ersland the benefit of the doubt and agree that the BG was moving - now that we know there was no gun found on the BG, is Ersland justified in shooting again? Does Ersland have to wait for a gun/weapon to be bradished before firing again? Again, this is hypothetical and assumes Ersland's version of the story is accurate. I believe, again IF the BG was stirring and was attempting to get up, Ersland could be justified in shooting again.

Personnaly I think he's screwed, but only just barely. A crafty defense lawyer may be able to convince a jury that what they are not seeing on the video is a continuation of the brutal armed robbery attempt. The defense will argue that Ersland's reaction to the rising BG was justified because of the prior violent murderous actions of this team of bandits. Fearing for his and his employees' lives, Ersland ended the attack with lethal force.

Just a guess.

I still think he's screwed.

pax
May 28, 2009, 08:52 AM
http://newsok.com/multimedia/video/24432794001

The above is a link to an interview with the DA about the case.

According to the DA, the robber was unconscious, with his hands out to his sides and palms up, after the first shot. Bases that on crime scene photographs (and other forensic evidence?)

Furthermore: "There is no evidence at the scene that shows that the robbery suspects ever fired a round inside the pharmacy."

pax

Brian Pfleuger
May 28, 2009, 08:55 AM
Why? Just because the head wound would be fatal at some later time, killing the suspect with the shots to the abdomen and ceasing his life prematurely is still murder. Simply put, the pharmacist apparently had no longer had the right to use lethal force against the downed suspect.

You are just as guilty of murder if you kill a person who is already terminal or one who is healthy.

I'm just saying that the defense might be able to make such an argument to lessen the charge. There are some strange legal loopholes in some instances. For example, there was a murder case in this area a few years back where a man was stabbed, the wound was actually not lethal but later became infected and the guy died. It was determined that the doctors actually screwed up and the guy should have been fine. Legally though, the doctors were not at fault and the original assailant was charged with murder.
I can see the defense in this case arguing that the initial wound, which was stated by even the DA as justified, was in fact lethal and the subsequent shots, though uncalled for, really had no effect on the end result.
I'm NOT saying I agree with such an argument, I'm just wondering if it's possible that it might be effective.

skydiver3346
May 28, 2009, 09:02 AM
You statement that no weapon was recovered from the deceased is hard to understand isn't it? The video clearly shows the perp coming in the store and pointing his automatic pistol at the pharmacist... Plus he shot at the pharmacist with it and grazed his forearm.

What could have happened to this gun in the minute all this went down? Do you think it just disappeared or something? Just looking for an explanation as to where you think the weapon went in that short time. Thanks

OuTcAsT
May 28, 2009, 09:09 AM
Important: We can't see the bad guy on the floor. We can't see if he is pointing his weapon at the pharmacist or reaching for it to shoot the pharmacist, etc. All we see is the pharmacist pointing his weapon DOWN at the robber and shooting. The video shows nothing of the robber once he is originally shot. Note: I assume the robber's weapon just doesn't disappear and would have to be very close to him or still in his hand, etc. Maybe the phamacist felt threatend (more than it looks like on the video). Do we know if the bad guy was really trying get up again like the pharmacist said)?

If you watch the DA discussing the case in the video provided by Double Naught Spy The DA makes it quite clear that the Guy on the floor was unarmed
no weapon was found at the scene, and no shots were fired by the robbers. It is also apparent (to me at least) that the store owner passed the downed suspect, in very close proximity, twice with little more than a furtive glance. In fact the DA points out something that I had to go back to verify, but the store owner does have the weapon in his off hand at one point when he passes the downed suspect.

The only thing he has going for him is that the video does show the two robbers coming in his store and pointing their weapons directly at him

Unless you saw a different version than I did, only one robber pointed a weapon, he was the guy that ran out the door.

The other thing I find interesting is that the store owner claimed he had been shot at, but there was no evidence that the robbers ever fired. The other thing was the fact that the store had a "buzz-in" type lock on the door. It would appear that the suspect that was shot was the "face man" that got them to open the door, and the other guy was already masked, armed, and waiting out of view. The suspect who was killed spent the better part of the video trying to put on his mask. Makes me wonder why the store owner did not shoot at the obviously armed suspect first rather than the other guy.

I can see the defense in this case arguing that the initial wound, which was stated by even the DA as justified, was in fact lethal and the subsequent shots, though uncalled for, really had no effect on the end result.

That argument is pretty much out the window, The ME stated that the wound to the head was not fatal, and had that been the only shot, the robber would likely have recovered fully. The evidence also points out that the suspect was not moving when the other shots were fired.

While the video does not look good, a jury will not be allowed to "assume" anything regarding what is not shown on the video.

While the court may instruct the jury to use only direct evidence, you can safely bet that "assumptions" are going to be drawn.

While I feel little pity for someone who commits a crime, and is shot in the process by a victim, in this instance I feel the store owners actions were the most reprehensible of the three. I agree with the DA, This is a perfect example of what not to do. Shooting to protect yourself is one thing, an execution is quite another.

TailGator
May 28, 2009, 09:18 AM
Regarding tactics: The pharmacist said he was defending himself and his employees who fled to the back room. The video shows that he left the scene, walked down the sidewalk a ways, then walked back through the pharmacy turning his back on the down assailant for at least several seconds. He then left the room again, came back, and walked right up to the assailant, not taking cover or even looking particularly alarmed, and began shooting again.

Count the tactical errors in that process and learn from them.

Switching to the legal situation: Take all those tactical errors together and consider the motivation of the pharmacist in shooting the downed man another five times in the abdomen. Granted that the video does not show the assailant, but the DA's assertion that the robber was down, unconscious, and unarmed are given credence by the pharmacists rather casual demeanor and inattention to the "threat." The pharmacist deserves a fair trial, but it is easy to see why the DA would bring charges.

I have to say that I don't understand the position of those who say we have a right to execute an unconscious man after a failed robbery attempt. Does armed robbery always carry a death penalty? And even if it did, are we prosecutor, judge, and executioner? We have rights, including the right to defend ourselves, but rights are removed from people who do not respect the law and thus demonstrate disrespect for the rights of others.

Do criminals have rights? Yes, including the right to go to trial and present their side of the story. Even if found guilty, they may not get the death penalty. Would we support the relatives of the dead robber if they shot and killed the pharmacist while he was awaiting trial? After all, he was charged, and the video is rather damning - so do they have the same right to execute criminals without trial that some people posting in this forum claim that we have?

There is a line between self defense and vigilatism. Those who cross it need to know that the law and the rights of others, even those who have committed an offense against the law, will be protected by those sworn to do so. We do not help ourselves or our cause of protecting our rights to self defense by equating ourselves with vigilantes.

TEDDY
May 28, 2009, 09:18 AM
skydiver has a point where did the second weapon go.you all claim he was unarmed.there are many cases where shots to the head were not fatal and the wounded continued to fight.we had a woman shot in back of head here in robbery,who got up and walked out looking for help.hesitation and poor shooting has got many a person killed.frankly I would, have shot and gone to bed and slept like a log.most of you want the perps to try again which they will.look at the many cases where they go in shooting and kill every one.or where the victims give up the goods and are executed.I dont have a bit of sympathy for crooks.they are scum and deserve what happens.if you want to defend them good, go ahead.maybe that attitude is why we are over run with the scum.:rolleyes::eek:

OuTcAsT
May 28, 2009, 09:56 AM
You statement that no weapon was recovered from the deceased is hard to understand isn't it?

No, the statement is unambiguous as no weapon was ever produced or recovered.

The video clearly shows the perp coming in the store and pointing his automatic pistol at the pharmacist... Plus he shot at the pharmacist with it and grazed his forearm.

the video shows that the other suspect did indeed have a weapon and pointed it, there is no evidence that he fired, in fact I would bet the injury sustained was a ricochet, possibly from the fragment of the head shot.
the reason no other weapon was found was because the suspect took the only, single, weapon with him when he ran out.

Count the tactical errors in that process

These are not tactical errors, it is indifference to a suspect that is unconscious, probably presumed dead by the store owner, and not considered a threat.

I have to say that I don't understand the position of those who say we have a right to execute an unconscious man after a failed robbery attempt.

It does boggle the mind that anyone who professes to be a responsible gun owner would have such an opinion. The coulda, shoulda, woulda, argument is pure BS.

bababooey32
May 28, 2009, 10:08 AM
Outcast has it....The OTHER perp had a gun. The deceased never had a gun (can't see on e in video and no gun was recovered at the scene).

The video clearly shows the perp coming in the store and pointing his automatic pistol at the pharmacist

"Automatic pistol"? This is the first I've heard that the perp was carrying an automatic weapon. Perhaps you meant "semi-auto"?

OUTCAST:
The DA makes it quite clear that the Guy on the floor was unarmed

Is this relevant? If (big if) an unarmed wounded participant in an armed robbery makes a move toward you, can you shoot him again? Do I have to wait for him to produce another weapon, or is his participation in the original armed violent crime sufficient cause for me to believe he is a threat?

Again, to be clear, this is a hypothetical tangent. I don't think the BG DID move towards Ersland. Ersland islilkely to go to jail.

OuTcAsT
May 28, 2009, 10:21 AM
Is this relevant? If (big if) an unarmed wounded participant in an armed robbery makes a move toward you, can you shoot him again? Do I have to wait for him to produce another weapon, or is his participation in the original armed violent crime sufficient cause for me to believe he is a threat?

I think this is going to be the likely basis for the defense, the relevance of whether he was armed or not is probably going to be a dynamic that both sides are going to try and exploit IMHO.

Glenn E. Meyer
May 28, 2009, 10:34 AM
Wow - just watched the DA and defense lawyers.

1. As a defense - when do you turn off the adrenaline switch ? That's an admission that he acted incorrectly out of an irresistible impulse from a nonrational perspective.

2. As a defense, the lawyer also seems to go for the clearing of the scum view as overridiing the technical nature of the law.

As far as tactics - the pharmacist - turned his back on a potentially armed opponent (which wasn't the case). He casually strolled around. Thus, he was sure the guy was out of it or he was tactically foolish. You don't do that.

This thread is a great teaching moment.

Glenn

OuTcAsT
May 28, 2009, 10:41 AM
Wow - just watched the DA and defense lawyers.


Got a link for that Glenn ? That would be very interesting.

Glenn E. Meyer
May 28, 2009, 10:43 AM
It's just up the thread stream from PAX.

OuTcAsT
May 28, 2009, 10:52 AM
As a defense, the lawyer also seems to go for the clearing of the scum view as overridiing the technical nature of the law.

Wow, If this is where he's gonna hang his hat it sounds like the defendant needs to start finding more adequate counsel.
Then again, there is not really much else he can claim as a defense for an execution caught on video.

David Armstrong
May 28, 2009, 11:05 AM
Yeah, but you know how juries are... you get one PITA on there and the whole thing goes to a bad place in a hand basket. Someone who can't quite comprehend the judges instructions or the difference between ANY doubt and REASONABLE doubt for example.
True, but that is not really relevant to the availability of expert witness information on the issue. What juries do with the information and how they look at testimony is a totally different idea.

David Armstrong
May 28, 2009, 11:11 AM
I have to say that we all live in a really horrible world when a professional veteran who is just trying to make a living goes to prison for life for just doing his job, protecting himself, and being robbed and shot by two violent and dangerous criminals.
I would agree, and if he would have stopped at that point I think there wouldn't be a problem. But he didn't stop there, he went beyond protecting himself and apparently committed a crime himself, a crime that we as a society have said is worse than the crime he prevented.

Brian Pfleuger
May 28, 2009, 11:11 AM
Just on Fox News:


The pharmacist is out on bond.

The PROSECUTOR argued that he should be able to be armed while he is out on bond for his own safety.:eek::confused: The judge disagreed.


His lawyer says that his defense is the "Make My Day" law. He had a gun in face and he is justified his "eliminating the threat". Direct Quote from defense attorney: "It's the price you pay when you come into a pharmacy with a gun and a ski mask."

David Armstrong
May 28, 2009, 11:18 AM
Lets really look at it. How do we know next time that dead kid wouldn't have that gun and blast someone away? How many potential lives don't have to be taken cause the guy died? Do we really know?
You don't get to base your actions on what might or might not happen in the future. Shucks, how do you know that the dead kid wouldn't have turned his life around, gone to college, developed a cure for cancer and been responsible for saving 200 people in a burning building?
This is the basis of nature and survival. Animals don't show mercy when something tries to threaten them.
That is simply not correct. Virtually all animals do not continue aggressive actions against others in their species when the threat is over and dominance established.

bababooey32
May 28, 2009, 11:19 AM
Perhaps this is a better question in Legal, but I found it curious that the prosecutor filed Murder 1 charges - Premeditated Murder. Certainly the fact that the BG tried to rob the "suspect" in his own store with a weapon would present mitigating circumstances to a Murder 1 charge? Given other statements from the prospecutor, it seems he is a bit sympathetic to Ersland - why go to Murder 1?

Playboypenguin
May 28, 2009, 11:22 AM
His lawyer says that his defense is the "Make My Day" law. He had a gun in face and he is justified his "eliminating the threat". Direct Quote from defense attorney: "It's the price you pay when you come into a pharmacy with a gun and
And that might work...for the first shot. It is not going to even come close to working as far as defending his action after re-entering the building.

PS: It is pretty clear to me on the tape that the perp on the floor made no movements. You can read that in the shooters reactions. He never made any noticeable change in his stance, demeanor, or gate. Plus, he walked right up to the perp. You would not do that if he was posing a threat. That would be completely counter to your natural instinctual reaction to danger.

David Armstrong
May 28, 2009, 11:23 AM
So does anybody know if it might be possible to show that the head wound would have been fatal and the other shots were non-consequential? Perhaps the charge would be reduced.
There is some variation of this in different jurisdictions, but basically the question is causation. What caused the actual death? Doesn't matter if the head wound would have been fatal later on if the follow-up shots were the immediate cause of death.

pax
May 28, 2009, 11:39 AM
Given other statements from the prospecutor, it seems he is a bit sympathetic to Ersland - why go to Murder 1?

Premeditation doesn't have to happen days or weeks in advance of the act. It can happen mere moments in advance -- for instance, if a person were to calmly walk into another room, retrieve and load a firearm, and then walk over to the victim and shoot him.

In this case, I'd say what drove the choice for Murder 1 was the fact that Ersland calmly walked past the downed criminal two different times, walked over to the drawer where the second weapon was stored, retrieved it, and walked back over to fire more shots. The whole series of actions indicates premeditation, not simply reacting in the heat of the moment -- at least, that's the reasoning I'd use if I were the prosecutor. Perhaps, though, he chose to charge the higher offense in hopes of getting a guilty plea to something less, rather than a trial.

pax

pax
May 28, 2009, 11:43 AM
Here's another interesting link from the DA:

http://newsok.com/self-defense-allowed-by-law-oklahoma-county-da-says/article/3373148

Even though he decided to charge a pharmacist with murder for killing a would-be robber, Oklahoma County District Attorney David Prater said he supports people’s right to defend themselves as allowed by state law.

"I do not want the charging of Jerome Ersland with first-degree murder to have a chilling effect on any person legitimately in a position to defend themselves from an assailant,” Prater said Wednesday in a news conference.

He said the decision should not cause anyone to hesitate to use appropriate force if faced by the "imminent threat of serious injury or death from another person.”...

More at the link!

pax

hogdogs
May 28, 2009, 11:55 AM
That fairly high def in store video is some damning evidence! One less criminal punk on the street but it looks like the shooter was way off base and beyond the scope of his rights to self defense...
Brent

bababooey32
May 28, 2009, 11:56 AM
This is all very fascinating and instructive and confusing and frustrating. I'm sorry that one life was lost and another ruined in order to provide this...but life lessons are often best learned through the errors/follies/successes of others.

Double Naught Spy
May 28, 2009, 11:57 AM
Right Pax, the video I posted on the previous page has the DA discussing the case and going on and on about the 2nd Amendment and what is and is not justified in a shooting. He seems to go out of his way to explain the need for prosecution in this case and how this prosecution should in no way affect others in their right to use guns for self defense. He argues the first shot (head shot) was completely justified and had Ersland stopped there, there would be no problem, but that shooting the downed suspect was not self defense shooting and hence his decision to prosecute.

He seems to be quite well spoken.

OuTcAsT
May 28, 2009, 11:58 AM
Even though he decided to charge a pharmacist with murder for killing a would-be robber, Oklahoma County District Attorney David Prater said he supports people’s right to defend themselves as allowed by state law.

"I do not want the charging of Jerome Ersland with first-degree murder to have a chilling effect on any person legitimately in a position to defend themselves from an assailant,” Prater said Wednesday in a news conference.

He said the decision should not cause anyone to hesitate to use appropriate force if faced by the "imminent threat of serious injury or death from another person.”...


Looks like you could not ask for a more reasonable or gun-friendly DA, particularly when he advocated that Ersland should be able to remain armed while out on bail.
The defense is gonna have a hell of a time finding any bias against self defense from the prosecution.

csmsss
May 28, 2009, 12:07 PM
Perhaps, though, he chose to charge the higher offense in hopes of getting a guilty plea to something less, rather than a trial.This is my guess. The circumstances of this case may or may not technically support a Murder 1 charge and possible conviction; however, I would be extremely surprised to see this go to trial and an actual conviction on murder in the first degree result.

I think the prosecutor went for the big charge right away to demonstrate to the defense how seriously they take this crime and to try to get the defense to quickly agree to a plea deal (manslaughter would be my guess).

spacemanspiff
May 28, 2009, 12:09 PM
We've had debates here in the past about the mindset of 'Shoot to stop' vs. 'Shoot to kill'.

The 'Shoot to kill' advocates insist that it is the same thing as 'Shoot to stop', while the 'Shoot to stop' crowd claims the opposite, they 'Shoot until the threat is stopped'.

When we make that decision to carry a gun, we have, if we are responsible mature individuals that is, also decided that we are willing to do violent things to preserve our life or that of others.
Ersland did commit a violent act in defense.
Then he crossed the line.

I wonder if asked before this incident, what Ersland would have said his mindset was? 'Shoot to kill'? 'Shoot to stop'? 'Shoot to slidelock'?

Wildalaska
May 28, 2009, 12:15 PM
His lawyer says that his defense is the "Make My Day" law. He had a gun in face and he is justified his "eliminating the threat". Direct Quote from defense attorney: "It's the price you pay when you come into a pharmacy with a gun

His lawyer should shut up if he can't do better than that.

WildquietisbetterAlaska ™

pax
May 28, 2009, 12:24 PM
DNS ~

Yep. Darn good video! (For those who missed it earlier: http://www.news9.com/Global/category.asp?C=116601&autoStart=true&topVideoCatNo=default&clipId=3804065)

Quote from the DA in response to one of the questions from a reporter: "Evidence at the scene indicates that this young man was not moving [at the time the final shots were fired]." People who say dead men tell no tales are incorrect...

pax

KingEdward
May 28, 2009, 12:24 PM
many things to consider.

it is hard to compare a store scene to a home but reading all this and seeing the charge, I can't help but wonder what some of us would do if this were in the home (intruder hit and down and no longer a threat).

Logic would tell me that I should find or make some cover and be ready to defend against a continued threat until authorities arrived.

Logic would also tell me that if I stand over the fallen and unload the rest of my revolver, there will be grave questions.

Could Mr. pharmicist have moved across the store and taken cover
and been in defensive position in case of continued threat while waiting for authorities?

That might have saved him a lot of time and money.

But I wasn't there. He obviously shot to kill.

hogdogs
May 28, 2009, 12:29 PM
When one considers the illegal act of the coup d gras shot on a downed BG need to realize the slug will likely be in the floor or ricochet back into the body but either way forensic evidence will prove the shot was from close range, from above, on a downed threat.
Brent

wun_8_seven
May 28, 2009, 12:32 PM
WildAlaska, his attorney is very good and well respected'

the DA argued heatedly with the judge at the prelim today. the judge ordered Mr ersland to turn in all his guns, The DA argued the although he was charged he has not been convicted and he should still be afforded the right to defend himself.

Kyo
May 28, 2009, 01:27 PM
"16 year old child" my butt :mad:
Also, when animals defend, and dominance is made the predator leaves, and if he doesn't he gets killed. The animal knows when the other is knocked out, and it will keep going until its dead.

bababooey32
May 28, 2009, 01:36 PM
...it will keep going until its dead

I'd like to think we'eve evolved a bit compared to wild dogs or meerkats. Animals often urinate on their own food too.........You?

hogdogs
May 28, 2009, 01:38 PM
Kyo, Name a wild animal that, in the wild, will face a trial with lawyers stating law in front of a judge and fellow wild animals.... Can't do it can you? Not even with smart animals such as primates or porpoises...
Brent

OuTcAsT
May 28, 2009, 01:57 PM
His lawyer should shut up if he can't do better than that.

That was my take as well WA, would not surprise me to see him play the "inadequate counsel" card at some point if he is convicted.


WildAlaska, his attorney is very good and well respected'

He may be well respected, but he's hanging his hat on one hell of a weak position.

Wildalaska
May 28, 2009, 02:18 PM
Also, when animals defend, and dominance is made the predator leaves, and if he doesn't he gets killed. The animal knows when the other is knocked out, and it will keep going until its dead.

Give the chest thumping a rest, it looks even sillier now than it did when you first started it:rolleyes:

WildAlaska, his attorney is very good and well respected'


No, he needs to tone it down...amy I suggest:

"Ladies and gentlemen, we know the pressure that the DA is under from some members of the community to resolve this tragedy at the expense of my client. My client, a law abiding and respected veteran, did not precipitate these tragic events, rather, he was a victim forced into this situation by the violent and criminal acts of the decedant. We look forward to putting the District Attorney to his proof at trial and shall have no further statement at this time"

WildjustkeeprepeatingthatAlaska ™

hogdogs
May 28, 2009, 02:25 PM
At what point should your lawyer stop answering questions and demand an attorney?:D
Brent

Glenn E. Meyer
May 28, 2009, 02:35 PM
Hey - I'm on TV!

Maybe the defense attorney wants to pollute the jury pool by eliciting Rambos for the jury and then the DA will make a deal. My strategy is based on watching Law and Order.

spacemanspiff
May 28, 2009, 02:36 PM
At what point should your lawyer stop answering questions and demand an attorney?

Heh, reminds me of an old Pinky and the Brain cartoon, Brain went to work at a reinsurance reinsurance company.

"We insure insurance companies who insure insurance companies."
"Hows business?"
"Luu-crative!"

Van55
May 28, 2009, 03:02 PM
Well, I am certainly glad I searched for "pharmacist" before starting a thread on this shooting.

WildAlaska's initial caution to wait for the facts before extolling the pharmacist as a hero has been vindicated, in my opinion. From the security video this looks like a bad shoot, indeed. However, it is not clear from the video (to me) what exactly the bad guy was doing on the floor when the pharmacist emptied the magazine into him.

Double Naught Spy
May 28, 2009, 03:03 PM
WildAlaska, his attorney is very good and well respected'

People put WAAAAY too much confidence into the notion of a person being well respected, as if being respected means that they are above making errors or are sometimes completely out of their element on an issue - be it with lawyers, gun experts, car experts, doctors, archaeologists, or what have you.

Being "well respected" means accolades of the past, but do not vouch for the accuracy of the present, although people often think that it does.

No doubt the argument will be made that Ersland is respected as well...:rolleyes:

bababooey32
May 28, 2009, 03:05 PM
Being "well respected" means accolades of the past

Indeed...the real question will be how "respected" he is AFTER this case is over.

john in jax
May 28, 2009, 03:24 PM
Ersland Charged With Murder In Pharmacy Shooting


Prosecutors said Ersland returned to the store after the chase and fired five more shots into Parker's abdomen. Parker was unconscious with gunshot wounds to his head, prosecutors said.


Link to whole article.
http://www.koco.com/news/19580767/detail.html

skydiver3346
May 28, 2009, 03:27 PM
I sure don't have all the answers and nobody does at this particular time. All of you make good points and as it progresses. Like the rest of you, I am starting to think that the pharmacist may have over re-acted. But again, I wasn't there and you can't really see what the bad guy on the floor is doing.

However, Playboypenguin did bring up a valid point: He brings up the point, that the pharmacist did walk right up to the guy on the floor like he wasn't really scared (or there wasn't a real threat). Either that, or he is brave as hell if the bad guy was actually trying to get up, etc.

Note: They (robbbers) were standing next to each other at the time of the shooting. My question is, "why would the pharmacist shoot the bad guy "who didn't have a gun" if that was the case?
I would have shot the guy holding the semi auto pointing at me and my assistant if he was the only one pointing a gun at me, wouldn't you?

If you look at the perp on that video, (who supposedly did not have a weapon) you can see him pulling something out of his pants (under his shirt) and then pointing whatever it was at the pharmacist. What was that?

hogdogs
May 28, 2009, 03:38 PM
Skydiver, My take on why the guy brandishing wasn't first shot was it appeared on video that the guy shot the first crook he could see with the center row of shelf possibly covering his view of the one with a gun.
Brent

Brian Pfleuger
May 28, 2009, 03:41 PM
Note: They (robbbers) were standing next to each other at the time of the shooting. My question is, "why would the pharmacist shoot the bad guy "who didn't have a gun" if that was the case?
I would have shot the guy holding the semi auto pointing at me and my assistant if he was the only one pointing a gun at me, wouldn't you?

They were very close together. I'd guess there's a very good chance that he simply missed his intended target.

wun_8_seven
May 28, 2009, 04:03 PM
People put WAAAAY too much confidence into the notion of a person being well respected, as if being respected means that they are above making errors or are sometimes completely out of their element on an issue - be it with lawyers, gun experts, car experts, doctors, archaeologists, or what have you.

Being "well respected" means accolades of the past, but do not vouch for the accuracy of the present, although people often think that it does.

No doubt the argument will be made that Ersland is respected as well...

His Attorney has tried many high profile cases and i'm sure will offer as good a defense as any attorney could with the evidence at hand.

so bash him if you must, but he does know what he is doing and he also knows much more about this case than anyone here does. if i were to need legal advice i would much sooner seek it from Irvin Box than any of the internet experts involved in this thread.

skydiver3346
May 28, 2009, 04:07 PM
According to the latest reports, the District Attorney who is handling this case states, "The guy who was first shot was on the floor and unconscious when the pharmacist walked up and shot him again"? I don't understand that and how would he or she know that if they wern't even there? Also, it does not show that the robber was unconscious on the video (after he went down)? Just a question is all.

wun_8_seven
May 28, 2009, 04:18 PM
they have come to the conclusion he was unconscious from something in the medical examiners report,what that was i have no idea

hogdogs
May 28, 2009, 04:26 PM
they have come to the conclusion he was unconscious from something in the medical examiners report,what that was i have no idea
May have it been the location of a bullet in a certain location of the brain that does not lend to the possibility of regaining coherent consciousness? :eek::rolleyes::D
Brent

wun_8_seven
May 28, 2009, 04:38 PM
http://newsok.com/teen-arrested-in-pharmacy-robbery/article/3373212?custom_click=headlines_widget

just reported they arrested the other two bad guys

cracked91
May 28, 2009, 04:51 PM
The animal knows when the other is knocked out, and it will keep going until its dead.

Thats very wrong. Animals generally fight for only two reasons. When they are hunting it is to get food and there intent is to kill. But when they fight, its usually over a mate, and they fight until submission, but humans and animals are very very different creatures. We are called "an intelligent species"

hogdogs
May 28, 2009, 04:56 PM
I hope they charge the 2 others with the death of their thug cohort...
Brent

DonR101395
May 28, 2009, 05:10 PM
You're kidding, right

WildandfolkswonderwhythesoccermommieslookaskanceatgunownersAlaska TM


Much to your disapproval, no I'm not.


DonRiknowlongergivearatsbehindwhatsoccermomsthinkorhowtheylookatgunowners101395

wickedrider
May 28, 2009, 05:55 PM
Here a couple of interesting points for you to consider:
1) The evidence is that when the police came, the BG was laying on his back, arms out, palms up (I'm sure that there are those of you who will ask "How do we know that he was in that position when the pharmacist shot him?) My answer is We don't. But the defense has to prove that point. (I am ignoring the fact the the pharmacist walked by the BG twice and never gave him a second thought until after he loaded the .308.)

2) The prosecutor said that the forensic examiner states that the first shot was not fatal and believed that the BG would have recovered fully. (The defense may need to get an expert to say otherwise)

3) The prosecutor in the video was giving his closing statement publicly, i.e. defining murder and telling why this was murder. He's already playing to his audience(jury). And the defense attorney is doing the same when he says that he is relying on the "Make My Day" law.

4) The case is going to be decided by the 12 who are going to have to decide it based upon the arguments that the posters on this board raise.
Did the BG surrender his right to life when he committed the robbery(Make My Day) or Did the pharmacist use excessive force while subduing the
BG?

I think that this is going to be a case of jury nullification.

Stevie-Ray
May 28, 2009, 05:57 PM
I have to say that we all live in a really horrible world when a professional veteran who is just trying to make a living goes to prison for life for just doing his job, protecting himself, and being robbed and shot by two violent and dangerous criminals. I would testify that adrenaline alone could account for his poor judgement in finishing-off the suspect, if the threat were in fact neutralized. I don't think he was right, but I'd hate to see him become the loser for a situation he didn't create.Well said and even better because it's coming from a doctor. Personally I think Pax is right and this will probably be pled down to a lesser charge. And as was said, this DA, Kevin Costner I believe;), sounds like a pretty good joe. His going to bat for the pharmacist on his gun rights was a nice touch. Doesn't look good, but I firmly believe it's going to be less than murder one. I'll be really surprised if not.

Double Naught Spy
May 28, 2009, 06:20 PM
His Attorney has tried many high profile cases and i'm sure will offer as good a defense as any attorney could with the evidence at hand.

so bash him if you must, but he does know what he is doing and he also knows much more about this case than anyone here does. if i were to need legal advice i would much sooner seek it from Irvin Box than any of the internet experts involved in this thread.

I am not bashing the attorney. In fact, I made absolutely not comment about him what-so-ever. I commented on the naivete of the statement saying that he was well respected that seems to be defending his rather, shall we say, -"unique" presentation of information. Notice, that isn't a bash of him either, but simply a statement being critical of how he presented the defense version of things.

Only on extremely rare occasions have I seen a defense attorney before a trial claim guilt and only a few times when the attorney has claimed extenuating circumstances for an illegal act. So of course he will claim his client isn't guilty. That doesn't make it right. As I recall, he doesn't always get them right either.

Playboypenguin
May 28, 2009, 06:51 PM
I have to say that we all live in a really horrible world when a professional veteran who is just trying to make a living goes to prison for life for just doing his job, protecting himself, and being robbed and shot by two violent and dangerous criminals. I would testify that adrenaline alone could account for his poor judgement in finishing-off the suspect, if the threat were in fact neutralized
Just from viewing the tape I would have to completely disagree with everything you just said. The defendants actions in no way lead me to believe he was acting under any severe adrenaline rush. If I was called to testify as a psychologist (which I used to actually be before I became a professional bum) I would have to testify that his actions seemed premeditated and calculated.

pax
May 28, 2009, 07:41 PM
Incidentally, the DA has made it to my good-guys list with something that happened during the bail hearing. From http://newsok.com/pharmacist-in-fatal-oklahoma-city-shooting-released-on-100000-bail/article/3373194 :

District Judge Tammy Bass-LeSure set the bail amount after viewing a store videotape of the shooting of Antwun Parker, 16.

The hearing today turned contentious when District Attorney David Prater asked the judge not to bar Ersland from access to a gun while at the store. He argued Ersland still has a right to defend himself and pharmacy employees if the store is robbed again.

He said the restriction either meant Ersland would be fired from his job or crooks now know it is "open season" at the pharmacy if Ersland is there. The district attorney said his position sounds crazy but under the law Ersland has the right to protect himself. At one point, spectators clapped.

The pharmacy has been robbed before, police records show.

The judge refused to change her decision, saying Ersland can get another job. "If somebody wants to be around him, they are not going to have access to a gun," the judge said.

"That's wrong," the district attorney replied.

More at the link...

pax

Sigma 40 Blaster
May 28, 2009, 07:42 PM
I'm no legal expert or highly esteemed TFL member but a couple of points here:

1. This guy is innocent until proven guilty. His defense attorney only has to poke holes in the case presented by the DA.

2. The DA did not come across as wanting to make an example of this guy. That office clearly analyzed medical and visual evidence to press charges, along with the lies published in newspapers that were attributed to the defendant in this arrest. I'm wondering if there is any more evidence outside of the video and medical exams that are being taken into consideration as well.

3. An arrest and charges being filed do not equate guilt, just the appearance of guilt.

I've withheld commenting on this case for the duration of this thread because when I initially read it we didn't have any video evidence or anything but newspaper reports. We all know how accurate those are.

The video evidence in this case is damning to both sides, you cannot see the would be thief in the video so no one can be 100% certain of his actions at the time, but the demeanor of the clerk did not exactly show fear, apprehension, or any indication that I would expect someone who felt threatened. Especially the parts where he turns his back with a brief sideways glance...that's all my opinion only.

I have never been in that situation before so I can't pass judgment, I can say that I can understand how in the heat of an incident such as that all logic and reason could go out the window. I can see maybe what some are seeing as calculated actions could be the result of shock or stress...I don't know the difference between the physiological effects of either well enough to say 100%.

But as a Monday morning quarterback I can say that unless the deceased was attempting to flee or attack I think the final volley of shots was illegal, immoral, and deserves some form of punishment. Murder 1? Probably not, the deceased cannot be 100% pardoned for putting himself in that position. In all reality I think this will result in a plea deal or hung jury, all the factors we are arguing about will be in full force in any jury. It continues to disgust me when I see all the race cards being played by both sides.

I do think I've learned a lot about myself and what I hope that I would do in the same situation should it ever arise, which is why I read these and other articles regarding real life situations of self defense. Not to argue about who's right or wrong, not up to me to decide thank God.

surg_res
May 28, 2009, 08:48 PM
Playboy,
I can assure you that the man was quite filled with adrenaline. What else would give a "cripple" the energy and fearlessness to chase and armed robber out the front door. In 2 seconds a person is engulfed in an incredible surge of hormones and epinephrine, which drives them to immediately resort to a fight or flight mode--notice how the two women innately run for their lives but the man instantly attacks without thinking!
After the dust settled, that man probably couldn't hear anything other than the surge of blood as it pounded the inside of his ears, rushing through his carotids. As one becomes filled with adrenaline, one becomes violent to a degree, and the vision becomes blurred as the pupils dilate and the blood pressure cranks up above 200. One also becomes delerious and confused--unable to make sound judgement. Sounds become distant and the ears start to ring.
I doubt this pharmacist was seasoned well enough in self defense, and combat to control these physiologic responses. I can only imagine that it takes years of harsh exposure to attain that kind of control in a life-or-death situation.
Just my opinion...

supergas452M
May 28, 2009, 09:10 PM
It will be very interesting to see how this plays out. In New Mexico, the 14 year old would be charged as a minor and probably sent to a juvenile detention home for a while. If he had killed someone he probably would be tried as an adult. Those kids should have never picked a fight with an old man.

Playboypenguin
May 28, 2009, 09:11 PM
Once again I am going to disagree with you and say that you might have great medical knowledge, but I feel you are mistaken regarding the psychological side of this issue and the physical indicators that would be present if the man was "out of his mind" with a massive adrenaline surge. His body language, movements, and actions did not indicate any impairment. In fact it was quite the opposite. Adrenaline would be a normal side effect of such an event (I have been in combat situations, I am no stranger to adrenaline) but this man's actions lead me to believe this is something he has planned out in his head many times beforehand and not a rash decision made while impaired by stress.

Glenn E. Meyer
May 28, 2009, 09:33 PM
We've seen enough folks in such situations who don't fall apart. The military, police and civilian training can teach you to deal with such. People have made a point that the gentleman was a veteran - he should have had some experience. While textbook discussions of stress may be useful - again to claim a diminished responsibility defense is risky.

It admits that he has no viable self-defense claim but was out of control.

BTW - if one buys into this - one should then argue that gun owners need much training to avoid such mental incapacity. Is that a road the average gun owner wants to go.

The crazed by stress argument goes nowhere. If one can't handle the decision making in lethal force situations to a reasonable standard - one shouldn't have a gun.

OuTcAsT
May 28, 2009, 09:51 PM
I feel you are mistaken regarding the psychological side of this issue and the physical indicators that would be present if the man was "out of his mind" with a massive adrenaline surge. His body language, movements, and actions did not indicate any impairment. In fact it was quite the opposite. Adrenaline would be a normal side effect of such an event

With all due respect, I must agree with PBP, I have watched the video countless times now, studied it almost frame by frame, and one of the most glaring consistencies is that this man was quite composed given the circumstances.
There are no hesitations in his actions, his body language suggests a deliberate quality. Of particular note was the fact that there was hardly a single item of inventory knocked over during the initial shooting, during the attempted pursuit, and particularly when the man was, by all appearances, retrieving the .380 from a (possibly) locked drawer, unless I am mistaken there is no fumbling on his part, his hands appear steady, his gait appears quite deliberate. It was either well rehearsed (which I doubt ) or he was quite composed.


"The guy who was first shot was on the floor and unconscious when the pharmacist walked up and shot him again"? I don't understand that and how would he or she know that if they wern't even there?


It would be a matter of examining the paths of the bullets as they passed thru the tissue, The shooter did not seem move around while shooting, he stood in one spot and fired rapidly. If all the trajectories came from the same angle it would be easy to tell that the body of the man on the floor was not moving when shot. ETA: Also gunshot residue would be deposited evenly and not disturbed a great deal unless the target was moving.