Armed Citizen: Oklahoma Pharmacist Defends Employees from Robbers

[Double Naught Spy]

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...

[bababooey32]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

they have come to the conclusion he was unconscious from something in the medical examiners report,what that was i have no idea

[hogdogs]

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?
Brent

[wun_8_seven]

http://newsok.com/teen-arrested-in-p...adlines_widget

just reported they arrested the other two bad guys

[cracked91]

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]

I hope they charge the 2 others with the death of their thug cohort...
Brent

[DonR101395]

You're kidding, right

WildandfolkswonderwhythesoccermommieslookaskanceatgunownersAlaska TM

Much to your disapproval, no I'm not.


DonRiknowlongergivearatsbehindwhatsoccermomsthinkorhowtheylookatgunowners101395

[wickedrider]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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-fata...rticle/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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.