Armed Citizen: Oklahoma Pharmacist Defends Employees from Robbers

[Wildalaska]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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...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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[OuTcAsT]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Wow - just watched the DA and defense lawyers.

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

[Glenn E. Meyer]

It's just up the thread stream from PAX.

[OuTcAsT]

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]

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]

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]

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. 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]

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.