Armed Citizen: Oklahoma Pharmacist Defends Employees from Robbers

[Trooper Tyree]

Philosophically, I wonder if anyone here would have a problem if the pharmacist would have cowered behind the counter with his gun waiting for the shooter to get up or for the police to arrive.

No. No problem at all. Tactically I think that would have been the best place for him to be. The phone was right there, he could have called the police while maintaining a firing position on both the downed perp and the front entrance.

That's where I would have been, gun trained on downed perp with one eye on him and another eye on the door. Although it wasn't likely the two armed perps he chased off would have came back, that was still a threat.

Mr E expended all of his ammo in his Judge, then emptied his second gun into a downed perp, totally ignoring what I view as the biggest threat, leaving himself unarmed and defenseless should the two other armed attackers have came back.

A waste of five good bullets I say, they should have stayed in his gun where he could have used them.

IMO, he should have never left the store or even the counter area. You have to remember he had two defenseless women behind him to protect. He left them inside with the downed perp while he ran outside after the other perps.

In the video the DA talks about what would have happened had Mr E shot the perp in the back as he ran away, and surprisingly he didn't seem to think that would have been a major issue, contrary to most of what I've heard on the subject of shooting fleeing perps in the back.

I'm kind of surprised on how reasonable and understanding of consealed carry and use of deadly force the DA is, but I suppose this is Oklahoma after all.

He did apparently fire two round outside at the fleeing perp though. I shudder at the thought of this, firing at a fleeing perp running down a city street. This could have been much worse, what if Mr E had hit the second perp as he ran away, or worse a civilian on the street.

[Daugherty16]

This has been hashed, rehashed, and more over 11 pages and i probably won't come up with anything new. When i first heard this story, I thought the guy was right on! A wounded vet, defending 3 women in the store, shoots and kills a robber with a single headshot. DRT. I'd like to think i'd respond under similar circumstances with that same valour and courage. But then the sordid details began to come out.

Hardly anything Ersland said happened is supported by what i think i'm seeing in the video. I really wonder if he believes he is telling the truth, and that his truth is distorted from what we've all now seen on video by the adrenaline surge, and his fear, anger, and elation (at not being killed)?

Anyway, shooting a gun at anyone is using lethal force, whether you miss, wound or kill. It doesn't matter one bit if the guy was already fatally wounded (mutilation of a corpse is also a crime, fyi), or that Ersland got another gun and stood over the BG; his crime was committed by pulling the trigger again. That particular perp had no ability, no opportunity, and no intent to harm Mr. Ersland AT THAT MOMENT. The first round he fired, from the Judge over the counter, was totally justified and the D.A. said as much.

That BG dude dropped like a rock from the headshot. He just simply folded. Whether he would have recovered or not eventually is a guess, but he was unconscious from impact, well before he hit the floor. Ersland actually turned his back to him twice, on the way out the door, then again on the way to get the .380. Certainly suggests he thought the threat was gone. Now here's the point - why did he go back and shoot some more? Surely he could have called police with his right hand, and held the gun on the BG with his off hand. He could have asked his wife to call the police.

The lesson here is remembering where the line is, the line that separates us erstwhile defenders of life and family from the BG. Ersland needed to be responding to an imminent threat, where the BG possessed those three factors - ability, intent, and opportunity. He did it very, very well up to the point he went out that door. There is an excellent explanation of the necessary factors on The Cornered Cat website, complete with concrete examples. Basically, an unconscious guy, laying on your floor bleeding from the headshot you gave him, with no weapon visible, doesn't meet any of the three. That is why Ersland is now charged with murder. If he had somehow caught up with and shot the escaping other BG in the back, it would be murder there too, and for the same essential reasons.

I am not saying he is guilty of murder. There are certainly facts that have not been made public yet, as always. The trial won't even be about his guilt or his innocence. It will be about what the DA can prove, what doubts the defense can raise, and eventually it will be about the personal beliefs and biases of the members of the jury and their perception of the truth, and of justice.

I am sorry that young man lost his life, and am sorry Ersland may have thrown his away. It just shows yet again what a great responsibility gun ownership is, and how preparedness goes far beyond the physical skill of discharging a weapon.

Oh yeah, there's one more lesson here: Never talk to the cops. Or especially the press. Even most LEOs will tell you (if they are being candid) the same thing.

[Xrayeyes]

It just shows yet again what a great responsibility gun ownership is, and how preparedness goes far beyond the physical skill of discharging a weapon.

That is why this forum is an invaluable tool, especially for newbies like me that need guidance and experience as well as opposing points of view to understand the consequences of these life altering decisions!

[OuTcAsT]

If he had somehow caught up with and shot the escaping other BG in the back, it would be murder there too, and for the same essential reasons.

Respectfully, he likely would Not have been charged (additionally) had he shot the other perp while he was fleeing. Watch the DA's explanation in the link Trooper provided, His firing on the other suspect would likely have been protected under the ability to use "deadly force to stop someone from fleeing the commission of a felony" or similar wording. The fleeing suspect would also be an armed threat to anyone outside the store. Not that he had the responsibility, but likely a lawful means, to use deadly force.

Philisophically, I wonder if anyone here would have a problem if the pharmacist would have cowered behind the counter with his gun waiting for the shooter to get up or for the police to arrive.

I would think that would have been the best possible tactical decision.

People who make wise tactical decisions are usually called heroes, people who make unwise tactical decisions are usually called "the deceased" or "the defendant".

[Daugherty16]

Well said, Xray

[Wildalaska]

I would think that would have been the best possible tactical decision.

Im not talking tactical, I'm talking philosophical

How do your folks feel about COWERING behind a counter waiting for the cops to come?

WilddoesitoffendyourinnermanlinessAlaska ™

[Shadi Khalil]

How do your folks feel about COWERING behind a counter waiting for the cops to come?

I'm a coward so the cowering comes naturally. Seriously though, I see nothing wrong with that decision, in both a tactical and philosophical sense.

[OuTcAsT]

I see nothing wrong with that decision, in both a tactical and philosophical sense.

Ditto.

[Kyo]

you can seem very calm under duress. Ayoob even explains that in talking about stretching. You can seem in serenity while your blood is pumping buckets of adrenaline into you. Everyone is different. This guy was trained to seem calm under crazy circumstances. It doesn't mean his mentality isn't affected.

[anythingshiny]

it was a coup de grace.

his actions in the vid are WAY different from his STATEMENT to the police. ( the correct answer here is to say NOTHING other than 'i feared for my life and the evidence is over there.')

although we cannot see whether the bg has a knife or gun to determine if he is still even possible a remote threat, the pharmacist certainly does not appear to be in any jeopardy as he walks PAST the bg to relative safety...only to return and put 5 in his belly.

1/2 me says hell yes...go home, get MORE guns to shoot him with, light him on fire and kick him in the crotch.

the other half says bad shoot and hes going to serve some serious time for a bad bad call.

[Playboypenguin]

How do your folks feel about COWERING behind a counter waiting for the cops to come?

I remember a quote from MASH where a young guy lying in a bed severely wounded says to Hawkeye "I'm a Marine...we're the best." To which Hawkeye quite proudly responds "Really? I'm a coward...we're the worst."

Hawkeye pretty much summed it up for me too.

[TailGator]

I have largely been in WildAlaska's camp in this case, and perhaps I am just taking his bait (clever fellow that he is), but I disagree with his choice of words.

From dictionary.com: cower: "verb (used without object)
to crouch, as in fear or shame."

If I was behind that counter, one assailant down by my defensive fire and the other fleeing, I would see remaining behind the counter as taking a positive tactical position, from which I could continue to assess and respond to both the down robber and the still-open door. That isn't the same as cowering "in fear or shame," that would be controlling a very bad situation to the best of my ability. Letting the robbers be in charge of the situation, including whether the innocents that work for me lived or died and whether I sent home to my wife that night standing up or in a bag, is cowering.

As I and others have expressed previously, the initial shoot appears to be justified, but the pharmacist caused himself legal and tactical and, IMHO, moral problems with his subsequent actions.

So, philosophically, I am opposed to cowering but in favor of good defensive tactics.

[markj]

How do your folks feel about COWERING behind a counter waiting for the cops to come?

I would not be cowering there, but watching the door and the downed BG as I dialled 911, sort of a defensive type of thing.

[csmsss]

This is the first time I think I've ever heard the proper use of cover as "cowering".

[OuTcAsT]

This is the first time I think I've ever heard the proper use of cover as "cowering".

and perhaps I am just taking his bait

Yup

[Wildalaska]

This is the first time I think I've ever heard the proper use of cover as "cowering".

Now y'all dont think that there are some folks here who would call it cowering?

WildnowyaknowwhyichosethatwordAlaska ™

[Double Naught Spy]

If he had somehow caught up with and shot the escaping other BG in the back, it would be murder there too, and for the same essential reasons.

Actually, the DA covered that in the press conference specifically and said he did not think so because it could well be argued that the gunman was a danger to others on the street and that Ersland could have been argued to be protecting them, but that isn't what happened with Parker. Parker was down and unconscious, not some guy running with a gun from a crime.

[hogdogs]

Tactically it would look good on film to have "hid" behind cover...
Cower... I don't think cowering is anything but a tactical move!
Brent

[surg_res]

Someone mentioned that the dead guy was still alive when he was shot again. They can detect this by the fact that he would have hematoma and bleeding of his latter injuries, which requires a beating heart pushing blood.

I can say with my personal experience with head trauma that with anything short of a decapitation, the heart would continue to beat for several minutes (and possibly years) following a brain-lethal event. Even with severe hemorrhage, the blood pressure drops so that the primary bleeding stops, but the heart continues to pump blood at a lower pressure to areas of lower resistance.

There is a full spectrum of outcomes following a head shot ranging from a scratch to temporary loss of consciousness, to TBI and coma, to delayed or instant brain death. Again, despite the fact that he had a beating heart, he could have been brain dead on the spot. Only the pathologist or M.E. knows at this point.

I think that if the initial injury was non-survivable, the subsequent actions have zero meaning and there would be no case, that is unless there is a law against shooting corpses (whether out of frustration or for target practice). If it was a survivable injury (as many are), this dude is in deep.

[hogdogs]

Surg, I am willing to bet a dollar against a doughnut that it is not legally just a corpse until pronounced dead by a doctor or ME... Thus it is a person fired into even if no pulse or other sign of life...
Brent

[Deaf Smith]

The Pharmacist is in deep do. I saw the video. He will get manslaughter at the minimum. Never should have reloaded and then gone back to shoot the downed robber again, FIVE TIMES. The Judge revolver only holds five, so you can guess what any jury will think.

Nope, he should have stayed with the ones in back. It is not a move of a coward but one to protect others.

His only hope is the fallen robber was already dead, and thus it could not have been murder (can't murder anyone who is dead.)

But not only will he spend time in jail, he will be pennyless.

[Shadi Khalil]

His only hope is the fallen robber was already dead, and thus it could not have been murder (can't murder anyone who is dead.)

But they can still show intent.

[TMA-1]

If he had somehow caught up with and shot the escaping other BG in the back, it would be murder there too, and for the same essential reasons.

Actually, the DA covered that in the press conference specifically and said he did not think so because it could well be argued that the gunman was a danger to others on the street and that Ersland could have been argued to be protecting them, but that isn't what happened with Parker. Parker was down and unconscious, not some guy running with a gun from a crime.
__________________

That's odd. Under the Oklahoma SDA (Self-Defense Act), a licensed concealed carrier may use deadly force to defend only when in imminent danger, and only to defend self, spouse, child, parent, employer, or employee.

With this being the case, Ersland could have faced additional charges had he hit the fleeing suspect, as he was neither defending himself or anyone on the "approved list."

[Playboypenguin]

That's odd. Under the Oklahoma SDA (Self-Defense Act), a licensed concealed carrier may use deadly force to defend only when in imminent danger, and only to defend self, spouse, child, parent, employer, or employee.

It would not be a huge stretch to say he shot the armed fleeing suspect in the defense of bystanders. The fleeing subject may have shot a passer by, car jacked someone to escape, etc.

[DonR101395]

Philisophically, I wonder if anyone here would have a problem if the pharmacist would have cowered behind the counter with his gun waiting for the shooter to get up or for the police to arrive.

WildperhapsweneedapollAlaska

It's going to shock you Ken, but no I wouldn't have an issue if that would have been his reaction. I wasn't the one there getting a gun stuck in my face, so I'm not going to judge him guilty of cowardice or of being an executioner.
Now for the not so shocking, I will support one response over the other, but either could be a viable tactic depending on the situation.