Oklahoma druggist arrested for killing holdup man...

[frawin]

It does not show the boy at all on the floor, there is no way of knowing if he was trying to dig in his pocket, or if he was making movements that made the Pharmicist think he was trying to pull a weapon. This happened in a bad part of Oklahoma City and it would be difficult to know  what this Pharmicist has been thru before or in a similar situation.

[Teresa]

Well crap frank. I just watched it..and was typing an when I went to post.. you beat me to the punch..
Your post was basically what I said...

[indygal]

Frank and Teresa also posted before I could click on "POST", but I spent way too much time typing to delete this now. So, here it is:

Thank you for posting the link, DeeGee. It's one thing to read about an event and quite another to see it happen with your own eyes. Not that I'm saying that witnessing something is entirely reliable -- in fact, many sociology experiments show the opposite to be true -- but I did find it informative, albeit sickening, to watch. I kept wishing I could scroll down to the bottom  and to the right of the video screen so I could have a better look at what the suspect on the floor was doing. Was he lying motionless? Was he writhing? Was he attempting to get up? That last possibility is the only one in which I could halfway justify the repeated shooting as self-defense. But if that were the case, would the pharmacist appear to be almost nonchalant as he walked past the suspect, retrieved another weapon (or reloaded) and returned to continue firing? I have to agree with those who say that he went over the line. Had I seen him firing repeated shots while the hold-up was occurring, I would say it was self-defense, but to shoot once, walk away then return to shoot again? Nope, can't see that as anything but murder. It should be an interesting trial.

[Diane Amberg]

Teresa, could you give an educated guess about the handgun/s the pharmacist used? Or has it been written up out there? I couldn't even begin to tell. Not that it really matters.

[Varmit]

I can't believe that there are folks calling this murder!!! I wonder if the situation were different, like say, if a woman was being raped, shot her rapist with one gun, then got another and shot him again, should she be treated the same as the druggist?

[greatguns]

Probably not as well.

[frawin]

Diane, I have tried every way I can to see if the gun(s) were distinguishable, I even put a magnifying glass up to the monitor but that didn't help. I have checked everyway I can and the have not identified anything definite about the weapons. I am not sure what difference it makes in the whole scheme of things.

[Teresa]

Here is another video on it with the DA commenting. And I have really watched this.. several times...

Here's my take on it:
And I'm going to be windy here... Since I take self defense courses...and hopefully will never face this kind of situation.. I still have to know that someday..I may be there....so  I have lots going on in my head that I want to talk out.
Unfortunately you all have to see it in print.

This will be an interesting trial.. I think what will be important in this case is which shot the medical examiner determines to be the cause of death.  In other words, if he was already dead from the first (justified) shot, then the others can hardly be termed "murder".  Abuse of a corpse, perhaps, but murder?? I don't know.

District Attorney David Prater said Ersland was justified in shooting 16-year-old Antwun Parker once in the head, but not in firing the additional shots into his belly. The prosecutor said the teenager was unconscious, unarmed, lying on his back and posing no threat when Ersland fired what the medical examiner said were the fatal shots.

[IF that second sentence is true, (most especially the unconscious part) the criminal was no longer a threat. Problem here is you do have an adrenaline-filled man that apparently had enough and just continued to act under duress.

OK law states 'shooting or discharge of a firearm or crossbow with intent to kill' is 1st degree murder. If the DA can prove the threat was removed, so is the self-defense situation.  What a jury will do with this will be interesting. My honest opinion is the DA might be overreaching and eventually may decide to go with voluntary manslaughter as the charge.

Here's another statement from the DA (he seems a reasonable man) where he backs self defense - the DA's beef with the pharmacist is based on his belief the assailant is no longer a threat when the pharmacist returned.

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.

David Prater Oklahoma County district attorney
Pharmacist faces murder charge

May 27 An Oklahoma City pharmacist was charged today with first-degree murder in the May 19 shooting death of a would-be robber.
Advertisement

"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."

State law allows people to use deadly force if they're threatened somewhere they have a right to be, he said.

Ersland was not justified in killing robbery suspect Antwun Parker because the 16-year-old was already incapacitated from a bullet to the head, prosecutors said.

Surveillance video from Reliable Discount Pharmacy and court papers indicate Ersland walked by the unconscious Parker at least twice before retrieving another gun and firing five shots into his abdomen. Those injuries caused Parker's death.

Prater said it appears city homeowner Scott Henson was justified Tuesday when he shot a burglar inside his home because the other man made an aggressive move toward him.

Ersland, on the other hand, shot a suspect who was unarmed and unconscious. "It's a good example of what not to do," Prater said.

http://newsok.com/feed/self-defense-allowed-by-law-oklahoma-county-da-says/article/3373148?custom_click=pod_headline_news

Many unseen variables are actually involved.....would be nice to have audio to go with the video.
The unseen perp on the floor, if he was not dead from the head-shot may have been still until the clerk walked past him the second time. He may have been trying to get up and caused the clerk to panic...(but to me.. he didn't look panicked which won't help his case any.

Was it justifiable? Shot #1 most certainly. I'd woulda popped him too.
Was the follow-ups overkill?  I don't know where the info comes that the kid was still alive.  If he was dead it should come down to some sort of desecration of a human body.  If it can be proven he was still alive it will be his attorney's job to prove the "reasonable man" theory in the act of fear or emotional distress.

From what I COULD GATHER from the video, and not having been a witness to the fracas, I would conclude that the pharmacist stepped (jumped) over the line of reasonableness when he fired the five round coup de gras.  That being said...I wasn't in his shoes at the moment.  Taking that one step further, were I on the jury, I would still vote to acquit.  I am all about personal responsibility.

The two "innocent youths who are misunderstood by society, and merely victims of their surroundings"   took the decision to commit a violent felony and rob the pharmacy, thereby WILLFULLY endangering and threatening innocent people who were simply doing their job.  My feeling is that if YOU decide to commit a crime of this nature and you get blasted to little pieces...YOU also made the choice to die in the commission of that crime.  Shame on you for being stupid.

I could not, in good conscience, vote to convict the pharmacist.  Was he totally justified in the first shot?  Yep.  Was he justified in the last five?  LEGALLY...no.  MORALLY...no.  I know all the arguments about WHY he was wrong, but I just can't see myself putting the pharmacist in prison because someone CHOSE to victimize him, and got the tables turned.  I would give him a pass on this one, even though (in my opinion) he did break the law.

Two thugs standing side by side and a gun in hand makes both targets.  Remember that the unarmed one was putting on his mask which made him identifiable as "bad."

And to the mother of the dead boy who was saying "He didn't have to shoot my baby like that".., I'd like to say, "Yes, he didn't have to shoot your baby like that. Unfortunately, the baby you knew didn't walk into the pharmacy that day,  Your baby...despite your efforts..... was an armed robber putting people in fear of their lives.  He lost.

[jerry wagner]

I can't believe that there are folks calling this murder!!! I wonder if the situation were different, like say, if a woman was being raped, shot her rapist with one gun, then got another and shot him again, should she be treated the same as the druggist?

Just as guilty.  Spoke to my wife to get a woman's point of view, said "Once she went to get a gun, intent to kill, murder"

[frawin]

Jerry, I don't think if you were the one that got raped you would say that. I think if some crazy rapes a woman she has every right to shoot him and to make sure he is dead.