Pharmacist "defending his store" charged with murder after he shoots a robber

[Shagbark Hickory]

http://www.ksbitv.com/news/46272682.html

See owning a gun to defend yourself isn't a license to shoot people. You'll still get busted or sued.

[FLAprogressive]

1. I'm not shedding a tear, sorry.

Shoulda thought twice before robbing a store.

[Dramarama]

2. Yeah

But it's depressing to look at his age

[FLAprogressive]

4. When seconds count, there's no time to check the robber's ID.

A robbery would obviously involve a deadly weapon. If it were me or the 16-year-old criminal, I'm gonna protect my life over his.

[Statistical]

He didn't get arrested for the first shot.

He got arrested for:

After chasing a second suspect out the door, the owner returned, picked up a second handgun and again shot 16-year-old Antwun Parker who was on his back, unconscious, and unable to defend himself. 57-year-old Jerome Ersland has always said what he did was in self defense.

"When you put a pistol just a foot away from his chest and fire 5 rounds into that child's chest. In my opinion, and the laws of this state do not protect you in the use of that deadly force," D.A. Prater described.

That is an execution.

[sandnsea]

8. No kidding

Makes my stomach churn.

[FLAprogressive]

9. He would've been dead anyway.

[RaleighNCDUer]

16. Read the article - it specifically says the boy WOULD have survived

the head wound.

This guy executed an unconscious boy.

[pipoman]

27. Actually it says, "could've" not "would have"

[FLAprogressive]

39. Oh well.

[krispos42]

69. I don't think that's been determined yet

From the article:

The Medical Examiner's Office says Parker could've made a full recovery if he was just wounded by the first shot to the head.

In other words, if the shot to the head didn't immediately kill him, he probably would have survived and recovered.

A solid shot to the head is virtually always immediately fatal. Turning a person's brains into chunky salsa tends to do that. However, if the robber was still alive when the pharmacist came back, it's likely because the head shot was a grazing wound instead of a solid hit on the brain. In other words, the robber might have been dazed or unconsious by the glancing impact of the bullet.


Tf the semi-concious robber was stirring back to life on the floor the pharmacist could have simply kicked the gun away. Or kicked the robber in the head or stomach.

[Caliman73]

12. Regardless, it still sounds like murder.

I can understand if the owner shot the suspect, but he executed him after he was already incapacitated. Self defense does not give you the right to execute anyone regardless of their prior actions.

[Ian David]

3. On the one hand, they can't sue you if they're dead.

After chasing a second suspect out the door, the owner returned, picked up a second handgun and again shot 16-year-old Antwun Parker who was on his back, unconscious, and unable to defend himself. 57-year-old Jerome Ersland has always said what he did was in self defense.

On the other hand, there are cameras in his workplace.

[cloudbase]

5. The jury won't convict. nt

[cagesoulman]

6. They shouldn't.

NT

[Abq_Sarah]

79. I absolutely would

Vote to convict.

I have my application in with the state for my concealed carry instructor cert. I will be using this case in my classes as a lesson in what you should NOT do.

We have a legal and moral right to defend ourselves from an imminent threat. We don't have a right to murder someone once that threat is removed. And yes, that was murder.

[Scout]

10. if i was on the jury, i would convict, no doubt n/t

[Caliman73]

13. I would as well and I am a gun owner and proponent of self defense

Look, if you are trying to harm me or my family, I will use force to defend them and myself. If in that defense you end up hurt or dead, then that is something I will have to deal with legally and emotionally, but you will not take my life or hurt my loved ones without a fight. I am not allowed to come in and execute you. That is no longer self defense.

[RaleighNCDUer]

17. And THAT is the difference between a responsible gun owner

and a gun nut.

A distinction which the gun nuts pretend not to recognize.

[Caliman73]

22. I disagree

The term "gun nut" is offensive and is used to disparage and dehumanize anyone who has a differing opinion, much the same way "gun grabber" is used. I have been called a "gun nut" on this forum for espousing a view that was in favor of right to own and carry. I disagree with the poster's lack of emotion at the fact that the store owner blatantly came back in to the store to execute the suspect. The store owner had every right to defend himself and his business, but he turned the perpetrator of a robbery into the victim of a homicide when he came back in for the purpose of finishing him off.

[Shagbark Hickory]

33. Everyone's a responsible gun owner up until they snap in rush of adrenaline from shooting a robber

Everyone's a responsible driver too.
Up until they get in their car and drive on a public road.

[Scout]

64. how does driving on a public road

make one an irresponsible driver?

[Shagbark Hickory]

72. What I'm trying to say is...

You may remain a responsible gun owner if you never take your gun out of the closet or your home but taking it into public presents many opportunities to demonstrate irresponsibility. Same with a car. If it never leaves the garage, there's a good chance the owner of that car will never find out how good they are at avoiding accidents.

[IDFbunny]

19. I support RKBA and self defense

but that was an execution. Reminds me of a case long ago when a Japanese exchange student was shot a Louisiana redneck just because the student was in his garage. It is unfortunate there really are people wishing for legal cover to play Dirty Harry.

[sandnsea]

7. Yep. Absolutely Murder.

Shooting a wounded individual five times in the chest? Murder. No question.

And what a bunch of sick fucks who read this and weren't appalled.

[TheWraith]

14. Murder implies premeditation...

People can do incredibly stupid things when they're panicked. Then again, it could be just somebody who did it out of rage. The jury will figure it out.

In any event, self-defense laws are very clear: when you pursue an intruder or attacker who's attempting to retreat, and continue the engagement, you're going well beyond the borders of permissible self-defense.

[Abq_Sarah]

80. From the video, I see premeditation

He walked right by the kid and actually had his back to him as he went to get another weapon. He then walked right up until he was standing over him to fire the last 5 shots. Would you present your back to someone who posed a threat to you?

[Taitertots]

86. I certainly would turn my back on a threat...

If the gun I was looking for was behind me. What is he supposed to do walk backward and reach backward to grab a gun he can't see?

[Abq_Sarah]

88. Why on earth

Would you turn your back on an armed man and walk, not run, to get a gun?

You wouldn't.

The coroners report and the DA state the suspect was unarmed and laying on his back.

[Taitertots]

90. You can't grab something you can't see

Have you tried running backward and grabbing something behind you?

Did you see how fast he "ran" after the guys who ran from him? Not exactly a sprinters pace.

[Abq_Sarah]

97. The problem is

If he were in fear for his life, why on earth would he walk past the kid, presenting his back for several seconds if the kid was in fact conscious and trying to "go for a gun" as Ersland alleges (btw, the kid did not have a gun and no other weapons were found at the crime scene)? He could have reached his gun faster if he had gone straight to the back the way he came out. You can see him in the video walk right up to the kid, lean in and fire what the coroner said was 5 shots to the gut. That is not a defensive posture if you're dealing with someone who is trying to kill you.

Ersland screwed up when he decided it was his job to dispense justice.

[lepus]

15. This was alleged by two witnesses

not actually covered by the video.

He shot the guy in the head originally. If he killed him with the first shot, then he did not kill him with the following shots. ie Still justifiable homicide. Head shots often cause the person that receive them to go into very animated tremors before expiring.

If he was still alive and moving, the pharmacist's story that is covered on other sites about believing the guy was reaching for a weapon is plausible.

You have to remember, he was still being shot at by the other robber, he did not have much time to determine if the guy on the ground was still a threat or not while he pursued the other robber.

Justifiable in my book? Yes. Will the charges hold up before a grand jury? Probably not. Will there be a fund for his defense? Guarenteed.

[sandnsea]

20. If If If... You obviously didn't read the article

Where it said the medical examiner has stated the 16 year old would have survived the head shot. And that he chased the other robber out of the store - and then came back in, reloaded, and shot the 16 year old 5 times in the chest.

Justifiable?

You didn't read the article, or, well, you know.

[lepus]

23. I did read the article.

But how is a person being attacked by multiple attackers going to be able to make that judgement. Under the Oklahoma Firearms Act, the guy is still legal. As long as the man remained a possible threat. The ME only said that the thug would have survived the initial shot, not that he was incapacitated.

Also, he did not reload. He grabbed another heavier firearm to continue his defense against the guy still shooting at him.

The dead guy was shot with the remaining rounds in the .38 revolver he was initially shot with. The pharmacist's story was that he was still moving and thus a threat.

From what it looks like to me. The pharmacist was attacked by two gun wielding thugs. He nails the first one in the head on his first shot the .38. While under fire, he retreats to grab a heavier weapon, in this case a Taurus long colt. He pursues the second thug out of the store. Coming back he sees, in his opinion, a still viable threat in the man on the ground. The pharmacist has already stated the man was still moving, and he thought the man was reaching for a weapon. The pharmacist then emties the remaining five rounds into the man on the grounds center of mass to terminate the threat.

The pharmacist voluntarily gave up the video to law enforcement. If he thought he was in the wrong, that video would have never existed. That stands pretty high in my opinion of what happened.

[sandnsea]

28. Oh, he grabbed a different loaded gun, my apologies

And then shot an unarmed wounded 16 year old laying on the ground 5 times in the chest.

As for the rest, well, you know.

[lepus]

35. Wounded does not mean not a threat.

and the poor harmless 16 year old had already shot at him! The whole series of events happened pretty quick. The pharmacist did not have a few hours to do proper threat assessment.

As I understand it from a few links, the pharmacist was in a partial body cast. That slow walking you see him doing in the video is actually him in a hurry.

So not only is the sixteen year old a thug, he is a thug that preys on those that he knows to be significantly weaker than himself, and even then, at the point of a gun. Don't try to paint the kid as an innocent.

Oklahoma law is pretty clear. Generally the dweller, as defined under Oklahoma firearms act can meet force with force, use lethal force, has no duty to retreat, and can prosecute his or her defense with an incredible amount of leeway. Read it sometime.

The first shot at him gave him a solid defense.

[sandnsea]

41. "on his back, unconscious, and unable to defend himself" n/t

[lepus]

44. allegedly unconscious n/t

[pipoman]

31. No, the ME said, "could've" not "would have".

If the robber laid on the floor for 20 minutes waiting for emergency personnel would he have lived? Would he have lived if the pharm had given first aid? Under what conditions "could've" he lived? We don't know from this article.

By the way, who writes "could've" in a report...talk about lazy reporting.

[sandnsea]

40. "could've made a full recovery"

Who writes could've in a report? A journalist who quotes accurately rather than misconstruing a professional's words.

[pipoman]

57. A big difference between "could have" and "would have"

[krispos42]

70. I feel it likely was some kind of manslaughter

There are conditions that would excuse this, but the most likely scenario in my mind is fear and rage and disgust for the rubber resulting in the pharmacist emptying the gun into the robber's chest. Since it's in extreme circumstances, it would likely be some kind of manslaughter charge instead of full-blown murder.

[NewMoonTherian]

11. I think he'll be convicted...

of something less than murder 1. He shouldn't even be charged, but the law is clear, and it protects violent criminals over their victims.

[baldguy]

18. He wasn't defending himself when he executed an unconscious 16-yr old.

[doc03]

21. That's murder, I can't believe there are people on DU

that would justify something like that. What if a policeman did something like that, most people here would want to hang him. If he shot the robber in the head and killed him he deserved it, but you can't just shoot someone that is is no longer posing any threat 5 times.

[Tim01]

24. I just don't get people who are willing rob and kill others in order to steal money.

I don't think I have ever seriously considered running such a huge risk in order to steal stuff that didn't belong to me. Possibly getting innocents killed in the process.
I guess armed robbers are people who don't give a fuck if they get other people killed.

[doc03]

25. Well if they were the CEO of a major corporation

in this country they could steal trillions and never even own a gun. A sixteen year old attempts to rob a store of a few bucks and people think it's OK for an employee to make himself judge, jury and executioner. Then some scumbag like Bernie Madoff rips off billions and he goes to a country club prison.

[lepus]

26. Well if they were the CEO of a major corporation

and attempted to rob this employee at gunpoint,,,

[Tim01]

30. If Bernie Madoff had been willing to use violence against innocents he might have got shot.

His crime was non violent and so it carried less risk. He didn't do something likely to get innocents killed and possible himself.
The pharmacist is in a shitload of trouble, I would think. He executed criminal. That is straight up murder as far as I can tell.

But if violent felons get killed while they are robbing people, that is fine with me. I have no sympathy for criminals who are willing to get you and me killed so they can have a few extra bucks.

[doc03]

32. Why does the ordinary person that robs something

without even using a weapon (a non violent crime) sent to a real prison? Bernie Madoff or a celebrity goes to Camp Cupcake.

[Tim01]

34. Because dangerous people go to different kinds of jails.

If a person breaks into your house at night he is running the risk of getting people hurt of killed even if he does not have a weapon.

If a person illegally takes money out of your bank account without your permission it is not going to end up with a violent struggle for a baseball bat in a persons bedroom at night. And things "just going too far".

If a criminal breaks into your house to rob it when he thinks it is empty and you bump into him in your toddler daughters bedroom, things are probably going to get out of hand.

[doc03]

37. I don't buy that crap, there should be one

prison system. What about the people that lost their entire life savings in Madoff's scam and wasn't there some that committed suicide because of it? If I get arrested for shoplifting (not a violent crime) I don't go to Camp Cupcake, I share a cell with Bubba.

[Tim01]

49. I don't agree with you that embezzlers are the same as murderers and rapists.

I can't see how you would think they should be in the same prisons. The rest of the country doesn't seem to agree with you either. Believe what you like.

[Statistical]

51. Bernie was convicted in state court not federal court.

So he will be going to a medium security NY state prison. Likely Otisville. I doubt if you spent a week there you would call it "camp cupcake".

The federal prison system (for federal crimes) have prisons ranging from super max down to minimum security.

There is nothing fun about federal minimum security prison except the inmates are all non-violent.
Violent Drug Offenders on a Federal charge will go to max security.

There are no federal shoplifting charges, or federal petty larcency charges.

So minimum security federal prisons tend to house inmates who:
cheat on taxes
SEC violations
insider trading
embezzle from the govt
bribe federal officials
etc.

It is simply due to the clientel that makes a federal min security prison easier time but I wouldn't call it a walk in the park.

Of course all this is academic. Bernie was convicted in NY STATE court so he belongs to the state of NY for next up to 150 years.

[FLAprogressive]

38. Well if they were a CEO of a major corporation I doubt they'd need to violently rob a pharmacy.

[one-eyed fat man]

82. Need???

who NEEDS to rob anyone at gunpoint?

It's not about need, it is about some shithead's career choice!

The little dead bastard was miserable, but he wasn't Les Misrable.

He wasn't pinching a loaf of bread from a bakery to feed his starving kids. By shooting FIRST he showed he was perfectly willing to kill the pharmacist, innocent bystanders or anyone else.

That doesn't justify what sounds like an execution, but am I upset the 16 year old thug didn't get to be a 17 year old thug? Not a bit. I am sure the will be a "shrine" on the sidewalk and tons of footage of wailing female relatives who will proclaim "how he loved his momma" and "he was good boy" ..........well 'cepting for that sticking up folks part

[Indy Lurker]

29. Murder

It is inconceivable that 5 shots to the chest at point blank range are needed to "defend" yourself from an unconscious person.

This is the kind of action that gives gun owners a bad name.

You can't shoot a criminal once they have been "stopped", not even once.

He was being a good citizen up until the point he pulled the trigger and shot an unconscious man.

[lepus]

43. If the shooter in this case believes that the shootee

is still a viable threat, he can continue pulling the trigger until he has rendered the threat nullified. Oklahoma law does not follow the same rules as many places.

If you dislike it, by all means, pick another state to do an armed robbery in.

[Indy Lurker]

46. Most would consider

Most would consider the "threat nullified" when the criminal is lying prone, and not moving after taking a head shot.

[lepus]

48. Show it in the video that the pharmacist turned over to the cops.

The pharmacist stated that he saw the robber reaching for a weapon. He had a much better vantage point to judge this than the witnesses. Where were the two witnesses btw? Did they just stand there in slackjawed wonder while a gunfight played out, or did they seek cover as far away as they could? Either one makes them poor witnesses to the events.

Show me some solid evidence that the criminal was lying prone and not moving other than the statements of the two witnesses.

People are not very good witnesses. They have a bad tendency of only seeing what they want to see. They do not want to see a kid trying to kill an old pharmacist so they rationalize it by saying that the mean old pharmacist waxed the kid for no reason.

But odds are the "witnesses" were not in the best position or frame of mind to judge the guy's actions.

[RaleighNCDUer]

53. Where are you coming up with this?

In the OP link there is nothing about pharmacist saying anything about anything. You got different links? Please provide them.

Or are you just making shit up. That 'old pharmacist' is 57 - there are active duty soldiers in Iraq older than that. That is hardly a feeble old victim.

BTW, it is easy to tell if the kid way lying prone on the floor, and from how far away he was repeatedly shot, by simply looking at the wounds. So if the cops are saying he was lying prone on his back, it's pretty fucking sure that he was lying prone on his back.

[lepus]

54. Go look for a few links yourself.

The story is being covered pretty heavily here. Plenty of links if your willing to look.

Here is one.
http://newsok.com/article/3373213

Already bailed out. If the judge thought the murder one charge was going to stick, no way would he have been awarded bail in the first place or a bail amount that small.

He can still be on his back and moving btw.

[Indy Lurker]

55. that link clears it up

Let me re-phrase:


Most would consider the "threat nullified" when the criminal is unarmed, lying prone, and not moving after taking a head shot.

and apparently the video surveillance isn't going to help with the five shots to the chest.

"Video evidence shows Parker being shot in the head but the surveillance footage does not show Parker’s body on the floor when Ersland unloaded what the district attorney said were the lethal shots. Ersland said Parker was getting up and going for a gun. No gun was found, prosecutors say. "

Maybe you could pin the whole thing on Criminal #2 as a felony homicide.

[lepus]

58. Oklahoma law pretty much states

that the state has to take the pharmacist's word about the threat level he felt.

He stated the youth was reaching for a weapon when he emptied the last five rounds into him. He had the best vantage point to judge this. This occurs with LEO on a regular basis and they are rarely seriously questioned if they feel a threat.

As far as pinning the murder one charge on the accomplice, it might fly, but then again not. The accomplice was only 14. He is currently in custody.

[happyslug]

83. Mistaken use of Self Defense is Manslaughter not Murder.

UNLESS some other element of Murder can be proved i.e. clear intent to kill the Robber even through he knew the robber was no longer a threat.

Thus I see the Judge ruling this to be manslaughter unless something on the tape or the Wittinesses can show a clear intent kill the robber who was no longer a threat.

Now I am citing the general common law rule as to Murder, Oklahoma may have different rules (I suspect minor differences at best). The scary part is I do NOT know the Felony Murder Rule in Oklahoma, but if this was California the Robber who escaped can be charged and convicted of Murder of his dead partner. The California rule is ANYONE who commits a violent felony (such as Armed Robbery) and some one dies ((Even if it is a co-robber killed by the victim in self-defense) the surviving Robber can be charged with that person's murder. Most states do NOT have this rule, applying the Felony Murder Charge only if a non-fellow robber is killed.

Anyway back to this crime in Oklahoma, it appears to be a case of Mistaken belief that what the shooter was doing was self defense. In such cases the charge will be Manslaughter not Murder.

[Statistical]

52. If the shooter had a REASONABLE BELIEF that the robber was still a theat.

Corrected it for you.

The shooter was no longer a threat.

Obviously based on his arrest and the DA convening a Grand Jury neither the Police nor the DA believe that is the case.

Lets follow the timeline:
1) Robbers attack
2) He shoots robber #1 in the head (good shoot likely would be a hero in the paper if he stopped her)
3) He chases robber #2 out of the store (I assume firing multiple times because he runs out of ammo)
4) He returns to the store
5) Reloads his firearm
6) According to witnesses he then fires 5 more rounds into the Chest of robber #1 while standing over him at point blank range.

Given the amount of time between step 2 and step 6 I don't buy the passion of the moment defense that he didn't notice the fact that shooter #1 is unconscious with a hole in his head bleeding out on the floor is not credible.

He was good up until step #6 at which point is became an execution.

[jeepnstein]

60. This is a tough one...

My gut instinct tells me the five shots he took at the end were probably not necessary. I just don't see a jury, probably even a Grand Jury, being willing to put the guy in jail. Has this even gone to a Grand Jury yet? The state may be covering it's tail by making the charge and then letting cooler heads sort it out.

Personally, I think it was a bad shooting. Somehow I just don't see the shooter getting time out of it. He'll beat the charge but still have to take a ride.

[lepus]

61. There ain't no such thing as a good shooting either.

When you pull that trigger and your weapon is aimed at somebody, you are in reasonable expectation of killing them.

In this instance, justifiable homicide and heat of the moment will likely see him through the prosecution's case.

I am not a proponent of vigilantism, but Oklahoma law is pretty clear. The prosecution has to make the case, not Jerome Ersland. He claims that he thought the kid was reaching for a weapon. I think your right that the state, or at least the OKC DA is charging the guy just to cover it's tail.

I have seen multiple video scenes from different news agencies, quite a few of them show different POV's and sequences in differing orders.

While the video does not support Jerome's statements, it does not contradict them either.

In any case, an Oklahoma jury is not going to send a full time employed, military vet, and a supporter of police to jail for defending himself, his customers, and his place of employment from two armed robbers.

But then again OKC is pretty strange. I much prefer Tulsa myself when I have to go to the city.

[jeepnstein]

68. I agree...

By the time things have spun so out of control that you have to resort to deadly force the outcome is going to be bad no matter what.

I'm pretty sure the shooter went too far from what I've seen. It's doubtful he'll take the ride for capital murder. The whole thing is just a rotten mess. I have confidence in the jury system making the right call but the prosecution will have to have the guts to present all the evidence and let the chips fall where they may.

[spin]

36. You never shoot to kill, you shoot to stop. (n/t)

[RaleighNCDUer]

65. I have to disagree there - if you HAVE to shoot, you shoot to kill.

If you don't have to kill, you don't have to shoot.

The initial head shot was completely legitimate. Chasing the 2nd perp out the door (there is no mention of him shooting at the fleeing perp, but he most certainly did if he had to change weapons upon coming back in) was out of line - you CANNOT shoot someone who is in retreat. Leave them for the police to track down. Shooting the kid as he lay on the floor AFTER chasing the 2nd perp AND switching weapons, was obviously unnecessary.

The chase and shoot might be 'heat of the moment' but the execution was just that.

[Abq_Sarah]

81. I would not recommend going into a court room

And telling a jury you were shooting to kill. Shoot to stop is a defensive measure. The perpetrator may well die but your intention isn't to kill them, it is to stop them.

[Statistical]

96. Agreed.

Shoot to stop. Shoot to stop. Shoot to stop.

It implies your intent was to .... stop. Now the BG may die. Bullets are dangerous. Shooting to stop indicates your intention was to stop him. If you shoot him and he runs away and passes out 2 blocks away he is stopped. IF you shoot him and he dies he is stopped. If you shoot him and he doesn't go down and keep shooting him 2,3,4,5,10 times the intent was to stop him.

Tell a cop, DA, jury that you shot to kill that implies your intent was to end his life. Regardless of it is necessary or not, you decided he stops breathing today. You are going to get a TON of unwanted legal attention.

Soldiers shoot to stop.
Law Enforcement shoots to stop.
You should shoot to stop.
?
If seems like a silly little thing but if you routinely talk about shooting to kill then guess what?

If you are in a life and death battle, get a nice shot of adrenaline, and are dazed afewards guess what you are going to tell 911 or the police on the scene. "I shot to kill".

[Howzit]

42. There is no legal precedent for executing the perp once subdued

Be surprising if the store owner doesn't get convicted of homicide.

[lepus]

45. Update to the story

http://www.kfor.com/news/local/kfor-news-pharmacist-bail-story,0,6709299.story

Murder in the first and he is out on 100,000 dollars bail. Kinda shows that not even the judge is taking it serious.

Plus the fact that the defense lawyer is asking for the guy to continue to be able to carry a firearm in self defense while he continues to work is a good indication that this charge is just a political ploy for a DA to keep popularity with his voters.

At least the pharmacist will be able to recoup his lawyer fees, bail costs, etc from the court under the Oklahoma Firearms Act.

[Euromutt]

59. Looking at the video, I don't know...

AP has some raw security camera footage on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSBBlEhmWNQ
Local station KFOR has more inside footage: http://www.kfor.com/news/local/kfor-news-pharmacy-shooter-charged-story,0,1136511.story

See, after coming back into the store, to get behind the counter Ersland walks right by where Parker is lying, and he doesn't seem to give any sign that he considers Parker to be even a potential threat; he hardly looks at him in passing, and turns his back to Parker as he rounds the counter. So at this point, he seems to have decided Parker is no longer a threat.

Then he gets his reload, walks back, and shoots Parker, with what looks like predetermined purpose. He doesn't seem to stop to assess the situation, or caution Parker; it looks like he just walks up and unloads into the kid.

If I were on the jury and got to see this footage, I'd want a very compelling explanation of what Ersland was doing and why not to vote to convict.

[krispos42]

71. Wow

:wow:


Just walks up and shoots the robber. Leaves the building, walks back inside, walks past the downed robber, walks a little way down the counter, walks back, and unloads on him.


And that is the exact point that his went from justifiable self-defense to murder.

[RaleighNCDUer]

66. You must be fucking kidding.

That's OKLAHOMA. The DA is filing the charge that is warranted, based on the evidence. If he was trying to 'keep popularity with his voters' he wouldn't charge him at all.

$100,000 bail is entirely appropriate for someone in this situation who is not a flight risk, even if he did execute the kid. He is never going to do time. IT'S OKLAHOMA.

[NewMoonTherian]

67. You're right.

I can tell you that, at least among my circle here in Tulsa, the DA has lost a lot of respect. The pharmacist has major support though.

[slackmaster]

47. They're calling a 16-year-old robber a "child"?!?!?

I hope the pharmacist gets acquitted.

Robbery is by definition a violent crime, and deadly force is IMO morally justified in resisting any violent crime.

[Tim01]

50. Somebody in the media is trying paint the criminal robber as the victim.

Nothing unusual about a journalist with an obvious agenda.

[FLAprogressive]

56. Whenver someone between 16-18 commits a crime on DU, they're a child. When it comes to sex, they're

"young adults."

DU is a bit crazy sometimes.

[one-eyed fat man]

98. Dead robber's accomplices arrested.

Accomplices arrested

The other gunman, Jevontia Ingram, 14 years old and the driver of the get-away car, Emanuel Dewayne Mitchell, 32 were arrested by deputies in Oklahoma City.

Nice, what passes for "mentoring" neighborhood youth. Why steal from your momma's purse or strong arm old folks for their Social Security checks when you can stick up drug stores? No evidence that Emanuel was passing on the sexual techniques he'd learned in prison.

[Jackson1999]

62. This pro-RKBA guy says this was an execution

He should go to jail. The reason I own a firearm is to defend myself. If you enter my house and come towards me, be prepared for a chest full of buckshot. My goal would not be to kill you, but to STOP you. Once you stop, and are no longer an immediate threat, I am high-tailing it out of there.

The guy on the floor obviously posed no immediate threat as the guy went back to load the gun and turned his back on the perp and then unloaded.

[slackmaster]

63. Fellow pro-RKBA person agrees it was a bad shoot

Once a threat has been neutralized, there is no longer legal or moral justification for further use of deadly force.

I don't believe it qualifies as premeditated murder, however. It seems to me this was a bad decision made in the heat of the moment.

[depakid]

74. Common law manslaughter

A textbook case like you'd find on a law school exam. Heat of passion on sudden provocation, and probably "worth" a couple of years in the pen- or a year in jail (what you call in California a county lid). While it's understandable that the guy would do this- it's also a function of the law that cases are often filed not just to hold persons accountable, but also to serve a deterrents (and learning "moments") for others who would encounter a similar situation.

That said, were I to bet on the outcome, I'd put good odds on jury nullification- this being Oklahoma, and there being a racial element to the case.

[Statistical]

75. From this pro RKBA (so much often called right wing gun nut) gun owner I agree on both points n/t

[happyslug]

84. And why mistakes as to Self Defense is Manslaughter NOT murder in most states

n/t

[friendly_iconoclast]

99. Agreed. A textbook case of manslaughter n/t

[Taitertots]

73. I think the store owner shouldn't be charged

I believe by instigating the violence, the criminal cedes his legal protections during the commission of his crimes.

You have no reasonable expectation of protection or your rights while you violate someone Else's. This doesn't end the second you drop your gun or try to run.

[Statistical]

76. By that logic torture in prisons is ok because the person has given up all rights? n/t

[Taitertots]

77. People in prison are not in the commission of a crime n/t

[RaleighNCDUer]

78. So you think, if someone comes in with a gun but you get the drop on him

yelling "hands up", and he drops the gun, that you can just shoot him anyway?

What about holding him, unarmed, at gunpoint for two minutes, THEN shooting him? Still cool?

[Taitertots]

85. Is an unarmed person with their hands up in the commission of a crime?

There is your answer.

[RaleighNCDUer]

87. Is a disarmed, wounded suspect lying on the floor in commission of a crime?

Come on, you can do better than that.

[Taitertots]

89. Does that person pose what you believe to be a continued threat based on their actions?

Did their previous action make you believe they would continue violence against you?
Are their hands moving in a way which makes you believe they are grasping for something hidden in their clothes?

A person with no visible gun, wounded, and laying on the floor grasping in a manner you believe to be attempting to retrieve a weapon. Still in the commission of a crime.

A person with no visible gun, wounded, but only grasping their wound, following verbal commands, and making no other threatening gestures. Not in the commission of a crime.

[RaleighNCDUer]

91. Will you go to ANY length to excuse a murderer?

The kid way lying there, no gun visible. The guy walked past the kid, went behind the counter, retrieved a second weapon.

If there was no weapon visible IT IS OVER. You keep him covered, approach cautiously, and make sure he is unarmed. You do NOT fire until you see a weapon.

It takes how many hundredths of a second to squeeze a trigger? He OBVIOUSLY had him covered as he returned with the second weapon - there is no way the kid, badly injured kid, could have pulled out a weapon in under 3/100ths of a second. The moment he saw a gun - fine, fire away. Anything BEFORE that is murder.

[Taitertots]

93. Will you go to any length to put away an innocent man?

You don't wait until the person you believe to be reaching for a weapon to get it and draw it before you decide to fire.

[RaleighNCDUer]

94. And you really think that a guy already under your sights can reach for,

draw, and fire a weapon faster than you can pull a trigger?

You are making excuses for an unsupportable position. And you look foolish doing it.

But I guess that is expected for someone who would say "This doesn't end the second you drop your gun or try to run" which is actually the opposite of what the law says.

(Edited to finish with the exact quote)

[Taitertots]

95. I think that I'm going to shoot as soon as I see grabbing for a weapon

Not after it has been pulled out.

It is not over after you drop your gun and try to run. He was still a continued threat based on his previous actions and his continued actions. His initial actions created a reasonable belief that any continued actions are a threat.

If you shoot at someone, drop you gun and continue to make gestures that could be grabbing for a gun than you are still in the commission of the original crime.

[Euromutt]

92. I don't think you're allowing for the situation being fluid

First, let me establish that I'm speaking hypothetically here, because in this concrete instance, bsed on the security camera footage, I'm leaning toward the view that Ersland did not believe that Parker presented a threat, and that Ersland was therefore unjustified in shooting him.

What about holding him, unarmed, at gunpoint for two minutes, THEN shooting him? Still cool?

That very much depends. Say I've got the guy to drop his weapon, got him down on his knees with his ankles crossed and his hands behind his head, and I've told him (probably several times) that if he makes a move to reach for his midsection, I shall interpret that as a threatening move. See, at that point, I don't know that he doesn't have another weapon in his pocket or waistband. From my point of view, the cops can search him when they arrive; I'm just holding him until they show up.

Now, in spite of my repeated warnings not to reach for his midsection, he does, I'm justified in shooting him, even if it emerges afterward that he didn't have a weapon there; the key word being afterward. Because at that moment I have no way of knowing that he doesn't have a weapon there, and he's already exhibited the willingness to unlawfully use lethal force on me by threatening me with a weapon in the first place, so I really can't be reasonably expected to give the guy the benefit of the doubt.

Now, applying this to Ersland and Parker, I would argue that Ersland might have been justified in shooting Parker a second time if Ersland could not reasonably have known at that moment that Parker was unconscious and unarmed. If Parker twitched and appeared to reach for something that might have been a concealed weapon, then I could accept that Ersland's shooting Parker was justified; he couldn't know that Parker wasn't feigning unconsciousness and didn't have a concealed weapon.

Again, I don't think this was actually the case, but there are hypothetical circumstances in which it might been justified. Even if it subsequently emerged that Parker was, in fact, unconscious and unarmed, to condemn Ersland would be using knowledge gained in hindsight that was not available to him at the moment he fired. And that's just Monday morning quarterbacking.