UPDATED/Oklahoma City pharmacist / first degree murder / VID

[74novaman]

I'm sure it came out afterwards that he was a good boy with a future, and this angry pharmacist just couldn't wait to take out a kid....

[C-dub]

This makes me think of all the incidents of police that go overboard on the violence at the end of a chase. Especially the more recent release of that video from Alabama where they went to town on that guy who was ejected from his truck and lay unconscious while getting the snot beat out of him. We're all pretty quick to dog pile on them, but not this guy?

I don't think there is a minimum time for premeditation to be valid. As one or two have said, adrenaline probably got the best of his judgement and he's going to pay for it.

IMHO

[bryang]

They have already said that there were demonstrators in front of the store with revenge on their minds...

This whole murder charge thing aside...

Revenge? For someone shooting a gang-banger who participated in an armed robbery?

Revenge, against this pharmacist, who was just doing his job, in his store, who didn't ask for the men to come in and point guns at him?

That is perhaps the dumbest thing I have ever heard.

I agree, however they are playing the race-card....

Although, a crowd of angry citizens did protest outside of the store, calling the shooting racially motivated. Because well, you know…the two robbers pointing guns at the employees and threatening to kill them were black. Had they been white, I am guessing they think Jerome and the two ladies would have handed over the cash and narcotics, lamented about the current economy while they all shared a Coke and some cherry flavored Twizzlers.

http://www.dreamindemon.com/2009/05/28/ ... ed-robber/

-geo

[A-R]

This is one of the more fascinating threads and cases I've come across in a while. All of the responses here are stellar, regardless of which side of the issue they come down. I have learned a lot and had my own personal opinion pulled in each direction just while reading these five pages worth of response, analysis, an opinion.

A few additional thoughts after reading everyone else's thoughts:

1. I feel AWFUL for Mr. Ersland. This guy was just trying to defend himself, his co-workers, and his business from two thugs. He did not ask for any of this. No matter what we may think about what we saw on the video, read in the news accounts, or read in this thread, I think we can all agree that this is an absolute TRAGEDY for Mr. Ersland and his family and a very real CAUTIONARY tale for each and every one of us who takes it upon ourselves to exercise our 2A rights. Regardless of the outcome of Mr. Ersland's trial, because of the actions of those two thugs and his reaction to it, his life will never again be the same. This is a tragedy that could happen to any of us. We must all learn whatever we can from it.

2. I still believe, if this same scenario happened to me, I would NOT have fired the subsequent shots. I would have retreated to the back room, called 911, and waited with hammer cocked and front sight on the door. I realize there is debate whether we are REQUIRED to do so, but this is simply my "best practices" for this scenario. I also realize retreating in this manner could've put me in more danger (perhaps the guy who ran out goes to get reinforcements? perhaps one of them barricades the door and sets fire to the place?) and if there was a back door I would have left through it. But I simply cannot fathom a scenario that would have caused me to put more bullets into that man at close range if he was already down from a gunshot to the head. If he goes for a gun or gets up and approaches me, certainly I put more bullets in him from a distance. But to walk up and put 5 more into the guy just doesn't seem right to me, no matter the circumstances. Mr. Ersland never should have walked up to that man again. He never should have been as close to that man as he was when he fired the second series of shots. He had no obligation to check the man's status. He should have kept a safe distance. And, to respond to one comment in particular, even if the man on the floor said "I'm going to hunt you down and kill you and your family" that STILL would not give Mr. Ersland the right, IMHO, to shoot the man. To be a "good" self-defense shooting, the attacker must have the means, motive, and opportunity to kill or harm you NOW. A threat of future violence MUST be reported to police, not dealt with by your own gun. Again, IMHO IANAL.

3. I am as open-minded as anyone I know, so I will never say with 100% certainty that I could not convict Mr. Ersland of murder nor that I could not exhonorate him completely if I was on the jury. But from what I've seen and read so far, I think some sort of pled down manslaughter conviction may be the end result and could possibly be the JUST result. There were too many extenuating circumstances for this to be premediated MURDER, IMHO. But, on the other hand, no matter the circumstances no human being has the right to fire 5 shots into an injured person to "finish them off", IF this is in fact what happened. If it were up to me, I'd be inclined to give Mr. Ersland the lightest possible sentence for whatever crime he may be convicted, simply because he did not ASK for this. He simply reacted, not 100% properly - perhaps - but he was reacting to a serious crime that he apparently did nothing to provoke.

4. Something about this case reminds me just a bit of the fictional case in the novel and movie "A Time to Kill". If Mr. Ersland gets a sympathetic jury, it could have a similar outcome as well. While I know in my soul that killing another human is WRONG. My heart often wishes for some sort of cosmic justice and retribution like the Samuel Jackson character in the movie gave to the two animals who raped his young daughter. I don't even like to discuss what I might be capable of doing if someone ever raped my daughter. Hell hath no comprehension of that kind of fury.

5. In response to one of the other points made in an earlier post, I believe - and IANAL but I believe the law is on my side here - there is NO DEFENSE (legal, moral, ethical, or religious) for one human being INTENTIONALLY KILLING another human being, outside the narrow confines of open war or the legal process resulting in the "death penalty" sentence. Your goal must ALWAYS be to STOP THE THREAT. Self defense is just exactly that. Stopping the threat. The intention must NEVER be TO KILL or you will surely fry. If stopping the threat happens to lead to an attacker's death, then you are on safe legal, moral, ethical, and religious ground, IMHO. IANAL

[HankB]

A few thoughts . . .

1. It's hard to see how a "missing" video would be more damaging than the one we've seen.

2. In a similar situation, I don't see myself administering a five-shot coup-de-grace to the perp. (Assuming it was a coup-de-grace; we can't see the perp.)

3. Head shot? Perp may have been dead already, in which case the final 5 shots might be "abuse of a corpse" or something of the kind. Not murder.

4. Were I on the jury, I would not convict the pharmacist of anything related to the demise of the perp - his demise falls firmly into the "good riddance" category.

[doc540]

Pharmacist should've kept his mouth shut from the get-go, saying as little as possible and nothing without the approval of his attorney.

[gemini]

That's all true. What if? The prosecutor though is going to play this video. There's no evidence at all that the guy who was killed presented any immediate threat to the pharmacist at any point in the whole sequence. What you guys are suggesting is that all the defense team has to do then is stand up and claim that the prosecution hasn't proven that it wasn't self defense. That isn't a defense to prosecution under Texas law. What if he had a gun, what if he was reaching for a gun, what if he was trying to get up and the pharmacist was afraid he had a gun? I would be afraid to face the jury and that video with just that as proof of self defense.

Rather than play judge and jury to this guy, I think it's more important for us to put ourselves in his shoes right before he pulled the trigger. Did it look to you like he was in any particular danger from this kid? Doesn't look that way to me. I would be really afraid it would look like that to the jury. Looks to me like he had quite a few better choices like not going back into the store in the first place. Like not chasing the first guy with a gun, who apparently didn't actually steal anything. BTW, what happened to the other rounds in his .45 revolver, and why did he trade it for a .380? Like running his mouth to the press telling a story that now doesn't appear to match the video. Seems there's a lot for us to learn about what not to do.

That's exactly what the defense should do in closing arguments. Claim the prosecution has not proven it wasn't self defense.
Create the doubt of guilt in this case. That's all the defense is required to do. It's the DA's job to get the conviction. I'm not saying there isn't circumstantial evidence. However, I'll still reserve judgement until ALL pertinent facts and evidence is presented by the defendant and DA.
I do agree the Pharmacist should have kept his mouth shut and let his attorney handle the questioning/interview with police.

[ClarkLZeuss]

Something that just occurred to me from reading another thread is that many of us despise the idea of a judge ruling on a case out of "empathy," rather than the correct way, of blindly judging by the facts and the law. However, what many of us mean by this is that we don't want any empathy given for the perps (example: we're already theorizing, and bemoaning, headlines like "Teenager Has Life Cut Tragically Short"). But we're fine with empathy given to the pharmacist, by the jury. But justice has to be blind.

I really do feel terrible for all of this happening to Mr. Ersland. But ultimately, he made the decision to return to the perp and fire those additional five shots. Imagine for a second if Mr. Ersland had done this later in the day, when the perp was in the hospital from his head wound. Or a week later after the dude gets home from the hospital. Most of us would probably say that is pure murder, vigilante style. (If you don't, then well maybe that's another thread). So my question is: what's the difference between finishing him off at a later date, vs. finishing him off a minute after he's down?

[Frost]

It seems that a lot of people commenting in this thread not only have access to other videos of the incident from multiple angles, but are also psychic.

[surprise_i'm_armed]

Regarding the guns that the pharmacist used, and in which order:

The initial different thread on this incident was started by me and the pharmacist said
that he grabbed his Kel-Tec .380 first and shot the 16 year old in the head.

Then he grabbed his Taurus Judge (chambered for .45 and shotgun shells) and had pointed
that at the bad guys in the getaway car.

The youth was allegedly shot 6 times with the .380. The first was the head shot, then the
last 5 were to the stomach/abdomen.

Nothing that I read in the original story, or here in the comments, makes any
references to the Taurus having been fired at all.

I have to agree with some of the other posters that the video is unclear at showing
whether the perp who got killed was ever armed.

Since the pharmacist's aim was so good with the head shot, and having been wounded
in one of his hands, it seems that he could have kept his distance from the wounded
youth and shot him from a distance.

[Eric C]

There's another video from a different angle on this page http://www.kfor.com/news/specialreports ... ,527.story. The first shot he fired was from the Taurus. He may have emptied it chasing the other guy and then went back to get the .380. It seems pretty clear that he leans over the guy to fire the last shots. I would expect him to have a rough go of it in court. There's a good ten seconds of him exposing himself to potential fire without showing much obvious concern before he returns to shoot again. He gives his back to the guy for at least five. That may just be bad judgment, but it sure doesn't look good.

[bdickens]

It seems that a lot of people commenting in this thread not only have access to other videos of the incident from multiple angles, but are also psychic.

[KD5NRH]

Since the pharmacist's aim was so good with the head shot, and having been wounded in one of his hands, it seems that he could have kept his distance from the wounded youth and shot him from a distance.

Or he got lucky with that shot.

Frankly, I look at it like the time I shot a feral hog, then as I started to turn it over to see where I'd hit it, it kicked. I drew and put four rounds of .45ACP into the hog in the time it took my brain to fully process its only thought at that moment: "Pig still fighting! STOP PIG NOW!."

I expect that in a combat situation I might react the same to a violent BG trying to get up with a bullet in his head as I did to the pork zombie.

[Greybeard]

Maybe more details will emerge one of these days, but I'm just guessing the Taurus Judge may have been loaded with buckshot. The pattern could have spread enough at that distance that just one ball hit the kid the head initially. On the other hand, if it was a .45 Long Colt round, those things are known for good penetration, which from the DA's description from the ME, that first round did not have ...

[A-R]

Something that just occurred to me from reading another thread is that many of us despise the idea of a judge ruling on a case out of "empathy," rather than the correct way, of blindly judging by the facts and the law. However, what many of us mean by this is that we don't want any empathy given for the perps (example: we're already theorizing, and bemoaning, headlines like "Teenager Has Life Cut Tragically Short"). But we're fine with empathy given to the pharmacist, by the jury. But justice has to be blind.

Great point. Everyone wants sympathy/empathy for themselves, their family, friends, and those with whom they agree. To me the whole idea of a judge ruling blindly only by the facts and the law is the same as being judged by a computer. Not what I want from a judge. Of course, I don't want judges interpreting the law or giving leniency in a manner with which I disagree. This is why it's important to elect politicians who will appoint judges who think like we think - or elect the judges directly, as is often the case in Texas.