Armed Citizen: Oklahoma Pharmacist Defends Employees from Robbers

Status
Not open for further replies.
Also, when animals defend, and dominance is made the predator leaves, and if he doesn't he gets killed. The animal knows when the other is knocked out, and it will keep going until its dead.
Click to expand...

Give the chest thumping a rest, it looks even sillier now than it did when you first started it:rolleyes:

WildAlaska, his attorney is very good and well respected'
Click to expand...

No, he needs to tone it down...amy I suggest:

"Ladies and gentlemen, we know the pressure that the DA is under from some members of the community to resolve this tragedy at the expense of my client. My client, a law abiding and respected veteran, did not precipitate these tragic events, rather, he was a victim forced into this situation by the violent and criminal acts of the decedant. We look forward to putting the District Attorney to his proof at trial and shall have no further statement at this time"

WildjustkeeprepeatingthatAlaska ™
 
Hey - I'm on TV!

Maybe the defense attorney wants to pollute the jury pool by eliciting Rambos for the jury and then the DA will make a deal. My strategy is based on watching Law and Order.
 
At what point should your lawyer stop answering questions and demand an attorney?
Click to expand...

Heh, reminds me of an old Pinky and the Brain cartoon, Brain went to work at a reinsurance reinsurance company.

"We insure insurance companies who insure insurance companies."
"Hows business?"
"Luu-crative!"
 
Well, I am certainly glad I searched for "pharmacist" before starting a thread on this shooting.

WildAlaska's initial caution to wait for the facts before extolling the pharmacist as a hero has been vindicated, in my opinion. From the security video this looks like a bad shoot, indeed. However, it is not clear from the video (to me) what exactly the bad guy was doing on the floor when the pharmacist emptied the magazine into him.
 
WildAlaska, his attorney is very good and well respected'
Click to expand...

People put WAAAAY too much confidence into the notion of a person being well respected, as if being respected means that they are above making errors or are sometimes completely out of their element on an issue - be it with lawyers, gun experts, car experts, doctors, archaeologists, or what have you.

Being "well respected" means accolades of the past, but do not vouch for the accuracy of the present, although people often think that it does.

No doubt the argument will be made that Ersland is respected as well...:rolleyes:
 
Question?

I sure don't have all the answers and nobody does at this particular time. All of you make good points and as it progresses. Like the rest of you, I am starting to think that the pharmacist may have over re-acted. But again, I wasn't there and you can't really see what the bad guy on the floor is doing.

However, Playboypenguin did bring up a valid point: He brings up the point, that the pharmacist did walk right up to the guy on the floor like he wasn't really scared (or there wasn't a real threat). Either that, or he is brave as hell if the bad guy was actually trying to get up, etc.

Note: They (robbbers) were standing next to each other at the time of the shooting. My question is, "why would the pharmacist shoot the bad guy "who didn't have a gun" if that was the case?
I would have shot the guy holding the semi auto pointing at me and my assistant if he was the only one pointing a gun at me, wouldn't you?

If you look at the perp on that video, (who supposedly did not have a weapon) you can see him pulling something out of his pants (under his shirt) and then pointing whatever it was at the pharmacist. What was that?
 
Skydiver, My take on why the guy brandishing wasn't first shot was it appeared on video that the guy shot the first crook he could see with the center row of shelf possibly covering his view of the one with a gun.
Brent
 
Note: They (robbbers) were standing next to each other at the time of the shooting. My question is, "why would the pharmacist shoot the bad guy "who didn't have a gun" if that was the case?
I would have shot the guy holding the semi auto pointing at me and my assistant if he was the only one pointing a gun at me, wouldn't you?
Click to expand...

They were very close together. I'd guess there's a very good chance that he simply missed his intended target.
 
People put WAAAAY too much confidence into the notion of a person being well respected, as if being respected means that they are above making errors or are sometimes completely out of their element on an issue - be it with lawyers, gun experts, car experts, doctors, archaeologists, or what have you.

Being "well respected" means accolades of the past, but do not vouch for the accuracy of the present, although people often think that it does.

No doubt the argument will be made that Ersland is respected as well
Click to expand...
...

His Attorney has tried many high profile cases and i'm sure will offer as good a defense as any attorney could with the evidence at hand.

so bash him if you must, but he does know what he is doing and he also knows much more about this case than anyone here does. if i were to need legal advice i would much sooner seek it from Irvin Box than any of the internet experts involved in this thread.
 
One last question?

According to the latest reports, the District Attorney who is handling this case states, "The guy who was first shot was on the floor and unconscious when the pharmacist walked up and shot him again"? I don't understand that and how would he or she know that if they wern't even there? Also, it does not show that the robber was unconscious on the video (after he went down)? Just a question is all.
 
they have come to the conclusion he was unconscious from something in the medical examiners report,what that was i have no idea
Click to expand...
May have it been the location of a bullet in a certain location of the brain that does not lend to the possibility of regaining coherent consciousness? :eek::rolleyes::D
Brent
 
The animal knows when the other is knocked out, and it will keep going until its dead.
Click to expand...

Thats very wrong. Animals generally fight for only two reasons. When they are hunting it is to get food and there intent is to kill. But when they fight, its usually over a mate, and they fight until submission, but humans and animals are very very different creatures. We are called "an intelligent species"
 
You're kidding, right

WildandfolkswonderwhythesoccermommieslookaskanceatgunownersAlaska TM
Click to expand...


Much to your disapproval, no I'm not.


DonRiknowlongergivearatsbehindwhatsoccermomsthinkorhowtheylookatgunowners101395
 
Here a couple of interesting points for you to consider:
1) The evidence is that when the police came, the BG was laying on his back, arms out, palms up (I'm sure that there are those of you who will ask "How do we know that he was in that position when the pharmacist shot him?) My answer is We don't. But the defense has to prove that point. (I am ignoring the fact the the pharmacist walked by the BG twice and never gave him a second thought until after he loaded the .308.)

2) The prosecutor said that the forensic examiner states that the first shot was not fatal and believed that the BG would have recovered fully. (The defense may need to get an expert to say otherwise)

3) The prosecutor in the video was giving his closing statement publicly, i.e. defining murder and telling why this was murder. He's already playing to his audience(jury). And the defense attorney is doing the same when he says that he is relying on the "Make My Day" law.

4) The case is going to be decided by the 12 who are going to have to decide it based upon the arguments that the posters on this board raise.
Did the BG surrender his right to life when he committed the robbery(Make My Day) or Did the pharmacist use excessive force while subduing the
BG?

I think that this is going to be a case of jury nullification.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top