Armed Citizen: Oklahoma Pharmacist Defends Employees from Robbers

Status
Not open for further replies.
I have to say that we all live in a really horrible world when a professional veteran who is just trying to make a living goes to prison for life for just doing his job, protecting himself, and being robbed and shot by two violent and dangerous criminals. I would testify that adrenaline alone could account for his poor judgement in finishing-off the suspect, if the threat were in fact neutralized. I don't think he was right, but I'd hate to see him become the loser for a situation he didn't create.
Click to expand...
Well said and even better because it's coming from a doctor. Personally I think Pax is right and this will probably be pled down to a lesser charge. And as was said, this DA, Kevin Costner I believe;), sounds like a pretty good joe. His going to bat for the pharmacist on his gun rights was a nice touch. Doesn't look good, but I firmly believe it's going to be less than murder one. I'll be really surprised if not.
 
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.
Click to expand...

I am not bashing the attorney. In fact, I made absolutely not comment about him what-so-ever. I commented on the naivete of the statement saying that he was well respected that seems to be defending his rather, shall we say, -"unique" presentation of information. Notice, that isn't a bash of him either, but simply a statement being critical of how he presented the defense version of things.

Only on extremely rare occasions have I seen a defense attorney before a trial claim guilt and only a few times when the attorney has claimed extenuating circumstances for an illegal act. So of course he will claim his client isn't guilty. That doesn't make it right. As I recall, he doesn't always get them right either.
 
I have to say that we all live in a really horrible world when a professional veteran who is just trying to make a living goes to prison for life for just doing his job, protecting himself, and being robbed and shot by two violent and dangerous criminals. I would testify that adrenaline alone could account for his poor judgement in finishing-off the suspect, if the threat were in fact neutralized
Click to expand...
Just from viewing the tape I would have to completely disagree with everything you just said. The defendants actions in no way lead me to believe he was acting under any severe adrenaline rush. If I was called to testify as a psychologist (which I used to actually be before I became a professional bum) I would have to testify that his actions seemed premeditated and calculated.
 
Incidentally, the DA has made it to my good-guys list with something that happened during the bail hearing. From http://newsok.com/pharmacist-in-fatal-oklahoma-city-shooting-released-on-100000-bail/article/3373194 :

District Judge Tammy Bass-LeSure set the bail amount after viewing a store videotape of the shooting of Antwun Parker, 16.

The hearing today turned contentious when District Attorney David Prater asked the judge not to bar Ersland from access to a gun while at the store. He argued Ersland still has a right to defend himself and pharmacy employees if the store is robbed again.

He said the restriction either meant Ersland would be fired from his job or crooks now know it is "open season" at the pharmacy if Ersland is there. The district attorney said his position sounds crazy but under the law Ersland has the right to protect himself. At one point, spectators clapped.

The pharmacy has been robbed before, police records show.

The judge refused to change her decision, saying Ersland can get another job. "If somebody wants to be around him, they are not going to have access to a gun," the judge said.

"That's wrong," the district attorney replied.
Click to expand...

More at the link...

pax
 
I'm no legal expert or highly esteemed TFL member but a couple of points here:

1. This guy is innocent until proven guilty. His defense attorney only has to poke holes in the case presented by the DA.

2. The DA did not come across as wanting to make an example of this guy. That office clearly analyzed medical and visual evidence to press charges, along with the lies published in newspapers that were attributed to the defendant in this arrest. I'm wondering if there is any more evidence outside of the video and medical exams that are being taken into consideration as well.

3. An arrest and charges being filed do not equate guilt, just the appearance of guilt.

I've withheld commenting on this case for the duration of this thread because when I initially read it we didn't have any video evidence or anything but newspaper reports. We all know how accurate those are.

The video evidence in this case is damning to both sides, you cannot see the would be thief in the video so no one can be 100% certain of his actions at the time, but the demeanor of the clerk did not exactly show fear, apprehension, or any indication that I would expect someone who felt threatened. Especially the parts where he turns his back with a brief sideways glance...that's all my opinion only.

I have never been in that situation before so I can't pass judgment, I can say that I can understand how in the heat of an incident such as that all logic and reason could go out the window. I can see maybe what some are seeing as calculated actions could be the result of shock or stress...I don't know the difference between the physiological effects of either well enough to say 100%.

But as a Monday morning quarterback I can say that unless the deceased was attempting to flee or attack I think the final volley of shots was illegal, immoral, and deserves some form of punishment. Murder 1? Probably not, the deceased cannot be 100% pardoned for putting himself in that position. In all reality I think this will result in a plea deal or hung jury, all the factors we are arguing about will be in full force in any jury. It continues to disgust me when I see all the race cards being played by both sides.

I do think I've learned a lot about myself and what I hope that I would do in the same situation should it ever arise, which is why I read these and other articles regarding real life situations of self defense. Not to argue about who's right or wrong, not up to me to decide thank God.
 
Playboy,
I can assure you that the man was quite filled with adrenaline. What else would give a "cripple" the energy and fearlessness to chase and armed robber out the front door. In 2 seconds a person is engulfed in an incredible surge of hormones and epinephrine, which drives them to immediately resort to a fight or flight mode--notice how the two women innately run for their lives but the man instantly attacks without thinking!
After the dust settled, that man probably couldn't hear anything other than the surge of blood as it pounded the inside of his ears, rushing through his carotids. As one becomes filled with adrenaline, one becomes violent to a degree, and the vision becomes blurred as the pupils dilate and the blood pressure cranks up above 200. One also becomes delerious and confused--unable to make sound judgement. Sounds become distant and the ears start to ring.
I doubt this pharmacist was seasoned well enough in self defense, and combat to control these physiologic responses. I can only imagine that it takes years of harsh exposure to attain that kind of control in a life-or-death situation.
Just my opinion...
 
It will be very interesting to see how this plays out. In New Mexico, the 14 year old would be charged as a minor and probably sent to a juvenile detention home for a while. If he had killed someone he probably would be tried as an adult. Those kids should have never picked a fight with an old man.
 
Once again I am going to disagree with you and say that you might have great medical knowledge, but I feel you are mistaken regarding the psychological side of this issue and the physical indicators that would be present if the man was "out of his mind" with a massive adrenaline surge. His body language, movements, and actions did not indicate any impairment. In fact it was quite the opposite. Adrenaline would be a normal side effect of such an event (I have been in combat situations, I am no stranger to adrenaline) but this man's actions lead me to believe this is something he has planned out in his head many times beforehand and not a rash decision made while impaired by stress.
 
We've seen enough folks in such situations who don't fall apart. The military, police and civilian training can teach you to deal with such. People have made a point that the gentleman was a veteran - he should have had some experience. While textbook discussions of stress may be useful - again to claim a diminished responsibility defense is risky.

It admits that he has no viable self-defense claim but was out of control.

BTW - if one buys into this - one should then argue that gun owners need much training to avoid such mental incapacity. Is that a road the average gun owner wants to go.

The crazed by stress argument goes nowhere. If one can't handle the decision making in lethal force situations to a reasonable standard - one shouldn't have a gun.
 
I feel you are mistaken regarding the psychological side of this issue and the physical indicators that would be present if the man was "out of his mind" with a massive adrenaline surge. His body language, movements, and actions did not indicate any impairment. In fact it was quite the opposite. Adrenaline would be a normal side effect of such an event
Click to expand...

With all due respect, I must agree with PBP, I have watched the video countless times now, studied it almost frame by frame, and one of the most glaring consistencies is that this man was quite composed given the circumstances.
There are no hesitations in his actions, his body language suggests a deliberate quality. Of particular note was the fact that there was hardly a single item of inventory knocked over during the initial shooting, during the attempted pursuit, and particularly when the man was, by all appearances, retrieving the .380 from a (possibly) locked drawer, unless I am mistaken there is no fumbling on his part, his hands appear steady, his gait appears quite deliberate. It was either well rehearsed (which I doubt ) or he was quite composed.


"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?
Click to expand...


It would be a matter of examining the paths of the bullets as they passed thru the tissue, The shooter did not seem move around while shooting, he stood in one spot and fired rapidly. If all the trajectories came from the same angle it would be easy to tell that the body of the man on the floor was not moving when shot. ETA: Also gunshot residue would be deposited evenly and not disturbed a great deal unless the target was moving.
 
Last edited:
the pharmacist is an easy target everywhere now that the judge screwed him. Who wants to bed he's gonna get a drive by before he even goes to court? This is so sad. stupid judge. He's not guilty yet you idiot, how can you put a bull's eye on his head? DA seems like he was made to press charges. I don't think he wanted to. He sounded regretful and was strongly advocating that it is ok to defend yourself.
 
Kyo, you're letting your age show through here. Buck up.

He screwed himself. The fight was over, the perps had split and the remaining one, unarmed from the start, was lying incapacitated on the floor.

This is a great example of what not to do. I would like to think most of us wouldn't need this example of what not to do. You don't walk back inside, walk past a downed perp, walk over to a locked drawer, unlock it, retrieve your other gun, then walk over to the downed perp and empty it into him at close range. That's not self defense, that's an execution.

He had prepared extensively for another robbery, and I think he had thought over what he would do so much that he just went overboard neutralizing the threat. He seemed to be operating under the delusion that it was OK for him to do so. He very calmly finished the kid off, then promptly called the police. Very business like. I'd say he was gravely uneducated and ignorant of what he could and couldn't do. I'd venture the guess that perhaps he was thinking an armed robbery = a right to terminated anyone evolved. Unfortunately he was either uneducated on when his right to use deadly force stopped, or he was flustered and steamrolled right into what appears to have been a cold blooded murder.

It's an unfortunate event, as even the DA pointed out, if he just hadn't done that one last act he would have been fine. He stepped over a line. What's scary is any one of us could find ourselves in a similar place.

I have empathy for him, when these things go down everything hits the fan. Things speed up, things slow down, the world turns upside down and spins all around, it's ****ty.

It looked like his field of vision was somewhat obstructed from his location, he saw two masked robbers, a gun, they were screaming at him, it's reasonable for him to assume they were both armed, and once he started shooting it's going to be hard to tell if one or both are shooting or in this case, if you're just shooting yourself. It's possible what he did was just a terrible misjudgment made in the heat of the moment. That's no excuse for what he did though.

You have to educate yourself and make certain you know your laws and what you can and cannot do to defend yourself, and you can't loose control like that and murder someone, even out of ignorance or heat of the moment. Something in your head should click when you're looking down at an incapacitated person with a gun in your hand, if you go ahead and empty your weapon into them then you have some issues. Not only that, but you will have some issues, legal ones. The law doesn't care if you know it or not, saying you're sorry you didn't know won't cut it, saying I'm sorry I thought I was following the law won't cut it. Not on this scale at least.
 
Ouch... just watched the video. That was an execution... I really hope the NRA or any other gun rights group does not try to back this guy or it's going to make for great ammo for Brady & Co.

EDIT:

I know that sounds cold and selfish that the only thing I am concerned about is how this will affect my rights but I'm pretty confident that everyone involved will get what they deserve. While it is sad and regrettable that someone had to die because of this Parker knew (or should have known) that he was gambling his life when he decided to become an accomplice to armed robbery. He suffered the consequences of his actions. In regards to Ersland, common sense should dictate that shooting a person who is incapacitaed while they are on the ground is 1) morally wrong and 2) illeagle.

Some may argue that he acted in the "heat of the moment" and was not thinking clearly but the fact that he went and retrieved another handgun and very calmly approached Parker and proceeded to finish him off as opposed to rushing back directly to him and using the remaining rounds in the original gun as he reentered the store shows that this was no longer an issue. Also, even if he acted in the "heat of the moment" there are plenty of husbands who came home too early sitting in jail for the same reason... no excuse.
 
Last edited:
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...
Once again, that is factually incorrect.
 
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.
Click to expand...
Irvin is about as good as they come in that area. I remember him from back when he was doing public defender work, and most of the guys at the S.O. agreed that if they were in trouble they would want him on their side.
 
What else would give a "cripple" the energy and fearlessness
Click to expand...
Maybe I missed it in the noise, but why do yo usay he was a cripple? He's wearing a back support, but for about a year my Dad wore one that appears to be much the same and he walked, worked in the garden, and did other assorted physical activity without too much trouble.
 
There is a hint of sarcasm there, being that the man is a self-proclaimed "cripple" in one of his interviews--a term I often reserve for someone with one eye, no arms, and no legs.

You guys (esp PBP) might be right, he does look quite comfortable as he strolls through the room. He wouldn't have turned his back to the downed intruder if he were still a threat. I must be in denial to think that someone who is presumably honorable would have the upper hand in such an encounter and use that to enact his own will. I'm still disturbed, however, that this professional's life will be forever disrupted because of an event initiated by a criminal. Without details of the dead boy's injuries, I'd hope that a manslaughter-type charge could be reached. Even with the video evidence, there are still a lot of details we don't know; some of which might support his actions.

If the head shot were fatal--that is causing instant brain death--they could argue that the remaining shots were at a brain-dead body (not a person). Depending on the state's laws about brain death, once someone is brain dead, the living body is more like property of the next of kin. Of course, most states require that brain death be pronounced by a physician after the usual bedside and ventilator tests. IOW this case is a forensic nightmare.
 
Last edited:
Maybe I missed it in the noise, but why do yo usay he was a cripple? He's wearing a back support, but for about a year my Dad wore one that appears to be much the same and he walked, worked in the garden, and did other assorted physical activity without too much trouble.
Click to expand...

He is crippled in that he has lost function of his back. That isn't to say he has lost all function as he isn't totally crippled, but he has lost some function as a result of some sort of insult and has to wear a brace to compensate. His mobility is not fully functional. In fact, he appears significantly impaired in his ability to move normally, so he is in fact, crippled, though certainly not completely crippled just like not all handicapped people are completely handicapped.

a term I often reserve for someone with one eye, no arms, and no legs.
Click to expand...

My grandmother had all of her eyes, arms, and legs, and yet she was crippled by arthritis. There were a tremendous amount of things she could not do as a result, yet she refused to be put into an assisted living facility, drove herself around, and made all sorts of compensations in her behavior to overcome her physical deterioration. She could walk, but to call her ambulatory would have been generous.

Several of us have mentioned the ease at which he strolls around. My guess is that may be his best speed as a result of the brace. He never runs and seems to proceed everywhere in a stiffened fashion.

With that said, being crippled, previously injured, handicapped, or whatever you want to call it, has no real bearing on Ersland's secondary shooting of Parker. Parker had been "crippled" by Ersland's first shot to the head, rendered unable to function.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top