Armed Citizen: Oklahoma Pharmacist Defends Employees from Robbers

Status
Not open for further replies.
Virtually all animals do not continue aggressive actions against others in their species when the threat is over and dominance established.
Click to expand...

This brings up a question I have. I have recently become a hand gun owner. I have had several gun owners tell me that it is NATURAL to empty your gun into a perp when you are threatened because of adrenalin. In fact, the LEO often look at that as a sign that the gun owner truly felt fear.

There have been several cases where LEO opened fire on perps, only to hit them with tens of bullets, obviously an adrenalin rush. And in most cases I've read, have been exonerated.

I recognize this situation is a bit different, the pharmacist seemed more calculating, but is it really? I have been in situations that the adrenalin rush lingered well after the issue had resolved, and yet, I could not calm down for quite a while.

Another point..you all that condemn this pharmacist based on this video alone...how do you feel about the gent in Texas that shot the burglars in his neighbor's yard last year?
 
This is also pure speculation, but it may turn out that the public has not seen the entire security video that is available. More often than not there will be cameras placed so that there are several views of a storefront, in this case we have seen only a couple. Hint: There is usually a face-on view from the register area. I would not be surprised that if this goes to trial, there may not be an angle which shows the final moments of the event in more detail. These would be kept out of the public domain for obvious reasons.
usually things of this nature may not surface until well into the trial process.
 
I have had several gun owners tell me that it is NATURAL to empty your gun into a perp when you are threatened because of adrenalin. In fact, the LEO often look at that as a sign that the gun owner truly felt fear.

There have been several cases where LEO opened fire on perps, only to hit them with tens of bullets, obviously an adrenalin rush. And in most cases I've read, have been exonerated.
Click to expand...

There is no doubt that this happens frequently, but you have answered your own question;

the pharmacist seemed more calculating,
Click to expand...


I will venture that had Mr. Ersland fired several rounds into the suspect during the initial attack we would not be discussing this much more than the first page or two.

The fact that he scored a head shot with his first volley, then strode past the downed suspect calmly, and without little more than a glance twice (once while changing the weapon into his off-hand and digging in his strong side pocket) returned to retrieve a second weapon, then calmly strode over and fired to slide-lock does not support the "fear" factor, nor the adrenaline rush.
 
where they only show enough to inflame the public.
Click to expand...

Actually I was thinking just the opposite, imagine how inflammatory the view of a motionless suspect being hosed by a .380 shown repeatedly on the news (especially after the initial public outrage) would be.
 
"Why do you say he was a cripple"?

Wow, I can't believe it but I have to agree with David Armstrong on that comment.

The pharmacist (who did state that he was a cripple), sure did not look like a person who was a cripple in the video, (that I have watched numerous times). To me, his gait and deliberate movements do not indicate any disability (to my unprofessional eyes). Also, after watching it again this morning, I have to agree with PBP's comments as well.

We will probably never know what was really going on in the pharmacist's mind at this time (he may have been extremely scared and wanted to end the threat no matter what). But to me, its getting harder and harder to disagree with the video. Everytime I watch it, it just seems the pharmacist is so calculated and professional and does not look as threatened as I originally thought.
 
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.
Click to expand...
True, one does not need to be completely handicapped to be considered handicapped, but I'd suggest crippled is generally considered to have lost the ability to use a limb, as opposed to handicapped with its connotation of reduced ability. Looks like a semantics issue, thanks.
 
He wouldn't have turned his back to the downed intruder if he were still a threat.
Click to expand...

This is an excellent point that will undoubtedly come up in court if the DA is worth is salt. If he felt comfortable enough to turn his back on Parker while no other potential threats were in the store then he showed that he had little fear of any further action from Parker.

Edit:

However, I must revise my earlier statements that I believe it was in fact an execution. When Ersland retrieved the other handgun and walked over to Parker I would say if Parker was moving at all Ersland was justified. I say that because of the stories I've heard about cops who have believed they had a suspect down after shooting them and were shot and killed because the suspect had a concealed weapon. The only way Parker was still a threat was if he was moving.

Regardless of what the law says I think Ersland being found innocent in this case will send a good clear message to criminals (something that the federal/state/local governments have not done nearly an adequate job of) about the possible consequences of their actions.
 
Last edited:
Edit: nevermind, had my facts wrong. I think Ersland was using the Judge (but was he using .45 or .410?) first and not the .380 Kel-Tec. Still, not to start a caliber war here but I will never trust my safety to a .380.
 
I think a lot of our posters need to watch the video. It's the DA's release, they show the surveillance tapes twice from two different cameras with different vantage points, he points out the reasons why he chose to charge him, his feelings on the matter of self defense and concealed carry (He supports it), and what constitutes self defense.

Before making anymore comments, watch the tapes, watch his body language, get a feel for the situation. A lot of the hot water he is in is because in the videos he walks past the downed perp with no apparent concern for his safty, shifting his Judge from his right to left hand as he walked past, walked with his back to the subject over to a drawer with his second gun locked in it, retreived said gun, walked back to the subject on the ground where it appears he leans forward and empty's the gun into the subject at close range from above. He then calmly proceeds back to the counter and calls the police.

This isn't to say he's guilty, that's for the judge and jury. However, the surveillance tapes do not support his version of events and present him in a very bad light.


http://feeds.newsok.tv/services/player/bcpid1766638491?bctid=24432794001

Above is the video link.
 
However, I must revise my earlier statements that I believe it was in fact an execution. When Ersland retrieved the other handgun and walked over to Parker I would say if Parker was moving at all Ersland was justified. I say that because of the stories I've heard about cops who have believed they had a suspect down after shooting them and were shot and killed because the suspect had a concealed weapon. The only way Parker was still a threat was if he was moving.
Click to expand...
So you would think it OK for LEOs to execute anyone they have in a similar situation? They shoot someone, and the guy is still twitching a bit when they come up to him, you would support them emptying their guns into him because he might have a concealed weapon on him?
 
Philisophically, I wonder if anyone here would have a problem if the pharmacist would have cowered behind the counter with his gun waiting for the shooter to get up or for the police to arrive.

WildperhapsweneedapollAlaska ™
 
So you would think it OK for LEOs to execute anyone they have in a similar situation? They shoot someone, and the guy is still twitching a bit when they come up to him, you would support them emptying their guns into him because he might have a concealed weapon on him?
Click to expand...

Honestly, I don't know. It's a tough call because there are situations in which officers die because they let their guard down. Maybe emptying your weapon into a downed perp isn't the best course of action but I think Ersland may be able to reasonably argue that if Parker was still moving that he was justified.
 
Philosophically, I wonder if anyone here would have a problem if the pharmacist would have cowered behind the counter with his gun waiting for the shooter to get up or for the police to arrive.
Click to expand...

No. No problem at all. Tactically I think that would have been the best place for him to be. The phone was right there, he could have called the police while maintaining a firing position on both the downed perp and the front entrance.

That's where I would have been, gun trained on downed perp with one eye on him and another eye on the door. Although it wasn't likely the two armed perps he chased off would have came back, that was still a threat.

Mr E expended all of his ammo in his Judge, then emptied his second gun into a downed perp, totally ignoring what I view as the biggest threat, leaving himself unarmed and defenseless should the two other armed attackers have came back.

A waste of five good bullets I say, they should have stayed in his gun where he could have used them.

IMO, he should have never left the store or even the counter area. You have to remember he had two defenseless women behind him to protect. He left them inside with the downed perp while he ran outside after the other perps.

In the video the DA talks about what would have happened had Mr E shot the perp in the back as he ran away, and surprisingly he didn't seem to think that would have been a major issue, contrary to most of what I've heard on the subject of shooting fleeing perps in the back.

I'm kind of surprised on how reasonable and understanding of consealed carry and use of deadly force the DA is, but I suppose this is Oklahoma after all. :)

He did apparently fire two round outside at the fleeing perp though. I shudder at the thought of this, firing at a fleeing perp running down a city street. This could have been much worse, what if Mr E had hit the second perp as he ran away, or worse a civilian on the street. :(
 
Holy smokes

This has been hashed, rehashed, and more over 11 pages and i probably won't come up with anything new. When i first heard this story, I thought the guy was right on! A wounded vet, defending 3 women in the store, shoots and kills a robber with a single headshot. DRT. I'd like to think i'd respond under similar circumstances with that same valour and courage. But then the sordid details began to come out.

Hardly anything Ersland said happened is supported by what i think i'm seeing in the video. I really wonder if he believes he is telling the truth, and that his truth is distorted from what we've all now seen on video by the adrenaline surge, and his fear, anger, and elation (at not being killed)?

Anyway, shooting a gun at anyone is using lethal force, whether you miss, wound or kill. It doesn't matter one bit if the guy was already fatally wounded (mutilation of a corpse is also a crime, fyi), or that Ersland got another gun and stood over the BG; his crime was committed by pulling the trigger again. That particular perp had no ability, no opportunity, and no intent to harm Mr. Ersland AT THAT MOMENT. The first round he fired, from the Judge over the counter, was totally justified and the D.A. said as much.

That BG dude dropped like a rock from the headshot. He just simply folded. Whether he would have recovered or not eventually is a guess, but he was unconscious from impact, well before he hit the floor. Ersland actually turned his back to him twice, on the way out the door, then again on the way to get the .380. Certainly suggests he thought the threat was gone. Now here's the point - why did he go back and shoot some more? Surely he could have called police with his right hand, and held the gun on the BG with his off hand. He could have asked his wife to call the police.

The lesson here is remembering where the line is, the line that separates us erstwhile defenders of life and family from the BG. Ersland needed to be responding to an imminent threat, where the BG possessed those three factors - ability, intent, and opportunity. He did it very, very well up to the point he went out that door. There is an excellent explanation of the necessary factors on The Cornered Cat website, complete with concrete examples. Basically, an unconscious guy, laying on your floor bleeding from the headshot you gave him, with no weapon visible, doesn't meet any of the three. That is why Ersland is now charged with murder. If he had somehow caught up with and shot the escaping other BG in the back, it would be murder there too, and for the same essential reasons.

I am not saying he is guilty of murder. There are certainly facts that have not been made public yet, as always. The trial won't even be about his guilt or his innocence. It will be about what the DA can prove, what doubts the defense can raise, and eventually it will be about the personal beliefs and biases of the members of the jury and their perception of the truth, and of justice.

I am sorry that young man lost his life, and am sorry Ersland may have thrown his away. It just shows yet again what a great responsibility gun ownership is, and how preparedness goes far beyond the physical skill of discharging a weapon.

Oh yeah, there's one more lesson here: Never talk to the cops. Or especially the press. Even most LEOs will tell you (if they are being candid) the same thing.
 
It just shows yet again what a great responsibility gun ownership is, and how preparedness goes far beyond the physical skill of discharging a weapon.
Click to expand...


That is why this forum is an invaluable tool, especially for newbies like me that need guidance and experience as well as opposing points of view to understand the consequences of these life altering decisions!
 
If he had somehow caught up with and shot the escaping other BG in the back, it would be murder there too, and for the same essential reasons.
Click to expand...

Respectfully, he likely would Not have been charged (additionally) had he shot the other perp while he was fleeing. Watch the DA's explanation in the link Trooper provided, His firing on the other suspect would likely have been protected under the ability to use "deadly force to stop someone from fleeing the commission of a felony" or similar wording. The fleeing suspect would also be an armed threat to anyone outside the store. Not that he had the responsibility, but likely a lawful means, to use deadly force.

Philisophically, I wonder if anyone here would have a problem if the pharmacist would have cowered behind the counter with his gun waiting for the shooter to get up or for the police to arrive.
Click to expand...

I would think that would have been the best possible tactical decision.

People who make wise tactical decisions are usually called heroes, people who make unwise tactical decisions are usually called "the deceased" or "the defendant".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top