Armed Citizen: Oklahoma Pharmacist Defends Employees from Robbers

[OuTcAsT]

Is there any support for a movement of armed citizens that would be willing to act as a bodyguard for Mr. Ersland?

I would think that if the defendant were that concerned with his own safety, he would not have been so quick to bail out of, what would amount to "protective custody" until he is tried.

The DA says he was down, but where is the support to this claim?

I will offer the video evidence once again, it is quite clear that the defendant was shooting at something of which he had no fear. He was not "cautious" about approaching quickly (closing the distance between himself and the target exponentially) Nor was he "startled" by a sudden movement and begin to retreat as he fired. There are going to be other pieces of forensic evidence that will be offered , but this video, shows an execution style murder, everything else will be icing on the cake.

what happened to "innocent until proven guilty?"

That's for court, this is public opinion, no such standard exists.

Face reality here folks, what started off looking like a good SD shoot turned into a murder, it does not matter that the defendant was forced to defend himself, he initially did that within the law. The question becomes; "Are you going to continue to defend someone who crossed the line from self defense, to murder" ? Another question; Ask yourself,
"If the downed robber had lived to go to trial for his crime, would you be in favor of his execution as a punishment"?

As much as we hate to see something like this incident happen, all the rationalizations in the world are not going to justify what the defendant did in the last few seconds of that tape. I would suggest you go back to the OP and read the defendants statements, then watch the video , Was it a poor recollection due to stress? Or was it an intentional lie?

 

[OuTcAsT]

Just to refresh everyone's memory, here is the defendants statement, with commentary and emphasis mine

From the defendants own account:

Rubbing an oversized bandage on his left forearm, where he said he was grazed by a robber’s bullet,

Evidence has shown that the only shots fired were by the defendant.

Ersland related details of a highly organized hit on the Reliable Discount Pharmacy.

Notice on the tape that the “highly organized” robber that was shot spent his entire time in the store attempting to put on, and adjust his mask.

"We have a very good security system,” Ersland said, motioning to the magnetic door locks that won’t let anyone in or out of the store without permission.

About 10 minutes before 6 p.m. two robbers wearing ski masks waited for someone to leave the pharmacy and then grabbed the open door and threw down a board to stop the door from closing. The robbers came in cursing and yelling, ordering employees to give them money and drugs, Ersland said.

These statements are conflicting each other, and the statement about the robbers waiting for someone to leave and grabbing the door are false. Video evidence shows that no one exited the pharmacy immediately prior to the robbery, It also shows that the female employee on the left “buzzed in” Parker.

"All of a sudden, they started shooting,” he said. "They were attempting to kill me, but they didn’t know I had a gun. They said, ‘You’re gonna die.’ That’s when one of them shot at me, and that’s when he got my hand.”

Physical evidence does not support this, the only shots fired were by the defendant.

Ersland said he was thrown against a wall, but managed to go for the semiautomatic in his pocket.

The weapon in his pocket was a revolver.

"And that’s when I started defending myself,” he said. "The first shot got him in the head, and that slowed him down so I could get my other gun.”

It did indeed slow down Parker, the other gun was not retrieved until much later.

But as one robber hit the floor, Ersland said, a bullet from the other robber whizzed past his ear. The pharmacist said he then got his second gun from a nearby drawer, a Taurus Judge. After he had the big gun, Ersland said, the second robber ran.

Again, both total fabrications as compared to video and physical evidence.

But as he started to chase after the second robber he looked back to see the 16-year-old he had shot in the head getting up again. Ersland said he then emptied the Kel-Tec .380 into the boy’s chest."

This is not consistent with the evidence.

"I went after the other guy, but he was real fast and I’m crippled,” Ersland said.
When he went back in the pharmacy, Ersland said, he called police.

Not one of these statements is factually accurate with respect to the video or the physical evidence at the scene.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

But otherwise, I thought his story well fabricated! :barf::barf:

You notice how Ersland's injury was so not evident in the video. He never flinches from an impact. He never favors the injured arm. You never see any blood or signs of wounding. As noted, you never see the bad guy shoot at him.

You should not have to lie when you are in the right and have done right. Ersland lied. What does that tell you?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You know, it is the first successful use of a Taurus Judge that I know about, certainly the only one on video I know, and Taurus can't taut it as a positive thing because the event turned into {alleged} murder and hence would not be a positive image for the company.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Other SDA licensees whom I know have mentioned the same thing, so I don't believe it is faulty instruction. The class is "book-taught" and the instructor was plainly reading from the CLEET materials. It would be curious to know the origin of the guideline, but until I know for sure, I'm going to assume that if it isn't grounded in actual statute, it's either due to legal precedent from previous court cases or simply intended to keep me out of legal trouble. As a lawyer friend once told me, "You don't ever want to be a test case."

Fine. Cite the passages from the booklet that say you can't defend a non-related bystander.

 

[Tucker 1371]

You should not have to lie when you are in the right and have done right. Ersland lied. What does that tell you?

I'm afraid Mr. Ersland is going to fry.

 

[Wildalaska]

Just to refresh everyone's memory, here is the defendants statement, with commentary and emphasis mine

A closed mouth gathers no foot.

Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding speaketh not to the press

WildesltonewillgethoseremarksshoveduptheproverbialAlaska ™

 

[Wagonman]

For what its worth,I was taught in my police academy class, ( thirty five years ago ), in a gun fight, after you downed the perp with a shot, you empty your sidearm into him.

I call BS also, no department authorizes coup de grace

 

[TMA-1]

Fine. Cite the passages from the booklet that say you can't defend a non-related bystander.

Sorry, I don't have the text available. As far as I know, the textbook is available to CLEET instructors only.

It's an interesting conundrum. Oklahoma-approved classroom materials say you can't, but the DA infers that you can.

 

[OuTcAsT]

Fine. Cite the passages from the booklet that say you can't defend a non-related bystander.
Sorry, I don't have the text available. As far as I know, the textbook is available to CLEET instructors only.

It's an interesting conundrum. Oklahoma-approved classroom materials say you can't, but the DA infers that you can.

In the interest of settling this debate, here are the Olahoma statutes Title 21, to wit; (emphasis mine)

§21 733. Justifiable homicide by any person.
Homicide is also justifiable when committed by any person in either of the following cases:
1. When resisting any attempt to murder such person, or to commit any felony upon him, or upon or in any dwelling house in which such person is; or,
2. When committed in the lawful defense of such person, or of his or her husband, wife, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant, when there is a reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony, or to do some great personal injury, and imminent danger of such design being accomplished; or,
3. When necessarily committed in attempting, by lawful ways and means, to apprehend any person for any felony committed; or in lawfully suppressing any riot; or in lawfully keeping and preserving the peace.

The DA is correct, your booklet is incorrect. (or at least not all-encompassing) It has nothing to do with self defense, rather, the apprehension of a felon. Armed robbery is a felony , thus the defendant would have been justified had he shot the fleeing suspect(s).

 

[TMA-1]

I'm glad you found that, because I was really wondering from where the info came. In my own defense (no pun intended!) I will point out that item #2 speaks directly to what I was taught in the class:

2. When committed in the lawful defense of such person, or of his or her husband, wife, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant, when there is a reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony, or to do some great personal injury, and imminent danger of such design being accomplished; or,
3. When necessarily committed in attempting, by lawful ways and means, to apprehend any person for any felony committed; or in lawfully suppressing any riot; or in lawfully keeping and preserving the peace.

Item 3 does seem to cover what the DA said, but the part about "necessarily committed" isn't as clear as I would like. Under what circumstances would a person be considered necessarily committed? (I'm just asking, not debating, because I really don't know).

 

[Wagonman]

Drive by post will opine more later

Just saw video on O'Reilly, he was on the side of the angels until he chased the other offender. I want empathize with him and do, but he is jammed up.

Hopefully there will be a plea deal and suspended sentence.

I keep saying don't talk to the Police without a lawyer and especially don't talk to the media.

 

[Playboypenguin]

I call BS also, no department authorizes coup de grace

We were taught quite the opposite in my LEO days. We were always told we were responsible for each and every bullet that left our weapon and would be held accountable for each of them. Every shot had better be a matter of life and death as far as any DA would be concerned.

Hopefully there will be a plea deal and suspended sentence.

Why would you hope a man that executed an unarmed person gets off? Is it okay to kill certain people? Like i have said, I am okay with the perp being shot during the robbery but the subsequent execution makes the defendant just as big a piece of trash as any other criminal.

 

[OuTcAsT]

but the part about "necessarily committed" isn't as clear as I would like. Under what circumstances would a person be considered necessarily committed? (I'm just asking, not debating, because I really don't know).

3. When(the Homicide is) necessarily committed / in attempting, by lawful ways and means, to apprehend any person / for any felony committed; or / in lawfully suppressing any riot; or in lawfully keeping and preserving the peace.

The lawful part will be subjective, not to your own judgment, but to the police, DA, and the Court.

Hope that helps.

 

[Tucker 1371]

Anyone else tired of this thread? I think we're just beating a dead horse now.

 

[Wildalaska]

Anyone else tired of this thread? I think we're just beating a dead horse now.

Now that the screeching has died down, there are still some lessons to be learned as things develop

WildcarryingagunisanawesomeresponsibilityAlaska ™

 

[OuTcAsT]

Hopefully there will be a plea deal and suspended sentence.

A crime such as this should not be "mitigated" away simply because it was committed during a failed robbery attempt.

I hope there is a fair trial, and an equally fair sentence.

 

[jjyergler]

Alaska, I agree with this.

I usually enjoy your trademarked taglines because they are funny, however...

WildcarryingagunisanawesomeresponsibilityAlaska ™

This one is serious, and is too often forgotten by some on these boards. Every night when I unlock my bedside gunsafe, I pray it won't be needed.

Also, everyone should remember something. If you are ever involved in a shooting, be certain that the DA will investigate. EVERY POST YOU HAVE EVER TYPED WILL BE READ! DOUBT NOT THAT IF YOU CAN BE PORTRAYED AS A NUT WHO IS "WAITING" OR "LOOKING" FOR TROUBLE, YOU WILL BE!

 

[Tucker 1371]

there are still some lessons to be learned as things develop

To me the lessons seem pretty clear, don't shoot unarmed unconscious people and don't lie (to the cops or anyone).

Not trying to be a jerk, I just think we've reached about every intelligent conclusion and gleaned every bit of relevant information possible from this subject. Now when the trial gets started and new information becomes available I am all for firing this one back up again... until then I think the horse is dead and has been beaten into a fine puree`

Edit:

I usually enjoy your trademarked taglines because they are funny, however...


Quote:
WildcarryingagunisanawesomeresponsibilityAlaska ™

This one is serious, and is too often forgotten by some on these boards

I second that and also agree with you Alaska (redundant?). While I think most here on TFL seem to be very responsible gun owners it is something that we all need to think very hard about every day.

 

[Wagonman]

Why would you hope a man that executed an unarmed person gets off? Is it okay to kill certain people? Like i have said, I am okay with the perp being shot during the robbery but the subsequent execution makes the defendant just as big a piece of trash as any other criminal.

Because he did not go to work that day to kill the armed robbery offender. I liken it to entrapment. He is legally wrong and it is proper for him to be sanctioned, however, let's look at the totality of circumstances.

You do not forfeit a life of being a "good guy" by making a mistake on the worst day of your life. But for the lowlifes this guy would be living out his life in anonymity, so the term piece of trash does not apply.

Do not play semantic games he wasn't an unarmed person he was an accomplice in an armed robbery.

 

[Wildalaska]

Not trying to be a jerk, I just think we've reached about every intelligent conclusion and gleaned every bit of relevant information possible from this subject. Now when the trial gets started and new information becomes available I am all for firing this one back up again... until then I think the horse is dead and has been beaten into a fine puree`

Really? Well when you hit more than 20 years on this earth, you will learn that you never stop learning, viz:

You do not forfeit a life of being a "good guy" by making a mistake on the worst day of your life.

Couldn't you say this about young Mr. Antwan? Could he have been a Jean Valjean?

Haven't I heard screeches from folks here that the no gun for felons rule penalizes folks who just made a "mistake"...

A whole bunch of lives are ruined here and tu quoque or "he started it" or "yes but" doesn't change that. Thats why y'all see me cruising this Board being a jerkoff whenever I am confronted with ramboism. The last thing you ever want to do is shoot someone and you better be damned sure of what you are doing before you do it......

WildonhishighhorseagainAlaska ™

 

[Double Naught Spy]

The last thing you ever want to do is shoot someone and you better be damned sure of what you are doing before you do it......

Therein lies the problem. It looks like Ersland was damn sure of what he was doing all the way down to fabricating a cover story.