Armed Citizen: Oklahoma Pharmacist Defends Employees from Robbers

Status
Not open for further replies.
If you are going to play devils advocate, you need to keep in mind that this gentleman was crippled (as per his description of his condition). I would think that this would make the 16 yr old boy a little more of a threat to him.
In my mind, I picture the boy getting up maybe to run, maybe to attack (He did tell the guy that he was going to die).
From the looks of the device this guy is wearing and having back problems myself, I don't see where you could perceive a bad shoot scenario.

Crippled older war veteran vs. 16 yr old gun slinging robber (even if he is wounded)...It's kind of obvious.
 
I don't know if Im for or against what the guy did to the kid trying to get up because I don't know the facts.

I will say this though. He has a back brace on, he had already been shot once, the guy that shot him was attempting to get back up. I don't think I would shoot him but I was not in the guys shoes so ill never know. The kid could have been getting up quickly scrambling. I have met a guy who goes around doing religous seminars because he was shot dead center of the forehead with a .38, managed to run away and get to a hospital, (this was in argentina) and made a full recovery amazingly quickly (2 months i think)
 
The rascist suff is total garbage and a smokescreen to divert attention away from the wannabe killer.It's all total BS manufactored by idiots who see the world as owing them something--thus they can commit acts of evil and rationally be justified. The shooter made a choice to go in and try to shoot and kill another person. Should he be allowed to kill and maim and be given every consideration because he is a "victim" of society? He got what he deserved--rough justice instead.

Do you think the Pharmacist really cared if the shooter was purple or polka dotted??This man was responding to save his life after being shot and acting to save the lives of others.Unless there is a glaring crime here-- God can sort it out with the pharmacist in the next life.Only the Pharmacist knows what he was thinking! Give this guy the benefit of the doubt!

Again, if these events happened in a blur, I believe any rational person should believe this guy walks.
 
The article does not say weather the kid still had the gun in his hand or not. We can sit here a pick it apart but none of us were there. I have to say from what the article said it is a good shoot. He saved three lives, The robbers shot unprovoked.

If we would of been one of the sheep in the heard we would be dead, because he carried "LEGALLY" he and his coworkers alive.

I wonder if the pharmacist would have died would the young black kid have been a racist? Or just misunderstood youth.
 
This is for you Wild!

http://www.koco.com/news/19543055/detail.html

Jerome Ersland said he shot Antwun Parker, 16, because he feared for his own life, but Parker’s family said that the Ersland didn’t need to shoot to kill.
Click to expand...

“For a wrong cause, we can accept any responsibility,” said Parker’s sister, Brittany Baldwin. “We can own up to that. But for him to lay my brother in the ground was absolutely wrong.”
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Good Point!

Were folks protesting a shooting because the criminal who was attempting murder and shot was BLACK?
or were they protesting because a black man was shot and killed committing a crime?

So now we should show rascial preference and must not shoot certain folks and possibly kill them when defending ourselves if attacked? Ridiculous.

What part of reality, and the morality and consequences of attempted murder do they not understand?

I believe society at large has great problems dealing with individuals who act morally and take others lives.Remember that we folks who carry firearms are in the vast minority.Lethal responses to confrontation are in the distinct minority and a vexing problem for societies passive sheep.That means that individual was judge, jury, and executioner, usurping roles that the bureaucracy of society mandates. Sadly,I believe that maybe a majority of the mindless out there might be more comfortable that the innocents be sacrificed with little fanfare and the "system" just stumble along to eventually take care of the "misunderstood" perpetrators in time.

Read opinion polls on societies sheep.There are so many folks out there with poor judgement and perception deciding societies fate.They want their decisions to be easier with less thought and judgement needed for those who act differently from the herd.

Example-If all handguns are illegal then things are simple for an amoral government.No matter than BG's have guns, and innocents die. LEO's would know if you use a gun they should arrest you irregardless.Innocents are just collateral damage.Their jobs are so much easier.

I firmly believe that more and more of society is becoming amoral and clueless.We all will suffer if such ridiculous thought processes divorced from reality become rationalized--Good or evil eventually won't matter. Just what society determines is convenient and expedient.
 
Last edited:
And notice how my point gets drowning in the rhetoric:D

I have to say from what the article said it is a good shoot
Click to expand...

Yep, the intial shots surely were.

Now show me facts to conclude that this guy did NOT wantonly execute this perp.

You guys should put your self defense woobie away for a bit and use this incident as a chance to evaluate and critically thinkout a self defense scenario...when does justified shooting become murder?

How about less screeching and more thinking...and by the way, consider the civil aspects....,.

WildihopefolkspostmorefactsastheybecomeavailableAlaska TM

PS

"I believe society at large has great problems dealing with individuals who act morally and take others lives.Remember that we folks who carry firearms are in the vast minority.Lethal responses to confrontation are in the distinct minority and a vexing problem for societies passive sheep.That means that individual was judge, jury, and executioner, usurping roles that the bureaucracy of society mandates. Sadly,I believe that maybe a majority of the mindless out there might be more comfortable that the innocents be sacrificed with little fanfare and the "system" just stumble along to eventually take care of the "misunderstood" perpetrators in time.
Click to expand...

Thats a perfect quote to illustrate why many decent folks look askew at the armed citizen.
 
Just a hint - don't hang yourself on the race issue in this thread.

Since this is tactics - we should talk about the actions of actors. Your socio-political theories about the aftermath aren't relevant.

Numerous factors go into a shoot/no decision. Talk about that. If you want to debate specifically if the race of the actors influenced the shoot/no shoot decision - go research it on Google scholar - there's quite a bit of work. But if you want to rant about it without background - not useful.
 
good shoot?

Without being there and knowing all of the facts, I have to say that my first reaction upon reading the story was that he did execute the bad guy.
I realize that the pharmacist would not be able to physicaly subdue the BG. I'm not about to pass judgment either way but I did wince when I read that he emptied the mag in BG's chest.
 
factor 1, he said he was gonna kill the guy
factor 2, he had a gun
factor 3, he fired the gun
factor 4, there was another perp
factor 5, he didn't stay down
factor 6, 1 vs 2
factor 7, other innocent lives
factor 8, the guy defending himself didn't know the kid was 16. he didn't care about race, he was trying to stay alive.
I welcome contradictions. Mods are right, lets be on topic
 
1. Can the pharmacist reasonably articulate that he was still in fear of his life or grievous bodily harm from the moving but down violent criminal actor?

That's crucial and the whole game.

2. IMHO - going after the guy who fled was not a wise move. Nor do I understand the time line about the Judge. Did he have one in each hand?

3. Are there tapes of this event? With the security mentioned, I would think so. His fate may be determined by what they show.
 
If he was shot on the ground, with a gun no where near him, would you all still be applauding? Could he in fact have been acting with an animus and have simply executed this young man?
Click to expand...
It never ceases to amaze me how after a tragic incident such as this people want to 'Monday morning quarterback'. (a)I don't believe any of us were there, (b) I'm pretty sure things went to sh*t Real quick, not a lot of time to think things through, (c)They come in guns a blazing yelling and, oh yea shooting too! (d) Who can say this kid wasn't still a threat, wasn't he starting to get up. (e) Maybe he did still have access to a gun, did the store owner know for a fact that he didn't, something tells me, probably not.
He also recalls the angry voices of people who gathered outside the pharmacy Tuesday night, shouting that he was a racist who unnecessarily took a life of the Seeworth Academy charter school student, Antwun Parker.
Click to expand...
And to this, I don't give a damn if he was black, white, or purple. Why does this issue always come up? What is ashame is this 16 year old kid saw this as his only option in life. Bad choice:(
 
Last edited:
1. Can the pharmacist reasonably articulate that he was still in fear of his life or grievous bodily harm from the moving but down violent criminal actor?

That's crucial and the whole game.
Click to expand...

Depending on the jurisdiction thats half the game

"The jury must first determine whether the defendant had the requisite beliefs under section 35.15, that is, whether he believed deadly force was necessary to avert the imminent use of deadly force or the commission of one of the felonies enumerated therein. If the People do not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not have such beliefs, then the jury must also consider whether these beliefs were reasonable. The jury would have to determine, in light of all the "circumstances", as explicated above, if a reasonable person could have had these beliefs"

People v Goetz 68NY296, 115

WildimlookingforanonpointheresanothercaseAlaska TM
 
Shoot To Stop!

"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.”

Assuming the above account is accurate, the pharmacist was justified to shoot the killer/robber with his underpowered 380 until there was no more potential threat. I also have a 380 (Beretta Model 34) and if I had sustained a potentiallhy lethal attack I would keep that Beretta in action until I was absolutely sure that the person who tried to kill me was totally incapacitated. My intention would not be to kill the attacker but to absolutely stop him from attempting to kill me or anyone else in the store.
 
Fact is, at this point he said what he said. Anything else said to the police should be said through an attorney
 
actually I am pretty sure you can use deadly force when a felony is being committed. so, the kid is committing the felony still, technically the guy walks either way.
 
I would have absolutely NO different take on this situation if the young armed robber was white and the pharmacist was black. I would still have the same opinion - the pharmacist did what he had to do to protect himself and the robber got what he risked by choosing to rob.

On second thought, maybe I would have a SLIGHTLY different take on this situation if the dead young robber were white and the pharmacist was black. I'd think - well, at least, maybe this will help some people realize that the right to self-defense is a basic human right that law-abiding citizens of all races, ages, genders, cultures, sexual preferences, religions and backgrounds deserve and should have.

So...white war veteran shoots young black armed robber. ALL of the facts arent out...some black folks scream rascism and say Bad shoot. Some white folks say good shoot. Is there a difference?
Click to expand...
 
Yet then you go on to argue b, c, d, e as if you were
Click to expand...

Well, let's see, (b) I don't think its reaching out on a limb to say Sh*t hit the fan, and some quick decisions had to be made. thats pretty much a given. (c) okay, I'll give you that, we Don't Know about the "guns a blazing". However, I'm basing my opinion on the facts we have, which happens to be eye witness account even if he was the owner, victim, and Thankfully not the deceased. Your 'what ifs' are nothing but total supposition.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top