Armed Citizen: Oklahoma Pharmacist Defends Employees from Robbers

Status
Not open for further replies.
No psychologist is going risk his or her professional reputation giving expert testimony on someone's state of mind based on a video clip.
Click to expand...
I hate to break it to you, but there are behavioral psychologists that not only do just that, but specialize in doing it. There is an entire discipline devoted to doing it that believes body language is more important than actual verbal language when discerning the truth.
 
I hate to break it to you, but there are behavioral psychologists that not only do just that, but specialize in doing it.
Click to expand...

And I hate to break it to you, but more often than not, their testimony doesn't even make it into evidence ... and when it does, it ends up as inadmissible or thrown out simply by virtue of another psychologist offering up a countering opinion. Happens all the time. This is why eye witness testimony rules the day when it comes to trial. Prosecuting attorneys are very reluctant to bring psychologists into court and only do so because they have no alternative. I know ... I'm married to one. A behavioral psychologist who was also an experimental psychologist that is.
 
And I hate to break it to you, but more often than not, their testimony doesn't even make it into evidence ... and when it does, it ends up as inadmissible or thrown out simply by virtue of another psychologist offering up a countering opi
Click to expand...
And just where are you getting these statistics? I testified many times when I worked for CPS and it almost always remained as evidence. I think you are confusing professional testimony with affidavits.
 
And just where are you getting these statistics? I testified many times when I worked for CPS and it almost always remained as evidence. I think you are confusing professional testimony with affidavits.
Click to expand...

Uh, no... I know the difference.
 
Uh, no... I know the difference.
Click to expand...
Then where are you getting your information? Professional testimony is seldom stricken since the jury has already heard it so judges, defenders, and prosecutors are very careful about what is allowed in to begin with. Once something has been said it is very hard to have it unsaid.
 
I will take my wife's word and experience at face value. I am sure her professional experience is just as "expert" as your stint as a CSP psychologist ...
 
I will take my wife's word and experience at face value. I am sure her professional experience is just as "expert" as your stint as a CSP psychologist ...
Click to expand...
First, it is "CPS" and second, you do not have to accept my word for it at all. You see all those reports on the news regarding professional testimony? Those are generally only made available once the testimony has been entered into the record.

Just what is it your wife does that makes her think that professional witnesses are somehow stricken from the record more often than not after they have been called to testify?
 
No psychologist is going risk his or her professional reputation giving expert testimony on someone's state of mind based on a video clip.
Click to expand...
To the contrary, it happens quite a bit. The testimony will probably be restricted in some manner as opposed to an in-depth interview, but it can be and is done a lot.
and when it does, it ends up as inadmissible or thrown out simply by virtue of another psychologist offering up a countering opinion.
Click to expand...
No, expert testimony is not handled that way. Generally when an expert is approved as an expert by the court, all of their testimony i admissable unless shown to be not relevant, and even then only the not relevant portion is stricken, the rest of the testomony is allowed. And testimony is not thrown out because another expert offers a countering opinion. The jury gets to review both testimonies and determine how much weight they give to each.
 
Last edited:
Answer to a Quote:

Quote: "At any point in this equation, does the shot "SUSPECT" become the victim"?

The shot "suspect" is a victim of stupidity, period. He and his robber buddy caused this from the get go. When you make those kind of stupid decisions, anything can happen and ususally does. IT IS THEIR FAULT that any of this went down, no matter what happened.

With that said, the pharmacist did "go the extra mile as they say" and will stand trial for his actions. Some say he is guilty and some say he is not. Either way, the jury will make the final decision on his guilt.

I must admit, that he could have handled this better than just matter of factly, walking over and pumping (5) bullets into the robber. But I wasn't there and none of us really know what was going on in the pharmacist's mind at that exact time. The video will not be the pharmacist's friend when this goes to trial. Unless the pharmacist and/or his attorney can somehow prove or convince the jury that the suspect was moving (or presenting some kind of threat) at the time of the last (5) shots), then it doesn't look good for him.
 
And I hate to break it to you, but more often than not, their testimony doesn't even make it into evidence ... and when it does, it ends up as inadmissible or thrown out simply by virtue of another psychologist offering up a countering opinion.
Click to expand...

But, if...

No psychologist is going risk his or her professional reputation giving expert testimony on someone's state of mind based on a video clip.
Click to expand...

then where does the testimony come from that doesn't even make it into evidence.

I'm confused.
 
Unless the pharmacist and/or his attorney can somehow prove or convince the jury that the suspect was moving...
Click to expand...

They don't have to "prove" anything, only create reasonable doubt, which I see an excellent window for in Parker's not being on the video and the possible argument that he was attempting to get up. I think Ersland's biggest problem is going to be the fact that he lied to the police. His credibility has all but gone out the window.
 
Establishing reasonable doubt is going to be difficult due to the fact the perp was unarmed, probably unconscious (according to evidence which will be made more clear later). and the fact that the defendant has been exposed as a liar through his own ill chosen actions and statements. He really did become his own worst enemy in this case.

This is all dependent on it even making it to a jury trial. I am putting my money on a plea deal for a lesser charge with a probable short (2-10 year) sentence.
 
No psychologist is going risk his or her professional reputation giving expert testimony on someone's state of mind based on a video clip
Click to expand...
.

To the contrary, it happens quite a bit. The testimony will probably be restricted in some manner as opposed to an in-depth interview, but it can be and is done a lot.
Click to expand...

Right. I don't know about this business of "risk his or her professional reputation" given that these expert witnesses do it for a living or supplement their living by doing it. They make more money doing it in court than they make giving comments to TV programs and many are willing to do that as well for free.

No doubt both sides will be able to come up with psychological experts with opinions that favor their respective courtroom positions.
 
Not to play devils advocate at all...
I ran a pretty ruff young life and did many things I do not discuss but I never preyed upon "uninvolved participants"...
I had the oppurtunity to do so but had a few moral and ethical limitations I placed on myself... But I did know the cliche, "If you live by the gun you die by the gun"... anyone involved in nefarious folly must realize this. The guy shot, no matter how many rules and laws the shooter broke, deserved every round he had pumped into his body...
Brent
 
Last edited:
Hogdogs,

It is hard to run "rough" and not have some victims in your wake...otherwise how "rough" were you really running? :)

I am betting most everyone agrees with what you said to a degree. I doubt anyone would claim that the perp did not deserve the first, disabling shot...even if it had killed him.
 
>The guy shot, no matter how many rules and laws the shooter broke, deserved every round he had pumped into his body.<

>I am betting most everyone agrees with what you said to a degree.<

On the contrary, a considerable number of posts have made it clear of their doubts in that regard and in the propriety of extending self defense to an executioner's role.
 
On the contrary, a considerable number of posts have made it clear of their doubts in that regard and in the propriety of extending self defense to an executioner's role.
Click to expand...
But no one is really saying that the perp did not deserve to be shot. They are simply saying he did not deserve to be executed afterwards. If the first shot had killed him I would be "too bad so sad."

I would even be okay with him being shot again if he presented a further threat later on. That just does not seem to be the case though.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top