Armed Citizen: Oklahoma Pharmacist Defends Employees from Robbers

[pax]

Cloud ~

Here's the initial news report: http://newsok.com/pharmacist-is-glad-he-defended-store/article/3371710 ("Man Has No Regrets Defending Pharmacy") Pay attention to what he says in that interview, and then watch the videos below with his words in mind. (This is what he said before he was charged.)

Here's the raw surveillance camera footage: http://newsok.com/multimedia/video/24432753001

Here's the affadavit of probable cause: http://s3.amazonaws.com/content.newsok.com/documents/pharmdoc0001.pdf

Here's a short, edited version of an interview with the prosecuting DA, which includes a few statements from Ersland's defense attorney: http://newsok.com/multimedia/video/24432794001

Here's the extended interview with the DA, uncut. It is hard to hear in spots, and it is WELL worth the 20 minutes it takes to view: http://www.news9.com/Global/categor...art=true&topVideoCatNo=default&clipId=3804065

And here's an article about this DA's view of the 2nd Amendment: http://newsok.com/self-defense-allowed-by-law-oklahoma-county-da-says/article/3373148 (The money quote: "I do not want the charging of Jerome Ersland with first-degree murder to have a chilling effect on any person legitimately in a position to defend themselves from an assailant,” ... the decision should not cause anyone to hesitate to use appropriate force if faced by the "imminent threat of serious injury or death from another person.”)

Interestingly, at the bail hearing, the DA (prosecutor) strongly objected to the judge's order forbidding the defendant to own firearms until after the case was resolved. See http://newsok.com/pharmacist-in-fatal-oklahoma-city-shooting-released-on-100000-bail/article/3373194 for that whole story.

This link reports on the O'Reilly interview which happened after he was charged with murder.

There's also a good page here with ongoing local coverage of the situation.

And finally, here's a link to the best in-depth analysis article I've yet seen: here.

Kathy

 

[Playboypenguin]

I'm curious about that interpretation. Wouldn't such a thing seem to make ALL killings premeditated? Except for accidents of course, you MUST decide to kill someone before doing so, therefore "premeditated"?

That comes down to state of mind and conditions. It is the same as the difference between "shoot to stop" and "shoot to kill." If you are shooting to stop an attack it is not premeditated murder since your goal was to end a situation. If you shoot to kill it can be premeditated murder because your objective was to end the life of your attacker. There is a very legitimate legal reason for never using the term "shoot to kill."

IMHO, with his first shot the shooter can be seen to be "shooting to stop." That might not be the actual case but it is reasonable. In his later act he is "shooting to kill." That is premeditated murder.

 

[Micahweeks]

Peetzakilla, premeditation is NOT done in a few moments. You are right to question that interpretation Premeditation does not just require a desire to kill and the means to do it. It requires significant planning to use that ability. Someone who decides to shoot the guy across the poker table because he just caught him cheating is not committing murder. That is manslaughter and considered a "crime of passion" in some states. If he had left the poker table, loaded his gun, waited for the cheater to walk out to his car and then shot him, you might be closer to premeditation there, but not likely. You have to make a cold decision to kill for it to be premeditation, not a heat-of-the-moment decisions. Heat-of-the-moment is voluntary manslaughter. (At least around here, anyway).

Now, I should clarify that you'll probably be arrested for murder. You might even have a hearing to answer for murder charges. But, by the time you get into court, you'll probably be looking at manslaughter, not murder. It is highly unlikely that a murder charge will stick through trial over a crime of passion.

 

[hogdogs]

I cannot find anywhere that says what the pharmacist said he was doing when he went back in and shot the robber. Has he made a statement?

In fact he did make several and they contradict one another. He made one with his lawyer present that I watched and it was disgusting even to a hard nose like me...
The "crippled" guy ran pretty dang good after the armed man to be so crippled!
Don't play the cripple card after you sprint on camera. He claimed he was shot with a grazing wound to the arm yet no casing was found nor was there a whole or bullet slug found anywhere in the store!
BUSTED!
Brent

 

[Playboypenguin]

To all of the people who think it was a bad decision to shoot the boy while he was getting up:

What evidence have you seen to indicate he was getting up? The coroner, DA, and the physical evidence on the tape do not support that idea.

 

[pax]

To all of the people who think it was a bad decision to shoot the boy while he was getting up:

Actually, if the boy was, in actual fact, getting up -- Ersland does not have a problem. However, the surveillance video does not appear to support his statements in several particulars, and the DA reported that there was "forensic evidence" at the scene that suggested the robber on the floor was unconscious and unmoving at the time the fatal shots were fired.

I fully support the idea of shooting until the threat stops, including the idea of shooting a renewed threat if the attacker makes a threatening move and the defender reasonably believes innocent lives (including his own) are in danger at that moment.

However, shooting an unconscious and unmoving person -- that's bad. Very bad.

pax

 

[Wagonman]

That comes down to state of mind and conditions. It is the same as the difference between "shoot to stop" and "shoot to kill." If you are shooting to stop an attack it is not premeditated murder since your goal was to end a situation. If you shoot to kill it can be premeditated murder because your objective was to end the life of your attacker. There is a very legitimate legal reason for never using the term "shott to kill."

It was right around the time I started in LE that the terms started to change.

Shoot to kill became shoot to stop the threat

Tap--Rack---Bang became Tap--Rack--assess.

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

If you are shooting to stop an attack it is not premeditated murder since your goal was to end a situation.

But what about illegal killings? I mean, say you get drunk and happen to walk past a homeless man, you decide to push him into a river and he drowns. You had to have thought of that prior to doing it, even if it was only 3 seconds. Wouldn't that be "premeditated".

Or a wife sees her husband with another women and shoots him. Ten minutes ago she loved him, now she killed him. Wouldn't THAT be premeditated?

I'm asking seriously. It seems like, based on that definition, ALL illegal killing would be "premeditated."

 

[hogdogs]

Or a wife sees her husband with another women and shoots him. Ten minutes ago she loved him, now she killed him. Wouldn't THAT be premeditated?

"crimes of passion" often get a pass on premeditated murder.

I mean, say you get drunk and happen to walk past a homeless man, you decide to push him into a river and he drowns.

That is premeditated murder but often lack of presentable evidence will cause the DA to go for a reduced charge so you will be convicted at least!
Brent

 

[Micahweeks]

Ah, I was unaware of any forensic evidence that said that the boy was unconscious, and I really didn't want to sift through 21 pages of commentary to see if anything like that had been mentioned. lol.

If the boy was out cold, then, yes, Earl has a major problem on his hands. He can probably get off easier than most people, though, considering Disparity of Force and the unwillingness of most judges to incarcerate defendants with back injuries. In Mississippi, you don't go to prison if you have a back injury. You actually serve in local houses that specifically handles inmates with injuries that would prevent any attempt to flea.

 

[cloud8a]

What about the other clerks? Did they witness the robber get up, move, or anything? Or do all we have is the camera and the Pharmacist?

 

[pax]

Presumably, witness testimony comes out at trial. The last link in my post above - the one with local coverage - has some interviews with local people. I did not notice any eyewitnesses among them, but may have missed it.

It appears from the video as though the two women who were in the store were around the corner from Parker, and probably would not have seen any movement he might have made. They would have heard any shouting he did, though. Early on, I saw a report that suggested someone else was also in the pharmacy at the time (a customer), but don't know whether that person has given media interviews or not. Again, it'll come out at trial.

pax

 

[hogdogs]

with injuries that would prevent any attempt to flea.

Micah, Did you see that ol' cripple run after BG #1? He can run jist fine!
Brent

 

[cloud8a]

Gunman exchanges fire with Security at Holocaust museum in D.C. right now FOX

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

Gunman exchanges fire with Security at Holocaust museum in D.C. right now FOX

It's all over. Gunman fired on security guards just ahead of security. Gunman and one guard injured. Approximately 5 shots fired. Reported that the BG had "a long gun".

Perps name "James W Von Brunn", the apparent germanic name is probably not coincidental, given the location. Aged somewhere between 60 and 80.

BG reportedly "seen lying motionless", "hit in the head"...

 

[pax]

Guys ~

Start a fresh thread for those, probably down in the Gen Disc area (if there's not one going already).

pax

 

[PT111]

After seeing the edited interview with the DA and the video from the other camera in the store it just makes me wonder even more what the heck was the fellow tininking. We can talk about adrenline and fear but he looked very calm as he walked by the boy lying there, not showing any fear and calmly got the other gun and walked back execution style.

A couple of questions I have is I understand that the first shot was from a Taurus Judge. Was it a 45LC or a .410 shell. Did he fire only once or several times. Why did he go back to get a different gun. A P3AT whould have had 7 rounds so why did he only fire 5 times. Lots of nitpicky questions but overall he is in big trouble.

 

[hogdogs]

Having thought about it a bit... Most of us see a gross misuse of self defense laws and gun use. But what I see as the most blatant use of poor judgement was talkin'...
For cryin out loud folks... Keep yer cake grinder shut until you speak to your lawyer and then severely limit where you run it after the lawyer consultation!
Heck OJ Simpson got off on the criminal charges because he kept his mouth shut and didn't change his story 15 times in a week!
Brent

 

[OuTcAsT]

considering Disparity of Force

This will hardly be a consideration in this particular case, someone who is shot in the head is likely to be considered equally, if not more "impaired" than a fully ambulatory, self proclaimed "cripple".

I really didn't want to sift through 21 pages of commentary to see if anything like that had been mentioned. lol.

Perhaps you should reconsider, many fine points have been brought out and, discussed at length. Much better than asking for a recap that would hardly do the topic justice.

 

[STAGE 2]

And what was concocting a fabulous story full of falsehoods?

I'm not sure that I understand your statement.

Suppose the injured Parker was conscious, and rummaging around his body or backpack and was saying "Yo Moses I'm still going to kill you and then I'm going to robs this store and then I'm going to ravage those women back there and pour one out for all my dead homiez." Suppose he did pose a threat. Were the other employees of the pharmacy still in the line of supposed fire? Could Ersland have taken cover? If so, why did he choose not to?

If memory serves, in OK you don't have a duty to retreat so whether he could have taken cover is irrelevant. I don't know what other people being in the line of fire have to do with anything either. All that matters is this guys state of mind. Different states define premeditation and deliberation differently. Some have it as being instantaneous with your actions. Others require some discernible length of time.

If this guy came back into the pharmacy, adrenaline pumping, believed he saw the perp moving/getting up/reaching for something, and shot as a result, I don't think murder 1 is applicable.

Even if its the case that the perp didn't move, given the stress he was under its still reasonable to believe that he could have percieved the perp as still a threat and percieved he was moving. So either way, the elements of murder 1 arent met.