Armed Citizen: Oklahoma Pharmacist Defends Employees from Robbers

[hogdogs]

DNS,

Well that would be in court, would it not, assuming he gave the same statements to detectives that he gave to the media? I have certainly seen more than one case where what was said publically didn't reflect what was said to investigators.

If his "tale" of what took place changed half as many times with half the deviation story to story, to the police as it did with the media, he is damned. Not to mention his story doesn't jibe with the video.
Keep in mind, one of the main things that the jury heard in the Mr.Fish case was his memory of time line didn't jibe with folks a long way off hearing the shots.
Brent

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

As far as juries ignoring outside evidence or evidence objected it and instructed not to pay attention to, there's evidence in jury simulations that they are influenced anyway. It's in the psych and law texts - which I returned to the library - so the name isn't at my finger tips.

 

[OuTcAsT]

Well that would be in court, would it not, assuming he gave the same statements to detectives that he gave to the media? I have certainly seen more than one case where what was said publically didn't reflect what was said to investigators.

The DA clearly stated that the main reason he was charged was due to the statement he made to investigators and, the fact that it was 180 degrees from the video, and physical evidence at the scene.

The footage doesn't tell the truth either, and it most definitely has some bias. The footage is what it is, a record of the event. It neither tells the truth or lies about the truth. It presents limited perspectives of what happened.

Given the arguments noted thusfar in this thread, the notion that the footage doesn't lie is interesting because not everyone agrees one what the footage is "saying." You see, the footage, like real life, is being interpreted. We interpret Ersland's behaviors in that footage as to what he is doing. There isn't even any sound to coincide with the footage, nor does it cover the whole of the events. It is nothing more than an incomplete accounting.

While this is true to a point, let me ask this, In how many murder cases have you seen the DA present ALL of the evidence to the media prior to the trial? I would venture none. No sound you say ? Certainly not on the copy we have seen thus far, Camera angle does not show the downed suspect ? Correct, not on the version in the media, it also does not show about 25-30 seconds of video at all, Could it be possible that the prosecutor does not want to show all his cards until the discovery phase of the trial ?

There are 2 reasons the DA went to the media with such an unprecedented amount of detail. First is the outrage that was shown by the ethnic community over the shooting, Would you, as a DA want to show, in full view, a video of the suspect being shot ? Not if you wanted to keep any kind of civil order.
Second reason for media coverage was the outcry from other citizens over the arrest of an alleged "hero" Again, you are only going to show or tell enough to justify your charges, and keep the peace.

I will not be surprised if there is a different video angle, that shows clearly, the final few seconds. I will be very surprised if there is not also a sound track to the entire video.

Much like everything else in this thread this is, of course, speculation. But, you can bet that the prosecution has not shown it all...IMHO

 

[hogdogs]

I will not be surprised if there is a different video angle, that shows clearly, the final few seconds. I will be very surprised if there is not also a sound track to the entire video.

Not in a pharmacy! HIPAA law. Customers are in there discussing protected health concerns/conditions. I doubt any Pharmacy is allowed to record audio. Also it is a thin line for a business of any type to be legally allowed to record audio. It is very close to the rules regarding "wire taps" IIRC.
The vids of the 3 angles I watched had no missing moments.
It clearly shows what appears to be the getaway car out front with 2 persons outside of it. They were there when the 2 walked up, dropped a board in the doorway to avoid being locked in. They were there when the guy fired a gun, they were still there when he ran out. While he was out of the store these 2 guys were pointing at the store front and calmly closed the trunk and drove off...
Brent

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

Also it is a thin line for a business of any type to be legally allowed to record audio. It is very close to the rules regarding "wire taps" IIRC.

Probably depends on where you are and may require posting notices. I record video and sound in the pizzeria. I have signs on the doors and wall behind the register stating such.

 

[DeltaB]

The footage doesn't tell the truth either, and it most definitely has some bias. The footage is what it is, a record of the event. It neither tells the truth or lies about the truth. It presents limited perspectives of what happened. Given the arguments noted thusfar in this thread, the notion that the footage doesn't lie is interesting because not everyone agrees one what the footage is "saying." You see, the footage, like real life, is being interpreted. We interpret Ersland's behaviors in that footage as to what he is doing. There isn't even any sound to coincide with the footage, nor does it cover the whole of the events. It is nothing more than an incomplete accounting.

Footage of the event has no prejudice so therefore cannot be biased. In the case of Ersland's argument, using the Castle Defense, the footage shows with great detail Ersland's actions inside the pharmacy. You can debate until the cows come home about "did Parker move or not," but in the end, Ersland shows us early on what he looks like in the face of an imminent threat. Using the rational posed by Ersland's attorney, that "in military training, you shoot a threat until dead, and no longer capable of posing a threat" won't cut it either. This isn't the military. The Castle Defense provides no protection to using deadly force on a subdued, disabled, incapacitated, cooperative or surrendered suspect. Most folks who I have spoken with are taking one of two polarizing positions. Either one, his actions show he clearly crossed over that line of responding to an imminent threat, or two, since he was being robbed, Parker got what they see as "what he deserved" and had license to murder. I have already stated my position clearly.

 

[skydiver3346]

All the comments

I have been following all the comments for this subject on the last 22 pages. Never seen so many different opinions: guilty, not guilty, justifiable homicide, racist, etc, etc. A lot of them make good sense and some do not any sense.

Here is the bottom line in my opinion. First of all NONE of us here on The Firing Line knows EXACTLY what was going on in the pharmacist's mind during those few seconds from first to last shots. Sure, we can all comment on the video and give our deductions on how "it really went down", etc. But you were not there and neither was I. We do have laws on the books as to when and where you can defend yourself and when when enough is enough to end the threat, etc. They were drawn up for obvious reasons and why this particular incident is drawing so much attention. In the end, a jury will decide Mr. Ersland's fate. Probably a nationwide predcedent will be set after this decision at the end of the trial. How far can we go to end a threat and/or use deadly force. This is one big trial and one big decision. I don't belive that the issue of race had anything to do with his actions. Someone pointed a gun in his face and threatened him and his staff. His actions and account of the story (and his fate) is in the hands of the jury.

Let's all remember this, no matter what: He was minding his own business and running his pharmacy. He had nothing to do with how this started, only in how it ended. When someone puts a gun in your face and threatens to kill you and/or steal your money, (or both as it sometimes goes down) that someone loses the benefit of "getting fair treatment" with regards to the way most people think.

If you don't belive me, just ask any of your friends this question (do not mention this incident in Oklahoma): If someone walks up to your out of the blue and sticks a gun in your face and threatens your life and/or robs you, "should they get fair treatment from you in return"? Hello?? I don't think so"....

I'm not saying Mr. Ersland was right in how he ended the threat by taking the robber's life. As a matter of fact, (in my opinion from viewing only the video, he probably went to far) but I wasn't there and know nothing of what he was actually thinking and or seeing.

When it's all said and done, he was the victim of an armed robbery and his life was threatened (as well as his staff's lives). Plus, he had already experienced being the victim of an armed robbery previously and put in fear of his life. Add those things together and you just don't know what you would do in those few terrifying seconds. Tough decision for the jury!

 

[hogdogs]

You are right about our varying opinions on TFL. But remember... we are not limited to factual law as will be the jurors. Nor do we have the state's evidence in total. And we have NO FACTUAL evidence presented by the defense either.

Probably a nationwide predcedent will be set after this decision at the end of the trial. How far can we go to end a threat and/or use deadly force.

Precedent has been set many times... Currently, "execution" is legal only by the government and only on convicted persons after all appeals have been tried.
Brent

 

[OuTcAsT]

Not in a pharmacy! HIPAA law. Customers are in there discussing protected health concerns/conditions. I doubt any Pharmacy is allowed to record audio. Also it is a thin line for a business of any type to be legally allowed to record audio. It is very close to the rules regarding "wire taps" IIRC.

Not quite , A pharmacy's printed materials are protected under HIPPA but, they are not bound by any laws that would prohibit recording of sound and video, nor are any other establishments. Posting and notification requirements likely vary by jurisdiction. Video with sound is perfectly acceptable in the public domain such as any business open to the general public. As such you have no implied expectation of privacy. Otherwise, you would not walk up to a counter, or drive thru , at a pharmacy, in public, but would have a separate room for conversations. If you buy that Blue Star, everyone knows why.

 

[skydiver3346]

Hotdogs:

Are you an attorney? You sound like one anyway.

By the way, you mention "Execution" and I thought this was going to be decided in a trial.......

 

[hogdogs]

Okay... I am going by hearsay... My wife worked at a mental health care provider and they did not record audio with their security cameras as the hipaa thing was what my wife was told by directors... It may not be quite ture there and I assumed (I know it is wrong to do that) that pharmacy would fall into that as we are encouraged to ask our pharmacists about drug related concerns...
Brent

 

[Playboypenguin]

Not quite , A pharmacy's printed materials are protected under HIPPA but, they are not bound by any laws that would prohibit recording of sound and video, nor are any other establishments. Posting and notification requirements likely vary by jurisdiction. Video with sound are perfectly acceptable in the public domain such as any business open to the general public. As such you have no implied expectation of privacy. As security video is not generally accessible by anyone other than the same pharmacy staff that discussed with you your protected health co

Not here in Oregon. You cannot even record sound without consent on private property. In our old home we had to set up cameras when we were trying to protect our cars in our driveway when we were having trouble with a neighbor that was dealing drugs. The DA that suggested we do it made it clear to us to disable the microphone on the camera. I also cannot have a sound option on the security system I just spent a fortune installing into our new business. because, according to the security company, it violates state laws.

 

[OuTcAsT]

Okay... I am going by hearsay... My wife worked at a mental health care provider and they did not record audio with their security cameras as the hipaa thing was what my wife was told by directors

And this is likely true, just as in a Doctors office, you would have an implied expectation of privacy.

Not here in Oregon. You cannot even record sound without consent on private property. In our old home we had to set up cameras when we were trying to protect our cars in our driveway when we were having trouble with a neighbor that was dealing drugs. The DA that suggested we do it made it clear to us to disable the microphone on the camera. I also cannot have a sound option on the security system I just spent a fortune installing into our new business. because, according to the security company, it violates state laws.

As I said;

Posting and notification requirements likely vary by jurisdiction.

Of particular interest though is the fact that almost all "Big Name" pharmacies have a close camera angle directly over the area where scrips are filled, to keep employees "honest" It will be interesting to see if OK has laws prohibiting audio, I will research it.


ETA: Oklahoma State law only requires single party consent for audio recordings from all sources I can find.

 

[OuTcAsT]

The DA that suggested we do it made it clear to us to disable the microphone on the camera. I also cannot have a sound option on the security system I just spent a fortune installing into our new business. because, according to the security company, it violates state laws.

I wont argue with someone who surely knows the law better than I do, but Oregon is only a "single party" (only one of the parties has to consent) State, much as the rest of (but not all) States which echo Federal law.

In our old home we had to set up cameras when we were trying to protect our cars in our driveway when we were having trouble with a neighbor that was dealing drugs. The DA that suggested we do it made it clear to us to disable the microphone on the camera

Ah, I did not read this well at first, I would assume that you installed the cameras to be as "surreptitious" as possible, and likely not posted that surveillance was underway ? As such, parties could have no warning that conversations were being recorded. I don't think, from my limited perspective, that the problem is so much the recording, as the proper notification. YMMV

 

[spacemanspiff]

I'm not sure that I understand your statement.

Ersland deliberately lied on camera, to police, and in front of the media.

Just because your state says there is 'no duty to retreat' doesn't mean one should not retreat if it is possible.

 

[Wildalaska]

Just because your state says there is 'no duty to retreat' doesn't mean one should not retreat if it is possible.

Excellent point Big Fella, legal duty should be differentiated from moral duty. I feel a new thread rumbling in the recesses.

WildyoubringoutthebestinmefatboyAlaska ™

 

[Playboypenguin]

Ah, I did not read this well at first, I would assume that you installed the cameras to be as "surreptitious" as possible, and likely not posted that surveillance was underway ? As such, parties could have no warning that conversations were being recorded. I don't think, from my limited perspective, that the problem is so much the recording, as the proper notification. YMMV

I do not think it is a "notification" issue...it is a "consent" issue. We cannot record sound in our bar no matter how many signs we put up. He said we could record sound, but then we would not be able to use the tapes if we were ever robbed since they would not be admissible.

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

I do not think it is a "notification" issue...it is a "consent" issue.

It looks to me as if Oregon is a "single party consent" state. As such conversations between employees and customers would be recordable if the employee is aware. I think your specific problem is that most of the audio would be between customers, none of which are necessarily aware of the recording. It would seem like posting signage would give you implied consent, it does in NY, but all states are different, as we all know.

 

[OuTcAsT]

Lets not derail the thread further, please.

OK There may, or may not be audio, it will be interesting to see if that is the case.

 

[Playboypenguin]

I think the audio question is valid. Audio would probably not do much as far as determining if the perp was moving but it would make it easier to determine tthe number of shots fired.