Wildalaska
Moderator
Really? Are you entirely certain that would have changed the outcome here?
And WODR, what does that add to this discussion.
WildisposturingreallynecessaryatthispointAlaska ™
Armed Citizen: Oklahoma Pharmacist Defends Employees from Robbers
- Thread starter Blue Steel
- Start date
- Status
Really? Are you entirely certain that would have changed the outcome here?
And WODR, what does that add to this discussion.
WildisposturingreallynecessaryatthispointAlaska ™
Actually, if you want to know the truth, it could be argued that Ersland was in illegal possesion of firearms under the law in the state of Oklahoma. Ersland's attorney himself said he was currently under the influence of a highly addictive Schedule 2 Controlled Dangerous Drug. (morphine) Morphine effects reduce a person's level of consciousness, harming the ability to think or be fully aware of present surroundings. Opiates do impair judgment.
Section 1289.9 Carrying Weapons Under the Influence
It shall be unlawful for any person to carry or use shotguns, rifles or pistols in any circumstances while under the influence of beer, intoxicating liquors or any hallucinogenic, or any unlawful or unprescribed drug, and it shall be unlawful for any person to carry or use shotguns, rifles or pistols when under the influence of any drug prescribed by a licensed physician if the aftereffects of such consumption affect mental, emotional or physical processes to a degree that would result in abnormal behavior. Any person convicted of a violation of the provisions of this section shall be punished as provided in Section 1289.15 of this title.
Last edited:
Wildalaska
Moderator
Whoa Delta B that is an awesome point that cuts BOTH WAYS in this case......
Defense: He was in pain and not in full possession of his faculties..
Prosecution: Not a true decent citizen, a hopped up doper Rambo carrying his gun in flagrant violation of the law
WildibetweseethisoneintheayoobfilessomedayAlaska ™
Defense: He was in pain and not in full possession of his faculties..
Prosecution: Not a true decent citizen, a hopped up doper Rambo carrying his gun in flagrant violation of the law
WildibetweseethisoneintheayoobfilessomedayAlaska ™
Does this Pharmacist have a history of shooting customers?
No.
Does he have a habit of shooting robbers?
No.
Does he have a history of shooting black people?
No.
The fact remains that a tremendously crappy situation now exists that simply wouldn't eist had these young men not entered the premises to commit a crime.
No.
Does he have a habit of shooting robbers?
No.
Does he have a history of shooting black people?
No.
The fact remains that a tremendously crappy situation now exists that simply wouldn't eist had these young men not entered the premises to commit a crime.
Tucker 1371
New member
Just so you know, the initial shot that struck Parker in the head was fired from Ersland's Taurus Judge, so it was either .45ACP or .410.
Tucker 1371
New member
my bad 
... never liked that gun much anyway
... never liked that gun much anywayTrooper Tyree
New member
The fact of the matter is that Ersland crossed a line when he retrieved that second gun and emptied it into a downed subject who no longer posed a threat.
A second fact is that if any one of use cross the same line, we too will face Murder I charges.
This is the most important thing to get out of this case. There is a line, it's pretty clear and pretty distinct, at the very least the law thinks it is. We need to be aware of that line, we need to think about and ponder that line, and make sure we understand where that line is and try to pound it into our heads enough that in the heat of a gunfight we hopefully won't cross it, or at least won't cross it out of shear ignorance.
You can have all the feelings and opinions you want, just make sure your actions align with the letter of the law.
Wildalaska
Moderator
And thats what this thread is about...good call
WildwhatagreatthreadAlaska ™
surg_res, what really bothers me about all of this, is some of Erslands actions and statements, both past and present. Sure, it's my assertion he crossed over the line of self defense, and in my opinion is culpable for the charges against him. But, from the early 80's a pattern of instability and documented, repeatable issues as time passes. Not from just one person, but family, social workers and physicians alike. His recent statement that "if I were not here, there would be 3 people dead.." A need to present himself in a light that makes himself the hero, self-absorbed as one professional stated. A wounded Gulf War veteran (which we know is a lie) who is "crippled" and comes and saves the day...the "Hero Syndrome." That type of mentality, drugs added in and mixed with deadly force, is an amalgam of elements that can lead to tragedy. I don't think it is an accident, I think Ersland set himself up for this type of happening.
And this is the hard question, how do we as a society deal from a 2nd amendment perspective, how do we deal with those who are by the most part, law abiding citizens but really shouldn't have deadly force in their direct control.
ImprobableJoe
Moderator
This is a really important question, that gets lost in the shuffle... it is probably the only question about firearm ownership that really matters. Obviously a complete ban would "succeed" in some sense, but mostly in the "cure worse than disease" sort of way. Removing all restrictions on firearm ownership won't have any positive effect either.
That's why training and education are so important. The same way that you train so that you shoot straight under stressful circunstances, you need to train to THINK straight too.
That can be said of allot of drugs. The degree of the impairment depends on the individual.
Not to mention there are plenty of drugs that are schedule 2. Did you know that the Ritalin our society so readily gives our children is a schedule 2 drug with the exact same possible side effects that you list for Morphine. (Though to differing degrees of course.)
What's your point? The first and last of those points apply to the current and both previous presidents. The second does as well depending on who you talk to, though that is subjective.
This type of argument, as I see it, is only to obfuscate the issue. The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration says "morphine is the standard against which other analgesics are measured, and is the strongest opiate there is." Under Oklahoma law, you cannot be impaired and carry deadly weapons or use lethal force.
Last edited:
My point? The guy shows a propensity to fits of grandeur and is not completely stable (claiming war veteran status) and was high on dope... Sorry but you may not know you are impaired but the dope is there. I have plenty of experience with prescribed narcotics. I also know myself and many others who think we are still sober after a bunch of beers...
Now what is your point? Will you be so kind as to post links to self defense situations in which former and current POTUS were involved in similar SD cases of lethal force or were you pointing out something else?
The fact that millions of americans lie, cheat, steal and do drugs everyday has nothing to do with TFL unless they kill someone with a gun and claim self defense against an unarmed gunshot victim... YES if the thug was not a threat he became a MURDER VICTIM!
BBrent
I believe his actions are justified
The robbers were an immediate threat to the pharmacist and the people around him, no argument there.
A lot of people are saying that the pharmacist could have stopped the downed robber with non lethal methods.
What do you want the pharmacist to do? Kick the downed robber? Stomp the robber's chest to make sure he doesn't get up?
The pharmacist is wearing a back brace. And maybe he is exaggerating, but he did claim that he's "crippled".
There has been multiple cases where police officers were unable to stop suspects even with multiple shots to the COM, and as a result the police officers' lives were in danger.
If a suspect with multiple wounds endangered a trained police officer's life, wouldn't a suspect with multiple wounds be just as much a threat to a crippled pharmacist?
Also keep in mind that most officers use calibers bigger than a .380.
There's also other factors one should consider when dealing with assailants.
There's a likely chance that the robbers did not expect anyone at the store to be armed.
So maybe the other robber went outside to grab a bigger gun?
In any case, whether or not the two robbers intended to harm anyone, they did endanger the lives of everyone in that store.
Since shots were fired at him, the pharmacist has every right to defend himself.
And given his medical condition and physical limitations, shooting the robber that attempted to get up again is definitely justified because if the robber had just laid there, no additional shots would have been necessary.
The robbers were an immediate threat to the pharmacist and the people around him, no argument there.
A lot of people are saying that the pharmacist could have stopped the downed robber with non lethal methods.
What do you want the pharmacist to do? Kick the downed robber? Stomp the robber's chest to make sure he doesn't get up?
The pharmacist is wearing a back brace. And maybe he is exaggerating, but he did claim that he's "crippled".
There has been multiple cases where police officers were unable to stop suspects even with multiple shots to the COM, and as a result the police officers' lives were in danger.
If a suspect with multiple wounds endangered a trained police officer's life, wouldn't a suspect with multiple wounds be just as much a threat to a crippled pharmacist?
Also keep in mind that most officers use calibers bigger than a .380.
There's also other factors one should consider when dealing with assailants.
There's a likely chance that the robbers did not expect anyone at the store to be armed.
So maybe the other robber went outside to grab a bigger gun?
In any case, whether or not the two robbers intended to harm anyone, they did endanger the lives of everyone in that store.
Since shots were fired at him, the pharmacist has every right to defend himself.
And given his medical condition and physical limitations, shooting the robber that attempted to get up again is definitely justified because if the robber had just laid there, no additional shots would have been necessary.
- Status