Armed Citizen: Oklahoma Pharmacist Defends Employees from Robbers

[Donn_N]

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.

There is no evidence that the BG was even conscious, much less attempted to get up. The only evidence that he attempted to get up was from the shooter who has proven to be less than truthful in his statements so far.

Besides, merely attempting to get up is not a threatening move. You can't shoot someone just because they are trying to stand up.

But all this has been hashed and rehashed. Read the statements, watch the videos, read this entire thread.

 

[DeltaB]

The robbers were an immediate threat to the pharmacist and the people around him, no argument there.

Initially, yes. After chasing the armed gunman who had no bullets in his gun out and firing upon him, no. As to the incapacitated, unarmed suspect left laying on the floor, no.

A lot of people are saying that the pharmacist could have stopped the downed robber with non lethal methods.

The Castle Defense doesn't provide protection for using deadly force on an incapacitated suspect. Using unreasonable force on a minor in Oklahoma is a capital offense.

The pharmacist is wearing a back brace. And maybe he is exaggerating, but he did claim that he's "crippled".

This is debatable and his actions on tape do not present him as crippled. Who cares what he claims, every claim he has made so far has been ficticious.

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.

Totally moot to this case.

Since shots were fired at him, the pharmacist has every right to defend himself.

No shots were fired at Ersland, and Ersland's testimony has been to found to be totally false.

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.

There is no credible indication that the suspect did, our could, regain his footing. Since he had no weapon, he posed no imminent threat to anyone.

Hank, please let me suggest that you actually read through a thread before posting. You would have found every issue you have stated addressed numerous times in the previous posts.

 

[OuTcAsT]

So maybe the other robber went outside to grab a bigger gun?

Ersland followed him outside, and fired at him as he was fleeing the scene. If the guy was going after a "bigger gun", Ersland was putting himself at risk by not staying inside.

Since shots were fired at him, the pharmacist has every right to defend himself.

Point of fact, Ersland was the only person to fire a weapon inside the store.

Nobody is making the case (even the prosecutor) that he did not have a right to defend himself, only that he crossed the line into murder by delivering the "coup de grace"

Respectfully Sir, read back a few pages into this thread, all will become clearer....

 

[Crosshair]

There is no evidence that the BG was even conscious, much less attempted to get up.

We also have no clear evidence available to us that shows that the BG was unconscious either.

We also have no clear evidence available to us that shows that the BG was just twitching from his brain shorting out.

We simply don't know. The nitty gritty into has not been released to the public.

No matter what we say or think, this man is innocent until proven guilty. Sure everything doesn't match up 100%. That happens all the time as eyewitness testimony can be very unreliable. memories are dynamic and can change without our knowledge. We don't know if he is lying or if what he has said is genuinely what he remembers.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

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?

My guess is that if he could dash out of the store and down the street, there was no need for him to go back into the store, casually find a second gun, and then shoot a downed person 5 more times. None of that points to the robber being an imminent threat requiring lethal force.

My understanding of the law is that while you may not be required to retreat, you cannot leave the area of the attack, return, walk away from your assailant to get a bigger gun, and then shoot him a few more times. Once you leave and come back, you are acting as the aggressor.

 

[PT111]

This thread is proof that reading comprehention skills in the US have gone down the drain. Maybe Obama can revive them but No Child Left Behind sure hasn't and isn't going to.

 

[DeltaB]

We also have no clear evidence available to us that shows that the BG was unconscious either.

It is the ME's testimony that clearly refutes Ersland's testimony.

No matter what we say or think, this man is innocent until proven guilty. Sure everything doesn't match up 100%. That happens all the time as eyewitness testimony can be very unreliable.

I would say that upon examination, if done fairly, none of his testominy matches up. It's the reason that investigators took this matter to the DA. None of his testimony matched any of the footage. From the detailed account of how he was shot at up to 15 times to being injured in the Gulf War, all of what Ersland has asserted to investigators and the media, has set a pattern of blatently false statements. While I agree that in the courts eyes, to the execution of penalty for his accused crime, he is innocent until proven guilty. But you cannot claim that for Ersland, and not extend that to all the other participants as well. It's a subtle hypocrisy to say the would-be robbers are guilty and deserved to die, as so many I have heard say, and then say Ersland's innocent until proven guilty.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

This thread is proof that reading comprehention skills in the US have gone down the drain. Maybe Obama can revive them but No Child Left Behind sure hasn't and isn't going to.

The only "Three R's" we want to hear about are Ruger, Remington, and RIA.

 

[Hank15]

Thanks for your suggestion DeltaB

Thank you for your suggestion DeltaB.

I would love to read every post on this thread before posting, but thefiringline forums is something I can only visit on my break from my studies. And 26 pages of posts is a lot to go through.

Everything I stated in my previous post are just opinions.

If it offends anyone on this thread, I can only say that it is only my opinion based on the limited information that I and everyone else on this thread has been given.

 

[MLeake]

Limited information?

We've seen the video. We've read excerpts from the DA and ME. Multiple posters have provided links. We've had legal inputs from attorneys.

DeltaB is right, read the thread please.

 

[Trooper Tyree]

Reader comprehension is a massive problem on the internet, the internet is after all, entirely about your opinion and how quickly you can get your ever so important opinion out there. Facts be damned, I can see how this thing went down from page one of the thread and the original newspaper report! Free the man you ogres! :barf:

Sorry, it's a pet peave of mine.

I have a request.

It seems as of late people are stumbling on this thread, reading the first page or two pages or even maybe three pages, then posting their views, which of course are painfully uninformed because they haven't read all the new information that slowly trickles in over the next 22 pages.

Would it be possible for a mod to edit in a post at the start of the thread, or simply add in an edit/update to the very first post, with a brief summery of the facts and information of the case as we know it now?

I know it would be a bit of a pain, but I think it would help keep this thread on course.

Pax did basically just that about 6 pages back, but just into the thread itself. Here is what Pax did.

Here's the initial news report: http://newsok.com/pharmacist-is-glad...rticle/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.news...armdoc0001.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/category...clipId=3804065

And here's an article about this DA's view of the 2nd Amendment: http://newsok.com/self-defense-allow...rticle/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-fata...rticle/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

If we could even just cut and paste this into first post, it would be helpful. This way people who don't want to read all 26 pages will at least be given a fair chance to educate themselves on the case before posting their opinions based off of the now painfully incorrect and misleading first reports in the first pages of this thread.

Thank you,

 

[DeltaB]

If it offends anyone on this thread, I can only say that it is only my opinion based on the limited information that I and everyone else on this thread has been given.

I don't think it's offensive, and everyone has their right to their opinions. You will find numerous links to various reports, news stories, and court documents as well as some valuable commentaries to be gleaned from the previous posts.

 

[Crosshair]

It is the ME's testimony that clearly refutes Ersland's testimony.

I don't see the ME making his statements with 100% certainty. Please show me where the ME has said as such as it is entirely possible I have been wrong.

I don't think anyone has been able to answer my other question about how lethal/surviveable the first shot was, how lethal the second round of shots were and if either was survivable on their own?

If the damn video would show the BG this issue would be allot simpler.

 

[Trooper Tyree]

Thanks for your suggestion DeltaB
Thank you for your suggestion DeltaB.

I would love to read every post on this thread before posting, but thefiringline forums is something I can only visit on my break from my studies. And 26 pages of posts is a lot to go through.

Everything I stated in my previous post are just opinions.

If it offends anyone on this thread, I can only say that it is only my opinion based on the limited information that I and everyone else on this thread has been given.

Hank, if you want to get a good overall summery of the situation watch the DA's release. It explains why he decided to press the murder I charge, it shows the surveillance vids from two different views twice, and he points out interesting and insightful bits as the video plays.

That video can be found here. http://newsok.com/multimedia/video/24432794001

Other disturbing things have come to light since then, but that will cover the basics.

 

[Shane Tuttle]

OK folks. A controversial, yet common problem when encountering heavily posted threads: Lots of opinions and angles discussed and intertwined within the original post. There are valid points to both sides of the argument regarding "Read the thread before posting" and "There's entirely too much content to read in the short time I have available".

Here's my suggestion:

1. For the "Read the posts" crowd: Take into consideration that members actually don't have time to read all 600+ posts which sometimes entail thesis statements from members. I don't think it's fair for members that don't have time to read and absorb ALL posts to condemn them from participating. If this happens, you'll quickly see that you might be left with barely a handful of contributers and the thread dies out. I'd suggest pointing to a post or two (politely) where said issue is already brought up or to show the correct context of the discussion.

2. For the "So much content, so little time" crowd: Take into account other members that have been engaged heavily in this type of thread. It's frustrating to see posts popping up with comments that were already answered/thoroughly disputed. Think of it as you just walked up to a group of people already discussing said issue for several minutes and you pipe up and make an ignorant statement all because you didn't ask the full context of the discussion. I'd suggest at least skimming over the thread at hand and get a decent picture of what's going on. If you take issue with a specific member's statement, research his/her posts in that thread to see what he/she is trying to convey.

I know it's frustrating on both sides of the token. But let's try to understand where each person is coming from for the sake of keeping the discussion alive and the spread common courtesy.

 

[MLeake]

Reply to Tuttle8

You are correct, we should be more tolerant of others. That in mind, I apologize for the way my indirect reply to the gentleman with limited time and access came across. I had not intended for my response to sound as brusque as it did; however, I felt the poster's defensive attitude toward DeltaB was causing him to miss the point that the info really was available in the body of the thread.

I like the idea Trooper Tyree put forward of putting a general recap at the beginning of longer threads.

 

[DeltaB]

Tuttle, duly noted.

 

[DeltaB]

I don't see the ME making his statements with 100% certainty. Please show me where the ME has said as such as it is entirely possible I have been wrong. I don't think anyone has been able to answer my other question about how lethal/surviveable the first shot was, how lethal the second round of shots were and if either was survivable on their own? If the damn video would show the BG this issue would be allot simpler.

When it comes to the verasity of the testimony, I'm compelled to give great weight to the ME's statements over what Ersland has stated for reasons I have already made known. Concerning the shots, and their impact on Parker, forensic evidense which the DA has made statements on, have been what I have reported to this thread. It's certainly your right to discount the ME's reports, but forensics is what will be seen as the de facto standard in this case in court. While you cannot see Parker on the floor, you can see that no one ever rises up from that floor. No hands ever come up. You don't see his legs or feet move. You never see his head rise up. You don't see anything of Parker. Which in itself tends to give me more weight of credibility to the ME's report, than that of Ersland. And that in itself tends to be more revealing than you are giving it credit for. I can understand your position.

 

[OuTcAsT]

which sometimes entail thesis statements from members.

I think I may have just been insulted..

I know it's frustrating on both sides of the token. But let's try to understand where each person is coming from for the sake of keeping the discussion alive and the spread common courtesy.

Good suggestion, and duly noted. I too apologize if my response was construed as terse.

 

[Hank15]

I'll google next time.

I may not have time to read all the posts, but I do have time to google. That idea just didn't come up when I made my post. I hope this makes up for any impolite or defensive attitude I may have demonstrated earlier.

From now on, for topics like this, I'll research twice, post once to help alleviate flooded threads.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31003987/

http://newsok.com/druggist-freed-teen-arrested/article/3373432

http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_12471775

http://newsok.com/pharmacist-in-okl...ttorney-but-wont-say-how-many/article/3374244

Though the sources disagree on some parts (such as whether or not Parker was unconscious), they do agree on one thing: the pharmacist chased the other assailant out the store, and came back to shoot the downed assailant five additional times in the abdomen. I think that's only because there was video proof, otherwise the media would have tried to manipulate that as well.

I can't say I agree with the pharmacist's action (running back to the store and putting 5 more rounds in the assailant's abdomen), but I must say that his previous actions did prevent potential risks to his life and the employees' lives. I personally believe that if a person's good deeds outweigh his evil deeds, he is still essentially good. That's just me though, others may disagree.

My condolences to Parker and his family though, I don't think he even knew what he was doing. He was trying to put on his mask while his accomplice was waving a gun around....