Armed Citizen: Oklahoma Pharmacist Defends Employees from Robbers

Status
Not open for further replies.
What is the most recent news on the boy that ran away? The last I read he was being tried as a juvenile, atrocious indeed, IMO.
Click to expand...

That's not exactly true. There is various levels in trying a minor in Oklahoma, and he is actually being charged as a "youthful offender" which doesn't place him in the class of "juvenile" but does not rise to the level of charging him as an adult. I would suppose this is done to remove the death penalty from the table.
 
It would be real interesting to see a public poll of forum members with the options being...

I would convict shooter of Murder 1.

I would convict shooter of lesser Manslaughter charge.

I would acquit the shooter of all charges.

So far the majority of opinion on this forum appears to be of an "I would convict" nature. If that is true on a forum such as this, I am afraid it would be even more popular in a public jury.
 
If a poll were taken now, and given only the evidence that we have available via this thread, It would be impossible for me to be swayed from the conclusion that this was, at the least, a use of unreasonable force. The charge would be dependent on the jury instructions. If the statute concerning a child were included, then he would, without a doubt, be guilty of murder 1. If not, then likely murder 2, as premeditation would be "problematic" if not impossible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

ETA: Or, they could put this guy on the stand and "Darwin" will do the rest.


OuTwithcornedbeefkrautandswissandakosherpicklecAsT...oh, and an ice cold beer !
 
Last edited:
5th amendment procedures?

Wildalaska said:
Quote:
While he certainly does have a right to invoke his 5th amendment protections, I think WA is probably correct.
Click to expand...
You can't plead the 5th amendment if you take the stand voluntarily.
Click to expand...
Wildalaska, I believe you CAN invoke the 5th amendment protections agains self-incrimination even after taking the stand. It just LOOKS really bad to do that in front of a jury.

I am not a lawyer, so my usual caveat applies:

Remember, only believe half of what you see and one quarter of what you hear. That goes double for what you get from the internet.

Do your own independent, confirming research when ANYONE gives you new facts on the web.

Lost Sheep
 
IANAL either but maybe one on here can straighten us out but the DA is allowed under cross examination to question you on anything related to your testimony or the testimony of any witnesses that you have supplied. If it is something not related to the case then you may not have to but you cannot provide your testimony voluntarily and then refuse to be cross examined.
 
Wildalaska, I believe you CAN invoke the 5th amendment protections agains self-incrimination even after taking the stand. It just LOOKS really bad to do that in front of a jury.
Click to expand...

You are technically correct to a limited extent, but Wildalaska is more correct. A defendant can take the stand, be sworn, and refuse to answer questions, but no one would do that. As you say, It is really bad to do that in front of a jury, and the jury will correctly infer that your answers really would incriminate you. It amounts to an in-court, voluntary confession.

Once the defendant testifies, he waives the 5A protection against self-incrimination as to anything he has testified to or otherwise "opened the door" to with his testimony. And his credibility may be impeached, as with any witness, by showing he has made prior inconsistent statements (and if relevant, prior convictions and, sometimes, prior bad acts).

So taking the stand is risky, particularly so with this defendant, who I think will have trouble connecting with the jury on an emotional level.

OTOH, the defendant may have to testify as to his confusion and explain away as best as possible why his prior statements were inconsistent and hope the jury comes back with a lesser included offense, such as manslaughter.

Some of you may remember Dan White, the ex-supervisor of the SF board of supervisors (city council), who sneaked into city hall with a gun and murdered the mayor, George Moscone, and fellow supervisor (and gay activist), Harvey Milk. He was convicted of manslaughter (triggering a riot among the gay population in SF). If not,here's a link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscone-Milk_assassinations
 
You are technically correct to a limited extent, but Wildalaska is more correct. A defendant can take the stand, be sworn, and refuse to answer questions, but no one would do that. As you say, It is really bad to do that in front of a jury, and the jury will correctly infer that your answers really would incriminate you. It amounts to an in-court, voluntary confession.
Click to expand...

I suppose you are correct there but seeing that the defendant gets to call his witnesses and cannot be called by the prosecution why would a defendant call himself (actually his lawyer would call him in real life) to the stand and then refuse to testify. As you say that could happen but the worst thing he could do. Once he opens his mouth then he is pretty much fair game for the DA.
 
You are technically correct to a limited extent, but Wildalaska is more correct. A defendant can take the stand, be sworn, and refuse to answer questions, but no one would do that.
Click to expand...

What happens is is that the Defendant will take the stand, testify on direct and take the 5th on cross. All his testimony is then stricken, and his layer gets reamed out. I have seen mistrials called for that trick

WildirefusetoanswerAlaska TM
 
What happens is is that the Defendant will take the stand, testify on direct and take the 5th on cross. All his testimony is then stricken, and his layer gets reamed out. I have seen mistrials called for that trick
Click to expand...

And I can see why, even though the defendant's testimony is "technically" stricken, it is very difficult to "un-hear" direct testimony...particularly from the defendant :eek:
 
Wildalaska, I believe you CAN invoke the 5th amendment protections agains self-incrimination even after taking the stand. It just LOOKS really bad to do that in front of a jury.
Click to expand...

You can, but that results in your material direct testimony getting stricken

WildsonogoAlaska TM
 
What happens is is that the Defendant will take the stand, testify on direct and take the 5th on cross. All his testimony is then stricken, and his layer gets reamed out. I have seen mistrials called for that trick
Click to expand...

IMO, it would be within the judge's discretion to rule that the defendant waived his 5A privilege and order the defendant to answer questions on cross, and failing compliance by the defendant, to instruct the jury that it is permitted to infer that the answers would have incriminated the defendant. Whether a judge would do that or whether a mistrial would be declared would depend on the case law of the jurisdiction and the inclinations of the particular judge. Federal judges are probably more likely than state court judges to stick it to the defendant who voluntarily testifies and then claims privilege on cross.
 
This is a case of damned if you do and damned if you don't. If he does not testify then the only side of the story is the physical evidence since the only support for his story is his own account. If he does testify he is going to be torn apart so badly that no jury would believe a word he ever said.
 
BroncoBob

I may Be wrong.
But I was told that A person that is considered a threat when three things
are present.Intent,Opportunity,and Ability.If all three things were present
then there is just cause for A proper defence.I would say that if this gentleman had been through the many hours of rigorous training that law enforcement officers go through then he probably would have had some
texbook,situation that he could have applied and been totally exonerated.
But being civilians,with the ability to take life without the training that would satisfy the D/A,we are nothing more that sheep waiting to be sheared.
I wish this man the very best outcome possible.
 
BroncoBob,
Ignorance is no defense in a court of law. It is our job as citizens who intend to defend our lives if need be to know the laws regarding such use of force. All the little nuances aside, blatant misuse of lethal force is criminal. Had this guy commenced firing and didn't stop 'til slide lock, I doubt it would have gotten him any charges even if BG was down by the time he got to the last round in the gun.
Brent
 
I may Be wrong.
But I was told that A person that is considered a threat when three things
are present.Intent,Opportunity,and Ability.If all three things were present
then there is just cause for A proper defence.
Click to expand...

No, broncobob, you are correct, and, all three requirements were met in the initial shooting.

There is little doubt, in anyone's mind that had the pharmacist stopped shooting after his initial shot, or sustained his fire until his firearm was empty, either way we would not be discussing this case other than as a good SD shoot.

It is what happened next that is the reason for the charges, and the topic of this discussion.

Have you, by chance, seen the security video of the incident ? If not, it is linked several times in this thread.
 
Well, Ersland lost his appeal today concerning the military records...I guess we'll have to wait and see if anything emerges...
 
What's the procedure in a case like this? Would it be open to the public?

OK city is only a couple hours from me, I'd kind of like to see this one up close and personal.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top