Armed Citizen: Oklahoma Pharmacist Defends Employees from Robbers

[PT111]

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3536377&postcount=501

Look back to post #500 on page 21 for the original post by PAX. Those links should work.

 

[OuTcAsT]

I would like to read them, but when I tried using the links they wouldn't work for me

I tried them, and they seemed to work, sorry you are having difficulties PKato. the original source is from a site by the "Oklahoman" newspaper. http://newsok.com.

You may have to search a bit, but they have a section devoted entirely to this incident. Hope that helps.

 

[OuTcAsT]

(BTW, since the perp had dropped his "unloaded" gun, was he not then unarmed? If it were not loaded, was he unarmed?

If you indeed watched the video as you claim;

I've seen cameras #1, #2, and #3

Then you, undoubtedly, through the same powers of observation that the rest of us relied on, saw that the only armed "perp" fled the store, with gun in hand, and the pharmacist in pursuit. The "perp" that was shot only had a mask, which he spent his entire conscious time in the store, attempting to put on.

If not, might I suggest a re-viewing is in order ?

was he unarmed?

Yes, as in; "had no armament" empty handed, save, of course, a mask.

 

[21CFA]

Videos I see are too dark on my PC

to make a call either way, but listening to the D.A, I'd say the Rx Guy's goose is cooked. Yes, I've watched it several times (NOT over the "countless hours" - - - - c'mon man!) and can't see it for the darkness. D.A. has to be right, tho'.

 

[hogdogs]

21, Maybe your video viewer could be set too dark. The 3 in store vids are bright and fairly high def color jobbies.
I understand, I REALLY DO, that many getting involved in this discussion are newer to TFL than the discussion at hand. I also realize it is time consuming to read all at once. Take yer time read a page or 2 at a time. Then jump in. We that have been involved in the discussion from the onset actually have more time invested as we continuously update ourselves both here and with the news sources.

I also take high offense at a suggestion that this thread has been biased due to race of either involved party. I, personally, couldn't care less if the down BG was a purple polka dot poodle and the shooter a pitbull or vice versa... I am all for legal self defense of the most barbaric and bloody sort so long as it is within the law!
But you can't just walk up and "Clint Eastwood" a downed wounded punk on cameras!
Brent

 

[Al Norris]

All the links in OuTcAsT's re-posting of Kathy's post are now fixed. And because we're now on a new page, I'm gonna post them again!

From this post by pax:

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.

 

[Lost Sheep]

DD214

hogdogs, DD214 (Department of Defense Form 214) is the discharge papers any member of the U.S. Military (all branches) receives when he or she leaves adtive duty.

It also specifies some details of the member's service and the type of discharge (Honorable, General, Dishonorable and another status I don't remember right now.)

source, my memory and this site:
http://www.archives.gov/veterans/military-service-records/dd-214.html
or if the link does not work paste this into your browser
archives.gov/veterans/military-service-records/dd-214.html

fron which this is clipped
The Report of Separation contains information normally needed to verify military service for benefits, retirement, employment, and membership in veterans' organizations. Information shown on the Report of Separation may include the service member's:

* Military job specialty
* Military education
* Decorations, medals, badges, citations, and campaign awards
* Total creditable service
* Foreign service credited
* Separation information (type of separation, character of service, authority and reason for separation, separation and reenlistment eligibility codes)

The report of separation form issued in most recent years is the DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty.

Lost Sheep

P.S. I would have p.m.'ed this but thought since one TFL member had the question, others might, too.

 

[Ricky B]

For the newbies, here is the "Cliff's Notes" version

If you're joining this discussion and don't want to read through over 700 posts, I don't blame you. I haven't read all of them myself.

But that doesn't mean you can join a conversation in progress and not concern yourself with what has already been discussed.

So for your convenience, here is a summary. This, coupled the links in post 726, will allow you to participate without looking like an idiot.

Undisputed Facts:

Two men enter a pharmacy store with the intent to rob it. One robber is armed and displaying a gun. Jerome Ersland, a pharmacist, draws a gun and shoots the other robber, Antwun Parker, in the head. The armed robber flees. Ersland gives chase but then returns to the store. He walks past the prostrate Parker in an unconcerned manner. Ersland retrieves a second gun and walks back to Parker. Ersland fires five shots into the abdomen of Parker, killing him.

Ersland's Defense

Ersland's principal defense (and what we have been discussing) is a claim of self-defense.

The DA charges Ersland with murder. The DA expressly declares the the first shooting by Ersland, the one where Parker was shot in the head, was justified. The murder charge is ONLY for the five additional shots fired into Parker.

It does not matter legally whether Parker would have survived the head wound. The ME says yes, but it's irrelevant. The only legal issue is whether Parker was alive, and the ME's opinion that he was in fact alive at the time of the second shooting and that the five shots to the abdomen were fatal is probably going to be conclusive on that issue.

No one on TFL claims that the first shooting by Ersland is at issue. The ONLY issue is whether Ersland was justified in shooting Parker an additional five times.

Inculpatory Facts

Facts against Ersland that are apparent from viewing the surveillance video:

He goes past Parker, exposing his back, as he chases the other robber outside the store.

He returns to the store, again going past Parker and exposing his back to Parker as he goes behind the counter.

He retrieves a second gun and with seeming nonchalance walks over to Parker and bends over and shoots Parker five times.

He then, again with seeming nonchalance, walks behind the counter and picks up a phone to call the police

Additional facts against Ersland (which come from the initial article "Man has no regrets defending Oklahoma City pharmacy"):

He claimed to be a veteran of the Gulf War and to have been injured in the war. But he was discharged before the Gulf War began.

He claimed that he was shot at during the robbery, but according to the police, Ersland was the only who fired a shot.

He claimed that a robber grabbed his hand, but the video shows neither of the robbers was anywhere close enough to grab his hand.

He claimed that he got the second gun before the second robber fled, but the video shows that he retrieved the second gun after he chased the robber down the street and returned to the store.

He claimed that as he started to chase after the second robber, he looked back to see Parker getting up again. Ersland said he then emptied the .380 into Parker's chest as Erlsand kept going after the second robber. The video shows that Ersland did not look back as he chased the second robber and that he did not keep his eye on Parker when he returned to store and went behind the counter to get the second gun.

Additional evidence, in the form of opinion, will be the ME's testimony that Parker was alive but unconscious when Ersland pumped the five rounds into his abdomen.

Exculpatory Facts

In Ersland's defense:

1. This never would have happened if Parker and his accomplice had not tried to rob the store.

2. Participants in high-stress situations often mangle the facts in the retelling.

3. According to at least one post by an EMT in this thread, even dead men can twitch. So it is possible that Parker twitched or otherwise moved even though unconscious. The versions of the video that I have seen do not show Parker on the floor.

The Basic Issue

The issue is not whether a store employee is justified in shooting a robber. Please don't waste everyone's time with that. We all know it.

And if you believe that once a robber enters a store, his life is forfeit and he becomes your personal property even if he ceases to be a threat, well, think what you like, but that's not the law and that's not how most people think.

The questions to be decided by the jury in connection with self-defense are:

1. Whether Ersland truly feared for his life (or feared great bodily injury). If not, there's no self-defense.

AND

2. Whether Ersland's fear for his life (or great bodily injury) was reasonable under the circumstances. If not, there's no self-defense.

This is sometimes referred to as the subjective and the objective tests for self-defense. BOTH must be present to carry the day with a self-defense claim.

An "imperfect" self-defense can reduce a charge from murder. So if Erlsland truly believed that death or great bodily injury were imminent, but his belief was unreasonable, that can reduce the severity of the offense to murder 2 or manslaughter.

 

[Cincy_Ron]

Thanks Ricky, good synopsis.

 

[DeltaB]

So for your convenience, here is a summary.

Ricky B, there are a few more issues, which start with the fact was Ersland in criminal possession of a firearm under the Oklahoma Self Defense Act. Anyone under the influence of alcohol or drugs, illegal or legal are prohibited from carrying or using a firearm. Concerning Ersland's "mangling" the facts doesn't even come close to what is at issue in this case, and will certainly play a vital part of the verasity of his testimony. The claim was he was shot in the arm, then it moved to shot in the hand. Investigators testified that no one shot inside the pharmacy except Ersland. Ersland claimed he was thrown against the wall, and that was found to be false by the footage. You have to make sure you have the facts right before making the post as not to mislead others.

I would disagree with your synopsis of the legal outcomes as well. If you cause the death of a minor in Oklahoma by use of "unreasonable force" that rises to the level of murder in the first degree.

 

[OuTcAsT]

If you cause the death of a minor in Oklahoma by use of "unreasonable force" that rises to the level of murder in the first degree.

Ricky, good recap, however, do not underestimate the above law, If the Judge finds that the 16 year old decedent qualifies as a minor, the only legal question is going to be one of the use of "unreasonable force".

 

[Ricky B]

You have to make sure you have the facts right before making the post as not to mislead others.

If you mean to suggest that I don't have the facts right or that my post is misleading, I don't think that is a correct characterization of my post. You haven't mentioned any facts that I misstated. And having labeled my post as a summary, no one should think that I have listed all the facts. The purpose of my post was not to foreclose anyone from adding facts or arguing interpretations of the facts but simply to recite a commonly accepted nucleus of facts. And of course, if I have misstated any facts, anyone is free to correct that.

I also did not state that there were no legal issues beyond self-defense.

Whether Ersland was legally in possession of his handguns can certainly be an issue, but I don't know that it is relevant to whether he committed murder, which is the most important issue we have been discussing. Bernard Goetz, the "subway vigilante," was found not guilty of all charges except an illegal firearms possession count.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernhard_Goetz

If you cause the death of a minor in Oklahoma by use of "unreasonable force" that rises to the level of murder in the first degree.

That indeed is another issue. I suspect however that if the defendant is found to have a valid self-defense claim, he is entitled to be acquitted. If the defendant is found to have an "imperfect" self-defense claim but used "unreasonable force," it might not suffice to reduce the offense.

 

[surg_res]

3. According to at least one post by an EMT in this thread, even dead men can twitch. So it is possible that Parker twitched or otherwise moved even though unconscious. The versions of the video that I have seen do not show Parker on the floor.

Dead humans do not twitch. Dying humans: perhaps.

As I mentioned in this thread last month, a head shot could be fatal--but not instantly fatal, thus the ME's conclusion that he was still alive does not equate to guarantee to survive. As far as I know, there is no evidence that the dead boy was or was not unconscious.

 

[Ricky B]

I am assuming that the following quote is a correct statement of OK law:

§21-701.7. Murder in the first degree
C. A person commits murder in the first degree when the death of a child results from the willful or malicious injuring, torturing, maiming or using of unreasonable force by said person or who shall willfully cause, procure or permit any of said acts to be done upon the child pursuant to Section 7115 of Title 10 of the Oklahoma Statutes. It is sufficient for the crime of murder in the first degree that the person either willfully tortured or used unreasonable force upon the child or maliciously injured or maimed the child.

There is a basic principle of statutory construction called ejusdem generis, which literally means something like "of the same kind." In construing a statute that uses a string of terms, the courts will often use the more specific terms to limit the meaning of more general terms. So the use of the terms "willful or malicious injuring," "torturing," and "maiming" in the statute can be interpreted by a judge as qualifying the term "using of unreasonable force" and thus limiting the meaning to one that is similar to "willful or malicious injuring," "torturing," and "maiming."

If that interpretation applies, then the term "using force" in connection with self-defense might have a different meaning that the term "using of unreasonable force" in the murder statute.

I suspect that the legislators were intending to address the shaken baby syndrome where a care-giver shakes a baby so hard that he or she kills the baby but doesn't actually hit the baby.

Assuming Parker is held by the court to be a "child," it is possible that the statute would apply to Ersland's actions, not because Ersland used unreasonable force but because the shooting could be found to be a "willful or malicious injuring." Of course, if Ersland was acting in self-defense, it would not be willful or malicious as most people (and I think an OK judge) would use those terms.

 

[DeltaB]

You haven't mentioned any facts that I misstated.

Actually, I did. See next..

He claimed that a robber grabbed his hand, but the video shows neither of the robbers was anywhere close enough to grab his hand.

I have tried to research all that Ersland had asserted, and I know he reported that he had been shot in the forearm initially, and even went as far as to wear an oversized bandage on his arm. He then changed his story that he felt a sting in his hand and his watch fell off when he was shot in the hand. Neither proved true. He stated early on that the suspects charged the counter and forced him in to the wall, which is when he stated he pulled a .380 automatic pistol from his pocket and began to fire. If you know of where he stated they grabbed his hand, can you please provide a source?

I suspect that the legislators were intending to address the shaken baby syndrome where a care-giver shakes a baby so hard that he or she kills the baby but doesn't actually hit the baby.

§21-701.7. (C) MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE INVOLVING - DEATH OF CHILD - ELEMENTS

No person may be convicted of murder in the first degree unless the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt each element of the crime. These elements are:

First, the death of a child under the age of eighteen;
Second, the death resulted from the willful or malicious injuring/torturing/maiming or using of unreasonable force;
Third, by the defendant.

Unreasonable force is defined as any action more than that ordinarily used as a means of discipline.
Willful - Purposeful. "Willful" is a willingness to commit the act or omission referred to, but does not require any intent to violate the law or to acquire any advantage.
Malicious - The term imports a wish to vex, annoy or injure another person.
Torture - Infliction of either great physical pain or extreme mental cruelty.
Maiming - Infliction on another of a physical injury that disables or disfigures or seriously diminishes physical vigor, performed with the intent to cause any injury.

Concerning the issue of him carrying and using a deadly weapon in violation of the statutes of the Oklahoma Self Defense Act, if it is found that he was under the influence of opiates at the time of the crime (which his defense team has already stated) it could be difference between life (in prison) or death.

 

[Tucker 1371]

off topic-ish

It also specifies some details of the member's service and the type of discharge (Honorable, General, Dishonorable and another status I don't remember right now.)

I think that other one is a Section 8... usually reserved for folks who are mentally unfit for duty.

 

[OuTcAsT]

There are actually 5 distinct types of discharge one can receive from military service;

TYPES OF DISCHARGE The five types of discharge are as follows: 1. Honorable 2. General (under honorable conditions) 3. Other than honorable 4. Bad conduct 5. Dishonorable

 

[OuTcAsT]

There is a basic principle of statutory construction called ejusdem generis, which literally means something like "of the same kind." In construing a statute that uses a string of terms, the courts will often use the more specific terms to limit the meaning of more general terms. So the use of the terms "willful or malicious injuring," "torturing," and "maiming" in the statute can be interpreted by a judge as qualifying the term "using of unreasonable force" and thus limiting the meaning to one that is similar to "willful or malicious injuring," "torturing," and "maiming."

If that interpretation applies, then the term "using force" in connection with self-defense might have a different meaning that the term "using of unreasonable force" in the murder statute.

I suspect that the legislators were intending to address the shaken baby syndrome where a care-giver shakes a baby so hard that he or she kills the baby but doesn't actually hit the baby.

Assuming Parker is held by the court to be a "child," it is possible that the statute would apply to Ersland's actions, not because Ersland used unreasonable force but because the shooting could be found to be a "willful or malicious injuring." Of course, if Ersland was acting in self-defense, it would not be willful or malicious as most people (and I think an OK judge) would use those terms.

That was an interesting, and, informative analysis, I am, however also interested in the ELEMENTS that DeltaB posted;

No person may be convicted of murder in the first degree unless the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt each element of the crime. These elements are:

First, the death of a child under the age of eighteen;
Second, the death resulted from the willful or malicious injuring/torturing/maiming or using of unreasonable force;
Third, by the defendant.

The first element, the death of a child under the age of eighteen, has been met.

The third element, by the defendant, has also been met.

The second element, remains the questionable part. Keeping the explanation that RickyB provided in mind, there is one thing that sticks out, that is the word OR that I highlighted. This would seem to indicate that the factors were intended to be tested exclusive of one another. The death was either from the malicious torture, etc. OR the use of unreasonable force. Thus either being met,(along with the other elements) would be cause for a conviction. At least that is my understanding of what I am reading. YMMV

 

[Ricky B]

From the source I cited in my post:

[initial news report: http://newsok.com/pharmacist-is-glad...rticle/3371710 ("Man Has No Regrets Defending Pharmacy")]

"They said, ‘You’re gonna die.’ That’s when one of them shot at me, and that’s when he got my hand.”

Ersland said he was thrown against a wall ...

I had read "that's when he got my hand" and "thrown against a wall" to mean that one of the robbers had grabbed his hand and as a result he was thrown against the wall. Consistent with your own post, I had read elsewhere that "the suspects charged the counter and forced him in to the wall," though I don't recall where I read it. Re-reading the article I quoted, I now assume he meant that the shot that he claimed the robbers had gotten off had hit his hand and threw him against the wall.

Of course, neither claim (grabbed his hand/forced to the wall) was true so I don't think that makes my post "misleading." Otherwise you haven't cited a fact that I got wrong, only that I didn't mention all the facts that you think I should have added to the summary. Again, at the risk of stating the obvious, a summary does not include all facts.

Therefore your statement "You have to make sure you have the facts right before making the post as not to mislead others" was not only uncalled for but also offensive.

 

[DeltaB]

Ricky B, there was no offense intended. If taken then please accept my apology. Thanks for providing the clarification.