Armed Citizen: Oklahoma Pharmacist Defends Employees from Robbers

Status
Not open for further replies.
OuTcAsT, I would suppose that "willful" would be applicable in all of the consideration. It would be hard for me to think that someone who was forced to commit a murder not of their own volition would be applicable...
 
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.
Click to expand...

...OR this issue is getting dissected so deep with details abound that even facts are beginning to look a bit complicated.
 
Moderator Note

Whew! This thread is amazing.

People, I'm very proud of y'all. This is a hot, contentious topic with lots of room for extreme differences of opinion. But you have all managed to keep it on topic, lively, interesting, and polite. Lots of good intelligent discussion backed up by facts, almost no knee-jerk emotional responses.

At 30 pages and over 740 meaningful posts, this thread has got to be a record.

Keep it up, folks. :cool:

pax
 
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.
Click to expand...

That reading would be correct (subject to any decisions of the OK courts construing the statute). So it would be death of a child by means of:

1. willful or malicious injuring, OR

2. torturing, OR

3. maiming, OR

4. using of unreasonable force.

Torture and maiming imply malice.

But what is "unreasonable force"? In Delta B's post, he says: "Unreasonable force is defined as any action more than that ordinarily used as a means of discipline." I didn't see that when I made my earlier response. I don't know that this undercuts my earlier response, though.

Taking that as a statutory definition, I would say that the implication is that "unreasonable force" is applicable to someone who is trying to get a child to "behave" (as they see it). I would expect Ersland's lawyer to argue that the "unreasonable force" aspect is inapplicable to Ersland as he was not trying to discipline a child. Again, however, Ersland might be found to have willfully or maliciously injured Parker.

An interesting question is whether Ersland's prior statements as to Gulf War service will come into evidence against him if he does not testify. My bet is no. It's a lie about a collateral matter, and it's extremely prejudicial. My proof of the prejudice is the post made by Brent (hogdogs):

"Had he spoken such BS in my presence and I known him a liar, he would have faced physical retribution for such fraudulent claims."
Click to expand...

The jury could be inflamed by his lie about something that has little to do with the central issue of the case.

His prior statements about what happened in the robbery will probably come in as that is directly relevant.

P.S. Brent, I think you were unfair to Clint Eastwood's Dirty Harry character. He would give the BG a chance to go for his gun before he shot him. I don't recall any movie where he would go up to an unconscious BG and just shoot him five times in the abdomen.
 
One added thing to the summary

Ricky B,

Great summary. Thanks. I have been following the thread from the beginning and it is hard to keep it all together. You did a great job.

One additional thing I would point out is that there was no firearm recovered from Antwun Parker, or near him. You said that, but not explicitly. It was in the charging document, though.

Lost Sheep
 
Thanks RickB et al for FINE work! VERY fine!

Which I was just too lazy or busy to do for myself. This Rx guy will have no chance at all of avoiding forced residence among a lot of "brothers" in Greybar facilities, unless his defense can show reasonable doubt that the dead BG was indeed dead from the headshot before receiving the five .380 bullets in the body. As for the shop owner lying about his claimed Sandbox duties, I do pity his psychology for needing to lie, but pity more any super-patriot who would state that "I'd beat him to a pulp" if they could get close enough. You'd pay dearly if you did that. Justification for that attitude may also be the kind of psych-kinks that drove Mr Rx guy to unload on a downed perp. Lots of good and stimulating conversation on this item. MODS: does it set any records? ? And thanks MODS for letting it range a freely and sometimes hotly as you did. Like true gentleman. I'll forever keep your admonitions in my mind. My $0.02. Before inflation.
 
unless his defense can show reasonable doubt that the dead BG was indeed dead from the headshot before receiving the five .380 bullets in the body.
Click to expand...
Then he will be charged with some sort of "abuse of a corpse" type thing:D
With preliminary evidence presented by the ME saying the kid died from the 5 .380 shots (very easy to prove) and a subsequent burial, I doubt the proof the defense attorney needs will come to fruition. Guy is "powdered toastman"...
Brent
 
2 words... Rigor Mortis

Pacers pace. Automatic internal cardiac defibrillators fire--and only when they detect V-fib or unless they malfunction, either of which causes contraction of live tissue. Dead tissue does not spontaneously twitch, however, it does contract.
 
catch up

Yes, that was a few hours of reading, and that's just getting here from the middle.

Box told the judge he has accepted other unusual payments in the past, including comic books.
Click to expand...

Have we found a defence atty for playboy should he (God forbid) get into trouble?

Mr. Ersland will be asked every which way from Sunday what he was thinking and why he did what he did. And the jury will decide as to his guilt or innocence.
Click to expand...

And based on his prior performance, he will give every which way till Sunday an answer. He has not been reliable up to this point, and I don’t see that changing.

Our pharmacist is a liar of the most low life type that claim active duty battle experience when it never happened! I have 5 expletives to describe this puke but I like my membership here! Any human that claims US military active duty battle experience that did not happen is 3 rungs lower than a crack dealer to me!
Click to expand...

Yes, nail, meet hammer, could not have said it better. I am never willing to ignore evidence, as has been suggested. I would look at all presented evidence with a very liberal view for a war veteran who swears the kid moved. I would take the word of the only witness (off camera) to the last five shots if his word were good, but I tend to become very conservative in the presence of liars, thieves, and murderers. Being as he has met one of the three...

I have to agree, rye toast, and the third one met as well.
 
Ersland chose to not enter a plea today. Preliminary hearing is September 3, 2009. Out on 100,000.00 bond.
Click to expand...

Mr. Ersland may be better off skipping the country and taking his chances with Dog the Bounty Hunter than the buddies at the Graybar Hotel. Having read all 30+ pages of this thread plus other's I think he is toast.
 
No comment on this one? Was he going for the gun? Was he up? Could the pharmacist have subdued him without this additional use of deadly force? Was the threat over?

If he was shot on the ground, with a gun no where near him, would you all still be applauding? Could he in fact have been acting with an animus and have simply executed this young man?

As we dont have all the facts here, could it be that the protesters were right? Do they know something the press isnt telling us?
Click to expand...

Honestly Alaska is there any situation possible in which a man defends his life and the lives of others with a gun that you wont find fault with what they did? Every time somebody on this forum posts any story about a citizen defending him or herself with a firearm you seem to always find some obscure way to criticize what they did or how they did it.

1) The robbers had guns.
2) The robbers had already shot at the victim several times.
3) The victim was recovering from back surgery and virtually defenseless without his gun.
4) It doesn't matter if the guy was down at one point in the gun fight he was getting up again and in that situation since he had already shot once it was too risky to let him get back up and possibly continue fighting.
5) Finally, when a group criminals come into a store with guns blazing they are the ones in the wrong not the person who defends himself.

There is also something wrong with these protesters calling a man racist for simply defending himself against an assailant who happened to be of another ethnic background. What blatant hypocrisy from all of them. I seriously doubt that if these thugs would have busted into their work places with guns blazing that they would not fought back.
 
Have you not read the thread, articles, or anything?

Re4mer,

Forensic evidence and video don't support the claim that the BG's fired any shots.

The pharmacist was not wounded.

The dead kid never had a gun, just a mask.

The kid with the gun never fired, and ran away when shooting started.

Pharmacist lied about several details. Or, giving him the benefit of the doubt, his memories were wrong due to stress, adrenaline, whatever.

Pharmacist definitely lied about being a combat vet.

Pharmacist had chemical dependency issues that would have disqualified him from carrying a firearm.

Video from pharmacy shows pharmacist calmly turning back on dead BG while getting other gun, then calmly walking back and shooting him.
 
Are you talking about the Ersland case with these comments?

1) The robbers had guns.
Click to expand...

They had one gun.

2) The robbers had already shot at the victim several times.
Click to expand...

How did they shoot at him several time when there were no bullets in the gun and some have even reported that the mag was duct taped to the gun. Mr. Ersland was never shot at.

3) The victim was recovering from back surgery and virtually defenseless without his gun.
Click to expand...

He was running pretty good getting out the door and chasing one of the robbers down the street.

4) It doesn't matter if the guy was down at one point in the gun fight he was getting up again and in that situation since he had already shot once it was too risky to let him get back up and possibly continue fighting.
Click to expand...

The one lying on the ground had not shot once or at any time. He never had a gun. The one with the gun had long gone.


5) Finally, when a group criminals come into a store with guns blazing they are the ones in the wrong not the person who defends himself.
Click to expand...

I agreee with that but with guns blazing doesn't apply in this case at all.

There is also something wrong with these protesters calling a man racist for simply defending himself against an assailant who happened to be of another ethnic background. What blatant hypocrisy from all of them. I seriously doubt that if these thugs would have busted into their work places with guns blazing that they would not fought back.
Click to expand...

I haven't heard anyone on here try to say anything about it being a racist thing but some in the public media have. Is totally a non-factor.
 
Ah, several people just getting here, I see. :cool: It's a long thread, so here are the important bits of information you need to have in order to discuss this intelligently:

pax said:
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.
Click to expand...

RickyB said:
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.
Click to expand...

pax
 
Thanks to both Pax for the recap and RickyB for creating that part of the recap. In a case like this people get all upset and in some cases riots may break out ets. all because of half-truths or even down right lies being spread. Only one side of the story is often told on Internet boards and leads to problems. Thankfully we have a few on here that tend to keep us straight.
 
Intense situation to find your self in. An even more intense case to sit on the jury. The finer point of this case is that everyone should feel safe from prosecution when they do have to defend themselves and take deadly force. even the DA supports this.

The second part that really has everyone in disagreement is how far can you take that deadly force. If you outright kill the bad guy on the first shot your pretty safe, however once that person is down but not dead then there is a fine line between defensive action and murder.

I have thought about what I would have done in this robbery. I know if I had to I would have tired to defend my self and take deadly action. I probably would not have gone after the robber who left the store. In addition I would have kept my gun on the victim who was down just in case he made a aggressive move. Since everything went so fast I probably would not have known if he had a gun or not but after seeing one gun I would have assumed he was armed.

If the guy on the floor started to get up I would have probably shot him again since I would have considered him armed and dangerous. However if he was just groaning and moving a little I would have just kept him covered until the police arrived. I know that I would not have walked by him or up to him since I would have considered him a threat.

However that's me and I would have to assume that I would remain calm along with keeping a reasonable thought process after I just fired my gun and actualy shot someone. What I do know is that I couldn't walk up to a person who is down and not a threat and shoot him again.

While the video may looking damning it still doesn't show what the bad guy was doing on the floor. Unfortunately there is no sound to go with the video.

When I think of this case I know if a bad guy is down and not a threat we don't give policemen the green light to end their life. So this case will hinge around a jury that will have to figure out if the pharmacist still was in fear of his life. And to be honest from watching both angles of video I see no evidence to support that defense one way or the other. I simple can't see what the young man was doing on the floor. For all I know he was motionless on the floor or trying to get up and maybe had his hands under his body looking for a gun.

If I saw evidence that the pharmacist pumped 5 rounds into a unconscious person on the floor then I would have to find him guilty. That is the way the law reads and I agree with it. However if there is not 100% clear evidence of this then there would be a shade of doubt and I could not convict the pharmacist.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top