Armed Citizen: Oklahoma Pharmacist Defends Employees from Robbers

Status
Not open for further replies.
My point is this, the guy was CLEARLY a threat, its not like the 16 year old stopped, put his hands up, then the guy unloaded on him.
Click to expand...
That's what we call an assumption. There is no way of saying that with certainty unless you have read the police reports, or were actually there.
And you know what happens when you assume :p

Don't get so worked up. The people who are "unamerican" here are actually just trying to get you to think (which is a good thing). Doesn't mean they think the shot is bad, just that there is some room for speculation.

Sitting under the glare of fluorescent lights in a court room, no "reasonable man" would do such a thing.
Click to expand...
Very good point sir... Can expert witnesses help the reasonable man case then?


I went to a dinner and heard a FOG proclaimed...
Click to expand...
Sorry for the ignorance, but FOG?
 
Last edited:
Yes, part of my rant was based on assumption, as without being there or having a video I don’t know all of the facts.

I’m sensitive to people taking up for the bad guy while the good guy gets walked on. The article stated that protests were occurring outside the store and he was accused of being a racist, that makes my blood boil, but does not surprise me.

To me taking up for the 16 year old for any reason, race, age, and motive is just an attack on a citizen that defended his life, and the lives of others.

I also want to point out that while some people think he may have went too far (also based on assumptions), let us not forget about adrenaline and what fear can do to us, the guy was just shot at.
 
The article stated that protests were occurring outside the store and he was accused of being a racist, that makes my blood boil, but does not surprise me.
Click to expand...
Yes, it would make most people upset (including myself). Try not to let it influence your posts here though. Rants never come out the same as you mean them to.

I also want to point out that while some people think he may have went too far (also based on assumptions), let us not forget about adrenaline and what fear can do to us, the guy was just shot at.
Click to expand...
I definitely agree with this, and is the reason behind my question a few posts back.
 
oklahoma pharmacist to be charged with murder

An Oklahoma City pharmacist was charged today with first-degree murder in the May 19 shooting death of a would-be robber.

Chickasha resident Jerome Ersland, 57, on Tuesday said he was concerned about the scrutiny he has faced since the shooting.

The charge alleges Ersland shot Antwun Parker, 16, while he was incapacitated and lying on his back. Ersland’s account of the incident doesn’t match the video or the evidence collected at the scene, according to the affidavit written by Oklahoma City Police Detective David Jacobson.

Parker was shot once in the head and five times in the stomach area. The autopsy found Parker was still alive after the head shot and died from the stomach wounds.

Oklahoma County District Attorney David Prater is scheduled to discuss the case at an afternoon press conference.

Ersland has maintained he acted in self defense when he shot Parker to foil the robbery attempt.

He said two men in ski masks threatened him and two other employees when they burst into Reliable Discount Pharmacy, near SW 59 and Pennsylvania, demanding cash and drugs.

Ersland, a disabled Army veteran, could not flee like the two women working with him, so he reached for the semiautomatic pistol in his pocket, he said when he recounted the incident for The Oklahoman last week.

Ersland shot one of the robbers in the head then grabbed a second gun to pursue the other robber

The injured teen was trying to get up, Ersland said, so he emptied his gun into the would-be robber’s chest.

The other robber and getaway driver drove away before Ersland could reach them, he said.

Police have not identified anyone else involved in the robbery attempt, but the investigation is ongoing.
 
I wonder if they could get a medical doctor to testify that the head shot would have been fatal eventually. If that shot was justified and would have been fatal then the rest are cursory.
 
Is all the rhetoric, cautioning, and concern above just about whether gunnie blood lust was truly present??

No one would defend someone coldly killing someone else just because the opportunity was present. Is there any way to abolutely know? A liberal news media will never color any civilian shooting in a positive fashion. Knowing this, we need to be supportive until facts to the opposite arise. No shoot will ever be tactically perfect.

Or is this all just about being PC? Do we critisize every shoot about a shooters possible evil intentions and make a case for the anti's?? If we are going to be really PC then we don't need to be armed at all!! We need to be focused on public polls and compromise with those that want to disarm us to make the public think they live in a safer world, right??

The public's perception is "their" reality. Race can get you considered for arrest for a self defense shoot,, the robbers age can get you considered for a shoot, etc.

Presently, we still have the right to use lethal force to save our lives--I care much less about making a bulletproof case for any murderer/potential murders rights to continue to exist. You have to give deference to the good guy to preserve his life vs the criminal to take it.
 
the DA is saying his story doesn't match the video from the stores cameras. DA says video shows him shoot the guy once,chase the other bad guy come back get second gun out of drawer and fire five shots to the bg while he lay on the floor

also no gun was found on or near this bg although the one who got a way was armed
 
The issue is not being PC - it's about being knowledgeable about using lethal force and the risks you face after you think you righteously did it.

If the physical evidence screws him in the sense that he returned to fire at an individual who was not a risk - then you can discuss it being PC not to clear the streets of scum, etc. - but you are wrong.

And if we present gun owners as such, then pragmatically you lose support for gun rights.
 
Everyone that carries needs to be aware of the events that are unfolding, the permit isnt a ok to kill but to allow us to protect ourselves from harm. When the person that is a threat becomes no longer a threat we must restrain ourselves.

I was waiting to see what if anything else would show up on this event. Cameras everywhere nowadays so be careful.
 
Apparently now, according to the video, Antwun Parker was NOT getting up. He was shot whilst down and unconscious, in other words, no longer a threat...which I think most of us can agree is completely illegal.

And it rather kills the whole discussion by responsible gun owners as to whether Parker was just getting up versus going for a gun or how far the gun might have been from him...now that we have more of the facts and can discuss the matter a little more critically.

I will say this, nothing like a good video security system to keep everyone honest.

Mr. Ersland is a genuine hero:
Click to expand...
And apparently a genuine murderer.

I seem to recall an incident inside or near Salt Lake City years ago where a drunk naked guy was trying to break into the back door of a man's home and he shot him and the naked guy went down with a fatal wound, unconscious. The only problem was the home owner went over and then shot the guy in the head, killing him. He was charged and convicted of murder. I mention this because I have to wonder of Antwun Parker's head shot was lethal or not.

Everyone that carries needs to be aware of the events that are unfolding, the permit isnt a ok to kill but to allow us to protect ourselves from harm.
Click to expand...

Maybe I missed it, but I don't see anyone arguing that a carry permit is a permit to kill. Of course it isn't a permit to kill.
 
Last edited:
Apparently now, according to the video, Antwun Parker was NOT getting up. He was shot whilst down and unconscious, in other words, no longer a threat...which I think most of us can agree is completely illegal.
Click to expand...
If that turns out to be true...and I stress "if"...I am afraid I would be less supportive of the shooter. I would still have to try and decide for myself if he still felt threatened or not if I was on a jury. I would have to take into account the fact that the defendant had already been fired upon and his perceptions might have been slightly altered because of this fact. That type of scenario is quite common in battlefield situations and this would be very similar in my opinion.
 
Can you post a link to the article or source?

If this is indeed the case, not a good mark for the CCW world once the press gets it churning on all 8 cylinders :-(

Going to be hard for him to say he shot him out of fear if he was just laying there out of it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top