Oklahoma Incident

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kenneyty

And all this talk about the robbers being criminal scumbags...really? Yes, they took their lives in to their own hands when they went in with guns, and they got what was coming to them, but these were hardly hardened professional crooks. They're a couple of kids..

---

I would usually avoid this kind of thread, but this gets to me.

I don't care who it is- if you point a gun at me, all bets are off. That's more than fair and moral. I carry legally, and I know better than to draw my gun, let alone point it at another person without intending to end their life.
I can only assume that any person that points a gun at me has reconciled that decision as well. In that situation there's no time or reason to try to figure out their age or intent. If they just slightly twitch their finger because they're "scared out of his gourd", you're dead. You may be OK with that, but I'm not.

On topic, I have seen the video, read a few articles and I'm torn with this case. My gut feeling is that it's either self defence, or self defense woth a possible charge of corpse abuse, depending on the autopsy results.

If this man is charged, I can only hope that his accomplice and getaway driver are charged with the same crimes.

Also, even the DA feels that he should still be able to carry a gun even though he's out on bail.

Quote:

---

One day after the shooting the pharmacist told NewsChannel Four his physical condition and fear for his and his co-workers lives prompted him to fire at the two juvenile robbers - killing one of them. Now prosecutors fear Ersland's life could be in danger. District Attorney David Prater insisted Ersland be allowed to carry a gun even though he was charged with first degree murder. The judge seemed stunned by the request.

"You're saying the DA in Oklahoma County wants him to have a gun," Judge Tammy Bass-Lesure said.

"That's right," David Prater said.

The judge did not agree, and her decision has angered some of Ersland's supporters.

"If she doesn't allow him to protect himself," Mike Manning said. "He's going to be dead in a week. What they're doing to this businessman is wrong."

---

Source: Developments at pharmacist's hearing - KFOR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gratewhitehuntr

fact is, he probably (almost certainly) wasn't thinking.

he was REACTING
big big difference

---

People reacting under stress or at sudden events don't think unless they are trained to do so. I expect a trained soldier to be able to make rational decisions at such a time. Untrained civilians... not really.

One time I was getting money out of an ATM and a friend of mine walked up behind me and said 'give me your money'
...
He was lucky that he was far enough away from me that I had to bridge the distance between me and him with a full step, which allowed me to recognize him before my fist hit him and I managed to pull back.
I was mad at him because it could have ended really badly for him.
My point: in such situations, people react. They don't think.

After reading what I could, I can't watch the vid on dial up but I will later...

It sounds like he went overboard or might have been out of it from stress overload...

Criminal charges????
No way, not in my book they shot at him first, period, end of story, it really in my eyes doesn't matter if they shot at him slipped and fell and knocked themselves out....and then he killed them both, to bad so sad...

They entered into a fight to the death when they pointed their guns and pulled the trigger.... one or both dead is their tuff luck I have no sympathy not one little bit ....The only reason he is not dead is they were lousy shots....


Unfortunately the law won't see it that way, but if he has a good lawyer he should still walk....

I guess I would not make it on the Jury :)

exactly what I am saying Glen.

If you start a fight to the death only death is going to end it
yours, or mine, or both

to forgive someone trying to kill me is beyond me

WHEN (prediction here)
when he gets off
IT WILL send a message to criminals

OPEN SEASON ON GOBLINS

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JimR

Shooting a person in self defense? Yes. Absolutely. They were shooting at him, shooting back is perfectly acceptable.

But ONCE YOU ARE SAFE, it is no longer self defense. Unconscious=no danger, no danger= murder.



What kind of thought process is that? Can anyone explain WHY on earth any rational human being would think "I just shot this guy in the head, so now I need another gun to take care of him?" There's something fundamentally wrong there. I shoot. I have had guns since I was 12 years old. I'm a lover of good guns. But this guy honestly makes me think that people should have psych evaluations before they are allowed to carry a deadly weapon...

---

You need to be put into a similar life threatening situation, your primal survival instincts may take over, fight or flight, rational thought is not part of the equation once the violence starts, its kill or be killed , and it wont stop until the adrenaline says so. I doubt if vengence had anything to do with it and if it did so what? The crook forfieted his right to life when he tried to deny another their right to life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blade Wielder

The clerk shoots the kid in the head and runs after the other robber. He then calmly waddles back in, has a look at the kid once more, gets the other gun and returns to finish him off.

The crazy gun laws in the US permit people to carry them around for "self defense" -- but with one perpetrator off like a flash and one knocked out and bleeding out the linoleum floor, the clerk had succeeded in defending himself and his property. He should have ensured the wounded robber was unarmed and subdued and then dialed 911.

There was recently a case in BC where a McDonalds drive-thru was held up with a knife... a guy with a knife, sitting in his car, tried to demand money from the window. If they had taken a step back and pressed the "close window" button, they'd have been perfectly safe. Instead, one of the workers tossed a litre of boiling fryer oil on the robber's face. I thought that was excessive force also.

---

Crazy gun laws ?? So the alternative being the criminals who are armed because they don't obey laws come in and shoot you, you're only hope being they only want you money and not your life?

A few years ago in a restaurant across the street from where I work two guys went in at 10PM and herded the three female employees into the kitchen and shot all three in the head. One of the victims was 17 years old. They got $120.00 for their efforts. The police caught them because one of the bragged to a friend telling him of the murders. I guess he was proud of himself. The friend dropped a dime on him.

Regrettably they were not given the death penalty they both so richly deserve. The taxpayers will have to pay for both perpetrators food and lodging for the rest of their natural lives. Once in custody each denied being the shooter and accused the other. I guess not so proud after all.

If I was on the jury I would have acquitted Bernard Goetz and I would acquit the pharmacist as well. Predators are fair game in my book.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JimmyHAD

Predators are fair game in my book.

---

That struck me as sorta funny there Jimmy, as most states have a no bag limits on predators... :)

One thing is for sure:
That guy will not be robbing me anytime.

case closed

Here's a few things to add to the mix:

My understanding is the initial firearm that the pharmacist used to deliver the headshot was a .380 auto. Not exactly a superlative self-defense round. As to the weapon, manufacturer, capacity, or its condition (operational, jammed, our of ammo, etc) nobody has said. It has not been made public why the pharmacist changed weapons. It has been stated he changed weapons, which is different than reloading his primary weapon.

The pharmacist is a medically discharged Iraq War veteran. He had recently had back surgery, which is why he is wearing a back brace. This may factor into his thought process, as he is in no condition for a physical scuffle with anyone at this point. The store had been robbed before, and the employees beaten. This is what prompted him to obtain a concealed carry permit and have a weapon at the store.

The only thing that says the wounded attacker was unconscious is the medical examiner's report. The surveillance video does not show the soon-to-be decedant -- the view is obscured by the counter. The medical examiner ruled the head shot was not fatal, but rather the decedant expired due to the additional rounds.

The surveillance video is video only -- no audio. It is possible the soon-to-be decedant was conscious and made either a verbal threat or possibly moved (or twitched), leading the citizen to still be in fear.

A theory going around about the murder charge. First degree murder means pre-meditated. I don't know that a jury in my county is going to agree this guy sat down, thought about killing someone, planned it out then executed that plan. Manslaughter perhaps, but not murder. The DA might have given in to pressure from groups like the NAACP and filed the charge. I predict the pharmacist will get a not guilty from the jury.

The pharacist has secured the services or Irvin Box, a very prominent attorney and legal analyst for local NBC news affiliate KFOR TV. The DA had best eat his Wheaties, because Box is a shark in the courtroom.

I'm not a real fan of the District Attorney right now, and I'm not the only one. He filed a first degree murder charge against the pharmacist. But, the 14 year old perp who had a firearm and waved it around to start the incident doesn't catch a murder/manslaughter/weapons charge. HELLO? You are illegally in possession of a firearm, while committing a felony, which resulted in someone's death. I don't give a damn if you're 14 or not, you should catch a felony murder charge and let the justice system run its course. Of course, the NAACP isn't on this bandwagon; they're all for the pharacist being tried though.

The DA did request the pharmacist be permitted to have a firearm at the premises. The judge declined. The same judge who raised his bail from $50k to $100K. Not going to be getting my vote at the next election. This pretty much declares it to be open season on the pharmacy and its employees. The judge has received several death threats already.

In the end, here's a couple of lessons.
(1) A .380 semiauto isn't really the best personal defensive round;
(2) Spend time punching holes in paper at the range. If the pharmacist would have delivered larger caliber weapon fire more accurately, this case wouldn't be a case at all.
(3) Shoot to kill, not neutralize.
(4) Find a lawyer now, before you need one. Sitting at county jail is not the time to go through the yellow pages.
(5) Remember your constitutional right to the 5th amendment. Shut up and don't say a word to the police without your attorney present. I haven't found a lawyer who wishes his client would have talked to the police instead of being quiet.

If we still lived in the jungle (yea I know many think we still do) then you act with primal animal instincts. Someone harms you or threatens you you reaction is to utterly devastate that person and his family who might take later revenge on you.

People always threaten others with harm verbally and that is an assault. It does not justify getting a weapon and eliminating that person just in case he was actually serious unless you have evidence he had a weapon and was preparing to use it.

Law Enforcement Officers are trained to shoot to kill with the exception of secret Service Agents who are trained to shoot to wound when appropriate. LEO's are also trained to shoot to nutralize the threat. That does not mean shooting someone with a Glock 17 which has 17 rounds and hitting him 5 times while he's on his feet and another 5 on the way down and another 5 on the ground unless he still has a weapon in his hand and is conscious and is still a threat. Once the perpetrator is on the ground with no weapon within reach and especially unconscious the treat is over period, end or argument. If you think the coup de gras is appropriate your letting your emotions get control. (why that dirty rat he stuck a gun in my face and now I'm gonna kill him)

Its up to lawyers to argue whether the shooter went temporarily insane or some weird circumstance happened we don't know about.