Thread: Oklahoma Incident

OK so the Pharmacist shoots the robber with a gun and gets arrested. The masses are lining up to either defend or condemn the guy. How do you see it?

My view is when you are threatened you react to the threat and when the threat is over its over. The crook was shot in the head and was lying on the ground and the guy goes behind the counter , gets another weapon and pumps several more rounds into the crook.

Whether the crook deserved to die isn't germaine to the issue. The victim here simply executed the crook. Pretty much cold blooded murder.

Was the pharmacist out of his mind with fear? Did he think the threat continued?

Could you provide a link to the case itself? I can't form a proper opinion without more information.

Originally Posted by thebigspendur

My view is when you are threatened you react to the threat and when the threat is over its over.

What if the crook had threatened to come back and kill the Pharmacist when it was all over?

Many criminals make that kind of threat. Some of them carry through.

Just something to consider, I don't know the case.

did he mean to keep shooting and run short of ammo so he retrieved another weapon?

what was the round count in the original weapon?
I'm sorry but I can't find good info, maybe you can link?

do you want a prediction?
NOT GUILTY or charges dropped

short of more info I can only offer my views, like anyone wants that LOL

I say once someone initiates an act of aggression sufficient to warrant deadly force, the game isn't over until someone has died (hello? deadly force?)

all those coward PC concealed carry instructors and others who
"shoot to end the fight" are full of crap and are responsible for this

you shoot to kill
if you don't want to kill them then you have no business using a firearm
they are the machinery of death plain and simple

Here's a link to the story on the drudge report
The page begins with this:

A little before 6:00 p.m., last Tuesday, two armed men rushed into the Reliable Discount Pharmacy in Oklahoma City, and demanded money and drugs. The store had been robbed two years earlier, a robbery in which the store's employees had been forced into a back room and severely beaten.

...i dont know the whole story, but i do know that some people, when their life is threatened or under extremely,dangerous situations, black out and dont remember or cant control what they are doing. Possibly a berserker???
I know i did this once in a high school fight...came to, trying to stuff a gangmembers head in a soda machine. This thing is very scary and i feel for the defender, if that is what happened.
Heh...he could just be crazy too...we will only know his side now.

I read a bit about the case before. The kid he shot was hit in the head, and was laying on the floor unconcious. OUT. THe other robber ran out, and the guy chased him...but did not catch him. Returned tot he store, where the kid was STILL UNCONCIOUS. Then, the pharmacist grabbed another gun from behind the counter (as far as I'm concerned, this point doesn't matter, it could have been the same gun), and fired five mroe times into the unconcious robber.
I'll be interested to see how it plays out.

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.

Ersland grabbed the semi-automatic Kel-Tec .380 in his pocket.
"And that's when I started defending myself," he said. "The first shot got him in the head, and that slowed him down so I could get my other gun."

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...

Originally Posted by JimR

The first shot got him in the head, and that slowed him down so I could get my other gun.

What kind of thought process is that?

Quite rational if the first weapon achieved no more than slowing the attacker down.

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.