View Full Version : Self defense - Racist style



Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6

Easy180
05-23-2009, 08:56 AM
Love the racist protest part....I'm sure this guy would have reacted much differently had he been fired at by white dudes :ohno:

http://newsok.com/man-has-no-regrets-defending-oklahoma-city-pharmacy/article/3371710?custom_click=masthead_topten


Jerome Ersland was back at work Thursday filling prescriptions and hoping that by taking the life of a 16-year-old boy two days earlier, he had saved others.

Rubbing an oversized bandage on his left forearm, where he said he was grazed by a robber’s bullet, Ersland related details of what he said was a highly organized hit on the Reliable Discount Pharmacy.

"I just regret anybody would get killed,” Ersland said. "But if I wouldn’t have been here, there would have been three people killed — the other pharmacist and the two techs.”

He also recalls the angry voices of people who gathered outside the pharmacy Tuesday night, shouting that he was a racist who unnecessarily took a life of the Seeworth Academy charter school student, Antwun Parker.

"There were a lot of black people gathered out there yelling and everything at my boss,” Ersland said.

After the pharmacy near SW 59 and Pennsylvania was robbed two years ago, the owner installed new security measures to try to make sure his employees would never again be forced to a back room and pistol-whipped.
"We have a very good security system,” Ersland said, motioning to the magnetic door locks that won’t let anyone in or out of the store without permission. "The door locks, and they (robbers) knew that. They had cased it because they knew exactly what time to hit us when we’d have all of our narcotics out and our money out.”

About 10 minutes before 6 p.m., Ersland said, two robbers wearing ski masks waited for someone to leave the pharmacy and then grabbed the open door and threw down a board to stop the door from closing.

The robbers went in cursing and yelling, ordering employees to give them money and drugs, Ersland said.

Two women who were working behind the counter ran for a back room where they would be safe, but Ersland said he couldn’t run. Ersland said he’s a veteran with disabilities from wounds he received in Operation Desert Storm, wears a cumbersome back brace and just had his latest back surgery six weeks ago.

"All of a sudden, they started shooting,” he said. "They were attempting to kill me, but they didn’t know I had a gun. 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, but managed to go for the semiautomatic 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.”

But as one robber hit the floor, Ersland said, a bullet from the other robber whizzed past his ear.

The pharmacist said he then got his second gun from a nearby drawer, a Taurus "Judge.”

After he had the big gun, Ersland said, the second robber ran.

But as he started to chase after the second robber, Ersland said, he looked back to see the 16-year-old he had shot in the head getting up again. Ersland said he then emptied the Kel-Tec .380 into the boy’s chest as he kept going after the second robber.

"I went after the other guy, but he was real fast and I’m crippled,” Ersland said.

Outside the pharmacy, he said he saw what he thought was a third black male in a car with the engine running and reaching for what appeared to be a shotgun.

"I pulled out my ‘Judge’ and pointed it right between his eyes and he floored it,” Ersland said.


The investigation
Because of the sensitive nature of the investigation, police said they could not confirm any of Ersland’s story, including whether Ersland was shot, whether the robbers ever fired on him or even if Parker was armed.
On Thursday, police were still looking for the second robber, described as a black man in his 20s, about 5 feet, 7 inches tall, and weighing about 175 pounds. The man was last seen wearing a red shirt and dark pants.

A man was arrested about a block away after crashing a stolen car that fit the description Ersland gave, but police said the man has not been linked to the robbery.


After the gunfire
When he went back in the pharmacy, Ersland said, he called police.
"I asked if the girls were all right, and they were in the back crying,” he said. "I was glad to know they were alive. We were lucky and I’m glad I defended us, because I feel that a person has a right to defend themselves at their home or at their work. People deserve to be safe and not be afraid of people that want to take money when they don’t work for it.”

That’s what the Second Amendment and the state’s "concealed carry” license are for, he said.

"Fortunately, God made them miss me, except for this minor scratch,” Ersland said.

"I was able to return fire and protect the girls’ lives. God was helping me.”

Stan Silliman
05-23-2009, 10:07 AM
The guy defended himself. Can't fault him.

I had a racquetball friend who was also a pharmacist. About fifteen years ago he worked at a pharmacy in north OKC. He carried a magnum 44 behind his counter. The pharmacy had been robbed a few times.

One time another robber, a druggie with a .22 came in flashing his gun demanding drugs and money. "Chuck" fired three shots at the robber, killing him. "Chuck" ended up serving time for manslaughter. The trial came down to the fact the robber hadn't fired his weapon and "Chuck" hadn't given him an opportunity to throw down his weapon.

gen70
05-23-2009, 10:11 AM
I don't care what color someone is when they start shooting at me. When someone starts shooting at me I'am shooting back.

Karried
05-23-2009, 10:31 AM
That is ridiculous - a gun renders everyone color blind especially when you are getting shot at - take a risk trying to rob someone and you get the consequences.

It's not like they didn't assume that they might get shot at if they went in shooting. They just gambled on the wrong person who happened to by carrying. too bad, so sad.

bluedogok
05-23-2009, 12:26 PM
I get tired of the all too quick response by "family and friends" that the victims were "good kids"....if they were "good kids" they wouldn't have been pulling a robbery or carrying guns. The instant cry of racism is just ridiculous, if they weren't up to no good more than likely the perpetrators would still be alive.

There was a kid killed here by Austin police last week and the black community was "up in arms" over it to the point of treating it like a Palestinian protest throwing items at police cars breaking windows. Off-duty APD officers would not provide escort for the funeral procession because of the confrontation. The kid pulled a gun on an officer when he was awoken in the seat of a Mercedes at 5-something in the morning. The "good kid" in this case had a recent history of arrests and was a known Bloods gang member.

Parents need to quit turning a blind eye to the bad things that their kids do only see the "good side" of them....that is an issue regardless of race.

dismayed
05-23-2009, 03:00 PM
Sounds like the guy was most likely in the right. The first incident in the pharmacy -- clearly he had a right to blow anyone away at that point. The third incident in the alley (if he had to shoot at anyone) seems okay to me, since he believed the car driver was pulling a shotgun on him. The only part where he might get into some trouble is where it says he turned around and saw the original suspect getting up and he unloaded his gun into him. Hope to goodness the guy says that the kid had his gun in his hand and was about to start shooting again.

kevinpate
05-23-2009, 05:57 PM
A momma's battle cry, right or dead bang wrong, is generally
"My baby ain't no killa"

I don't care about momma's color, edumacation, income, social or martial status or the color/count of her teeth. One's baby is nevah a killa, well ..... almost nevah.

MikeOKC
05-23-2009, 06:08 PM
If it's as the pharmacist says, I can't see where he can be anything but a hero to the staff that he saved.

USG '60
05-23-2009, 06:45 PM
Betcha 50 cents some ass will try to file charges on him. And may the one who does burn for eternity.:smile:

gmwise
05-24-2009, 11:48 PM
I commend the man.
I would have shoot the little **** and went on an shot the other ,then found who gave birth to this little thief/druggie and shoot them as well.
I do not care if they were white black or glowing purple with green strips, I would have shot them dead.
In the Corps, I hit what I aim at.
and if Prater files against this man, its time for a new DA.

kevinpate
05-25-2009, 05:43 AM
Public knowledge at present is limited to the employee's version. Based on his account, the only Rut Rho moment I noticed was emptying a clip into the chest of the downed perp.

Making him DRT may have been a clean shoot, or may not have been. It's a rather fact based issue and the account presented has too few facts included for me to comfortably reach a conclusion.

If it was clean, then it was and life goes on. if it wasn't, the employee wouldn't be the first hero whose tights and cape had some unattractive stains and tears.

CuatrodeMayo
05-25-2009, 07:23 AM
He he let the perp live, there would be a witness. Could that be why he made sure there was't? IDK.

Easy180
05-25-2009, 07:40 AM
Public knowledge at present is limited to the employee's version. Based on his account, the only Rut Rho moment I noticed was emptying a clip into the chest of the downed perp.

Making him DRT may have been a clean shoot, or may not have been. It's a rather fact based issue and the account presented has too few facts included for me to comfortably reach a conclusion.

If it was clean, then it was and life goes on. if it wasn't, the employee wouldn't be the first hero whose tights and cape had some unattractive stains and tears.

I see it the other way....Come in with a gun you deserve to be killed regardless if the deceased shot first or not...All this went down in less than a minute so it's hard to play armchair quarterback and say he should have been more controlled with his shooting

Video game let's hit pause and possibly try and let the kid live somehow...Real life with two dudes shooting at you?...Rules should be thrown out the damn window and it's every man for himself

Thunder
05-25-2009, 07:56 AM
One thing I do know if Prater's team decide to file charges, I will not vote for him.

The kid deserved to die, and the others should've been dead.

To think of it, any kids out there going around shooting and robbing deserves to be shot dead.

Karried
05-25-2009, 09:21 AM
I don't think the kids deserved to die.... but I don't think the Pharmacist deserved it either.

In this case, from what we know, it was self defense.

Midtowner
05-25-2009, 01:42 PM
Based on his account, the only Rut Rho moment I noticed was emptying a clip into the chest of the downed perp.

That's what I'm thinking. The privilege of using deadly force to defend oneself exists because as a society we figure it's good to give the good guy the opportunity to answer deadly force with deadly force.

In this case, I think it's crucial to know how much of a threat the downed robber reasonably posed. If the robber was no longer a threat, killing him is not something the shopkeeper was still privileged to do, so we may very well have a case of what looks to be manslaughter and if Prater files a civil suit, I guarantee you a civil suit will be filed for wrongful death.

I really have to question the cowboy mentality of this shopkeeper running outside to pursue these robbers -- he knew or should have known he was outnumbered and outgunned (not to mention the fact that there was really no cover outside of the store, if the robbers hadn't been panicked they could have pretty easily dispatched the shopkeeper).

If he used that sort of judgment in the later situation, what's to say he didn't use poor judgment in finishing off the first robber?

I'm definitely not jumping to any conclusions. Up until the killing part, I personally hope I'd have had the presence of mind and bravery to answer this threat in the manner that the shopkeeper did. There are definitely some things which need to be investigated though. The police/D.A. will be neglectful of their duty if they do not fully investigate everything.

Thunder
05-25-2009, 02:04 PM
I'm sure the kid got up with a gun still in his hand.

Midtowner
05-25-2009, 02:13 PM
Maybe the investigation says that, maybe it doesn't.

I hope law enforcement isn't as glib about assuming what occurred as you are.

It's funny -- when something like this happens, folks tend to blatantly impute their own facts into the situation based on their personal biases.

It's pretty easy to predict:

The pro-gun folks: It was obviously a clean shoot. No one ever kills a robber in any manner but self-defense. Even if there was no immediate apparent danger to the shopkeeper, the robbers clearly deserved to die.

Folks from this kid's neighborhood/liberals, etc.: These kids never had a chance. Society failed them. The shopkeeper wouldn't have killed the robber if he hadn't been black, etc.

Truth is, the only one who knows what happened did the shooting.

oneforone
05-25-2009, 02:30 PM
This guy may not see criminial charges but, I would not be suprised if a civil case is filed just simply because he said he pursued the suspects.

I think a good lawyer could very easily convince a jury that the situation switched from self defense to revenge at that point.

This guy should have just kept his mouth shut until the police and D.A. clered him of his actions.

Midtowner
05-25-2009, 02:42 PM
This guy should have just kept his mouth shut until the police and D.A. clered him of his actions.

This.

I think he's probably doing that now. Actually, even if he's cleared criminally, he could still face civil action (remember O.J. Simpson?). Hopefully, he shuts the heck up and stops giving ammunition to the kid's parents. Even if he wins the lawsuit (which is probably inevitable unless the police investigation comes up with a pretty definitive report with regard to the self-defense aspect of this thing), he's still going to be out mucho dinero defending himself.

This is why folks *really* need to pay attention in their conceal and carry classes. If you're planning on using a gun for protection, whether you're going to carry it out in public or not, those classes are a good idea so that you know when you can and when you can't use deadly force. I can definitely see how people can get a flawed idea of what is and what isn't okay to do with a gun.

Take the class.. it might save your life, someone else's life, or your financial future.

ronronnie1
05-26-2009, 05:11 AM
This one is pretty simple:

You're big enough to commit armed robbery, then you're big enough for a bullet between the eyes.

This concludes your lesson for today.

GWB
05-26-2009, 06:56 AM
This one is pretty simple:

You're big enough to commit armed robbery, then you're big enough for a bullet between the eyes.

This concludes your lesson for today.

Wow, and this coming from a liberal. Impressive.

DaveSkater
05-26-2009, 08:53 AM
Here's the plausible theory I see by reading the story, a very simple one to defend by an attorney for the shopkeeper:

Deadly force was being used against the shopkeeper. Got shot in the hand. Shots continued by both intruders.
First intruder was shot in the head and goes down. Shopkeeper goes to retrieve big gun, and the other intruder runs away. Its safe to assume that the intruder who was shot in the head would have either retained, or retrieved, or had another gun. Before he could use it, he was shot again and killed.
The shopkeeper wishing to determine if it were safe enough to relax his defense long enough to notify the authorities ran outside, where he saw yet a third perpetrator drawing what appeared to be a shotgun. He leveled his gun, but that 3rd pepetrator fled, ending the imminent danger.

The shopkeeper then notified the authorities.

I can't imagine how any charges could be filed that won't be exonerated.

It matters not what color the perps were, or their age. You come in shooting at a war hardened desert storm veteran, you're gonna get what you had coming.

HSC-Sooner
05-26-2009, 11:20 AM
I commend the man.
I would have shoot the little **** and went on an shot the other ,then found who gave birth to this little thief/druggie and shoot them as well.
I do not care if they were white black or glowing purple with green strips, I would have shot them dead.
In the Corps, I hit what I aim at.
and if Prater files against this man, its time for a new DA.

The thieves deserved to get shot, even killed for attempting an armed robbery. The pharmacist was a hero, possibly preventing more victims.

As for shooting whoever gave birth to the thieves? If we enforce that, I think you just solved the population crisis.

drum4no1
05-26-2009, 03:14 PM
One less useless thug on the street... sorry my opinion..

Such a great kid, give me a break.

Midtowner
05-26-2009, 05:50 PM
One less useless thug on the street... sorry my opinion..

Your opinion is based on what?

One act?

If I were to pick out the single worst thing you've ever done in your life and make a conclusion about your character based upon only that act, what would my conclusion be?

PennyQuilts
05-26-2009, 05:59 PM
Your opinion is based on what?

One act?

If I were to pick out the single worst thing you've ever done in your life and make a conclusion about your character based upon only that act, what would my conclusion be?

Save it, Mid. What this robber did was so far outside what the rest of us do that you can't make a good comparison. And it trivializes what amounts to a complete rejection of our societal norms and a willingness to risk killing for greed. We aren't talking about someone who broke up with his long-term girlfriend via texting or even someone who stole money from the collection plate. He took a gun into someone's place of business to rob it. As a culture, we ought to stand together and call someone on this. There is no excuse for it and there is no healthy reason to hem and haw and try to pretend what this guy did was what any of us could/would have done under certain circumstances. This guy was a thug or he wouldn't have done it. He was willing to hurt people who hadn't done anything to deserve it. Thank god he didn't kill anyone. He created a situation that went bad on him. No one held a gun to his head and made him go into that business and, at the least, terrorize those people.

Midtowner
05-26-2009, 06:10 PM
No doubt that what he did was characteristic of a 'useless thug' as you say. You just don't know. Maybe he was pressured into this? Maybe he was under some sort of duress? Maybe he was under the influence of some sort of drug? You just don't know.

For those of us talking about how "as a culture" we have to stand for certain norms and values, if you have ever supported things such as 'enhanced interrogation methods,' then you, just as the robber here, have what they call 'situational ethics.'

My point is, given the right circumstances, we can all justify some pretty bad stuff. Take a kid the bad part of town where his influences are gangs, drugs and violence, consider the fact that he doesn't have a fully developed frontal cortex (that's the part of the brain which gives us inhibition) and maybe, assuming the right facts (I get to assume facts too, right?) his actions weren't so bad.

PennyQuilts
05-26-2009, 06:24 PM
No doubt that what he did was characteristic of a 'useless thug' as you say. You just don't know. Maybe he was pressured into this? Maybe he was under some sort of duress? Maybe he was under the influence of some sort of drug? You just don't know.

For those of us talking about how "as a culture" we have to stand for certain norms and values, if you have ever supported things such as 'enhanced interrogation methods,' then you, just as the robber here, have what they call 'situational ethics.'

My point is, given the right circumstances, we can all justify some pretty bad stuff. Take a kid the bad part of town where his influences are gangs, drugs and violence, consider the fact that he doesn't have a fully developed frontal cortex (that's the part of the brain which gives us inhibition) and maybe, assuming the right facts (I get to assume facts too, right?) his actions weren't so bad.

Not buying it Mid and you wouldn't want your only daughter dating that thug, either, regardless of how he got how he got. He crossed a bright line. Doesn't really matter why and the fact that he might have been involved with drugs or gangs is absolutely no excuse. And this isn't about inhanced interrogation methods. This is not about Navy Seals. This is not about anything like that. We ALL know that it is WRONG to rob a pharmacy. It is not complicated and it is not something that a kid from the wrong side of the track is confused about. He brought a gun in and menaced those people. Short of being mentally ill to the point that he didn't know what he was doing, what he was doing was incurring the risk that someone would shoot back. This is not rocket science, it isn't complicated, and over thinking it is just going to encourage that sort of behavior that, btw, cost him his life. He paid the ultimate price for his foolishness and making excuses for his behavior only enables others to make the same sorry decisions. Only a pure innocent might be the one killed the next time. It happens every day.

Midtowner
05-26-2009, 06:58 PM
How does something I say on an internet message board enable anything? That's completely absurd. He did one bad thing, he robbed a store. I get it, that's really bad and really dumb.

I think the enhanced interrogations method is right on-point here. Most of us say that torture is always bad. It's outside of what we would excuse in society, we don't think anyone should get away with it ever -- or at least that's what most of us thought until 9/11... now... situational ethics.

I don't know what kind of a person this kid was except the obvious -- young, foolish, thought he was invincible, thought he was Rambo.

And talking about my daughter in the hypothetical and who I'd want her to date isn't fair. I have yet to even have a daughter, so I have yet to consider whether I'd ever allow her to date anyhow.

USG '60
05-26-2009, 07:16 PM
Mid, I did a few things as a kid that were not all that terrible but were the kinds of things that people got shot for every now and then. I KNEW I was taking that risk. Had someone shot my little butt it would have been MY fault. And parents would NEVER have blamed the shooter. In anguish they might would say things like "If only you had fired a warning shot" or some such but to think he should be prosecuted would never have crossed their minds. They knew that I knew that that some people are skitish and that some guns have hair triggers. Even if we found out after the fact that the kid was a genius and was going to Harvard on a full scholarship and that he had won all kinds of Citizenship Awards, he KNEW the risk that he and/or others could die, be parallized for life, etc, so his death was a result of natural consequences, the best teacher of all. May his friends learn from his mistake.

Midtowner
05-26-2009, 07:24 PM
Maybe he was a thug. Maybe he was a worthless human being with no hope of anything but going to prison.

I don't know, you don't know.

All I know is what I read in the papers.

USG '60
05-26-2009, 07:48 PM
[QUOTE=Midtowner;228563]I don't know, you don't know. QUOTE]


True. And it doesn't matter which he was, because HE made a bad decission.

drum4no1
05-27-2009, 05:07 AM
Well im under alot of pressure right now, am I out robbing and shooting ? No

The whole society failed him, and he saw no other way dosent fly with me.

I feel some sympathy for the kid that he had to lose his life at a young age. But the fact remains he decided to play by different rules and lost

Plenty of kids in his shoes decide that they are better than than the homies and gangsters of the neighborhood and have a good life.

kevinpate
05-27-2009, 05:11 AM
There was a brief blip on TV 9 10 pm news about an announcement (I think sometime this morning) by Prater's office regarding whether or not any charges might be pressed on the employee's actions.

If there are, then there are, and versa vica as well.

FFLady
05-27-2009, 07:36 AM
Well, looks like another one bites the dust.
Sheesh!

http://newsok.com/intruder-shot-dead-at-southside-oklahoma-city-house/article/3372883?custom_click=pod_lead_localstate

HSC-Sooner
05-27-2009, 11:36 AM
And he's charged with 1st degree murder. I guess the DA found something they didn't like...

FFLady
05-27-2009, 11:56 AM
If this is him ---> Offender Lookup - Detail (http://docapp065p.doc.state.ok.us/servlet/page?_pageid=394&_dad=portal30&_schema=PORTAL30&doc_num=369111&offender_book_id=189108&imageindex=3)

the age matches......??

FritterGirl
05-27-2009, 12:32 PM
If this is him ---> Offender Lookup - Detail (http://docapp065p.doc.state.ok.us/servlet/page?_pageid=394&_dad=portal30&_schema=PORTAL30&doc_num=369111&offender_book_id=189108&imageindex=3)

the age matches......??

I think stories are getting crossed here. Robert Penn was the perp allegedly involved in the home invasion (http://newsok.com/slain-oklahoma-city-home-intruder-identified-police-seek-second-burglar/article/3372932?custom_click=headlines_widget).

There is also breaking news from the original pharmacy robbery. The pharmacist, Jerome Ersland, is now being charged with first-degree murder (http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-pharmacist-faces-murder-charge-in-shooting/article/3372941?custom_click=breaking_news). HSC-Sooner was referring to this story in his post (I think).

gmwise
05-27-2009, 12:48 PM
David Prater is officially the Oklahoma County District Attorney.
David Prater is often refer to as the DA, from the pharmacy attempted robbery case I know I will refer to him from this day forward as Dumb ASS.
David Prater should be removed the next election.
Its apparent he has a political motive for this filing.
Not justice! Nor the Law!!

HSC-Sooner
05-27-2009, 12:48 PM
FritterGirl has it right, sorry for the confusion.

OKCMallen
05-27-2009, 12:54 PM
David Prater is officially the Oklahoma County District Attorney.
David Prater is often refer to as the DA, from the pharmacy attempted robbery case I know I will refer to him from this day forward as Dumb ASS.
David Prater should be removed the next election.
Its apparent he has a political motive for this filing.
Not justice! Nor the Law!!

Well, that is the natural initial reaction, but the pharm's account of what happened may not be entirely accurate.

MadMonk
05-27-2009, 01:40 PM
I'd have shot the guy again too. No sense giving him a second chance at ya. Don't think I'd have emptied the gun though, but adrenaline can make you a little trigger happy.

OKCMallen
05-27-2009, 01:54 PM
I'd have shot the guy again too. No sense giving him a second chance at ya. Don't think I'd have emptied the gun though, but adrenaline can make you a little trigger happy.

Here's what happened according to the affidavit:

1. Pharm shoots (and hits in the head) unarmed perp after perp's partner has pointed weapons at the pharm and employees.

2. Pharm continues to shoot at armed perp after unarmed perp fell down and stayed down.

3. Pharm chased armed perp out of store, passing by unarmed perp.

4. After chasing armed perp to no avail, pharm comes back into store, where unarmed perp is still on the ground.

5. Pharm walks past unarmed perp without incident or apparent fear.

6. Pharm gets the other gun, calmly walks over to fallen perp, and delivers a cylinder full of bullets into his stomach, which kills unarmed perp.


Now given THOSE facts, I think I understand the filing of charges.

What does everyone else think, given those came from a policeman's sworn affidavit after review of the video evidence has been filed stating those facts?

Karried
05-27-2009, 01:55 PM
Wow, that's crazy. First Degree Murder.. ouch.

I knew that pharmacist should have kept his mouth shut with the media.

I wonder if they will take into account the fact that he was being robbed and the other guy had a gun? He probably assumed the guy lying on the floor had one too.

OKCMallen
05-27-2009, 02:14 PM
Wow, that's crazy. First Degree Murder.. ouch.

I knew that pharmacist should have kept his mouth shut with the media.

I wonder if they will take into account the fact that he was being robbed and the other guy had a gun? He probably assumed the guy lying on the floor had one too.

It's not that he was unarmed when he shot him the first time. That's probably jsut fine. The fact that he wasn't scared and the guy didn't pose a threat and he calmly walked over to him to finish the job is the problem. If he was scared for his life, he could have not come back in the store. It's apparently demonstrable that he shot the guy without fearing for his life, which is a necessary component of the self-defense defense.

FFLady
05-27-2009, 02:31 PM
Wow - I hadn't heard that part...the Pharm wasn't too quick in putting that part in his story (to the media).....

Raise your hand if you'd like to be called for jury duty on this one!

drum4no1
05-27-2009, 02:44 PM
No big surprise that the true facts come out and show a different story altogether. At first I assumed the kid that was killed was firing at the pharmacist. I guess he was unarmed.

I still feel the pharmacist was justified in returning fire and if the unarmed kid got caught in it well thats just the way it goes. However if he did walk past him after shooting him in the head only to return to empty his gun. Well that was over the line.

In his interview he did seem to have a "cowboy" attitude.

We cant play the "well I would of done this" routine. You dont know how you would react until it happens to you.

Well I read the affadavit. Cant say I disagree with charges. I have no problem with the initial shot, its what follows I dont agree with.

Thunder
05-27-2009, 02:56 PM
I want the kids' family to be reading this. I want the DA to be reading this. All of the posts on this topic.

1. I will not vote for that DA ever again. Wes Lane was bad, David Prater was given a chance and HE BLEW IT.

2. Those kids deserve to be shot at, armed or not, they were violent and attempted to rob.

3. I'd love to be on the Jury and find the man NOT GUILTY.

4. I'm amazed at how the DA create their own version of what happened.

5. GMWISE is correct on the term >> D...A...

.....

Was there cameras in the store?

Thunder
05-27-2009, 02:58 PM
http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-pharmacist-faces-murder-charge-in-shooting/article/3372941?custom_click=breaking_news

Everyone should vote NO on the poll.

http://answers.polldaddy.com/poll/1656432/?view=results

drum4no1
05-27-2009, 03:01 PM
I want the kids' family to be reading this. I want the DA to be reading this. All of the posts on this topic.

1. I will not vote for that DA ever again. Wes Lane was bad, David Prater was given a chance and HE BLEW IT.

2. Those kids deserve to be shot at, armed or not, they were violent and attempted to rob.

3. I'd love to be on the Jury and find the man NOT GUILTY.

4. I'm amazed at how the DA create their own version of what happened.

5. GMWISE is correct on the term >> D...A...


.....

Was there cameras in the store?

Read the affadavit. Coming back, retrieving a different gun and unloading it in a half dead kid was beyond self defense.

Yes there was video and it is a complete 180 from erslands statement to the media. If he would of not came back and continued to fire at the kid he wouldnt have been charged.

Cold blooded 1st degree murder .. No , bad choice after the initial gunfire ... yes.

HSC-Sooner
05-27-2009, 03:02 PM
I want the kids' family to be reading this. I want the DA to be reading this. All of the posts on this topic.

1. I will not vote for that DA ever again. Wes Lane was bad, David Prater was given a chance and HE BLEW IT.

2. Those kids deserve to be shot at, armed or not, they were violent and attempted to rob.

3. I'd love to be on the Jury and find the man NOT GUILTY.

4. I'm amazed at how the DA create their own version of what happened.

5. GMWISE is correct on the term >> D...A...

.....

Was there cameras in the store?

I believe they stated they have camera evidence which didn't quite match up with the pharmacist's story. Also, the DA mentioned something about the positioning of the body, etc. I want to hear all the evidence before I make a judgment to determine if the man is guilty or not guilty.

All I can say is the pharmacist has the right to defend himself during a robbery. However, I have no comment if he went overboard or not.

OKCMallen
05-27-2009, 03:02 PM
I want the kids' family to be reading this. I want the DA to be reading this. All of the posts on this topic.

1. I will not vote for that DA ever again. Wes Lane was bad, David Prater was given a chance and HE BLEW IT.

2. Those kids deserve to be shot at, armed or not, they were violent and attempted to rob.

3. I'd love to be on the Jury and find the man NOT GUILTY.

4. I'm amazed at how the DA create their own version of what happened.

5. GMWISE is correct on the term >> D...A...

.....

Was there cameras in the store?

Thunder, there were cameras in the store and those were the basis of fact that spawned the charges being filed. Read my post above for a synopsis of what happened. Or, in case I missed anything important, you can read it here:

http://s3.amazonaws.com/content.newsok.com/documents/pharmdoc0001.pdf

Thunder
05-27-2009, 03:06 PM
That dead kid could have a weapon on him. A slight movement is enough, in my opinion, to shoot him dead.

drum4no1
05-27-2009, 03:08 PM
No one said he wasnt justified in firing. The kid put himself in that position and lost. However 5 more rounds into a probably mortally wounded kid after the incident from a different gun???

drum4no1
05-27-2009, 03:11 PM
4. I'm amazed at how the DA create their own version of what happened.






Do you honestly believe it was fabricated.. This is from video evidence that will eventually be made public.

Thunder
05-27-2009, 03:12 PM
No one said he wasnt justified in firing. The kid put himself in that position and lost. However 5 more rounds into a probably mortally wounded kid after the incident from a different gun???

He probably ran out of bullets for the gun, so he had to get another gun, just in case the robbers come back with their thuggy backups.

PennyQuilts
05-27-2009, 03:27 PM
I've got no problem with the initial shooting. I'll give the guy the complete benefit of the doubt. Going back, reloading and shooting the kid was wrong. No excuse for it, imo. And if he tried to position the body, he even loses my sympathy after making that statement.

This doesn't NOT make the kid into some kind of angel. He was still a thug who deserved to be shot - at least that first round of shots. He'd have been lucky to survive it but he had those first shots coming - imo.

But now, based on this, looks like we have a thug that deserved to be shot and a man that looks to be a murderer and a liar. What a damn tragic shame. The shooter just ruined his life over this.

drum4no1
05-27-2009, 03:32 PM
I've got no problem with the initial shooting. I'll give the guy the complete benefit of the doubt. Going back, reloading and shooting the kid was wrong. No excuse for it, imo. And if he tried to position the body, he even loses my sympathy after making that statement.

This doesn't NOT make the kid into some kind of angel. He was still a thug who deserved to be shot - at least that first round of shots. He'd have been lucky to survive it but he had those first shots coming - imo.

But now, based on this, looks like we have a thug that deserved to be shot and a man that looks to be a murderer and a liar. What a damn tragic shame. The shooter just ruined his life over this.

My thoughts exactly. Its tragic this guy had to take a life, its even more tragic that he may have ruined his life over what could of been a quick emotion filled decision. If my family was threatened I may have done it too. Hopefully i never find out

OKCMallen
05-27-2009, 03:36 PM
No one said he wasnt justified in firing. The kid put himself in that position and lost. However 5 more rounds into a probably mortally wounded kid after the incident from a different gun???

Again, the key here is: the pharmacist appeared to not be scared at all at that point, and furthermore he was NOT cornered. He was outside the building away from the threat and chose to walk back in, re-engage the threat (of which there appeared to be very little but he COULD have had a gun on him, let's say), was not afraid of the threat, and calmly walked over and emptied a gun into him.


Use of force is justified when a person reasonably believes that it is necessary for the defense of oneself or another against the immediate use of unlawful force. However, a person must use no more force than appears reasonably necessary in the circumstances.

I could see a jury deciding this either way (was he protecting the women in the back room, possibly), but it seems to me that he may have blown his defense.

And on a personal note, I think he saw too many movies where people do that. Also, I've heard people say- if you're going to shoot someone, make sure you kill them so they can't be a witness against you. I'm thinking he was of this philosophy....