Locally, the news for the past two weeks has all been about a pharmacist in OKC who shot a teenage robber and killed him. The pharmacist, a Mr. Ersland, is older, disabled, and a veteran. Very soft-spoken fellow, not the kind you'd really even imagine carrying a gun. His pharmacy is in kind of a rough part of town, and a few weeks back, two boys (teens) came in and held a gun to his head and demanded money. Mr. Ersland pulled out the gun and shot one of the boys and then followed the other one out the door. The surveillance video shows him come back in and take a second gun out and fire 4 or 5 more shots into the kid on the ground (you can't actually see the young man, just Mr. Ersland.) It all happened in a matter of seconds. It couldn't have been more than a minute from the time the first shot was fired until the last was fired. Mr. Ersland said that he was afraid for his employees and his own life, and that the would-be robber was trying to get up (though I guess there isn't any video to prove it?) Anyway, I was really shocked when the DA filed first degree murder charges against the pharmacist! He says the pharmacist was justified in the first shot, but the second round of shots was unjustifiable because the kid was already on the ground. Of course, the family of the boy who was killed has been on TV talking about how he was a great kid who just "had been hanging with a bad crowd for a few months" and that the pharmacist is a murderer. Never once have I heard them say that "You know, he had no business robbing that place and sticking a gun to someone's head." All I have heard is what a good boy he was... good 16-year-old boys don't rob stores at gunpoint!!! And as for the "bad crowd", bad company corrupts good character, so duh, what did you think would happen? I could see manslaughter charges MAYBE... but first degree murder charges???? That insinuates pre-meditation... I wonder when he had time to meditate on filling the kid full of lead? I just don't see it. I think the guy was legitimately scared and under duress, and it all happened so fast, how is it possible to file 1st degree murder charges?? They set his bail at $100K and then confiscated his guns when he got out of jail, so now, if he gets robbed again, he'll be without any defense! Furthermore, his pharmacy has been robbed more than once before, and now that everyone and their dog knows that he has no weapon, he's a sitting duck!
Here's an article I found about it... it seems that he'll have an armed guard now, at least, which is good, because seems there are a lot of folks that want him dead.
http://www.chickashanews.com/local/local_story_154104741.html
never talk to the police without your lawyer
This is a poster child story about use of deadly force in self defense. Laws vary state to state. I suggest that everyone should take a concealed carry course... if for nothing else to hear what your local laws might be.
That pharmacist is in a world of trouble.
Here in NM, you are justified in shooting if you feel that your life is in imminent danger. You are going to have to justify your reasoning if you pull the trigger.
Once the kid was on the ground, and the pharmacist went out the door, he was no longer in immediate danger. He chose to re-enter the building. At that point his actions are arguably premeditated.
If he went back into the building to render aid, and at that time his assailant attacked him again, he would probably be justified.
BTW... I seem to recall that we have some odd laws in NM regarding interpretation of a life endangering threat. I believe that if 4 unarmed folks assault you, that is not a situation that justifies deadly response. If 5 persons assault you, then it is. Weird, huh?
My CCW instructor told us to be very, very careful, and to consider the use of deadly force well before needing to apply it. He said the quote is : "you may beat the rap, but you won't beat the ride". Meaning that if you shoot someone, at the very least you are going to be arrested and held for awhile.
We had a challenging case here in NM awhile ago. A veteran came out of his house to find his car being stolen. He chased after the thief, confronted him, and they had a short physical altercation. It ended with the vet shooting the crook. The vet was found guilty (manslaughter I think) and imprisoned. I believe the governor pardoned him later. I'll see if I can find the story.
here...http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1978355/posts
http://www.abqtrib.com/news/2008/feb/23/former-marine-serve-two-years-jail-killing-albuque/
It's up to the jury to sort it out. I hope he gets off myself. I remember a few years back a rancher caught some thieves stealing his cattle and shot one of them. By the letter of the law he committed murder but the jury refused to convict. The judge and the prosecutor where outraged but the jury's verdict stood.
It's also a good lesson about surveillance systems. They can work both ways.
On tape, he executed the kid and that's the way the state is going to play it.
Pre-meditation can be formed in an instant. NM Shooter has a pretty good breakdown of the normal facts looked for in these cases. If the story was right and the kid was already shot in the head and he walks back and shoots him 4 more times, he is going to have an up hill battle.
I hope that he doesn't have to serve time... or at least not a lot of time. He seems like an honest guy, and I don't know that I would have reacted any differently in the same situation. The news here interviewed another pharmacist from TX who shot a guy in a similar situation last year, but the charges were eventually dropped against him. His response to watching the tape was that he relates to the pharmacist in the robbery and feels that he probably did still feel that he and his workers were threatened. In his case, he also fired multiple shots, but said that it happened so fast and that you don't carefully weigh how it will look on the surveillance video, but you do what you feel you have to do to protect yourself and your workers. As I said before, the kid isn't visible on the surveillance video after he is shot the first time. Ersland said he was still moving and he was afraid he was going to harm them. It's tragic, but you know, you rob a store, that's kind of the risk you take. Of course the anti-gun crowd is making a stink about it, as usual. The other boy who was robbing the store was only 14. I think that the second bunch of shots were too much, too, but I don't think you can say that he is a first degree murderer. I can maybe see manslaughter charges.
What is to be learned from this?
Use enough gun on the first shot.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it the position of the gun rights movement that we should enforce the gun laws we already have? Well, the law says you can't pump four more slugs into someone who is already disabled on the ground with a bullet in the head.
Did I not hear it right, or are some advocating the weakening of existing laws regarding crimes committed with guns?
No but the law should read, "rob and die". Just my opinion mind you.
Quote from: Pox Eclipse on June 04, 2009, 12:29:22 AM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it the position of the gun rights movement that we should enforce the gun laws we already have? Well, the law says you can't pump four more slugs into someone who is already disabled on the ground with a bullet in the head.
Did I not hear it right, or are some advocating the weakening of existing laws regarding crimes committed with guns?
not really, gun laws are pretty simple. your have a basic right to live, and to defend yourself and the lives of others when you believe your life is in danger. two robbers came in, pointed guns, they shot first.
the saw firsthand what the gun laws are truly about. dont weaken them abit.
A robber with and using a gun is of no use to and is a threat to society and the Pharmacist did the right thing by taking him out, however I think he should have got it done with the first round of shots, to prevent repurcussions on himself. Spur of the moment judgment is not always proper.
He will always have to live witht the thought that he killed him and at the same time improved conditions for society, his neighbors and employees.
At least that robber trash will not produce any future offspring to continue his trade and maybe others will be caused to think and change their ways.
I know some would not like to see gun wielding criminals shot and would gladly open their homes to them and take them in rather than see them removed from society.
I think that lawyers, judges and anti-gun advocates who want guns taken away from honest citizens should have to open their homes to these criminals and bear responsibility for their actions. If they are responsible for their release then they should be responsible for their actions.
Trust them now? Most are dopers with a habit to support and can't be trusted by even their own families.
I think all criminals should have their guns taken away. Why doesn't the anti-gun crowd just go out and get them?
Quote from: muldoon on June 04, 2009, 05:52:57 AM
Quote from: Pox Eclipse on June 04, 2009, 12:29:22 AM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it the position of the gun rights movement that we should enforce the gun laws we already have? Well, the law says you can't pump four more slugs into someone who is already disabled on the ground with a bullet in the head.
Did I not hear it right, or are some advocating the weakening of existing laws regarding crimes committed with guns?
not really, gun laws are pretty simple. your have a basic right to live, and to defend yourself and the lives of others when you believe your life is in danger. two robbers came in, pointed guns, they shot first.
the saw firsthand what the gun laws are truly about. dont weaken them abit.
It's a little more complicated.
Many states have castle doctrine laws but shoot laws for businesses are gray. The push from pro 2end groups is to allow people to defend themselves without the worry of being charged or sued. In other words, if you start a gung=fight, don;t expect to get justice when you get killed.
Thankfully, most of you have never been in a gunfight. Things happen fast and even if you have made a rational decision to fire, it goes downhill fast. Your mostly scared $%&less and have an adrenalin flow you could ride a canoe on.
There is no clear thinking when the shooting starts. Then your mind plays tricks on you. Even though your scared, your mad. Mad that he would try to take what you have, mad that he would try to hurt you, mad that he would humiliate you and mad that he would make you do something you never dreamed you would have to do.
All this is going through your mind in nanoseconds and it seems like a movie your watching.
We do unacceptable things in those circumstances.
Then you have to decide what statement to make.
Laws that ease that burden are not lessening the existing gun laws, they are just putting justice back in the law.
Now that I said that...I suspect the fellow in this case will be convicted for something. The last series of shots were uncalled for IMHO, and he was filmed on his own security camera, taking a second gun and shooting a downed man, again.....I'm sad for him.
innocent until proven guilty
I feel sorry for the Pharmacist
If he is a Vet. who was ever in a firefight he may have a "Post traumatic stress" defense to help at least get the charges reduced.
Scott I like your
QuoteNo but the law should read, "rob and die". Just my opinion mind you.
Use to be a quite common practice around here. But God only knows which way the wind will blow today even here in ultra right wing Idaho.
rlr >:(
Quote from: cordwood on June 04, 2009, 01:59:57 PM
If he is a Vet. who was ever in a firefight he may have a "Post traumatic stress" defense to help at least get the charges reduced.
That (any form of PTSD) is now excuse for taking all of his guns away --- Veterans have been ruled as possible terrorists by the current administration you know.
Here is a possible solution - maybe a good one..
http://www.reuters.com/article/oddlyEnoughNews/idUSTRE5515SW20090602
IMHO the Pharmasist shouldn't have to do any time. The kid pulled the gun on him! If you're going to pull a gun on someone you might find yourself dead. If you prefer to stay "undead" don't point gun at someone to rob them. >:(
Quote from: Dog on June 05, 2009, 03:22:46 PM
IMHO the Pharmasist shouldn't have to do any time. The kid pulled the gun on him! If you're going to pull a gun on someone you might find yourself dead. If you prefer to stay "undead" don't point gun at someone to rob them. >:(
So anyone convicted of a crime using a gun should be executed? I think we are going to be short one pharmacist...
Thge pharmacist was obviously a law abiding citizen until attacked by a CRIMINAL with a gun and he protected himself and employees.
I have been in a store that was held up by a gun wielding criminal. Fortunately a gun wielding undercover cop had been waiting for his third holdup at the same store and shot him while we were standing there. When I got to the front the cop told him, move and I'll blow your head off as he stood there over him. It would have been no loss to society if he did.
From what I understand, the pharmacist began carrying a weapon because of previous armed robberies when the crooks got away with money and/or drugs or the materials to make them. He's really soft-spoken, and obviously feels bad that he shot someone, but said that in the same situation, he'd have done it again because he felt like his and his employees' lives were at stake.
Late check in on this... The pharmacist was "home free" until he fired the second round of shots. Even the DA stated he was justified for the first shot.
Once the direct threat to your life is over the shooting should cease and remain so.
It's too bad, but the "nice guy" pharmacist blew it.
... same as the guy in NM that shooter mentioned. He shot the guy after the guy ran away. One needs to know when to pull the trigger and when not to.
Oh, and what does a guy who packs a gun look like anyways... ???
QuoteVery soft-spoken fellow, not the kind you'd really even imagine carrying a gun.
Not to pick on you, but statements like that are meaningless.