Self Defense Or Murder?

[Winstonm]

So far we only have one side of the story, lets wait to see what the other side says are the true facts before we hang this guy.

 

I am a bit surprised so many form an opinion after only hearing the government's side of the story.

 

Well, since it is on video tape I'm betting the government's side will pretty closely follow that representation. Interestingly enough, the shooter's statement did not match with what the videotape showed.

 

According to press reports, the videotape shows the pharmacist running outside to chase the second robber, returning inside, walking back behind the counter with his back to the injured robber, picking up a second pistol before walking around and emptying the second pistol into the unconscious man's abdomen.

 

As Keven Bacon said in "A Few Good Men": "These are the facts of the case. And they are undisputed."

[mike777]

So far we only have one side of the story, lets wait to see what the other side says are the true facts before we hang this guy.

 

I am a bit surprised so many form an opinion after only hearing the government's side of the story.

 

Well, since it is on video tape I'm betting the government's side will pretty closely follow that representation. Interestingly enough, the shooter's statement did not match with what the videotape showed.

 

According to press reports, the videotape shows the pharmacist running outside to chase the second robber, returning inside, walking back behind the counter with his back to the injured robber, picking up a second pistol before walking around and emptying the second pistol into the unconscious man's abdomen.

 

As Keven Bacon said in "A Few Good Men": "These are the facts of the case. And they are undisputed."

The videotape shows the robber was unconscious, how does it show that? I mean you may be correct, I have not seen it, but at the very least I think the government needs to prove alot of stuff.

 

You keep stating alot of stuff as undisputed, ok. I mean the trial has not been held so I guess that means at this point nothing is disputed. Unconscious, unarmed, no threat?

 

I do not know all the elements that must be proved for it to be first degree murder. I do not know all the facts in this case and if some of the facts will be disputed. I do not know if the guy was moving or not moving, if he was a real threat, perceived threat or what. Does it matter if the guy was in fact knocked out but the pharmacist thought the guy was still moving, I dont know. Was it reasonable for the pharmacist to think the guy may have a gun, even if in fact he did not, I dont know.

 

In any event keep in mind a football player killed a guy with his car while drunk as a skunk....he only got 30 days in the hole.

[Winstonm]

You keep stating alot of stuff as undisputed, ok. I mean the trial has not been held so I guess that means at this point nothing is disputed. Unconscious, unarmed, no threat?

 

Point taken. I should say that newspaper reports about the video state....

[PassedOut]

You keep stating alot of stuff as undisputed, ok. I mean the trial has not been held so I guess that means at this point nothing is disputed. Unconscious, unarmed, no threat?

If the facts of the case are different than presented in the news, then my opinion (and others) will change accordingly. But I understand that the people who support the pharmacist's acts are responding to the same version of the events that we see.

[Lobowolf]

there's christianity, the religion, and christianity the political movement. I suspect it's the latter that's getting bashed here. imo, it shouldn't even exist.

That inconvenient ol' First Amendment!

[hrothgar]

given what we know at this time, the first shot was self defense... after that, there was a crime - what exactly it was is yet to be determined... as long as the robber was alive and not a threat, there was no longer a defensible reason to shoot

Oklahoma is located in that part of the United States that is known as the "Bible Belt" and the population tends to be part of the far right Christian Coalition that seems to believe that killing crooks and torturing foreigners is A-O.K as long as God's children are the ones doing the killing and torturing.

hard to resist getting in a dig at christians, eh winston, even if this probably has nothing at all to do with religion? had this happened elsewhere, say in new jersey, i guess that part could have been left unsaid

Here's a direct quote from the accused

 

A police detective said Ersland lied to the police and news reporters about the shooting. Ersland, for instance, said the robbers shot at him. "Fortunately, God made them miss me, except for this minor scratch,” he told The Oklahoman. "I was able to return fire and protect the girls’ lives. God was helping me.” Prosecutors say there is no evidence anyone but Ersland fired inside the store.

 

http://newsok.com/druggist-jerome-ersland-...article/3373432

[inquiry]

The first shooting justified, the second...

 

M u r d e r

[Lobowolf]

Bizarre story...he's already got a loaded gun; why switch guns to shoot the guy after the first shot?

[blackshoe]

It would not matter if they were armed.

 

However, without the threat of a weapon, the age and the sizes of the robbers would be relevant. It is much different to be threatened by a 4-foot tall 12-year-old than if the assailant was a 6-foot-tall 16-year-old.

 

My understanding is no weapon was found on the dead robber.

He wasn't 12, either. And having been shot at by 12 year olds, I can tell you that if the bullet goes home, you're just as dead whatever the shooter's age.

 

There were two of them. The pharmacist had no way of knowing if they were unarmed when he shot the one the first time. After the other ran, he had no reason, from what I've read, to shoot the first one again. But the first shot was in the head. What would be the media reaction if the "poor kid" ended up a vegetable?

 

No. You set out to rob someone, you accept the consequences. If your victim goes beyond reasonable response, he gets to accept those consequences.

[Winstonm]

The accused tells his side of the story to Bill O'Reilly show on Fox.

 

http://www.news9.com/global/story.asp?s=10456733

[Winstonm]

There were two of them. The pharmacist had no way of knowing if they were unarmed when he shot the one the first time. After the other ran, he had no reason, from what I've read, to shoot the first one again. But the first shot was in the head. What would be the media reaction if the "poor kid" ended up a vegetable?

 

No. You set out to rob someone, you accept the consequences. If your victim goes beyond reasonable response, he gets to accept those consequences.

 

You will get no disagreement from me - the first shot was justified.

 

That said, his statements on Fox about what happened do not seem reasonable to me, not very believable.

[matmat]

we'll see what the NRA has to say about this

[TimG]

So far we only have one side of the story, lets wait to see what the other side says are the true facts before we hang this guy.

 

I am a bit surprised so many form an opinion after only hearing the government's side of the story.

 

Well, since it is on video tape I'm betting the government's side will pretty closely follow that representation. Interestingly enough, the shooter's statement did not match with what the videotape showed.

 

According to press reports, the videotape shows the pharmacist running outside to chase the second robber, returning inside, walking back behind the counter with his back to the injured robber, picking up a second pistol before walking around and emptying the second pistol into the unconscious man's abdomen.

 

As Keven Bacon said in "A Few Good Men": "These are the facts of the case. And they are undisputed."

It does not seem possible to fully understand the pharmacist's state of mind from the video (which I have not seen and I have only read a description of in this thread).

 

I doubt I would be acting rationally after having my life threatened and then shooting someone.

 

I do not mean to say that I think the pharmacist should not be charged, just that I don't think it is quite so obvious as the rest of you do. And, I can imagine situations where as a juror I would find him not guilty.

[blackshoe]

I think it obvious he should be charged. Whether he should be convicted is for a jury to answer.

[Codo]

I do not like a society where the pharmacist has TWO loaded weapons in his pharmacy.

I do not like people who kill other people just because they want their property.

(Of course I hate robbery too, but killing is a quite ultimate "solution".)

 

So, I strongly disagree with the view that the first shot was okay. But I accept that this is American reality, because all Americans seem to agree with the first shot.

[Mbodell]

So, I strongly disagree with the view that the first shot was okay. But I accept that this is American reality, because all Americans seem to agree with the first shot.

I agree. I think there would be an interesting ethical debate about the first shot. I'm not sure I agree the first shot is justified, but I'm not sure I disagree. I'd need more information, because for me it would come down to weighing was it just property at risk, or was the safety and lives of those in the pharmacy also at risk and if so, to what degree. But running outside after someone and the later shots are clearly wrong.

[mike777]

Again it helps to hear both sides before deciding. For instance it seems the robbers pointed a gun at the head of the pharmacist. In the heat of the moment did he think there was a second gun, movement or threat, I dont know.

 

 

 

"So, I strongly disagree with the view that the first shot was okay. But I accept that this is American reality, because all Americans seem to agree with the first shot."

 

 

It is interesting that some posters think it was ok to fire the first shot and others thought it should be against the law.

 

 

video

 

 

[Gerben42]

My assessment is that the judge will rule that the pharmacist was not in his normal state of mind when he shot the robber again. I know I wouldn't be. People who would be able to think after they just shot someone like that scare me.

 

Otherwise, agree with Codo. Somehow this whole episode does not show much confidence that the legal system will catch the guy and compensate the pharmacist for his material loss as well as his psychological damage.

 

What's more interesting is a case where the robber dies some time after being shot, and the pharmacist might have saved him by taking quicker action of some sort (first aid, might have called an ambulance more quickly, fill in the gaps).

[vuroth]

I agree that, by American law, the first shot was probably ok.

 

By American law, I think the other 5 shots COULD be ok, but probably are not. If he turned his back on the teenager and walked/ran away, he obviously didn't think he was a threat. Certainly, the teenager on the ground COULD have still been a threat, but I agree that the story seems a bit fishy.

 

If the teenager was truly still a threat after having been shot, maybe a second shot could have become reasonable at some point. Even if you accept this, it doesn't explain the next 4 shots.

 

V

[helene_t]

So, I strongly disagree with the view that the first shot was okay. But I accept that this is American reality, because all Americans seem to agree with the first shot.

I dunno.

 

First, saying that the first shot was not a legal offense is not the same as saying it was "OK".

 

Second, we don't know the circumstances. Had he reason to feel threatened?

[Lobowolf]

He's guilty of something, for sure. The question is whether it is murder or a lesser offense. The other five shots are not "ok" per American law, but there may be a question as to whether they constitute murder. With respect to Gerben's post, the state of mind of the pharmacist will be a jury question.

[jdonn]

It seems horribly dangerous to me to let him off for murder due to his state of mind after what happened. That seems to give a free pass to anyone to kill anyone who tries to commit a crime against them.

[mikeh]

Nice touch... now he's a cripple in fear for his life because the kid he shot in the head is talking and apparently capable of some limited movement. Some cripple... able to pull one of his loaded guns, accurately shot a kid in the head at a moment of stress, and to pursue a fleeing robber out of the store and then to return, select another of his guns and fire 5 shots at point blank range into the semi-conscious (at best) teenager.

 

Do we all like the 'brace' he's wearing in the photos from court? I wonder if he was wearing that brace, in that manner, when he shot the kid?

 

And what is this about not telling how many guns he owned? Sounds like he is worried that maybe revealing the full extent of his arsenal may make him look less sympathetic.

 

Americans and their love of guns. Especially, and oddly, a lot of christians and their guns... do any of them truly believe that Jesus would have shot and killed this kid? Really?

 

I can see the old testament horror of a diety advocating shooting defenceless kids, but are christians not supposed to be new testament believers? Whose god was in that store saving the pharmacist and mandating the killing of the would-be robber? The pharmacist seems to think it was his christian god, and, apparently, many agree with him. Isn't that a sick religious belief structure?

 

Up here, the advice of any responsible police officer would be to give the kids what they want, and let the police deal with it.... not to begin acting like Charles Bronson. What if he had missed his first shot... the bullet would likely have exited the store, perhaps killing an innocent bystander. Would that have been worth it?

[blackshoe]

Helene, if two people came into your store and said "This is a robbery. Give us all your money" wouldn't you feel threatened?

 

If one (or both) of the robbers "waved a gun in the pharmacist's face" then the threat, it seems to me, is even greater.

 

"Loaded" is an assumption. Probably correct, but it doesn't matter. Proper gun safety procedure is to assume all guns are loaded until proven otherwise. Anyway, what difference does it make how many guns were in the store? Maybe there was one by every cash register. So what?

 

Given the positions of the two robbers when the first shots were fired, it doesn't seem likely the pharmacist was aiming at the guy who had the gun, which makes no sense to me. Most likely he was "spraying and praying", which is typical of people who don't really know what they're doing. Either that, or he took a couple of shots at the gun-toter, missed, and switched to the other guy — who for all he could know, also had a gun.

 

Gerben: I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think the judge gets to make that determination on his own. It would be part of Erslan's defense, presented to the jury, and the jury would decide. Maybe I'm wrong. :unsure:

[helene_t]

Helene, if two people came into your store and said "This is a robbery. Give us all your money" wouldn't you feel threatened?

I don't know the circumstances.

 

One extreme: The robber had a gun (or pretended to have one), while he was distracted for a second the pharmacist managed to get his gun and shoot the robber a fraction of a sec before he would (or thought he would) otherwise have been short himself.

 

Other extreme: The robber appeared to be a harmless moron. The pharmacist slowly picked up his gun and aimed it at the robber while the robber was standing at some five meters distance with open mouth, stottering "don't shoot", then the pharmacist shot him.

 

I suppose what happened was somewhere in between.