Self Defense Or Murder?

[luke warm]

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?

you're right

[blackshoe]

I suppose what happened was somewhere in between.

Did you watch the surveillance video?

 

It is not entirely clear to me that what we're told by the talking head that we're seeing is what the video actually shows in all aspects, but it is clear that one of the robbers was brandishing what appears to be a gun, and the pharmacist did get his own gun and start firing in the general direction of both robbers. It does not look to me like the one who had the gun shot back - he simply ran. But my point was that the mere act of walking into a store and stating that you're robbing the place is a threat. You postulate that the threat may not be credible. That's a straw man.

[Lobowolf]

I don't remember whether the felony-murder rule applies to criminals working in concert. My recollection is that it does, but I don't practice criminal law. The gist of the rule is that even if you didn't kill someone yourself, if you're involved in an inherently dangerous felony (armed robbery certainly qualifies) during the course of which someone dies, you're on the hook for murder. For instance, if the if the robber who got away had killed the pharmacist, the unarmed robber could be charged with murder. The upshot it, unless there's an exception when it's a "non-innocent" party who dies, the robber who got away could be charged with murder here, too. There may be an exception, though, based on a rationale that the one who was shot put himself in danger by going in on an armed robbery.

[Winstonm]

I don't remember whether the felony-murder rule applies to criminals working in concert.  My recollection is that it does, but I don't practice criminal law.  The gist of the rule is that even if you didn't kill someone yourself, if you're involved in an inherently dangerous felony (armed robbery certainly qualifies) during the course of which  someone dies, you're on the hook for murder.  For instance, if the if the robber who got away had killed the pharmacist, the unarmed robber could be charged with murder.  The upshot it, unless there's an exception when it's a "non-innocent" party who dies, the robber who got away could be charged with murder here, too.  There may be an exception, though, based on a rationale that the one who was shot put himself in danger by going in on an armed robbery.

Oklahoma statute law added a few years ago that it was legal to defend your home with deadly force; then another bill made that action legal at work and in some other settings.

 

So far, two other men have been arrested in connection with this robbery and charged with murder - as you correctly state, the fact that someone died during the commission of this robbery makes this a murder charge for anyone involved in committing the crime.

[onoway]

sooo Some guys try to rob a store, but run away without hurting anyone. They could be convicted of murder.

Someone else shot a wouldbe robber, left the scene, then returned and searched out a new weapon so he could shoot the unconscious injured man five times in the belly, and he may well walk off scott free.

Bizarre

[mike777]

sooo  Some guys try to rob a store, but run away without hurting anyone. They could be convicted of murder.

Someone else shot a wouldbe robber, left the scene, then returned and searched out a new weapon so he could shoot the unconscious injured man five times in the belly, and he may well walk off scott free.

Bizarre

Actually someone was seriously hurt before anyone ran away...

 

 

Again we do not know if the guy was unconscious or what, your facts be correct or incorrect.

 

Again he may have reached for a second gun to protect himself from the armed guy coming back, again you seem to assume facts that at this point are guesses....

 

At the very least make the state prove that your set of facts are in fact true. We do not know any of this from the video.

1) Was the guy unconscious or a threat, I dont know.

2) Did the guy grab the second gun with the intent "(so could shoot)" the guy on the floor no matter what? I dont know.

[Winstonm]

2) Did the guy grab the second gun with the intent "(so could shoot)" the guy on the floor no matter what? I dont know

 

I am fairly certain, though, that he did not grab the gun in order to offer it up as a sacrifice for his sins - although he did pony up his guns later to pay his attorney's fees.

[Winstonm]

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.

You have just reached the core issue in belief systems: rightness or wrongness does not depend on the what, but on the who. (Or maybe not The Who but The Doors: People are strange.)

[mike777]

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.

You have just reached the core issue in belief systems: rightness or wrongness does not depend on the what, but on the who. (Or maybe not The Who but The Doors: People are strange.)

Yes, just to repeat, drive drunk as a skunk and kill someone with your expensive car...if famous football player only get 30 days in jail.

[Lobowolf]

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.

See also: Battered Woman's Syndrome and the "cultural defense."

[Lobowolf]

sooo Some guys try to rob a store, but run away without hurting anyone. They could be convicted of murder.

Someone else shot a wouldbe robber, left the scene, then returned and searched out a new weapon so he could shoot the unconscious injured man five times in the belly, and he may well walk off scott free.

Bizarre

Anyone accused of a crime COULD beat the charge. From the sounds of things, he won't if the system is working properly (there may be an issue as to what he is, or could be, convicted of, however).

 

As for the other part of the equation, I'm ok with felony-murder, in principle. Let's say a guy is robbing a bank, and a cop shows up. The guy says, "I'm going to kill the security guard just so you know I mean business." He draws his gun, pulls back the hammer, and an undercover detective fires a couple of shots at him. The first shot hits him, almost killing him and dropping him to the floor, and the second shot misses him (maybe because the first shot moved him), goes through a window, and kills a passerby. I wouldn't call the passerby's death an accident, and I wouldn't lay it on the detective, either. You could certainly make the argument that the robber didn't "hurt anyone," but he made a deliberate decision to accost people with a gun while committing a felony, and someone died as a result. I'm fine with his taking all the consequences of a murder rap, whether he hurt anyone or not.

[Winstonm]

sooo  Some guys try to rob a store, but run away without hurting anyone. They could be convicted of murder.

Someone else shot a wouldbe robber, left the scene, then returned and searched out a new weapon so he could shoot the unconscious injured man five times in the belly, and he may well walk off scott free.

Bizarre

Anyone accused of a crime COULD beat the charge. From the sounds of things, he won't if the system is working properly (there may be an issue as to what he is, or could be, convicted of, however).

 

As for the other part of the equation, I'm ok with felony-murder, in principle. Let's say a guy is robbing a bank, and a cop shows up. The guy says, "I'm going to kill the security guard just so you know I mean business." He draws his gun, pulls back the hammer, and an undercover detective fires a couple of shots at him. The first shot hits him, almost killing him and dropping him to the floor, and the second shot misses him (maybe because the first shot moved him), goes through a window, and kills a passerby. I wouldn't call the passerby's death an accident, and I wouldn't lay it on the detective, either. You could certainly make the argument that the robber didn't "hurt anyone," but he made a deliberate decision to accost people with a gun while committing a felony, and someone died as a result. I'm fine with his taking all the consequences of a murder rap, whether he hurt anyone or not.

I don't have any problem with this line of reasoning, either, provided there is no charge of first degree murder; after all, there was no premeditation to kill anyone.

[mike777]

sooo   Some guys try to rob a store, but run away without hurting anyone. They could be convicted of murder.

Someone else shot a wouldbe robber, left the scene, then returned and searched out a new weapon so he could shoot the unconscious injured man five times in the belly, and he may well walk off scott free.

Bizarre

Anyone accused of a crime COULD beat the charge. From the sounds of things, he won't if the system is working properly (there may be an issue as to what he is, or could be, convicted of, however).

 

As for the other part of the equation, I'm ok with felony-murder, in principle. Let's say a guy is robbing a bank, and a cop shows up. The guy says, "I'm going to kill the security guard just so you know I mean business." He draws his gun, pulls back the hammer, and an undercover detective fires a couple of shots at him. The first shot hits him, almost killing him and dropping him to the floor, and the second shot misses him (maybe because the first shot moved him), goes through a window, and kills a passerby. I wouldn't call the passerby's death an accident, and I wouldn't lay it on the detective, either. You could certainly make the argument that the robber didn't "hurt anyone," but he made a deliberate decision to accost people with a gun while committing a felony, and someone died as a result. I'm fine with his taking all the consequences of a murder rap, whether he hurt anyone or not.

I don't have any problem with this line of reasoning, either, provided there is no charge of first degree murder; after all, there was no premeditation to kill anyone.

not sure but I think felony murder and first degree murder have other elements......in any case the prison term, death penalty for both is severe.

[Winstonm]

sooo   Some guys try to rob a store, but run away without hurting anyone. They could be convicted of murder.

Someone else shot a wouldbe robber, left the scene, then returned and searched out a new weapon so he could shoot the unconscious injured man five times in the belly, and he may well walk off scott free.

Bizarre

Anyone accused of a crime COULD beat the charge. From the sounds of things, he won't if the system is working properly (there may be an issue as to what he is, or could be, convicted of, however).

 

As for the other part of the equation, I'm ok with felony-murder, in principle. Let's say a guy is robbing a bank, and a cop shows up. The guy says, "I'm going to kill the security guard just so you know I mean business." He draws his gun, pulls back the hammer, and an undercover detective fires a couple of shots at him. The first shot hits him, almost killing him and dropping him to the floor, and the second shot misses him (maybe because the first shot moved him), goes through a window, and kills a passerby. I wouldn't call the passerby's death an accident, and I wouldn't lay it on the detective, either. You could certainly make the argument that the robber didn't "hurt anyone," but he made a deliberate decision to accost people with a gun while committing a felony, and someone died as a result. I'm fine with his taking all the consequences of a murder rap, whether he hurt anyone or not.

I don't have any problem with this line of reasoning, either, provided there is no charge of first degree murder; after all, there was no premeditation to kill anyone.

not sure but I think felony murder and first degree murder have other elements......in any case the prison term, death penalty for both is severe.

Well spotted, Mike. Here is a description of the Oklahoma law:

 

1st Degree Murder —There are three ways to commit 1 st Degree murder:

 

 

 

Malice and Forethought Murder —the state must prove the defendant caused the death of a human with the deliberate intent to take away the life of a human being.

 

 

 

1 st Degree Felony Murder —the state must prove the death of a human occurred as a result of the defendant’s commission of one of several crimes. The state does not have to prove the defendant intended to cause the death.

 

 

 

Child Abuse Murder —the state must prove the death of a child under the age of eighteen occurred as a result of the defendant’s commission of child abuse or willfully permitting of child abuse. The state does not have to prove the defendant intended to cause the death of the child.

 

2 nd Degree Murder —There are two ways to commit Second Degree Murder:

 

 

 

By Imminently Dangerous Conduc t—the state must prove that because of the defendant’s imminently dangerous conduct, which demonstrated a depraved mind in extreme disregard of human life, and the death a human resulted.

 

 

 

2nd Degree Felony Murder —the state must prove the death of a human occurred as a result of the defendant’s commission of any felony that does not serve as a basis for 1 st degree felony murder. The state does not have to prove the defendant intended to cause the death.

[Lobowolf]

sooo   Some guys try to rob a store, but run away without hurting anyone. They could be convicted of murder.

Someone else shot a wouldbe robber, left the scene, then returned and searched out a new weapon so he could shoot the unconscious injured man five times in the belly, and he may well walk off scott free.

Bizarre

Anyone accused of a crime COULD beat the charge. From the sounds of things, he won't if the system is working properly (there may be an issue as to what he is, or could be, convicted of, however).

 

As for the other part of the equation, I'm ok with felony-murder, in principle. Let's say a guy is robbing a bank, and a cop shows up. The guy says, "I'm going to kill the security guard just so you know I mean business." He draws his gun, pulls back the hammer, and an undercover detective fires a couple of shots at him. The first shot hits him, almost killing him and dropping him to the floor, and the second shot misses him (maybe because the first shot moved him), goes through a window, and kills a passerby. I wouldn't call the passerby's death an accident, and I wouldn't lay it on the detective, either. You could certainly make the argument that the robber didn't "hurt anyone," but he made a deliberate decision to accost people with a gun while committing a felony, and someone died as a result. I'm fine with his taking all the consequences of a murder rap, whether he hurt anyone or not.

I don't have any problem with this line of reasoning, either, provided there is no charge of first degree murder; after all, there was no premeditation to kill anyone.

not sure but I think felony murder and first degree murder have other elements......in any case the prison term, death penalty for both is severe.

Well spotted, Mike. Here is a description of the Oklahoma law:

 

1st Degree Murder —There are three ways to commit 1 st Degree murder:

 

 

 

Malice and Forethought Murder —the state must prove the defendant caused the death of a human with the deliberate intent to take away the life of a human being.

 

 

 

1 st Degree Felony Murder —the state must prove the death of a human occurred as a result of the defendant’s commission of one of several crimes. The state does not have to prove the defendant intended to cause the death.

 

 

 

Child Abuse Murder —the state must prove the death of a child under the age of eighteen occurred as a result of the defendant’s commission of child abuse or willfully permitting of child abuse. The state does not have to prove the defendant intended to cause the death of the child.

 

2 nd Degree Murder —There are two ways to commit Second Degree Murder:

 

 

 

By Imminently Dangerous Conduc t—the state must prove that because of the defendant’s imminently dangerous conduct, which demonstrated a depraved mind in extreme disregard of human life, and the death a human resulted.

 

 

 

2nd Degree Felony Murder —the state must prove the death of a human occurred as a result of the defendant’s commission of any felony that does not serve as a basis for 1 st degree felony murder. The state does not have to prove the defendant intended to cause the death.

Without looking, I guarantee that armed robbery is on the list of predicate felonies for Oklahoma's first degree felony murder statute. Having said that, I can certainy see your opposition to having a first degree felony murder statute in the first place. My criminal law professor was opposed to felony murder in general.

[Winstonm]

I can certainy see your opposition to having a first degree felony murder statute in the first place.

 

I don't know if it matters other than semantics, but I think 1st degree murder should be reserved for premeditated murder.

 

I'm not sure if felony homicide should be 2nd degree murder or 1st degree manslaughter, though.

[onoway]

well I have watched the video a couple of times and it would take some very fancy talking to convince me that the five shots were anything but deliberate and intended to kill. How long ahead of time does premeditation need to occur? He goes past the downed guy twice with only a glance. Clearly he didn't have any worries about being shot in the back while he walks maybe 20 feet and gets a fresh weapon, comes back and shoots the guy in the belly (not the fastest way to kill someone either), then goes puts the gun away and then picks up the phone. Looks very much to me like "taking care of business": and that he maybe forgot about the security camera.

 

No problem with charging the guy who started it all waving a gun around in a robbery attempt; but in THIS case the pharmacist needs to get at least as harsh a sentence. Anything less would be a travesty.

[blackshoe]

2) Did the guy grab the second gun with the intent "(so could shoot)" the guy on the floor no matter what? I dont know

 

I am fairly certain, though, that he did not grab the gun in order to offer it up as a sacrifice for his sins - although he did pony up his guns later to pay his attorney's fees.

I strongly suspect that last assertion has little, if any, basis in reality.

[Winstonm]

2) Did the guy grab the second gun with the intent "(so could shoot)" the guy on the floor no matter what? I dont know

 

I am fairly certain, though, that he did not grab the gun in order to offer it up as a sacrifice for his sins - although he did pony up his guns later to pay his attorney's fees.

I strongly suspect that last assertion has little, if any, basis in reality.

Obviously, you are not from around these parts or you would not have doubted....

 

OKC Pharmacist Turns Guns Over to Lawyer

The Oklahoma City pharmacist charged with murder in the shooting death of a teenage would-be robber says he's given his guns to his defense attorney. Jerome Jay Ersland told Judge Tammy Bass-LeSure at a hearing Monday he's given every weapon he owns to defense attorney Irven Box. Bass-LeSure last week allowed Ersland to be released on $100,000 bail but banned him from any access to weapons. The hearing was to determine if he complied with her order. Box declined to say how many guns he was given but does say he took the weapons and other personal property as payment of part of his attorney fees. The 57-year-old Ersland is charged with first-degree murder of 16-year-old Antwun Parker when Parker and another teenager tried to rob the pharmacy at gunpoint.

[hotShot]

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.

I always thought that that among the ten commandments was:

 

"You shall not kill"

 

But it seems that some pettifogger changed that to

 

"You shall not murder"

[Codo]

I always thought that that among the ten commandments was:

 

"You shall not kill"

 

But it seems that some pettifogger changed that to

 

"You shall not murder"

It is more like:

 

YOU shall not kill and I shall not murder- and I define what murder is.

[Fluffy]

Not everything is in the surveilance video I think.

 

If you had been assaulted 5 times before this year, and the few that were catched by police, didn't go to jail for having the underage protection, you are not probably on your right senses anymore and want to put a stop in wichever way it is possible.

 

 

On general I have always found unfair that you could be charged when someone put you on a "state of mind" very far from your normal state. And you do something to that person. But hell, 5 shots in the belly its just too much.

 

 

Anyone else finds ironic that his own surveilance video is the main proof against him?

[blackshoe]

My understanding is that the original (Hebrew? Aramaic?) passage was mistranslated. If you want to call correcting that error "pettifogging", well, go right ahead.

 

The report quoted upthread says that at least part of the reason Erslan turned over his guns was in compliance of the judge's order. It also quotes his lawyer as saying he accepted them in part payment of attorney fees. I guess (a) the lawyer has no intention of giving the guns back, whatever the outcome of the case, and (:lol: he bills in advance. But my point is that the original assertion - that he "gave up his guns" in order to pay attorney's fees, was not likely. Since the main impetus for turning them over seems to have been to comply with the judge's order, I stand by my earlier response.

[jdonn]

God has updated to be with the times. Thou shalt not kill, unless thou lives in a state where it's ok to kill if someone tries to steal your dvd player.

[Lobowolf]

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.

I always thought that that among the ten commandments was:

 

"You shall not kill"

 

But it seems that some pettifogger changed that to

 

"You shall not murder"

Since the Bible wasn't written in English, back in the day, the word used was neither "kill" nor "murder." I've heard the assertion that "murder" is a more accurate translation, and it certainly strikes me as credible. Most cultures permit killing in self-defense, or in defense of others. And others permit capital punishment (and certainly did so in the Old Testament world). So I'm certainly inclined to believe that "murder" is the correct translation, and a more desirable one, certainly, with respect to things like self-defense when confronted with deadly force. Not all killing is wrong. A blanket proscription on murder makes more sense.