[mike777]

Winstonm, on Jun 21 2009, 08:29 AM, said:

Quote

OKLAHOMA CITY - Confronted by two holdup men, pharmacist Jerome Ersland pulled a gun, shot one of them in the head and chased the other away. Then, in a scene recorded by the drugstore's security camera, he went behind the counter, got another gun, and pumped five more bullets into the wounded teenager as he lay on the floor.

Quote

Now Ersland has been charged with first-degree murder in a case that has stirred a furious debate over vigilante justice and self-defense and turned the pharmacist into something of a folk hero.

Quote

District Attorney David Prater said Ersland was justified in shooting 16-year-old Antwun Parker once in the head, but not in firing the additional shots into his belly. The prosecutor said the teenager was unconscious, unarmed, lying on his back and posing no threat when Ersland fired what the medical examiner said were the fatal shots.

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.

[mike777]

Winstonm, on Jun 21 2009, 11:43 AM, said:

Here is more of the story from The Tulsa World:

Quote

OKLAHOMA CITY — An Oklahoma City pharmacist who shot and killed a 16-year-old would-be robber was charged Wednesday with first-degree murder.

Jerome Ersland, 57, was being held without bail in the Oklahoma County Jail.

Oklahoma County District Attorney David Prater said in an afternoon news conference that Ersland was justified in shooting Antwun Parker once in the head on May 19. But Prater said Ersland went too far when he shot Parker five more times in the abdomen while Parker lay unconscious on the floor.

Ersland's attorney, Irven Box, said Ersland was protecting himself and two women inside the pharmacy.

"I think he did something in his eyes that protected both himself and two ladies in there," Box said. "He put an end to the threat."

Box said he thinks a jury will exonerate Ersland.

At an afternoon news conference, Prater showed a security video in which two men burst into the pharmacy and one is shot.

Ersland is seen chasing the second man outside before returning, walking past Parker to get a second gun then going back to Parker and opening fire.

The charge alleges Ersland shot Parker while he was incapacitated and lying on his back.

Ersland's account of the incident doesn't match the video or the evidence collected at the scene, according to an affidavit written by Oklahoma City Police Detective David Jacobson.

Jacobson said the suspect who ran away from the pharmacy was armed, but no gun was found near Parker.

"Ersland shows no concern for his safety as he walks by Parker, and turns
his back to Parker as he walks behind the pharmacy counter," Jacobson said. "Ersland is then seen to put the pistol he is carrying on the counter, and retrieve a second pistol from a drawer."

Ersland used this pistol to shoot Parker on the ground, the detective said.

He said an autopsy determined that Parker had been shot in the head, but was still alive when he was shot in the stomach area and died from those injuries.

Yes, hate to try anyone in the newspaper with selected leaks. Hopefully with a jury trial both sides will be able to lay out their case and the jury can decide.

btw it will be interesting to see what he is charged with. Often if one is charged with first degree murder, the jury is not allowed to find on a lesser charge. That means find guilty on first degree or not guilty, period.

[blackshoe]

Winstonm, on Jun 21 2009, 11:34 AM, said:

The reason I brought up this case is because of the vast amount of support this pharmacist is receiving. I certainly don't condone the actions of the two kids who tried to pull off this robbery, but I cannot fathom how anyone can justify or support the decision of the pharmacist to essentially execute this teenager.

Certainly this has to be no less than 2nd degree murder.

The robber's age is irrelevant. The only question is whether Ersland went beyond what a reasonable person would do in that situation, in defense of himself, his property, and others nearby(if there were any).

[Winstonm]

matmat, on Jun 21 2009, 02:32 PM, said:

luke warm, on Jun 21 2009, 02:19 PM, said:

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

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.

Exactly so. It is the political right-wing of so-called Christianity that is so supportive of the rights of the shooter to kill.

I don't think the fault lies with Christians at all. I think many religious folks have their conservative tendencies exploited by leaders who only mouth their own belief in order to exploit real believers.

Quote

hard to resist getting in a dig at christians, eh winston, even if this probably has nothing at all to do with religion?

You may consider yourself bashed if you are a Bible-belt supporter of John Hagee or Pat Robertson - in other words, an idiot.

[Winstonm]

blackshoe, on Jun 21 2009, 05:04 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Jun 21 2009, 11:34 AM, said:

The reason I brought up this case is because of the vast amount of support this pharmacist is receiving.  I certainly don't condone the actions of the two kids who tried to pull off this robbery, but I cannot fathom how anyone can justify or support the decision of the pharmacist to essentially execute this teenager.

Certainly this has to be no less than 2nd degree murder.

The robber's age is irrelevant. The only question is whether Ersland went beyond what a reasonable person would do in that situation, in defense of himself, his property, and others nearby(if there were any).

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.

[Winstonm]

Quote

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]

Winstonm, on Jun 21 2009, 06:40 PM, said:

Quote

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]

Quote

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]

mike777, on Jun 21 2009, 06:59 PM, said:

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]

matmat, on Jun 21 2009, 02:32 PM, said:

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]

luke warm, on Jun 21 2009, 10:19 PM, said:

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

Winstonm, on Jun 21 2009, 02:10 PM, said:

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

Quote

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]

Winstonm, on Jun 21 2009, 06:33 PM, said:

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....asp?s=10456733

[Winstonm]

Quote

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]

Winstonm, on Jun 21 2009, 06:40 PM, said:

Quote

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.