[bid_em_up]

The judge ordered the weapons restriction after she watched a video of the pharmacist shooting robbery suspect Antwun Parker, 16, on May 19 at Reliable Discount Pharmacy in south Oklahoma City.

In a twist in the already unusual case, District Attorney David Prater asked the judge to allow Ersland to have access to a gun at work in case the pharmacy is robbed again. The prosecutor said his position "sounds crazy” but he insisted that under the law Ersland has the right to defend himself and others at the pharmacy.

(the judge denied this request)


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

[blackshoe]

One wonders what the legal basis for the judge's ruling is.

Erslan has the right to defend himself and others. He has the right to reasonable means to efffect that defense. It seems the prosecutor agrees. Apparently the judge does not. Why not?

[mike777]

blackshoe, on Jun 24 2009, 03:52 PM, said:

One wonders what the legal basis for the judge's ruling is.

Erslan has the right to defend himself and others. He has the right to reasonable means to efffect that defense. It seems the prosecutor agrees. Apparently the judge does not. Why not?

My guess this is a typical situation of competing rights.
In this case you are accused of shooting/killing someone in first degree murder with a gun. This at least suggests you may be a real danger to others when it comes to guns vs the right to defend yourself. It seems ok to limit one right(you cannot have a gun) at least for the duration of the trial given the risk to the public.

[jdonn]

I wouldn't be caught within a mile of that store ever again if I knew that pharmacist was allowed to keep a gun there.

[Lobowolf]

blackshoe, on Jun 24 2009, 03:52 PM, said:

One wonders what the legal basis for the judge's ruling is.

Erslan has the right to defend himself and others. He has the right to reasonable means to efffect that defense. It seems the prosecutor agrees. Apparently the judge does not. Why not?

It could be that the ruling isn't an order, per se, but a bail condition. The judge doesn't have to grant bail. So it's not that he can't be around guns, per se; it's that if he doesn't agree not to be around guns, he can wait in jail until his trial. Letting him out with conditions isn't an undue restriction on his rights when it's at the judge's discretion whether he be let out at all.

[Lobowolf]

jdonn, on Jun 24 2009, 04:45 PM, said:

I wouldn't be caught within a mile of that store ever again if I knew that pharmacist was allowed to keep a gun there.

Hopefully people who participate in armed robberies will have the same notion.

[jdonn]

Lobowolf, on Jun 24 2009, 04:47 PM, said:

jdonn, on Jun 24 2009, 04:45 PM, said:

I wouldn't be caught within a mile of that store ever again if I knew that pharmacist was allowed to keep a gun there.

Hopefully people who participate in armed robberies will have the same notion.

If customers have that notion then it hardly matters, there wouldn't be a pharmacy for long.

[JoAnneM]

Why do I have the feelilng that pharmacist did something he has been thinking about doing for a long time. That is what makes it a murder.

[Winstonm]

Quote

1. The Bible is the literal word of god (and god has made sure that his word hasn't been corrupted during all those transcriptions)

Isn't is convenient for the story that the only known writings from God himself were destroyed by an ill-tempered holy man and now we all have to believe what we are told was written.

Oddly, the Mormons have a similar story about finding gold tablets that mysteriously disappeared - and again we have to accept by faith what was written.

Yet I guarantee you the devout Southern Baptist will tell you that the Mormons' story is full of crap but the ten commandments are obviously real.

[blackshoe]

Lobowolf, on Jun 24 2009, 04:46 PM, said:

It could be that the ruling isn't an order, per se, but a bail condition. The judge doesn't have to grant bail. So it's not that he can't be around guns, per se; it's that if he doesn't agree not to be around guns, he can wait in jail until his trial. Letting him out with conditions isn't an undue restriction on his rights when it's at the judge's discretion whether he be let out at all.

Makes sense.