Archive for Saturday, May 30, 2009

Druggist arrested for robbery killing

May 30, 2009

Advertisement

— 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.

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.

Ersland, 57, is free on $100,000 bail, courtesy of an anonymous donor. He has won praise from the pharmacy’s owner, received an outpouring of cards, letters and checks from supporters, and become the darling of conservative talk radio.

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.

Anthony Douglas, president of the Oklahoma chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, called it an “execution-style murder” and praised the district attorney for bringing charges. Ersland is white; the two suspects were black.

But many of those who have seen the video of the May 19 robbery attempt at Reliable Discount Pharmacy have concluded the teenager in the ski mask got what he deserved.

Irven Box, Ersland’s attorney, noted the outpouring of support for the pharmacist, including $2,000 in donations, and said: “I feel very good 12 people would not determine he committed murder in the first degree.”

Comments

Ragingbear 6 years, 1 month ago

This pharmacist deserves a medal, not an arrest.

notajayhawk 6 years, 1 month ago

Why do I have the feeling that this thread is going to turn very ugly very fast.

Okay, first, I have no problem with someone defending themselves with a firearm. (Other than the fact that it's risky - when someone 'has the drop' on you, when they already have a weapon in their hand and you have to reach for yours, it's generally better to give up your wallet than your blood.)

But, although I haven't seen the video, if the facts in the case are as presented in the story (granted a leap of faith), it's hard to imagine any circumstances that would justify pumping 5 bullets into an unconscious person.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 1 month ago

Believe it or not, nota, I agree with you. As you say, if the facts are as described in this story, this guy is just as much a criminal as the guys who stuck him up. He should be locked away where he'll be less of a danger to society.

jaywalker 6 years, 1 month ago

Love the self-defense, but returning to an unconscious body, standing over him, and pumping 5 more into him is beyond excessive. I'd be interested to see the tape, but like nota says, if the events are as transparent as they're outlined in the article I don't see how it can be seen as anything but an execution. That being said........

"He should be locked away where he'll be less of a danger to society."

Unless you know something more about the druggist than this story, bozo, it's a little silly to classify him as a "danger to society". A danger to thieves, certainly.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 1 month ago

"I don't see how it can be seen as anything but an execution."

Anybody who would carry out an execution of an unconscious man is a danger to society.

But thanks for yet again being contrary for the sake of being contrary.

Flap Doodle 6 years, 1 month ago

Note to self: turn off security camera before getting all Travis Bickle.

Sharon Aikins 6 years, 1 month ago

I saw a more detailed tape from The Oklahoman. While I agree that one has the right to defend themselves, this man went above and beyond. They suggested that he was defending two other employees yet he left them alone while he chased the other, armed robber. This kid was not armed, was putting on his ski mask and adjusting it when he was shot. There is no evidence that the other, armed robber fired a shot in the pharmacy. The guy walks back in after chasing the other robber, glances at the unconcious kid, goes for another gun, walks back and shoots him five times. Why didn't the guy, once he saw the kid was unconcious, just call 911? To walk back over and shoot the kid 5 times was murder. Vigilante justice seems to make something like this okay? I know the adrenaline was flowing but does the brain stop once a gun is in the hand? He would have been okay just going to the phone rather than going after that second gun. Or he could have kept it trained on the perp while he called the cops. The kid was supposedly still breathing when the pharmacist shot him five times. Since he was alive, this is murder and unjustified. All the excuses in the world don't justify it to me but I'm guessing the guy will walk free on this one. A lot of gun owner's I know, including some of my own family, will applaud that while being envious that he got the chance to use his gun(s) "legitimately." If he can live with himself after what he did, he's a stronger person than I am. But then, I wouldn't have gone back and shot the kid five more times when he was already unconcious, unarmed and not a threat to me or anyone else.

Music_Girl 6 years, 1 month ago

Hindsight is 20/20. In the moments of fear and adrenaline I'm sure the pharmacists was acting on pure instinct and not considering the full consequences of his actions. The men who tried to rob him; however, had premeditated concepts of what could happen to them. They accepted those alternate consequences. Although I don't condone what he did, I don't think he is guilty of first degree murder...perhaps manslaughter or something less.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 1 month ago

Given that this happened in the aftermath of an attempted armed robbery, 1st degree murder is probably the wrong charge, but 2nd degree murder is clearly appropriate.

But that's not going to stop those who worship John Wayne and Clint Eastwood from lionizing this guy for carrying out their murderous wet dreams.

RoeDapple 6 years, 1 month ago

Ersland and the customers who were there that day have lived to see another day. Regardless of the consequences he may or may not have to pay, he is alive because he was willing to defend himself and others. If it is determined the young man would or would not have survived the head wound, the courts will decide Erslands fate. But this is one young man who will no longer endanger the lives of others.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 1 month ago

"Regardless of the consequences he may or may not have to pay, he is alive because he was willing to defend himself and others."

That's nothing more than speculation. An equally valid bit of speculation is that if he had just handed over the money, no one would have been killed, and Ersland wouldn't be in his current pickle.

What's not a matter of speculation is that if he had just waited for the police rather than executing the wounded and unconscious kid, this would have been no more than a blurb on the local news.

jaywalker 6 years, 1 month ago

"Anybody who would carry out an execution of an unconscious man is a danger to society."

No. Unconscious criminals better be careful though. If this man's record is clean with no violence toward any ordinary citizen, "danger to society" is intellectually void.

"But thanks for yet again being contrary for the sake of being contrary"

It was for the sake of showing your faulty thinking. Again.

"but 2nd degree murder is clearly appropriate"

If he gets convicted I'm bettin' it's on nothin' higher than manslaughter, like Musicgirl said.

jaywalker 6 years, 1 month ago

snap,

Just saw your comment. Made me laugh. Gracias.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 1 month ago

Oh yea, jaywalker, the notion that someone who would assume the position of judge, jury and executioner might be a danger to society is truly "faulty thinking."

But I do agree that he may not get convicted of anything higher than manslaughter. (And if he gets a jury stacked with folks like Marion and Nancy Boy, he probably won't get convicted at all.)

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 1 month ago

"How do you know the kid who was shot wasn't packing, comes to and blows away Ersland?"

All I know is what the article says, which may very well be wrong. But if what it says is accurate, you're doing nothing but grasping at justifications for cold-blooded murder.

RoeDapple 6 years, 1 month ago

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says… “Regardless of the consequences he may or may not have to pay, he is alive because he was willing to defend himself and others.”

"That's nothing more than speculation. An equally valid bit of speculation is that if he had just handed over the money, no one would have been killed, and Ersland wouldn't be in his current pickle."

Well, I 'speculate' you are a total idiot, bozo. Watch the video! How do you 'just hand over the money' when the POS walks in the door and opens fire on you? Would love to see the video of how you would have reacted. This blog would consist of two comments;

"What happened to bozo?"

"Who cares?"

jaywalker 6 years, 1 month ago

"the notion that someone who would assume the position of judge, jury and executioner might be a danger to society is truly “faulty thinking.”"

No. The self-projection of motive and labeling someone a 'danger to society' because he went too far with someone who just tried to kill him is faulty thinking. The guy let his anger, fear, and adrenaline take over and reacted in a highly extreme situation. A danger to society is a career criminal, someone willing to hurt someone else for their own gain, someone who doesn't care a lick about others. This guy doesn't fit that profile. The kid he whacked does, but Erslund took it too far. A cop that beats up a perp after a long, dangerous car chase is acting out of anger, fear, and adrenaline. Doesn't make him a 'danger to society'. And I'm willing to bet the law-abiding citizens that know him are never afraid to have him around. Just my opinion, but I don't consider criminals wielding deadly force to be viable members of our society.

Linda and Bill Houghton 6 years, 1 month ago

Would he have shot the robber five times if he had been white? We have the possibility of a hate crime being involved on top of self-defense. He might have just disabled the robber and called the police if the robber had been white.

Linda and Bill Houghton 6 years, 1 month ago

Would he have shot the robber five times if he had been white? We have the possibility of a hate crime being involved on top of self-defense. He might have just disabled him if he were white and called the police.

RedwoodCoast 6 years, 1 month ago

Sounds to me like the guy crossed the line and committed a criminal act. Based upon how the incident is portrayed in the article, this guy went way beyond mere self-defense. I'd say a homicide charge is probably warranted.

Linda and Bill Houghton 6 years, 1 month ago

Sorry about the second post of a earlier version of my comment. I misinterpreted something in the post process.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 1 month ago

"The self-projection of motive and labeling someone a 'danger to society' because he went too far with someone who just tried to kill him is faulty thinking."

Well, if you insist, that clears it up for me. I no longer think that it was just another example of your "punishing" me for occasionally having the temerity to disagree with you and failing to recognize your inherent superiority in all things.

msmacgregor 6 years, 1 month ago

How can someone be shooting with an unloaded gun. There were no bullets in the other robbers gun!

slowplay 6 years, 1 month ago

There's a fine line here and the court case could be interesting. I hope it's publicized. Did he go to far? How much does the fear factor play in this? Hate crime? Maybe he's a flake job who went nuts? Maybe the perp wasn't fully unconscious? Yes, this could get interesting.

RedwoodCoast 6 years, 1 month ago

Ummm, Ersland could have just stood there pointing a gun at the injured teen should he come-to in his severely injured state. It seems that Ersland had the upper-hand, so pumping five more rounds into the kid was just uncalled-for in my opinion. Heck, he was clear-headed enough to go grab another gun. This was a botched robbery turned homicide, and it should be prosecuted as such.

bad_dog 6 years, 1 month ago

Solomon, in response to your query above, in Oklahoma it appears this COULD be charged as 1st degree manslaughter (under one of two legal theories-"heat of passion manslaughter" or "resisting a criminal attempt"). It appears however, he's charged with 1st degree murder. There are 3 types of 1st degree murder charges in OK. The pertinent potential charges arise as as either a "malice and forethought murder" or 1st degree felony murder which would require the state to prove the death occurred as the result of the comission of one of several (felony) crimes.

It's speculation on my part, but given the obvious issues involving the extent of the right to self defense, I suspect the DA may plead this case in the alternative, thus providing a jury with an opportunity to find the pharmacist guilty on a lesser charge rather than run the risk of a complete acquittal.

kugrad 6 years, 1 month ago

Moral of the story: Don't point a loaded gun at someone during the comission of a crime unless you are prepared to die. The one who should definitley be going to prison is the would-be robber who ran away.

One can only speculate about the state of mind of the man who shot the robber when he was on the floor. The video does not show whether or not the kid was conscious. I don't buy any race arguments as having a gun pointed at you tends to make one forget everything else except surviving. Personally, I can't make out the race of the guy who got shot in the video.

My own pure speculation from watching the clearly edited video is that the storeowner felt no threat from the robber he already shot, as he calmly re-enters the store after chasing the one who ran. He has no defensive posture at all. Then he turns his back on the guy without a second glance to get another gun. It looked real cold-blooded to me - but that is PURE speculation. Who knows his mental state? He does not appear threatened in any way, but who knows? Not you nor I.

denak 6 years, 1 month ago

Personally, I think first degree murder is the right charge but if I were the D.A., I would have charged him with second degree murder simply because I think there is a better chance of it sticking. In my mind, the druggist was in no immediate danger and showed an "extreme indifference to human life"

However, first degree would fit because it was intentional and premeditated. There is no time limit that defines premeditation. Just from the time intent was formed to the crime being carried out. So, from the time, it took him to decide to blow the robber away to the time he did, is enough to be premeditation.

He definitely won't get a manslaughter charge. If he does, it would be an absolute miscarriage of justice.

My hope is that the media and different interest groups don't turn this into a "cause celebre" If that happens, then he will walk......just like Bernie Getz, who was guilty as sin.

Dena

notajayhawk 6 years, 1 month ago

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…

"Believe it or not, nota, I agree with you. As you say, if the facts are as described in this story, this guy is just as much a criminal as the guys who stuck him up."

Well, I never said that. I said it was hard to justify shooting an unconscious person, not that he was "just as much a criminal" - it wasn't him that initiated the incident.

"the notion that someone who would assume the position of judge, jury and executioner might be a danger to society is truly “faulty thinking.”"

Uh - don't you already have this guy convicted of second degree murder?


Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

"If the perp was still breathing, the guy can quite legitmately claim “deadly fear”, can and should walk.

"He didn't know if the perp was going to get up and come after him, so he made sure that the threat was eliminated."

Well, except he could have left. Again, if the facts are as stated in the story, he left (chasing the other perp), came back in, retrieved another weapon, and then shot the guy. I assume his attorney will attempt to make the same argument you did, and he might win, but it will be a tough sell.


Music_Girl (Anonymous) says…

"Hindsight is 20/20. In the moments of fear and adrenaline I'm sure the pharmacists was acting on pure instinct and not considering the full consequences of his actions."

Again, gonna' be a tough sell to a jury - the fact that he went and retrieved another weapon makes it a pretty calculated act.


Solomon (Anonymous) says…

"I have no doubt that there is a lawyer in OKC who would sue the pharmacy and the pharmacist on behalf of the kid who got shot, especially if the kid ended up brain damaged."

Sadly, it's a safe bet that's going to happen anyway.


Looks like my prediction from early this morning turned out pretty accurate, though...

Linda Aikins 6 years, 1 month ago

"But that's not going to stop those who worship John Wayne and Clint Eastwood from lionizing this guy for carrying out their murderous wet dreams."

I loved those guys and I would never never never support this guy for what I believe is obviously wrong. He could have handled this so he didn't have to pump five shots into that kid.

zettapixel 6 years, 1 month ago

Too bad this didn't happen just a little further south in my home state of Texas. It would have been a non-issue... the pharmacist would have been celebrated... and he'd have some catchy country songs written about him!

Marcy McGuffie 6 years, 1 month ago

Premeditated??? Dena, I do hope you're kidding (but, I'm sure you're not). sigh

BrianR 6 years, 1 month ago

I haven't read any of the comments so someone may have already said this.

The criminal pointed a gun at the guy so he (the criminal) should have considered the possibility that he would not survive. That is always the risk one takes when pointing a gun at someone. Druggist 1, Criminal 0, next.

bad_dog 6 years, 1 month ago

beatle919, denak is correct about premeditation. Premeditation can happen over an extended period or in a moment. Getting a jury to convict on that charge, however, may be difficult.

Marcy McGuffie 6 years, 1 month ago

bad_dog, that may be technically true (I really don't know much about law), but I personally believe it would be next to impossible to get a jury to convict on that charge. I highly doubt that this could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

BrianR - agreed.

bad_dog 6 years, 1 month ago

beatle919, have you looked at the video from the link above @ 7:28 a.m.? Given the video, I believe the DA has a valid basis for the charge, but as I stated above @ 1:52, I believe the he will have a tough time getting a jury to convict on that basis. Thus, I suspect he will plead this in the alternative, i.e. include lesser charges to provide the jury with a selection of criminal offenses on which to base a conviction. That way he charges the maximum he believes he can reasonably justify under the law, but allows the jury to decide the severity of the offense, if any.

TacoBob 6 years, 1 month ago

Just a cursory view of the details makes me wonder how many would react at having been shot at and fearing for their life. Assuming the druggist was not a criminal, or had that type of mindset, he must have been totally freaked by the attempted robbery, being grazed by a bullet, and basically having reality suspended during that ordeal. Can't say if what he did in the end was justified, but the mental overload of the moment had to affect his actions.

On the other hand, there are posters here, if put in his position, that would be shaking hands with Elvis AND out the money.

beatrice 6 years, 1 month ago

Stupid kids having too easy access to guns in the first place do something stupid and one of them ends up getting killed. I mean, the kid who was killed started putting his mask on AFTER he had already entered the store. Stupid, stupid kids. I think this was a murder and not protection, but I find it difficult to call the kid a "victim," because had he not entered that store with the intent to rob it he would still be alive today. However, no matter how much we would like to see someone punished for their crimes, this doesn't give anyone the right to murder another person. It just doesn't.

jay and bozo, we don't put people in prison only because they pose a danger to society. We also lock people up as punishment for their crime. This man killed someone unnecessarily and should be punished.

"How do you know the kid who was shot wasn't packing, comes to and blows away Ersland?"

Because this is real life, and the now dead kid wasn't a potential zombie. He wasn't getting back up after being shot in the head, and if he did, the man watching over him was armed. If you are going to practice your right to have a gun, then you also must practice that right responsibly. Killing someone when he or she no longer poses a threat isn't responsible, and the courts have already determined this in other cases.

jaywalker 6 years, 1 month ago

bea,

Exactly! I'm not arguing this guy committed a criminal act (it sounds like), just not everybody that commits such acts is a 'danger to society'.

Marcy McGuffie 6 years, 1 month ago

Just watched the video...do, I think he should've gone back and shot the guy? Probably not. Do I think it was premeditated? Not at all. As others have expressed, it's really difficult to know what's going through one's head in a situation like that. I don't think I'd necessarily be in my right mind if someone came at me with a gun. Also, as Multi mentioned, we ARE trained by what we see. So many times on tv they don't make sure the "bad guy" is really down. Does anyone else see situations such as this on tv and you sit there yelling at the tv character to finish the bad guy off? I'd sure as hell want to make sure the "bad guy" wouldn't pop back up and attack me. I'd like to think that I'd have the guts to make sure the bad guy was no longer a danger to myself. Yes, I know this is reality, not television. But at the end of the day, it comes down to self-preservation and I don't think the pharmacist is a danger to society. The punk robbers were/are. Frankly, if I were in a situation like that - I don't know what I'd do. But, surviving would be my number one priority. My mind would be a mess. Now, the robber who got away - he SHOULD be charged with murder...

Marcy McGuffie 6 years, 1 month ago

I guess, in short, my opinion is that the pharmacist has not committed a criminal act. I'm a little frightened that I'm actually on board with Marion and Tom Shewmon. ;)

notajayhawk 6 years, 1 month ago

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

"I'm giving ten to one on Jury Nullification."

All things considered (e.g. the apparent support of the community, from whom the jury will be chosen), you're probably right, but I don't think I'd give ten-to-one. More like between six-to-five and pick-'em.

bad_dog 6 years, 1 month ago

beatle919, I suspect the other robber will be charged with felony murder, if apprehended.

You could "have the guts" to ensure the bad guy was no longer a danger by merely holding the gun on him while awaiting the police. I seriously doubt this guy was even moving, much less acting in a way that could be construed as threatening-he'd just been shot in the head for Pete's sake. Most people suffering such injuries don't survive much less attack again. If he did, then shoot him again.

As for the premeditiation issue, the druggist's position would/will be more defensible if it is shown the guy he shot was in some way threatening him or the others. Otherwise, you have video of someone who doesn't appear that shaken to me, retrieving an additional weapon and pumping 5 more doses of high speed lead therapy into him. Why did he decide to do this? What was his state of mind at the time? Was he angry at the robbers and intended to eliminate the possibility of being robbed by this person again? Shooting him the first time arguably gave him "what he deserved"; I prefer to characterize that action as defending your life. The additional activity is beyond defensible (IMHO) unless the druggist can show he needed to use additional deadly force to defend his or another's life.

If it is shown this drugstore has been a repeated target of robberies and the owners had had enough of being robbed such that they armed themselves, it may buttress the argument in favor of premeditation. Keep in mind these charges were filed after all the witnesses were interviewed and the evidence reviewed and interpreted. They were not a knee-jerk response to what someone thought might have happened.

Marion, as for your jury nullification comment, I believe the DA will also utilize lesser charges during the trial in order to minimize the possibility of nullification. In the meantime, I would keep that gun handy . His identity has been publicly disclosed and you can't help but believe someone may come looking for revenge

Marcy McGuffie 6 years, 1 month ago

bad_dog -

I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. I watched the video a few time - it's grainy and there's just not enough there for me to judge if he's shaken or not. I do know people display emotions differently. I think others mentioned he looked expressionless (I'm too lazy to reread the comments). I just don't see it - we, don't know how this man acts under duress. Everyone's going to respond differently. Just because we don't see him screaming his head off and acting all out of sorts, doesn't mean that he was cold and calculating. ------------------------------- "If it is shown this drugstore has been a repeated target of robberies and the owners had had enough of being robbed such that they armed themselves, it may buttress the argument in favor of premeditation."

My reply: I'm not certain how this would play out considering the pharmacist was not one of the owners. Furthermore, if they'd been robbed several times, it would be common sense to provide the employee with some sort of weapons/line of defense.

Regardless, the man has been charged and it will be interesting to see what a jury of his peers does with the case. If it were Vegas, I'd bet on him getting little more than a slap on the wrist. I guess we'll see.

Bob Forer 6 years, 1 month ago

Technially, the guy is probably of guilty of first degree murder. Premeditation takes but a moment, and is evident in the clerk's action in walking inside, past the injured bad guy, obtaining a second gun, walking up to him, and pumping him full of bullets.

Nonetheless, there is something called "jury nullification." The jury will be instructed on first degree murder, and all possible lesser includeds. My guess is that the jury convicts him of one of lower lesser included, and he'll probably end up doing 3 to 5 years in prison. Or, it might be plea bargained down to that, which is probably doubtful given the political pressure placed on the DA by the African American community.

Jim Phillips 6 years, 1 month ago

I have not seen the video. I would be suspect of anything that was released after the original was taken for evidentiary purposes.

I teach in my concealed carry classes that once a assailant gives up and stops being an immediate threat, any further action taken against him is no longer considered self-defense. If the defender continues actions against a compliant subject, the defender then becomes the aggressor and can be charged accordingly.

It is advisable for the defender to take and maintain a position of tactical advantage to keep the aggressor in check. The defender can use only the force reasonable and necessary to end the assault.

The courts are going to use the "reasonable person doctrine" to determine whether or not an action was justifiable in a self-defense situation. If the facts presented in this story are accurate, and if there were no other mitigating circumstances, the druggist's actions after the suspect was down were unreasonable and he stepped over the line.

Marcy McGuffie 6 years, 1 month ago

Tom -

Why do you frequently have to throw around liberals this and liberals that? For the record, I am quite liberal, yet in this case I firmly believe the pharmacist's actions were justifiable. I am not quick to "side with the criminals." That being said, even criminals have rights. But, in this case, the pharmacist didn't ask to be robbed and threatened. He had the right to defend himself and the gals in the store. The robbers know that great risk comes with their choices. They were the ones who chose to make these people feel (rightfully) threatened.

Anyway, it may do you some good if you weren't so quick to turn everything into a liberal v conservative issue. Whether you take my advice or not, I feel the need to put it out there. It's a pet peeve of mine as I happened to marry a conservative who tends to be a bit quick to label things the same way.

Multi - you said it perfectly in the previous post of yours. I know many people like you who are able to keep a cool composure when the S#@t hits the fan. And the video is not crystal clear by any means.

Marcy McGuffie 6 years, 1 month ago

Beo - timer this, timer that. In the scheme of the scenario, it really all happened in an instant. If you really must analyze the time frame - the guy is recovering from back surgery - that may account for his slow reaction times. I hope you're never put in the same situation. You may think you'd react one way, but I'm guessing you've never been in such a situation - so you truly don't know.

Ryan Neuhofel 6 years, 1 month ago

My wife is a Pharmacist (or druggist as the title says, what century is this anyway?) and I can certainly tell you that pharmacies are robbed on a regular basis . . .mostly for controlled-substances (narcotics, etc.) by desperate addicts. While guns are not always involved, there are dozens of incidents every year involving pharmacy staff being injured or killed in such robberies. These stories rarely get much play in the media. While I don't support shooting an unconscious (maybe dead already) man, maybe this event will make idiots think twice about robbing a pharmacy . . . making Pharmacists (including my wife!) more safe.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 1 month ago

"Uh - don't you already have this guy convicted of second degree murder?"

Since when does a comment on an internet forum rise to the level of a "conviction?"

notajayhawk 6 years, 1 month ago

Mr_Nancy_Boy_To_You (Tom Shewmon) says…

"The guy has a back injury. Maybe he can't move too fast. Maybe he's laid back. Have any of you been in this situation? Was he in shock? Why do liberals take the criminal's side?"

He moved fast enough to chase the other robber off. And immediately pulling a weapon and shooting a would-be-robber - in the head - seems just a little bit on the not "laid back" side. If by "in this situation" you mean the exact same situation, overall I'd say this one is pretty unusual, but yes, I have been in situations where I've been held at gunpoint, and in a couple of them got the upper hand - and I didn't shoot the guy(s).

You know I'm not exactly the textbook version of a liberal, Marion, and I didn't for one second take the robbers' side. That does not mean I have to be a cheerleader for a guy who fires 5 shots into an unconscious person no matter what that person did to start the confrontation. And you might re-read through the responses again - it sounds like there are plenty of concealed-carry proponents saying this guy crossed the line. Maybe because they realize that defending someone in a situation like this makes them look like extremist nutjobs?


Multidisciplinary (Anonymous) says…

"Side note..What does the military instruct in this kind of situation?"

As stepping back, calling 911, and waiting for the police to show up isn't generally an option in most military situations, I don't really see how that would be pertinent.

Marcy McGuffie 6 years, 1 month ago

Beo - I never claimed to know you, so please get off your defensive high horse and get over yourself. I said I guessed. And, my guess was wrong (at least that's your story and I'll accept that as truth). To answer your question, no I have not been in that situation and I have no idea how I'd react in that situation. But, I do know that I panic easily...and if I felt threatened, I would do what was necessary to defend myself. If you bothered to take the time to read through my previous posts - I did make references to television and specifically said that I know reality is different.

Marcy McGuffie 6 years, 1 month ago

Marion, I don't know whether to laugh or cry with you telling me that I'm getting well. But yes, I am a big proponent of our rights. My grandparents fought for them and I'm not about to give them up.

Marcy McGuffie 6 years, 1 month ago

That's fine. We disagree. I'm just not a fan of being "talked to" in a condescending tone because we have a difference of opinions.

Marcy McGuffie 6 years, 1 month ago

Exactly, Marion. I'll be surprised if he is convicted and if he is, I hope his attorneys take it all the way to the top. The victim shouldn't be labelled as the criminal. I find it frightening that so many people question it. Is it unfortunate that a young man ended up dead? Yes. Do I sympathize with him? No. I sympathize with the true victim in all of this.

mrbig 6 years, 1 month ago

At least this way the guy he shot can't sue him...

Marcy McGuffie 6 years, 1 month ago

beobachter (Anonymous) says… Actually none2, all the ER's should have a firm rule. Come in with head injuries and no helmet, don't waste resources, he made the choice.


One could argue that the robbers made the same choice. Go waving your gun around threatening to kill people was a choice. The victim acted accordingly and deaded the dude. Why waste resources on those who made the choice?

KANSTUCKY 6 years, 1 month ago

Moral of the story.... Don't do Druggists.

Marcy McGuffie 6 years, 1 month ago

beobachter (Anonymous) says… There is a difference in not wasting resources and deliberate murder.

They seem to be wasting resources prosecuting the victim. But my point was really more that the robbers made a choice and one of them paid a deadly consequence. We've argued and obviously aren't going to change one another's opinions. But, I seriously found your comment on the other thread to be quite repulsive. Pushing my opinion aside though, I just observed you had no problem connecting a choice with consequences under those circumstances.

I'll stop trying to goad you, but your thought process really confuses me. Goodnight.

notajayhawk 6 years, 1 month ago

I can see one avenue the pharmacist's lawyers might use to avoid a murder conviction, but it would be risky. I suppose they might argue that the perp would have died from the headshot anyway. The risk is that if that argument fails, it just lends more weight to the contention that the pharmacist had no reason to feel threatened when he fired the five shots.

In reading the comments, I once again see how justified my prediction from a little over 24 hours ago turned out to be.

I believe the pharmacist had the right to fire the first shot. Then he was defending himself. After that, he was not. Even chasing the other perp went beyond self-defense.

There are those who seem to truly want to give the benefit of the doubt to the pharmacist, that he was still in fear for his life or the lives of his co-workers when he fired those last 5 rounds. While I disagree, I can respect that position. But it's obvious that some others (and equally obvious who those others are) believe it didn't matter, that the perp forfeited any right to his life when he walked into the pharmacy - an argument that is fundamentally flawed, since even in Oklahoma I doubt attempted armed robbery is a capital offense.

I believe in the right to carry and the right to defend one's self and one's own. But those who think that even if the pharamacist wasn't acting to defend himself it doesn't matter, that the perp just got what he deserved, those people are doing more harm to concealed-carry and gun ownership rights than anyone else can, by making everyone who wants to carry a gun look like as much of a nutjob as they are.

beatrice 6 years, 1 month ago

Guardian's comments at 8:19 pm absolutely nail it. This wasn't an act of self defense. It was murder.

Practicality 6 years, 1 month ago

I agree that what he did is excessive. But, lets not forget, this guy was not someone in the military, nor was he a Law Enforcement Officer. He was just some random guy who was in the processes of doing his job when his life was jeopardized by two loser thugs. No one but him knows what he was thinking at the time. He could have quite possibly still thought his life was in danger and believed he had to kill him to save his own life. It is not that easy to walk up to someone who has just been shot to check him over to determine if he is still a threat. Especially when they were just seconds before attempting to do you harm. Fear comes into the equation. I believe this case will be determined on this mans life history. If he was a fine upstanding citizen his entire life, he will get off. If he was a lifetime member of the KKK, or he has a history of violence in his life, he will get convicted, but not of first degree murder.

It will be hard to find twelve random jurors in Oklahoma without at least one or two of them sympathizing with him.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 1 month ago

"In reading the comments, I once again see how justified my prediction from a little over 24 hours ago turned out to be."

Yea, nota, and that's why you're one of my favorite bozos; you're ever willing to toot your own nose, ad noseum.

beatrice 6 years, 1 month ago

Marion at 11:03 pm: "Your posts are enough to clearly conlude that you are severly mentally disorded ..."

JonathanKealing: "I'll take down comments that attack specific individuals ..."

Apparently, this isn't the case if you are Marion. Why is this so, Jonathan? Why?

Practicality 6 years, 1 month ago

beo,

How do you know he didn't grab the other gun because he thought the guys friend might be coming back? So, he grabbed the other gun because it was fully loaded and he was still preparing to defend himself. That is just one reason why you would go grab the other gun, another is that he felt more comfortable operating it instead of the one he had. Then, still in a mind set to defend himself, he either sees the guy he shot move or thinks he moves and then convinces himself he was going for a gun. Still in a mindset of defending himself, he shoots him because he is scared to death and a druggist, not a Police Officer or a Navy Seal. We do not know what he actually thought was happening, the mind can play tricks on reality during moments of extreme duress, and I think this qualifies.

Again, he was just a regular guy minding his own business when his life was irrevocably shattered by two teenage thugs. Do you really believe he went to work that day hoping to kill someone? Doubtful, but I guess it is possible. It seems odd how many people are quick to condemn this man from the information that is available so far. None of this happens if the two teenage robbers hadn't decided to rob the place. They iniatiated the course of events. Not the druggist. In my mind he is the victim, not the robber.

notajayhawk 6 years, 1 month ago

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…

"Yea, nota, and that's why you're one of my favorite bozos; you're ever willing to toot your own nose, ad noseum."

From our resident expert on nauseam. But thanks for demonstrating how ugly things can get just by being here.

beatrice 6 years, 1 month ago

"Still in a mindset of defending himself, he shoots him because he is scared to death and a druggist, not a Police Officer or a Navy Seal."

Practicality, you make a very good case of why people shouldn't own guns, at least not without at least having some level of training.

notajayhawk 6 years, 1 month ago

beatrice (Anonymous) says…

"Practicality, you make a very good case of why people shouldn't own guns, at least not without at least having some level of training."

Head-shot in one try while facing two armed robbers that had the drop on him - I'm guessing the guy knew a little bit about using a firearm.

slowplay 6 years, 1 month ago

Stream,

Your analysis was helpful and the time factor will be critical to the defense. The prosecution will try their case on the necessity of, the lack of emotion of, and the excessiveness of multiple gunshots.

This trial will be interesting and entertaining to say the least.

slowplay 6 years, 1 month ago

"The NAACP is the modern equivalent of the KKK.",

You are an idiot. That comparison has no validity other than in your twisted mind. I do not like some of the extremism of the NAACP, but to compare it the pure evil of the KKK is asinine.

notajayhawk 6 years, 1 month ago

stream47 (Anonymous) says…

"After looking at video and in light of the fact that the druggist was a disabled Army vet, I think the sequence of events is wrong."

Um, just out of curiosity, who do you think has a better handle on the timeline? Professional police investigators who are on the scene, and have access to the physical evidence (e.g. the gun in question and the dead body, from which it would be somewhat obvious whether there was a "single shot" or five shots fired and at which time, and the floor itself from which they can tell whether it was the head shot or the belly shots that were fired where he was lying), or a LJW message board member who's seen a grainy, edited security cam record and is kibitzing from 300 miles away?

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 1 month ago

"The NAACP is the modern equivalent of the KKK."

Can you cite a single lynching committed by the NAACP? Was the NAACP ever the muscle behind the institution and enforcement of de facto slavery the way the KKK was between the end of Reconstruction and WWII?

I can't tell which is greater, your ignorance or your prejudices, Arumer.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.